An example of why you need to lie in business to get stuff to happen.

[mikemac]

God lies in the old testament.

There are multiple examples of him deceiving and instructing to deceive.

The Douay-Rheims Bible has a commentary for 4 of the 5 quotes that you posted from the Old Testament to correct your thinking.  The 6th quote that you posted is not from the Old Testament, but from the New Testament.

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23

Commentary from Douay-Rheims Bible.  (by the way this 1 Kings is actually 3 Kings in a Catholic Bible)
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=22&l=23#x

[22] "Go forth, and do so": This was not a command, but a permission: for God never ordaineth lies; though he often permitteth the lying spirit to deceive those who love not the truth. 2 Thess. 2. 10. And in this sense it is said in the following verse, The Lord hath given a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets.

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:22

Commentary from Douay-Rheims Bible.  (this commentary points back to the commentary above)
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=14&ch=18&l=22#x

[19] "Who shall deceive": See the annotations, 3 Kings 22.

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 4:10

There is no commentary for this.  You will have to read the whole chapter to understand it.

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jeremiah 20:7

Commentary from Douay-Rheims Bible.
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=20&l=7#x

[7] "Thou hast deceived": The meaning of the prophet, is not to charge God with any untruth; but what he calls deceiving, was only the concealing from him, when he accepted of the prophetical commission, the greatness of the evils which the execution of that commission was to bring upon him.

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9

Commentary from Douay-Rheims Bible.
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=14&l=9#x

[9] "The prophet shall err": He speaks of false prophets, answering out of their own heads and according to their own corrupt inclinations.-- Ibid.

[9] "Have deceived that prophet": God Almighty deceives false prophets, partly by withdrawing his light from them; and abandoning them to their own corrupt inclinations, which push them on to prophesy such things as are agreeable to those who consult them: and partly by disappointing them, and causing all thing to happen contrary to what they have said.

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

You must be quoting from the King James Bible Greg.  2 Thessalonians 2:11 in the Douay-Rheims Bible reads nothing like this.  Although 2 Thessalonians 2:10 does, so I will quote it to show your error.  Note that the commentary from the Douay-Rheims Bible for your first quote 1 Kings above, which should actually be 3 Kings, also refers to this quote from 2 Thessalonians 2:10.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm

And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

The Douay-Rheims Bible also has a commentary for 2 Thessalonians 2:10.

[10] "God shall send": That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 in a Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible actually reads like this.

That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

Yep, just as I thought, from the King James Protestant Bible.  But if you had have read to verse 12 you would have seen that it basically says the same.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2%3A11-12&version=KJV

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12King James Version (KJV)

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Suggestion.  When quoting from the Bible in a Catholic forum I think it would be best to quote from a Catholic Bible.  I suggest the Douay-Rheims Bible.
http://www.drbo.org/

You would think that some of these commentaries were speaking directly to you Greg.  I would especially pay very close attention to 2 Thessalonians 2:10 from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible and it's commentary if I were you.     

[Non Nobis]

...

Go to any new or second hand car dealer and say the whole truth.  "I am thinking of getting a new car at some point in the future but I am a ditherer and my credit score is poor.  I will need to save and have my mother give me some money when she gets a disability check.  What I would like to do today is take a ride in your car, then do the same to some other car dealers and in six months I might be ready to buy and know what I want".

See if the dealer says, "no problem I will give you a free education and waste my time and gas in the unlikely hope that you will come back in 6 months and by a car from me".  "I am actually a charity whose job it is to help you make up your mind even if that costs me $50-$100 in lost time and labour.  After all, "what would Jesus do?"

It is not a lie to NOT say some truth, if you don't explicitly deny it (or absolutely imply its denial).  Of course you don't go to a car dealer and offer the unasked for truth  "I have bad credit".  It is a lie if he asks you "do you have good credit?" and you answer "my credit is excellent".

Do you really think there is no difference?

