DMLJ: As we have seen, this whole section of the Sermon on the Mount is framed by our Lord to expose the sham and falseness of the Pharisees’ and scribes’ representation of the Mosaic law, and to contrast it with His own positive exposition.
St John Chrysostom, I believe, in his "On the Priesthood", gives examples of justifiable lying: military generals employing such in confronting the community's enemies. The other example I recall is more interesting: families could not enjoy peace if husbands did not occasionally use "white" lies in dealing with their wives. I remember a tv ad where Honest Abe Lincoln is asked by his portly spouse Mary whether a certain dress made her appear fat.
"Would I lie to protect an innocent loved one from harm? When considering all that Jesus taught, all that is in Scripture, and not just one or two things in isolation, the answer to this question, at least for me, is obvious."
I agree. I am not sure which is the correct Scriptural interpretation on the matter, but I know in my heart that I would lie to a killer who wanted to know the location of my loved ones without an ounce of remorse.
In the early days of my libertarian journey, I began thinking of all political questions in terms of black and white. The NAP seemed to slice through the gray areas of politics like a hot knife through butter. But the more my understanding of liberty matured, the more the gray has crept back in. All of the core concepts of the NAP (property, aggression, use, consent, threat, nuisance, imminent, restitution, proportionate, etc.) need some real-world definition, and they may each be defined somewhat differently by whichever judge, community, association, or culture is applying the principle. Also, given that the NAP writ large leads to private sovereign political entities, the various law codes voluntarily entered into within these may have a large degree of variety from one to the next. In other words, liberty looks different to different people.
Also this black and white way of thinking or aesthetic, I've come to find out, is associated with the rationalist, Enlightenment radicalism, Freemasonry and Illuminatism and other would-be absolutisms which hold that every minute aspect of human life should be understood, defined, catalogued, categorized, demystified, disenchanted, and rigorously governed. I saw the new Dune movie, and the Nietzschian absolutist Harkonnen aesthetic throughout is almost totally black and white. Even the fireworks in the Harkonnen home-world are black explosions framed by a white sky. It was so explicit that during a few scenes I almost wondered if the film had been damaged and lost its color. Villeneuve's first Dune movie likely had the same aesthetic but I don't remember. Either way, it felt appropriate. It's the totalitarian mindset: you're either with us or you're against us.
This also coincides with Pageau's insight that evil, especially aristocratic evil, is obsessed with knowing, defining, and counting everything. This is why vampires in mythology have counting compulsions, why the fall of Adam and Eve was the result of an inappropriate desire for knowledge, and why King David was punished by God for being seduced by Satan to conduct a census of his military and economic potential. Some things need to be left in the hands of God, but to the totalitarian there is no power or authority above the institutions of man.
Pageau also talks about how power (potestas) is associated with the book and rigidity, while authority (auctoritas) is associated with the hand of address and flexibility. The law (book) is defined, black and white, but the leader (authority) who applies the law has latitude to find justice in the real-world gray.
In good Christianity and in good liberty, there needs to be latitude for authority to navigate the gray. One of the major problems with the modern world, and with the ancient Pharisees is/was the desire to replace authority with power, to make rigid what should have flexibility, to number and categorize everything instead of leaving some things up to God, and to, with an undue confidence in our ability, stamp out the gray.
Of course this is not an endorsement of moral relativity, nominalism, or antinomianism, etc. Black and white should exist and in fact do. Murder is wrong, Rape is wrong. Theft is wrong. Homosexuality is an abomination before God. Worshiping false idols is a sin against God. But on the boundary of all of these there exists also the gray and the need for authority to find justice.
I like your comment about the absolutist aesthetic being black and white. It works well for fine tuning a machine, entities which are supposed to operate in a specific way.
This as opposed to how God designed man, to operate with and through love, which most definitely is not black and white.
I think your conclusion is correct. If someone uses deception to protect the innocent or righteous, then it is acceptable. If someone lies in order to attack someone else or to unjustly receive monetary or societal gain, then it is unacceptable.
I have to admit after reading this passage multiple times, I didn't understand how directly it was addressing lying versus telling the truth. I also did not know the connection back to taking the Lord's name in vain. But after reading this article, it seems very obvious.
Thinking back to when I was a kid, sometimes a kid would brag about something and follow that up with phrases like "I swear on my mother's life" or "let God strike me dead if I'm lying" when other's did not believe them. Usually the perpetrator was telling a tall tale about something they had accomplished or about an outlandish story in general. They were trying to convince the other kids that they were telling the truth when it was something that was hard to believe. It adds a level of seriousness to the claim or commitment to the story. It is an attempt to show that the story teller really believes what they are saying and would risk some kind of family scorn or divine punishment if they are lying. Even as kids, we usually knew not to trust someone who used this kind of tactic. Sometimes adults aren't as insightful. No wonder Jesus has such a warm spot in his heart for children.
