[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Mike, I'm confused as to what "opening" you think Nee has provided here, it seems to me that he was presenting a very strict standard as to what it means to be "truthful". A standard that Lee clearly disregarded when he withheld the context of these letters and thereby misrepresented Mallon, et al.

I disagree. I believe that Nee provided a philosophical construct based on some kind of asceticism or mysticism that incorrectly draws lines between the mind and the emotions. Between the emotions and truth. Between why I say it and what I say. The result is a construct in which truth is defined by things that have nothing to do with truthfulness, and lies by opposite things again having nothing to do with truthfulness.

Here is Nee's passage chopped up and analyzed (at some level).

We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying.

Only if the effect of what is said is to say or imply something untrue. The fact that I have an issue and it only relates to part of the story does not make that focus a lie. Unless it is spoken in a manner that speaks or implies something false. This is a misdirection to something that is not about the truthfulness of the saying.

Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them.

Profitable is not the same thing as truthful or untruthful.

Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying.

The fact that something hurts, damages, or brings loss to others does not make it a lie. It may be that failing to hurt, damage or bring loss to others is to lie. Depends on the facts and circumstances. There are reasons not to hurt, damage or bring loss. But it is not simply about telling lies.

Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes.

This is a false dichotomy. What I like or dislike may be in line with the truth. To focus on whether it is a like or dislike is to ignore what is true or false. It is a misdirection.

Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying.

Another false dichotomy. In fact, there is not necessarily any tension between like, dislike, and emotions and truth and reality. There may be. But it is not definitional. This little passage claims that the two are incompatible.

Baloney.

Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God.

Finally, a word on the subject that is actually on the subject!

We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God.

This is another misdirection. We should always speak according to our feeling. I have the feeling to speak on this subject. Or I do not. Speaking according to my feeling does not make it a lie. That is nonsense. My feelings are not simply in opposition to facts and truth. This is some kind of mysticism or asceticism in which the mind and emotions are divorced from one another and from our fellowship with God. This is not healthy spiritual teaching.

Together, all of these misdirections, false dichotomies, etc., create a different standard than "false witness." Something besides the truthfulness of what John or Bill said is used to discredit them. And the same nonsense is used to justify the lies that are told about them in the process. Since it is no longer about "false witness" but emotions, preferences, feelings, likes and dislikes, the truth has been sidelined.

Like the new thread on Doublespeak, this is a form of doublespeak. I doubt that Nee was thinking in this way when he wrote those things. But what he did was effectively negate one of the 10 commandments by providing and alternate and incorrect way to figure it out. It may seem to be more stringent. But it is also more forgiving. If I speak from my emotions then I have lied. If I do not it is the truth. It it is my preference, it is a lie. If not, it is the truth. He didn't directly say it. But it is too easy to arrive at it without twisting the words.

And Lee abused it without violating it.