Greg are there any lies that you would not tell, if they are practical and don't hurt someone in a big way?  Do you actually teach your children to lie (even to you) when it is profitable to them? Do you seriously think that "everyone does it" or "it is practical" is an excuse for sin?

But maybe it is useless to continue the discussion. This is far better: 

[Greg]

Already answered that earlier

[Gerard]

To say you don't lie yourself is a lie.

But that is a lie.  And it's also a convenient fallacy of argument by assertion with a touch of well-poisoning. 

Different people have different weaknesses for different sins.  Someone who is all twisted up in problems of lust will often not believe that some people don't have much or any trouble with lust. 

Simultaneously those people in the grip of lust will not have the struggles regarding avarice that others have. 

Some people lie because it is a strong temptation and that is their area of weakness. Others don't have that problem with that sin. They might suffer with avarice or lust or wrath or despair or gluttony.

I know one guy who will lie at the drop of a hat to make any situation in his life easier and he doesn't exhibit a bit of remorse or shame about it.  I know another guy who pragmatically will not lie simply because he doesn't want the hassle of trying to keep up with them or the trouble of being caught.  He approaches it completely pragmatically as a way to keep his life uncomplicated. 

The difference between the two of them is basically that one wants everyone to be happy and like him and not think ill of him while he indulges in things that would make people think ill of him, the other doesn't give a rat's rear end about making others happy if it costs him his personal integrity which is disturbed by lying. I remember him saying, "I would always rather be a bastard than a wimp."  When he complained to a boss of his about the encouragement of dishonest sales practices, the boss told him, "The burger doesn't look like the picture on the menu."  He didn't get the reference.  He asked the boss what he meant.  The boss said, "You know when you go to lunch and order your burger and fries?  Well, the thing you get doesn't look nearly as good as the picture on the wall."  My friend said in reply, "I'm sorry, the places I go to eat, don't have pictures of the food on the wall." Needless to say, his honesty cut through a lot of crap being handed to him by his boss and he saved a lot of time for both him and the boss and he ended up doing very well for himself at another place of business.

One can develop habitual honesty or the habit of lying.  You can actually get good at either one of them.  A person who is good at being honest has no trouble, nor need to lie.

Lying is not some special sin that makes the world go round.  It's actually a perversion of the virtue of prudence in which foresight is developed but the proper response to that foresight is not applied.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKxmoP8354[/yt]

[Greg]

It isn't Gerard the data shows it.

Let's imagine that you did an extensive study of Trads examining the lives of tens of thousands of them and you found that they were no better morally than Novus Ordo Catholics.  They contracpeted, aborted, divorce at the same rates. They cheated, drank, backbit, were ungenerous were hypocrites  etc.

Could you reasonably conclude that there was any value in Traditional Catholicism, if it had no better fruits?

The data shows that pretty much everyone with a reason to lie will lie.  These are vast data sets.

I don't imagine it has ever been any different.  Lying is necessary to smooth day to day interactions with other human beings.  You might deny it or say there is not enough data or the data is rigged, but then some people use the same argument about a flat earth.

[Greg]

One can develop habitual honesty or the habit of lying.  You can actually get good at either one of them.  A person who is good at being honest has no trouble, nor need to lie.

You are wrong.  That is just my point.  There is a need to lie.

You are sitting at home listening to the birds sing, free as a bird yourself.  Nothing to do for a good hour.  The phone rings and some Paki on the other end of the line asks, "excuse me Mr. Gerard.  My name is Gupta from your bank.  I'd like to talk to you about life insurance products. Are you free right now?"

The truth is you are free.  You could talk to Gupta.  You could make his life a little bit easier out there in India where he is forced to work 10 hours per day and walk back to his sweaty apartment through the excerement of cows and humans.

But you say, "sorry I am not free and not interested" and slam the phone down.  You don't know whether you are interest or not, because you didn't hear him out.

