Michael, Thanks for at least reading my post, but your reply still doesn’t answer my questions.
You are welcome. I started this thread to learn about this (I’ll give you more of the background in a minute…)
A friend has prepared a dinner and it tastes simply awful. When they ask “How’s the food” Do you say " This food tastes simply awful" making your host feel so humiliated they wish they could crawl under the floor boards, or do you choke it down trying not to make an obvious face of discomfort and say “Oh it’s fine it’s fine”. Or maybe “I think it might need a little salt” Or do you say “I guess I’m not as hungry as I thought I was” but deep down you’re really starving.
Why should anyone have the authority or right to ask me questions in a definitive cross examination manner so as to limit my capacity for qualification? Certainly not a child.
I think the difficulty might be in limiting the answer to Yes, No. Especially in the case of children, where you can use your parental authority to turn the question back on them: “Why do you ask daddy about your picture today?” or “Why did you paint that?” “How did you paint that?” This might not work with an adult who is older and keener, but still I think there must be ways to get the meaning across effectively : “I’m sure it’s good enough in itself, just didn’t agree with my stomach today.” Over time you might let your host know that you really are a picky eater, but that you can’t pass judgment on his her food because that is not your judgment to make (unless you happen to be in a position to give constructive criticism as chef etc).
I don’t mean to suggest that you or anyone reading this post can’t think of such ideas for yourself, but rather that we needn’t knock the person off their horse as Paul was by the light when nearing Damascus. That’s what I meant by “over time,” we can reveal the truth slowly. Jesus in his ministry John 2:24 is said not to have yet “trusted himself to them…” He also spoke in parables and with significant speech. He was not a liar, obviously, nor did he obfuscate the truth in any way…I believe he simply knew that ultimately the holy spirit would lead them to “remember all that [he] told them.” This obviously included interpreting his words in light of the truth he was to reveal…“destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” they could not have realized his meaning; so similarly, we need to speak always to the ultimate truth and possibly think of a good reason why our palette requires so much ketchup and pepper all the time we will consider it not a lie but a form of penance to say, “yes, dear, it was good…please don’t make it any more or I’ll become a glutton!” Please don’t take that as sarcasm.
The example I gave in the opening to this thread was that of death. I also said that I later realized Heaven more maturely than as a child. As such I am capable of knowing that ideas and words are more permanent in this world than are bodies, so I know very well that my grandfather is alive not only with a body in heaven, but with words and ideas that live in me here on earth. Thus time revealed my dad didn’t lie.
But, he was in the career of advertising. Many people pity me because of that—there is so much lying in that career. Yet the proponents point out all the economic benefit of having these half baked jingles and outrageous promises on the airwaves, etc. In a strange way, my dad, who is loathe to give a straight answer to any question, taught me semiotics (through signs themselves, of course). He even used semiotics to help me quit smoking, which I have stayed quit for over 15 years now.
Therefore, even though the injunction is to let your yes mean yes and your no mean no; I personally see no reason to judge your own self when you have a clear no or yes in mind. There will always be disagreement on what is polite. Personal politics is an art as well as a science.
If one takes too strict a stance on the yes/no issue, then all drama and literature is lie? That seems just plain stentorian.
