Forgiving God

[Skyangel]

God admits to being a deceiver, yet at the same time warns people not to be deceived.
Is an open deceiver a liar and does He need to be forgiven for deceiving people?

If a man is deceived, can he know that he is deceived if no one ever explains the deception to him ?
If a person figures out for himself that some things simply don't "add up" do they lose trust in the person who deceived them?

The whole story of the bible is based on the deception of mankind. The concept is that mankind were and still are deceived by the serpent till such a time as they "wake up" or are set free from the deception by acknowledging the Truth ( Jesus).

If mankind never considers the possibility that he may be deceived then he will never consider the Truth which will set him free from the deception.
Only Truth can make people free.
There are plenty of warnings about taking care to not be deceived. That implies the possibility of deception at all times.

The bible is very clear that God deceives people and warns us to not be deceived at the same time.

Deut 11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them

Jer 4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.


Jer 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

Exek 14;9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

2 Tit 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.


If you understand the principles of God apply to God himself then God is basically calling Himself evil when he admits to deceiving and deluding people.

2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

God allowed people to judge Him and crucify Him for being a deceiver, even though the deception is very open and obove board and is not really a deception any more than a magicians illusion is a deception. However, it does tend to fool and deceive the ignorant who prefer to believe the magician can do magic or miracles rather than understand that life is all an illusion and humans can do all that God can do too.

Some people will never forgive God for appearing harsh and mean and cruel and others do forgive Him. If we forgive we will be forgiven. If we don't, we won't be forgiven either. Yet God forgives all, so how can anyone not be forgiven? They are not forgiven unless they forgive themselves for their own foolishness. We reap what we sow. If we sow unforgiveness, that is also what we reap.

Guilt is inside mankind and only the man himself can get rid of the guilt by understanding the Truth of what causes it and overcome the cause so it has no more effect on his life.

People who never forgive God are never in Christ and never in Truth. They prefer to hold on to their anger and hate of God as they keep rejecting Him and claim He does not exist because He does not "fix" their problems and become their slave who they can command to do as they want Him to do. They want God to treat them with respect as they disrespect God because he tricked, deceived, deluded, them and they won't forgive Him for it.

Does God need to be forgiven or do people need to forgive themselves for their own foolishness and stupidity in allowing themselves to be deceived?

Is the word of God the classic example of the liar paradox?

Also see http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/liar/

The same paradox applies to the word of God. God admits He is being deceptive and causing delusions. Is God therefore being deceptive and causing delusions or is God simply the greatest magician and illusionist in the universe who keeps people wondering whether He exists in reality or not?

[ChaosBorders]

Or simply a blatant denial of the Truth. When you think about it you cannot have any lies unless you first have Truth because if you had no Truth there would be nothing to deny or twist or manipulate or misapply.

Yes, this is correct. Lies cannot exist independently of the truth. However, not all deception qualifies as lying as I will explain further down.

It depends on whether you are looking at it scientifically or not because in a scientific perception the sun does not rise or set at all and therefore that statement becomes a lie in a scientific perception even if the speaker has no clue about the scientific perception. In this sense people can be telling lies or deceiving themselves without even realizing it and in that case they are not lying with the intent of lying but lying unintentionally and unknowingly.

Lies are a subset of deception. They inseparable from intent. If one does not intend to lie, they may merely be mistaken or being misunderstood. Those can still lead to deception, however, it is not the same thing as lying.

On a side note, it has been said that the greatest enemy of truth is not lies, but rather the concept of bullshitting. This is because when one lies, one must at least think they know the truth in order to subvert it. When one bullshits, one does not care at all whether one is telling a truth or an untruth and it becomes even more difficult to tell which is which. When someone does this chronically they may be deceiving unintentionally, but are probably doing so to a far greater degree than someone who is simply being misunderstood or who is just wrong.

I agree, so if we relate that to nature and understand there are manifestations in nature like mirages and camouflage which can deceive the mind of man and cause us to not see the obvious, we can begin to understand deception that has no intent to deceive but simply is what it is, an illusion which causes deception unintentionally.

Guess it depends on how you define intent, but camouflage has the express purpose of being deceptive so as to avoid being attacked/eaten or so as to enable more efficient attacks.

The way I see it, God does not intentionally deceive anyone any more than Nature intentionally deceives anyone but if we are aware of the deceptions, camouflage and illusions in nature, we become far more aware of the reality around us.

The problem with that is God is all-knowing (unless you believe otherwise) in which case God is fully aware that anything he reveals or chooses not to reveal will be perceived in a particular manner (most often wrong or incomplete). Thus deception on God's part cannot be stated as unintentional. However, the question then becomes whether deception is inherently bad, to which I would answer no.

[Skyangel]

Lies are a subset of deception. They inseparable from intent. If one does not intend to lie, they may merely be mistaken or being misunderstood. Those can still lead to deception, however, it is not the same thing as lying.