And there are many interactions like this all the time with various people where to tell the truth, would get you in to a world of shit.

Did you pack this back yourself? Err... No, my wife packed it.

Have you been on a farm in the last six weeks?

Why do you want this job?  Err... so I can use your offer letter to try to get a pay rise out of my current employer.

[Greg]

Studies back this.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035863/when-lying-is-good

Results were unanimous.Lying to help another person was consistently perceived to be good, while lying that had no effect on the other person or that actually harmed them was perceived to be wrong. In the paper, Levine and Scheweitzer write: "Individuals with altruistic intentions are perceived to be more moral, more benevolent, and more honest, even when they lie." (Emphasis theirs.)

[awkwardcustomer]

One can develop habitual honesty or the habit of lying.  You can actually get good at either one of them.  A person who is good at being honest has no trouble, nor need to lie.

You are wrong.  That is just my point.  There is a need to lie.

You are sitting at home listening to the birds sing, free as a bird yourself.  Nothing to do for a good hour.  The phone rings and some Paki on the other end of the line asks, "excuse me Mr. Gerard.  My name is Gupta from your bank.  I'd like to talk to you about life insurance products. Are you free right now?"

The truth is you are free.  You could talk to Gupta.  You could make his life a little bit easier out there in India where he is forced to work 10 hours per day and walk back to his sweaty apartment through the excerement of cows and humans.

But you say, "sorry I am not free and not interested" and slam the phone down.  You don't know whether you are interest or not, because you didn't hear him out.

And there are many interactions like this all the time with various people where to tell the truth, would get you in to a world of shit.

Did you pack this back yourself? Err... No, my wife packed it.

Have you been on a farm in the last six weeks?

Why do you want this job?  Err... so I can use your offer letter to try to get a pay rise out of my current employer.

You would waste an employer's time by applying for a job just so you could use their offer letter to get a pay rise from your current employer!!   That's a lie in itself, so you have to lie to cover up a lie!!

As for Gupta the life insurance salesman. Just say 'No thank you' and hang up. No lie is involved. Easy.

[John Lamb]

Greg, you are equivocating on the word "lie".

Saying "I am not free" to the question "are you free?" is not so much a lie as a figure of speech. It doesn't mean "I am not free" as much as it means "no, I don't want to talk to you". These aren't lies except in the most rigourist sense. The trailer to the film you posted earlier is using the term "lie" in this rigourist sense, to mean any phrase of speech which is not true in the most literal sense. The statistics you mention are irrelevant until you explain why definition of "lie" they are using, because if they are using it in this most rigourist sense then almost everyone is bound to be a liar except for people with speech impediments preventing them from using metaphors and figures of speech.

When we use the term "lie" in a moral sense it includes the intention to deceive. Saying "I am not free" may not include the intention to deceive, it may just be a polite figure of speech meaning, "I don't want to talk to you". Similarly, when people respond "I'm well" to the question "how are you?" when in fact they have problems, it is not a lie with the intention of deceive but is usually just a polite way of greeting people.

[Gerard]

It isn't Gerard the data shows it.

Let's imagine that you did an extensive study of Trads examining the lives of tens of thousands of them and you found that they were no better morally than Novus Ordo Catholics.  They contracpeted, aborted, divorce at the same rates. They cheated, drank, backbit, were ungenerous were hypocrites  etc.

Could you reasonably conclude that there was any value in Traditional Catholicism, if it had no better fruits?

The data shows that pretty much everyone with a reason to lie will lie.  These are vast data sets.

I don't imagine it has ever been any different.  Lying is necessary to smooth day to day interactions with other human beings.  You might deny it or say there is not enough data or the data is rigged, but then some people use the same argument about a flat earth.

That argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.   If you do a study on fornication by polling fornicators, you don't get any data on genuine virginity except by redaction from the general population which is worthless.  100% of fornicators were at one time virgins.  That doesn't mean 100% of the population are fornicators.

