[Dimensio]

PhilipFreneau specifically said "But be mindful that even Christians lie during war-time to protect, say, tactical secrecy (Churchhill made a timeless statement on the use of deception to protect secrecy during war-time)." when defending his implict suggestion (and I say that it was his implicit suggestion because he did not deny it when the implications of his statement were directly stated to him) that the US Government was effectively lying in the Treaty of Tripoli, however this specific defense is unusual because the united states was not at war with anyone in Barbary at the time of the drafting or signing of the treaty, nor does the claim that PhilipFreneau suggests is a lie seem to be of any strategic importance. I can only conclude from PhilipFreneau's statements regarding the treaty that he believes it permissable for Christians to lie whenever it suits them, and merely added the "in times of war" to create a more palatable qualifier.

Do you believe that I was hasty in my judgement? If so, could you explain then why PhilipFreneau suggests that it is acceptable that the US government effectively lied in the wording of a treaty?

[csense]

I can only conclude from PhilipFreneau's statements regarding the treaty that he believes it permissable for Christians to lie whenever it suits them, and merely added the "in times of war" to create a more palatable qualifier.

But that's not what you said in an earlier post, is it.

You said this: "I've been told by at least one creationist here that it is permissable for Christians to lie to non-believers.

Now, either that is true, or it is not

Which is it?