Lying - A social necessity?

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Your excuse-making is what is irrational.

You really are too funny.

Take a few deep breaths. See if you can compose yourself.

Reread my brief discussion with GoaD and my exchange with you.

Once again: Do you honestly believe that you're being rational about this?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You really are too funny.

Take a few deep breaths. See if you can compose yourself.

Reread my brief discussion with GoaD and my exchange with you.

Once again: Do you honestly believe that you're being rational about this?

Like I said, it’s way too obvious you’re dodging questions when you post stuff like this. You’re convincing no one.

Try to come up with something better.

Originally posted by @moonbus
The passages you quote refer to the circumstances of his entrance to Jerusalem, which he wished to coincide with the feast of the Passover. I do not see what they have to do with lying to avert injustice. In order that his purpose be fulfilled, injustice had to be done (and woe to them who had to do it).

Consider this, you old goat (an expression of endearment).

My sister tells my mum, "Nah I'm not going to that party," but then it transpires she does go to the party in secret. (This actually happened, at least twice).

1. Did or did not my sister lie to our mother about attending the party?
2. How is this any different from Jesus saying he was not attending the feast, but then going anyway in secret?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Consider this, you old goat (an expression of endearment).

My sister tells my mum, "Nah I'm not going to that party," but then it transpires she does go to the party in secret. (This actually happened, at least twice).

1. Did or did not my sister lie to our mother about attending the party?
2. How is this any different from Jesus saying he was not attending the feast, but then going anyway in secret?

I have considered it, me old chum(p) (a term of endearment), and come to the following conclusion:

2. Jesus had a price on his head and could not move about freely without fear of being apprehended and turned over to the Jewish authorities. He wanted to enter Jerusalem about the time of the feast of the Passover (which happened to coincide with certain Roman legal proceedings which would lead to his conviction and crucifiction; this was a fixture in the Roman calendar, no need of divine prophecy to foresee that), but he wanted to enter Jerusalem on his own terms, not those of the Jewish authorities. He had a plan, to be executed in his own time. He needed his disciples to go on ahead and make some preparations, e.g., to arrange for a 'safe house' for him stay in, until his time had come, until the plan could be set in motion and brought to a culmination. So, he sent his disciples on ahead. Why did he not divulge his plan to them? Why did he say things to mislead them? Had they known, they would have foiled his plan; they would have prevented Judas from betraying him, they would have done everything in their power to keep Jesus alive, ergo no crucifiction, no resurrection, no salvation.

See also John 16:12: there is so much more to say, but you [his disciples] could not bear to hear it. [I paraphrase]

So, yes, maybe, this is a case of a higher good (Jesus's plan) taking precedence over telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (an instrumental good) to people would then have run off half-cocked and messed up the plan.

1. As for your sister fibbing to your mother about attending those two parties, certain solicitors who shall remain nameless contacted me later on and paid an undisclosed sum never to reveal what actually went on at said 'parties' (which never really happened anyway). Suffice to say, the funds have been sufficient to keep me & co. on this lovely Beneteau 12-metre yacht somewhere in the Pacific, pacifically island hopping, until this very day, and no one has ever seen the videos. Not even Stormy Denials. "Pop another bottle of champagne, darling."

EDIT: the satellite link does go down occasionally, so I tend to prefer 3-day timeouts with a 7-day time bank, and I miss some posts sometimes. But otherwise, can't complain.

Originally posted by @apathist
That seems very obvious. If you are trying to hurt me or mine, I have no obligation to be truthful.

It's obvious when one's own life or liberty is on the line; not so obvious when someone else's is.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I have considered it, me old chum(p) (a term of endearment), and come to the following conclusion:

2. Jesus had a price on his head and could not move about freely without fear of being apprehended and turned over to the Jewish authorities. He wanted to enter Jerusalem about the time of the feast of the Passover (which happened to coincide with certain R ...[text shortened]... timeouts with a 7-day time bank, and I miss some posts sometimes. But otherwise, can't complain.

I'm affronted sir that you should respond with a post carefully considered and well argued. What is the world coming to when a man cannot rely upon a sloppy response to dissect and decimate? Your reply even comes wrapped in a blanket of wit and humour with undertones of pending blackmail and family scandal.

The Ghost has met his match this fine day and is not at all happy about it.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I'm affronted sir that you should respond with a post carefully considered and well argued. What is the world coming to when a man cannot rely upon a sloppy response to dissect and decimate? Your reply even comes wrapped in a blanket of wit and humour with undertones of pending blackmail and family scandal.

The Ghost has met his match this fine day and is not at all happy about it.

Spoken as a true gentleman. Have a bath and cucumber sandwich. You'll feel better.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Spoken as a true gentleman. Have a bath and cucumber sandwich. You'll feel better.

Very touching

Dont be lulled too much though, stay sharp

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I'm affronted sir that you should respond with a post carefully considered and well argued. What is the world coming to when a man cannot rely upon a sloppy response to dissect and decimate? Your reply even comes wrapped in a blanket of wit and humour with undertones of pending blackmail and family scandal.

The Ghost has met his match this fine day and is not at all happy about it.

From what I can tell, MB largely if not entirely affirmed your position, yet you've framed this as if his argument swayed you to significantly alter your position.

In what ways does MB's position differ from yours?

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Very touching

Dont be lulled too much though, stay sharp

"Sage advice," whispers the Ghost, "skulking in the corner, plotting revenge and skulduggery.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
From what I can tell, MB largely if not entirely affirmed your position, yet you've framed this as if his argument swayed you to significantly alter your position.

In what ways does MB's position differ from yours?

Pizzazz.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Pizzazz.

So when you said...
"I'm affronted sir that you should respond with a post carefully considered and well argued. What is the world coming to when a man cannot rely upon a sloppy response to dissect and decimate?>>
... you deemed his post as "carefully considered and well argued" merely because it affirmed your position.

And when you said...
<<The Ghost has met his match this fine day and is not at all happy about it. >>
...... you were in actuality praising him for merely affirming your position and were feigning being bested.

Do I understand this correctly?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
So when you said...
"I'm affronted sir that you should respond with a post carefully considered and well argued. What is the world coming to when a man cannot rely upon a sloppy response to dissect and decimate?>>
... you deemed his post as "carefully considered and well argued" merely because it affirmed your position.

And when you said...
<<The G ...[text shortened]... erely affirming your position and were feigning being bested.

Do I understand this correctly?

Yes.

Here sir, have a go yourself:


My sister tells my mum, "Nah I'm not going to that party," but then it transpires she does go to the party in secret. (This actually happened, at least twice).

1. Did or did not my sister lie to our mother about attending the party?
2. How is this any different from Jesus saying he was not attending the feast, but then going anyway in secret?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
"Sage advice," whispers the Ghost, "skulking in the corner, plotting revenge and skulduggery.

I love your work, bro🙂

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Yes.

Here sir, have a go yourself:


My sister tells my mum, "Nah I'm not going to that party," but then it transpires she does go to the party in secret. (This actually happened, at least twice).

1. Did or did not my sister lie to our mother about attending the party?
2. How is this any different from Jesus saying he was not attending the feast, but then going anyway in secret?

You've been so magnanimous with MB .

What do you think can be reasonably concluded about Jesus' position on lying from those verses in John 7 ?