Where are the "control" groups in the study?  What's the criteria for a study of "honesty?"

What's the difference in the studies between truth, error and honesty and dishonesty?

Everyone with a reason to lie may lie, but everyone with a reason to be honest may be honest. 

Lying is not necessary.   It is convenient for some without foresight.

Not long ago, a guy came to my house trying to sell windows.  I told him I was not interested at this time.  I told him to come back in the Spring and we may be in a better position to hear him out.  He pushed.  I told him "no." He emphasized that the evaluation was "free."  I said, "No."  He pushed again suggesting that an opportunity would be past.  I pointed to the sign on my house that says, "No solicitations." I said the sign is there for a reason.  He's not going to get a chance for a free evaluation before the Spring and I gave him no guarantees for the Spring.  I game him permission to check in again in the spring. Nothing more.  He looked at my windows from the street and told me they were they originals.  I told him, they weren't, because they aren't.  The originals were casement windows. He finally backed away.  Had he told me the estimate for new windows was "free" a third time, I would have pointed out to him that my time is not "free" and unless he wants to pay me cash to do the "free evaluation" he's not going to make any further headway, nothing is going to change till spring and the polite conversation is going to end.  But he backed down, asked if I knew of any neighbors who may be interested.  I pointed to the house that was recently bought and being restored.  That was that. I could've made any number of convenient lies in order to come across as polite, but I was already polite and completely honest with the guy.  Years ago, I would have given all of the cliche' "lies" that are common ways to rebuff solicitors.  But, when I grew up and got back into the faith. I made the effort to develop the skills and the willingness to be absolutely accurate in my every day dealings. Like any vice, it went from falling into the old habits, catching yourself and back tracking to correct things and then catching yourself before you lie and then having the experience and smoothness in dialogue to be completely honest and prudent in how I react verbally. 

People lie because they get skilled at being liars which is easier than getting skillful at being honest.  They aren't honest because they simply don't hone the skill.  The lies get them twisted up, cause strife and make them have to develop yet another skill of "detecting liars."  It's an inefficient and more costly method in the long run even though it has apparent short term advantages for people that don't put the effort into being honest.  Two people lying to one another is simply a time consuming battle of wills over coercing one another.  A person who is completely honest isn't wasting anyone's time.

[clau clau]

This thread reminds me of something that happened to me about 30 years ago.

I went to Westminster Cathedral once for confession.  In the porch on the way out of the Cathedral I was accosted by some down-and-out who asked me for money.  I replied that I did not have any.

A few minutes later I went to McDonalds and bought a meal.  On the way out of the restaurant he saw me and proclaimed "You lied in the house of God!"

[awkwardcustomer]

"You can't con an honest man."

So a buyer and seller of 'antiques' once said to me.

[Carleendiane]

Just a thought, don't destroy me for a simple thought. If the devil is the "father of lies" how can they possibly be a GOOD thing? I do see they facilitate business. And I know I lie, but really, could it be a good thing? And if it's not good, what is it? What justification is there in habitual lying  in business to make progress? Honest question.

[mikemac]

A couple of friends have been practicing honesty without lying lately.

One says to the other, "do you have an extra beer?"

The other guy answers "there is no such thing as an extra beer.  But you can have one anyway."

Now that's honesty.


On a side note these same two characters like to practice using new words that they just heard.  Obfuscation and a couple of other words have already been worn out.  The most recent new word is lugubrious.  They say thanks Miriam.  No complaining around here lately.   

[Carleendiane]

Thank you mikemac. I understand there are subtleties to this particular sin.  But on the whole I would deem it a bad habit. Though, I am not in a business that operates on the premise That lies grease the wheels. Certainly, I have no experience in that venue. Certainly, I would not wish to have to operate that way. Being one who operates much better with clear, or at least semi-clear black and whites, I thank God I do not have to, daily, pars out my culpability in these business lies.