How Many Of You Agree With Augustine Here?

[sweetpotatoh]

Honey; does this dress make me look fat?

Nope, the fat makes you look fat.

[Questing Beast]

Would you be as quick to say that all killing is murder?

Not related.

When you knowingly state other than the truth it is a lie. For an assertion to be a lie the speaker must know other than what s/he says. Metaphysics does not enter into it. Spreading what we believe, that is inaccurate/untrue, is not lying. Ignorance of the truth is not lying....

[The Nehor]

Honey; does this dress make me look fat?

It's not the dress.

[blackstrap]

If someone makes a statement that he believes is a lie, but it turns out to actually be true, did the person lie?

[Questing Beast]

If someone makes a statement that he believes is a lie, but it turns out to actually be true, did the person lie?

Of course. That it was true all along makes no difference. At the time of the original statement the person perpetuating it believed it to be a lie and perpetuated it anyway. In their mind they were lying, and that is how the judgment of a lie is defined. Lying is therefore always a very personal decision....

Edited March 1, 2013 by Questing Beast

[inquiringmind]

Not related.

Why not?

Exodus 20:13 (Joseph Smith Translation) says "Thou shalt not kill."

http://www.centerpla...s/iv/iv-exo.htm

Does that mean saints can't serve in the military, or on the Police force, or that the state can't execute criminals?

And does what scripture says about "lying" prohibit the saints who serve in the military, or the police force from participating in intelligence or undercover operations?

Why?

If all killing isn't murder, why should all deception be regarded as lying?

When you knowingly state other than the truth it is a lie.

One definition of lying is speaking contrary to your own mind (and I believe Augustine was the first to formulate that definition), but there are philosophers who disagree with that definition, the Greek fathers who proceeded Augustine disagreed with that definition, and where is it defined that way in scripture?

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

Thou is singular pronoun. "You" the individual. Society in kj english would be "you" (like y'all in medern redneck).

Ther is good case to use "murder" instead of "kill." Remember, the original was not in any version of english.

No, all killing is not murder but all murder is killing. All penguins are birds but not all birds are penguins.

[inquiringmind]

Thou is singular pronoun. "You" the individual. Society in kj english would be "you" (like y'all in medern redneck).

Ther is good case to use "murder" instead of "kill." Remember, the original was not in any version of english.

No, all killing is not murder but all murder is killing. All penguins are birds but not all birds are penguins.

The original was not in any version of English, but when JS translated it, he used the word "kill" here in Exodus 20:13.

Killing and murder are two different words with two different meanings. Lie is a word that has a specific meaning.

The original Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 is used of both justifiable and unjustifiable homicide (see Num. 35:27 and Deut. 4:42, and cross check Exodus 20:13 using a good English/Hebrew Lexicon or Concordance.)

Killing and murder were not always clearly separate, well defined words; and moral philosophers still disagree over the meaning of the word "lie."

Augustine (who you seem to agree with) said that any untruth or deception was a lie, but the Greek fathers before him disagreed.

Here's another definition, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (and the Greek fathers, who preceded Augustine, seemed to be thinking more or less along these lines.)

To lie =to make a believed-false statement to another person, with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true, violating that person's right of liberty of judgment, with the intention to harm that other person

http://plato.stanfor...ing-definition/

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

If you want to use a philosophic definition of lie, versus a linguistic definition then go ahead.

Thats pretty much like the definition of the word ' cult' as defined by socialology versus evangenlical christianty (where a cult is any who just doesnt believe the same).

I think, if you had some kind of point or goal, it might be a little easier to communicate. It just seems like you've recently been exposed to philosophy and are enamored of it.

It kind of reminds me of people who confuse the words gambit and gamaut.

[inquiringmind]

I think, if you had some kind of point or goal, it might be a little easier to communicate.

I think it might be easier to communicate if you really wanted to.

My point all along has been that Augustine's simplistic definition of a lie doesn't seem to fit with what we read in scripture (or what some of us seem to experience in life.)

We're told that God cannot lie, but He does seem capable of misleading.

(Did He not lead Abraham to believe that He wanted his son's mortal life?)

On another thread, thatjimguy spoke of following a prompting, after praying about it and feeling he was doing the right thing, and having it blow up in his face.

(And rpn suggested that perhaps the experience he's getting by having things blow up in his face is going to help him in the long run.)

My Gospel principles teacher had a prompting when he graduated High School telling him to "prepare for life at BYU."

