Satanic Dishonesty

[JustGeorge]

Christianity says it cares about honesty but it doesn’t.

Do you find that Christianity(the religion, as opposed to the followers) doesn't care about honesty, or that an overwhelming majority of Christians don't care about honesty?

(I ask in sincerity; I am largely unfamiliar with the Bible.)

 

[dybmh]

What are the consequences of lying (in theory and in RL)?

Those consequences are in the Talmud. So it's all theoretical. There is no religious court to enforce those rules. From memory, the false witness is liable for death. That would be an earthly consequence. Then there's the heavenly consequence, which is excommunication from God, for lack of better words. That's in psalms. For deception, the consequences a court would impose depends on the damages.
Again, all of this, only in theory.

 

[dybmh]

I would imagine it is not as silly to people victimized by tyranny.

Please, in context what I said and meant was that it was silly to deny that ripping the book and throwing it on the floor was anti-Christian. The denial was silly. Not the idea of opposing tyranny. It's silly to deny that the speaker perceives Christianity as tyrannical. It's silly to deny that Christianty was included.

( and I would encourage readers to go back to my original statement to confirm my intention. I think it's clearly stated. )

 

[Heyo]

Those consequences are in the Talmud. So it's all theoretical. There is no religious court to enforce those rules. From memory, the false witness is liable for death. That would be an earthly consequence. Then there's the heavenly consequence, which is excommunication from God, for lack of better words. That's in psalms. For deception, the consequences a court would impose depends on the damages.
Again, all of this, only in theory.

So it comes down to the question @TLK Valentine asked.

Jews lie, Christians lie, people lie and we accept that as human behavior. It only has (secular) consequences if it's a lie under oath or slander. "Lying for Jesus" is a virtue and baring false witness is rarely the topic of a sermon.
And it is not only a failure of the Abrahamic religions. Secular philosophies also often omit to list truthfulness as a core value. And those who do, like cynicism, are seen as rude. Lies are like the weather, everybody talks about it but nobody does anything against it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No difference at all. Not really addressing the question in the OP, but, a good point none-the-less.

Actually, it does - Satanists don't bother with a "no lying" rule because they know that lying is such a necessary part of our society to function that prohibiting it would be pointless. Like most ethics, it's situational.

Ever watch a crime drama where someone suspected of being an undercover cop is flat-out asked, "Are you a cop?" There's a belief in TV land that an undercover cop must answer truthfully, lest they be accused of entrapment.

This, of course, is Hollywood fiction and utter nonsense - but imagine any religion that actually expected its adherents to comply. Same goes for espionage and military intelligence.

Come to think of it, all acting and theater involves some form of lying - and if the audience participates in the willing suspension of disbelief, are they not enabling the deception?

Well, I think I'm aware of the examples you're bringing. I don't think you're accurately describing them. Chock-full is a bit of exaggerating too. That said, the heroes in the OT are not perfect people. As I said to another poster, the value comes from analyzing these stories and then determining if the conduct is a positive role-model or negative.

True, but let's remember that these people were in the service of a God who was known to smite people for all sorts of transgressions - even relatively minor ones. And as is the case for "miracles," a God who can intervene (in this case, to dole out punishment) must be held accountable for giving tacit approval whenever He chooses not to.

After all, being God, we can't say He didn't notice it that one time, can we?

For example, Abraham being deceptive about his wife's status ( not technically a lie )

If you're referring to Genesis 12:10-13:1, I'm not seeing the technicality here. Sarah is Abraham's wife, but he passes her off as his sister.
The only way that wouldn't technically be a lie is if she was both - let us hope that was not the case, because... ew.

was, imo, wrong in context of the story. Not just because it was deceptive, but also because it was a lack of faith in the god who had recently promised that a nation would be built from him. So he shouldn't have feared for his life at all. And then a reader can postulate what would have happened if he had been honest... etc.

I don't care how much faith you have in God or what He's told you, I'll bet you still look both ways before crossing the street.

To willingly put yourself and others into life-threatening situations expecting God to miraculously bail you out is the height of arrogance.

I think they're wrong about that. There's several verses that require saving the life.

And yet the Nazi party was the lawful (and according to Romans 13, God-ordained) authority at the time - if they declare Anne Frank to be a criminal, who are you to question them? Would you have hid Charles Manson with such fervor?

Please note that I find this argument every bit as asinine as (I hope) you do, but this is how those particular Christians defended their hypothetical decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've dealt with many Christians, Muslims, & Jews
as a residential & commercial landlord. All are
capable of lying to defraud others. I've never
rented to a Satanist (that I know of), but I
wouldn't expect them to be different from
other humans.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you're referring to Genesis 12:10-13:1, I'm not seeing the technicality here. Sarah is Abraham's wife, but he passes her off as his sister.
The only way that wouldn't technically be a lie is if she was both - let us hope that was not the case, because... ew.

Well, actually ... Genesis 20:12 - Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech

 

[Father Heathen]

So we shouldn't trust any organization that doesn't explicitly state that they don't lie?

