The most powerful lies are those made by true statements. In scriptures, satan often use this type of lying.
51 comments
Ah Smidlee, you are, indeed, a genuis of your species. You've managed to conclude that because 'satan' lied using the truth, therefore any lies you're told must be the truth! Ergo, your support for creationism.
"The most powerful lies are those made by true statements."
If statements are true, they are not lies. If one twists them into lies, they are not true. Got it, Smidlee?
"In scriptures, satan often use this type of lying."
So, you are admitting that your scriptures contain lies?
Well, it is entirely possible to convey something untrue while saying nothing untrue in the process; it's a matter of context and innuendo. However, this is far too simplistic a way of expressing such a subtle thought, so I think Smidlee is just being bloody-minded about the issue.
What we really need is for Satan to stand before Smidlee and say, "Listen to me carefully, Smidlee: I -- AM -- LYING." Then we could just kick back and watch smoke pour out of Smidlee's ears.
~David D.G.
Ministry of Truth award fourthed and beyond.
Besides, Satan doesn't need to lie. In one of the more famous sequences in Mr. Smidlee's little books, he just quotes the Scriptures. (And depending on the translator, he does so more accurately than Jesus...)
So by that rationale the bible, which christians claim to be true, could actually be a book of lies propagated by satan? Interesting theory. That actually makes more sense then what my church taught me.
Well, uh, there _is_ a logical fallacy related to this, right? Let's say Candidate Jones is campaigning and he says -
"Before Senator Smith took office, our state had the best economy in the nation. Three years later, the economy is falling as unemployment approaches 10%."
By themselves these are two true statements. But the impression they give - somehow Sen. Smith sent the economy into the drink - is not itself necessarily true.
--GF
Well, uh, there _is_ a logical fallacy related to this, right? Let's say Candidate Jones is campaigning and he says -
"Before Senator Smith took office, our state had the best economy in the nation. Three years later, the economy is falling as unemployment approaches 10%."
By themselves these are two true statements. But the impression they give - somehow Sen. Smith sent the economy into the drink - is not itself necessarily true.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc", you mean? Not sure how this relates to the original post, though.
@Adrian
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc", you mean? Not sure how this relates to the original post, though.
If Jones never actually claims that Senator Smith is to blame for the economic downturn but merely allows the association to take hold in his audience, Jones hasn't said anything false, he's just been misleading. Jones hasn't actually lied, he's just taking advantage of the fact that people are idiots and will make the association between the two without him having to say something false.
@Crosis
If Jones never actually claims that Senator Smith is to blame for the economic downturn but merely allows the association to take hold in his audience, Jones hasn't said anything false, he's just been misleading. Jones hasn't actually lied, he's just taking advantage of the fact that people are idiots and will make the association between the two without him having to say something false.
Except this isn't a case of people being idiots. It's a case of people being smart, in a way. Working under the assumption that people mean every part of what they say, even the parts they convey without saying, does tend to speed up a lot of conversations, readings, et cetera. It's just how language works, and how it's streamlined by lots of practice.
If nobody processed any information unless it was stated plainly outright, communication would take a lot longer.
--GF
Glazius - yes, it's normally an advantage that we make those connections without them being pointed out directly, and yes, it is fallacious to connect two unrelated statements in such a way. My point is that, though highly misleading, the statement itself is not actually false. To call something a "lie", to me, implies that the statement was false and the person making it did not have good reason to believe otherwise.
Telling the truth = Lies
Oooh, that wicked Satan is SUCH a deceiver!
_____________________________________________
@ Yogi -
He's probably saying that careful manipulation of the truth can be as effective as a lie. Just tell the parts of the truth that are convinient and "forget" the rest.
In John Steinbeck's East of Eden the madam does exactly that; "She told the biggest lie of all; she told the truth." Well, part of it, anyway.
More fundie logic. Although at least he/she admits that there is a lot of lying in scriptures, so there is some truth in this statement. Somehow, though, I'd day not in the way it was intended.
'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it'
-Joseph Goebbels
image
(emphasis added):
John 14:6 (KJV): 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth , and the life'
'The most powerful lies are those made by true statements.'
You said it. I didn't.
Congratulations, Smidlee! At a stroke you've destroyed the basis of your entire beliefs, and simultaneously more than justified Atheism.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.