From what I understand, it was like an audible voice inside his head, that was very clear, and left him no doubt (at the time) that he was to go to BYU.

When he talked to his father and mother (both of whom are and were in the Church), they didn't think that was God's plan.

He ended up going to another college, pursuing a career, and getting married, but he now believes that preparing for life at BYU helped him become worthy of his wife (and that that was the purpose of the prompting to begin with.)

It just seems like you've recently been exposed to philosophy and are enamored of it.

It's been over thirty years since I was first exposed to philosophy, and the question I've raised here is not just philosophical, but very practical.

If you think God will never mislead you (even temporarily, to teach you something you need to learn), and He does, you're liable to feel He lied to you.

As per forum rules, I wont mention what he tried to do, but I know someone who once belonged to this forum, and who told me of something he once tried to do (when a teenager, I think) because he thought God had lied to him.

As I asked you on another thread:

Do you believe that when scripture says that God cannot lie, it means He couldn't do the same kind of thing that Solomon did in 1 Kings 3:23-28?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal the true mother by acting like He was gonna kill the child?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal Abraham's faith in the resurrection, the atonement, and the promises He'd given him (about his seed being called thru Isaac, and all nations being blessed thru him) by commanding him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering on some mountain (when He really didn't want that, and had no intention of letting Abraham do it)?

And do you believe He couldn't lead Heber Kimball to think that a prophet might have a legitimate claim on his wife, and that he might have to give her to him (when He never really wanted to take Violet away from him and seal her to Joseph)?

If God could do these things, doesn't it follow that auggie's definition of lying is wrong?

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

In error I replied to this under the lying thread.

For me, the practicle part of it all is to gold fast to my integrity as i understand it and as i understand the situation...and to try to learn more with each situation.

A life of things like programming and applying 'logic' (based on observations of outcones of actions in situations and the likihood of acheiving a particular outcome) have lead me down a path of defining, classifying and moving on.

Have fun in your endeavors.

[Questing Beast]

...

It kind of reminds me of people who confuse the words gambit and gamaut.

Parley and parlay are the ones that once-upon-a-time kicked my trash....

[Questing Beast]

@inquiringmind: As already pointed out "murder" is different from killing. Otherwise we would be guilty each time we slew vermin. JS used the word "kill" in the "inspired" version. But JS was not perfect at altering scripture: e.g. the 1830 edition of the BoM changed for the 1837 edition.

Accountability for the individual can only be what that individual knows to be the truth, and saying/spreading otherwise. To be in ignorance can surely result in the spreading of lies unknowingly, and from God's perspective all-such continuation of the spreading of lies is indeed lying by those individuals who help continue the lies, but they are not individually condemned for doing so in ignorance. Once truth is known, to continue to perpetuate a lie then becomes dishonesty for that individual....

Edited March 2, 2013 by Questing Beast

[inquiringmind]

@inquiringmind: As already pointed out "murder" is different from killing. Otherwise we would be guilty each time we slew vermin. JS used the word "kill" in the "inspired" version. But JS was not perfect at altering scripture: e.g. the 1830 edition of the BoM changed for the 1837 edition.

Accountability for the individual can only be what that individual knows to be the truth, and saying/spreading otherwise. To be in ignorance can surely result in the spreading of lies unknowingly, and from God's perspective all-such continuation of the spreading of lies is indeed lying by those individuals who help continue the lies, but they are not individually condemned for doing so in ignorance. Once truth is known, to continue to perpetuate a lie then becomes dishonesty for that individual....

You're missing the point.

And I'd ask you the same questions I asked kenporay.

Do you believe that when scripture says that God cannot lie, it means He couldn't do the same kind of thing that Solomon did in 1 Kings 3:23-28?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal the true mother by acting like He was gonna kill the child?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal Abraham's faith in the resurrection, the atonement, and the promises He'd given him (about his seed being called thru Isaac, and all nations being blessed thru him) by commanding him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering on some mountain (when He really didn't want that, and had no intention of letting Abraham do it)?

And do you believe He couldn't lead Heber Kimball to think that a prophet might have a legitimate claim on his wife, and that he might have to give her to him (when He never really wanted to take Violet away from him and seal her to Joseph)?

Do you believe He couldn't send Nathan to David with the complaint that a selfish and greedy rich man had slaughtered his poor neighbor's pet to feed an unexpected guess (a story that wasn't explained as a parable until after David passed judgment on himself) without lying?