For example, no mention of honesty. Must be nefarious!:

Mission & Values

Read the American Red Cross mission statement. We are a humanitarian organization led by volunteers that provides relief to victims of disaster.

www.redcross.org

I think the OP is grasping for straws because the ToS puts their own to shame.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I recall various threads where posters who are friendly to The Satanic Temple, seem to promote their moral principles. And on paper, they do seem like moral principles.

However, I notice an important gap. There is no prohibition on lying. There is something about misrepresenting scientific evidence. But that doesn't prohibit dishonesty especially about itself.

Can a group be trusted that does not include honesty as a valued principle?
Does a group need to include this as a core value / principle? Should it be assumed?

Is it irrelevant because, a liar can easily lie about being honest?

Thoughts?

Here's a link to the core tenets of TST.

About Us

The mission of The Satanic Temple is to support empathy between people, freedom, unwillingness to tyrannical power, and protest against injustice.

thesatanictemple.com

Would you be truthful if your butt ugly Aunt Bertha asked if she was ugly? Sometimes it's okay to...bend the truth a little.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Casino science; statistical methods, is not exactly rational science since it is based on margins of error, which gives wiggle room to be dishonest. If you follow the math procedures nobody in that science casino will blame you for a bad call. Gambling casinos, politicians, pollsters and marketeers all use the same math, as casino science, because it has built in fuzzy dice dishonesty disguised as science. How many medicines have past the casino science standards only to become subject to law suits, with none of the bureaucrats and scientists involved held accountable? It is quite a racket.

Is that why professional gamblers exist?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're referring to Genesis 12:10-13:1, I'm not seeing the technicality here. Sarah is Abraham's wife, but he passes her off as his sister.
The only way that wouldn't technically be a lie is if she was both - let us hope that was not the case, because... ew.

It is the case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For example, Abraham being deceptive about his wife's status ( not technically a lie )

It was a lie though. The truth was distorted, it did mislead others and they did act on what they believed was true and accurate. Abraham left out a really big but and that does make it a lie by ommission.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, actually ... Genesis 20:12 - Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech

I stand corrected.

And I stand by my previous statement: "ew."

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is the case.

So I see.

Ew.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, actually ... Genesis 20:12 - Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech

It is the case.

Not for nothing, but in Genesis 26, Abraham's son, Isaac, pulls the same stunt.
This time, it is, in fact a lie -- or don't these men ever date outside their own families?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not for nothing, but in Genesis 26, Abraham's son, Isaac, pulls the same stunt.
This time, it is, in fact a lie -- or don't these men ever date outside their own families?

It was a lie when Abraham did it.

Lie - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

 

[crossfire]

I like the Satanic Temple. I largely agree with their professed values and appreciate them using the character of Satan to do something constructive. I also find it kind of hilarious just how much they annoy the Church of Satan.

Are its members all going to be honest? No, of course not. People from all religious groups will sometimes behave in ways that conflict with their values. I also doubt that having honesty as a core tenet would make a huge difference either. Plenty of fundamentalist Christians will visit naughty websites when nobody's looking despite their community's strict attitudes towards pornography for example.

Probably the main area where I think Satanic Temple members can be dishonest is with regard to whether or not they're purely a political movement. The political angle of the church heavily depends on them being accepted as a legitimate religion. That's one of the ways they're able to fight fire with fire in terms of violating the separation of church and state.

With that in mind, it's unclear to me how many of its members genuinely consider the Satanic Temple to be a religion at all. I have no doubt that plenty of them do see it as a religion. However, I also have no doubt that plenty of them view it as a form of protest that they're compelled to pretend is a religion.

Again though, this is hardly unique to the Satanic Temple. There are countless political movements that couch their views in terms of religion. Even if we treat the Satanic Temple as purely political, I'd say it's significantly better than many of its peers.

As compared to say, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I see both TCotFSM and the Satanic Temple as legitimate Sacred Clown Traditions, who speak Truth to Power. It can be a dangerous path, and deserves the protections afforded to other religions.

 

[Erebus]

As compared to say, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I see both TCotFSM and the Satanic Temple as legitimate Sacred Clown Traditions, who speak Truth to Power. It can be a dangerous path, and deserves the protections afforded to other religions.

There are definitely similarities between the two, though I suspect that the Satanic Temple has more members who treat it seriously.

You're right though that both deserve legal protection as religions. Deciding that some movements can't legally be considered religions if they're deemed too politically motivated sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[Viker]

a liar can easily lie about being honest

So, yeah, they say, "be compassionate", but if the author is being dishonest... see what I mean

But what if they demonstrate compassion? Then what?

The Bible is chalk full of valid virtue. If none of it is demonstrated it has only been a waste of paper.

Satanism doesn't need truth or honesty as tenets because they can not be rigidly followed. One must lie from time to time. Some other branches of Satanism do consider things like fraud, pretentiousness, self-deceit and hypocrisy infractions. See? The worst forms of lying are often covered by Satanic ethics.

And remember, there is a time for everything. This is why rigid prohibition laws are pointless.

Demonstrate honesty, don't just have rules in it's favor.

 

[1213]

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Lev. 20:13

What was your point?