St John Chrysostom, I believe, in his "On the Priesthood", gives examples of justifiable lying: military generals employing such in confronting the community's enemies. The other example I recall is more interesting: families could not enjoy peace if husbands did not occasionally use "white" lies in dealing with their wives. I remember a tv ad where Honest Abe Lincoln is asked by his portly spouse Mary whether a certain dress made her appear fat.
There is no good answer to the question Abe was asked!
"Would I lie to protect an innocent loved one from harm? When considering all that Jesus taught, all that is in Scripture, and not just one or two things in isolation, the answer to this question, at least for me, is obvious."
I agree. I am not sure which is the correct Scriptural interpretation on the matter, but I know in my heart that I would lie to a killer who wanted to know the location of my loved ones without an ounce of remorse.
In the early days of my libertarian journey, I began thinking of all political questions in terms of black and white. The NAP seemed to slice through the gray areas of politics like a hot knife through butter. But the more my understanding of liberty matured, the more the gray has crept back in. All of the core concepts of the NAP (property, aggression, use, consent, threat, nuisance, imminent, restitution, proportionate, etc.) need some real-world definition, and they may each be defined somewhat differently by whichever judge, community, association, or culture is applying the principle. Also, given that the NAP writ large leads to private sovereign political entities, the various law codes voluntarily entered into within these may have a large degree of variety from one to the next. In other words, liberty looks different to different people.
Also this black and white way of thinking or aesthetic, I've come to find out, is associated with the rationalist, Enlightenment radicalism, Freemasonry and Illuminatism and other would-be absolutisms which hold that every minute aspect of human life should be understood, defined, catalogued, categorized, demystified, disenchanted, and rigorously governed. I saw the new Dune movie, and the Nietzschian absolutist Harkonnen aesthetic throughout is almost totally black and white. Even the fireworks in the Harkonnen home-world are black explosions framed by a white sky. It was so explicit that during a few scenes I almost wondered if the film had been damaged and lost its color. Villeneuve's first Dune movie likely had the same aesthetic but I don't remember. Either way, it felt appropriate. It's the totalitarian mindset: you're either with us or you're against us.
This also coincides with Pageau's insight that evil, especially aristocratic evil, is obsessed with knowing, defining, and counting everything. This is why vampires in mythology have counting compulsions, why the fall of Adam and Eve was the result of an inappropriate desire for knowledge, and why King David was punished by God for being seduced by Satan to conduct a census of his military and economic potential. Some things need to be left in the hands of God, but to the totalitarian there is no power or authority above the institutions of man.
Pageau also talks about how power (potestas) is associated with the book and rigidity, while authority (auctoritas) is associated with the hand of address and flexibility. The law (book) is defined, black and white, but the leader (authority) who applies the law has latitude to find justice in the real-world gray.
In good Christianity and in good liberty, there needs to be latitude for authority to navigate the gray. One of the major problems with the modern world, and with the ancient Pharisees is/was the desire to replace authority with power, to make rigid what should have flexibility, to number and categorize everything instead of leaving some things up to God, and to, with an undue confidence in our ability, stamp out the gray.
Of course this is not an endorsement of moral relativity, nominalism, or antinomianism, etc. Black and white should exist and in fact do. Murder is wrong, Rape is wrong. Theft is wrong. Homosexuality is an abomination before God. Worshiping false idols is a sin against God. But on the boundary of all of these there exists also the gray and the need for authority to find justice.
So yes, I believe at times it is right to lie.
I like your comment about the absolutist aesthetic being black and white. It works well for fine tuning a machine, entities which are supposed to operate in a specific way.
This as opposed to how God designed man, to operate with and through love, which most definitely is not black and white.
I think your conclusion is correct. If someone uses deception to protect the innocent or righteous, then it is acceptable. If someone lies in order to attack someone else or to unjustly receive monetary or societal gain, then it is unacceptable.
I have to admit after reading this passage multiple times, I didn't understand how directly it was addressing lying versus telling the truth. I also did not know the connection back to taking the Lord's name in vain. But after reading this article, it seems very obvious.
Thinking back to when I was a kid, sometimes a kid would brag about something and follow that up with phrases like "I swear on my mother's life" or "let God strike me dead if I'm lying" when other's did not believe them. Usually the perpetrator was telling a tall tale about something they had accomplished or about an outlandish story in general. They were trying to convince the other kids that they were telling the truth when it was something that was hard to believe. It adds a level of seriousness to the claim or commitment to the story. It is an attempt to show that the story teller really believes what they are saying and would risk some kind of family scorn or divine punishment if they are lying. Even as kids, we usually knew not to trust someone who used this kind of tactic. Sometimes adults aren't as insightful. No wonder Jesus has such a warm spot in his heart for children.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/