If God could do these things, doesn't it follow that auggie was wrong to say that all deliberate deception is lying?

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

In error I replied to this under the lying thread.

For me, the practicle part of it all is to gold fast to my integrity as i understand it and as i understand the situation...and to try to learn more with each situation.

A life of things like programming and applying 'logic' (based on observations of outcones of actions in situations and the likihood of acheiving a particular outcome) have lead me down a path of defining, classifying and moving on.

Have fun in your endeavors.

And I posted this reply.

Having re-read the biblical accounts mentioned, I find nothing that leads me to believe solomn lied, nor that god lied in the sac of abe's son.

So you believe all deliberate deception is lying, but you don't think Solomon lied?

In the former

You mean where Solomin ordered the infant cut in two with a sword, right?

]I can point to times when i told my children "pick up your toys or I'm throwing them in the garbage." It took one time of following through for my children to understand that i mean what I say

So you think the wisdom of God in Solomon led him to order the child hacked in two, and that he fully intended to follow thru if the biological mother hadn't been willing to give the child up?

You don't see this as a stratagem to reveal the real mother, but as something wise king Solomon really intended to do?

It took one time of following through for my children to understand that i mean what I say

And I guess everyone would have known Solomon meant what he said if he followed through and had the baby hacked in two, but wouldn't he have been shedding innocent blood?

How would justice have been served?

And what wisdom would there have been in it?

(I guess all bickering mothers would have learned something if he followed through that one time, huh?)

In the sac of isaac, abraham learned a great deal about himself. We see that isaace continued a good relationship with his pop and his god. Maybe we're reading to much into it to say god was lying.

I wouldn't say that (given my definition), but how can you and auggie avoid saying it (given your definition)?

You seem oblivious to the fact that your contradicting yourself (and aggie) here.

You trying to defend the position that all deliberate deception is lying, but you're saying that God (who cannot lie) told Abraham to kill his son and burn the body to teach him something about himself (and not because He wanted him to kill his son and burn the body.)

That supports my position (that not all deception is lying), not yours!

He told abe to do something and then changed his mind.

Then you believe God really wanted Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering when He told him to (before He changed His mind)?

I see that happen all the time in modern life without anyone lying.

You mean you see people who don't know the future, and who fully mean to do what they say they're gonna do when they say it, change their minds when the unexpected happens?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about here?

Enjoy your hunt. May you someday be ready for big game.

It's not my fault you keep making nonsensical statements while trying to defend auggie's position on lying, and I see no reason for the sarcasm.

[inquiringmind]

...No I don't agree with St Augustine.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd disagree too. He seems to agree with Kant to some degree though.

Thank you.

Augustine's zeal to find things black and white, good and evil, seems naive. I don't agree with his blanket statement about an untruth=a lie.

Thank you

Of course a lie is a lie, anything which is not the known truth is a lie.

Well then, that makes this a "lie" I guess.

Thank you.

...In the sac of isaac, abraham learned a great deal about himself. We see that isaace continued a good relationship with his pop and his god...

And God never really wanted him to kill Isaac and offer him as a burnt offering (as He told him to in Genesis 22), so it would seem that what He really wanted was the result you're speaking of.

It's also clear that He led Abraham to believe (for a time) that He wanted Isaac's mortal life, and his body burned like that of a lamb offered in sacrifice, and this wasn't lying, because He was trying to teach Abraham something.

That's what I think you're saying, and that's how I read it too.

Thank you.

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

From a related thread.

I don't have a good definition of "lying" to propose, but here is something that might be worth taking into account:

Apparently God uses somewhat misleading wording at times in order to produce a desired effect. We see evidence of this in the 19th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, where God says that he uses the words "endless" and "eternal" when describing punishments essentially for the strong effect that such wording produces, but then we find out that the truth of the matter is a bit different from what we'd naturally conclude from that wording.

The first five verses are God talking about the punishments that will befall the wicked. We pick up the narrative in verse 6:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

"Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

"Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

Thank you.

[Stone holm]

Do you realize how annoying it is to be around someone who always tells the truth ? Like you want to scream shut the heck up!

[volgadon]

Do you realize how annoying it is to be around someone who always tells the truth ? Like you want to scream shut the heck up!

Luckily they tend to fall in unequal combat with big toms from the rectory.

[Helen47]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it's better to be a lover of truth and tell a lie than a liar who tells the truth - see last chapter of his Ethics