On a side note, it has been said that the greatest enemy of truth is not lies, but rather the concept of bullshitting. This is because when one lies, one must at least think they know the truth in order to subvert it. When one bullshits, one does not care at all whether one is telling a truth or an untruth and it becomes even more difficult to tell which is which. When someone does this chronically they may be deceiving unintentionally, but are probably doing so to a far greater degree than someone who is simply being misunderstood or who is just wrong.

They can also be deceiving themselves unintentionally by telling stories which they believe are true but are really fairy tales, religious or otherwise. This is how we end up with false doctrines where the preachers are preaching what they think is true but is not the Truth at all. Their intentions are good but their words and actions end up being more destructive and causing more confusion than getting rid of confusion.

I agree, so if we relate that to nature and understand there are manifestations in nature like mirages and camouflage which can deceive the mind of man and cause us to not see the obvious, we can begin to understand deception that has no intent to deceive but simply is what it is, an illusion which causes deception unintentionally.

Guess it depends on how you define intent, but camouflage has the express purpose of being deceptive so as to avoid being attacked/eaten or so as to enable more efficient attacks.

Is the purpose in Nature, not just a perceived purpose which depends on how mankind perceives it ? Nature obviously has no way of deliberately intending anything since it has no way of thinking for itself and no way of deliberately avoiding anything. It just does what it does without any thought at all. It is simply actions and reactions of the elements of the earth interacting with one another.

The way I see it, God does not intentionally deceive anyone any more than Nature intentionally deceives anyone but if we are aware of the deceptions, camouflage and illusions in nature, we become far more aware of the reality around us.

The problem with that is God is all-knowing (unless you believe otherwise) in which case God is fully aware that anything he reveals or chooses not to reveal will be perceived in a particular manner (most often wrong or incomplete). Thus deception on God's part cannot be stated as unintentional. However, the question then becomes whether deception is inherently bad, to which I would answer no.

That would get back to ones perception and understanding of the word God.
It seems to me that most people perceive God as single spiritual superrnatural invisible being. This perception is in my opinion incomplete. It is the same way a child would understand the concept of "Santa Claus" as a single magical man. Adults understand the concept of Santa Claus is simply the Spirit of giving which is in all people and all people in reality are "Santa Claus" if they have a generous spirit regardless of whether they dress up and play the part or not.
When it comes to an all knowing God, the way I perceive it is that God is a Spirit which is all and in all. This all includes all knowledge of the past present and future as well as all lack of knowledge.
However, when we place knowledge together with lack of knowledge, the lack of knowledge becomes null and void, yet at the same time still exists since the more we know, the more we understand there still is to learn.
Knowlege is something that obviously increases as mankind gains more of it over time.
If people could manage to perceive God as wisdom and knowlege itself rather than as some kind of invisible being shaped like a person, it might be easier for people to comprehend how God can be in all. Knowledge can be in all things even if the object has no brain since those who do have a brain can gain knowledge about the things without brains by studying them and extracting knowlege from them in the sense of learning about them. Therefore even the things without brains can teach us about themselves without words but just by being what they are.
Those who seek knowlege and understanding will find it.
Those who seek God will find God in all things once they understand the concept of God being all and in all. This means God is in the things that have brains as well as in the things that have no brains. Therefore in the things which have brains, that brain becomes a part of God through which God can reveal himself/itself as wisdom, knowlege, intelligence, and anything else that can be perceived through a brain. On the other hand, unintelligent objects are also part of God and God can also reveal himself/itself through unintelligent objects since they are what they are. The statement " I am that I am " can apply to any person or thing at all regardless of whether it is intelligent or not and can communicate or not.

Revelation in that case comes from within the heart and mind of human beings themselves. Those who seek the Truth will find it when they search for it with all their hearts and minds and want it more than the air they breathe.

[ChaosBorders]

Is the purpose in Nature, not just a perceived purpose which depends on how mankind perceives it ? Nature obviously has no way of deliberately intending anything since it has no way of thinking for itself and no way of deliberately avoiding anything. It just does what it does without any thought at all. It is simply actions and reactions of the elements of the earth interacting with one another.

First definition of purpose per dictionary.com is "the reason for which something exists or is done." By this definition, yes, it has a purpose in nature. If you use a definition of purpose that requires intent then it does not, but not all definitions of the word purpose require intent, so I'm going to go ahead and keep using purpose.

That would get back to ones perception and understanding of the word God.
It seems to me that most people perceive God as single spiritual superrnatural invisible being. This perception is in my opinion incomplete. It is the same way a child would understand the concept of "Santa Claus" as a single magical man. Adults understand the concept of Santa Claus is simply the Spirit of giving which is in all people and all people in reality are "Santa Claus" if they have a generous spirit regardless of whether they dress up and play the part or not.
When it comes to an all knowing God, the way I perceive it is that God is a Spirit which is all and in all. This all includes all knowledge of the past present and future as well as all lack of knowledge.
However, when we place knowledge together with lack of knowledge, the lack of knowledge becomes null and void, yet at the same time still exists since the more we know, the more we understand there still is to learn.
Knowlege is something that obviously increases as mankind gains more of it over time.
If people could manage to perceive God as wisdom and knowlege itself rather than as some kind of invisible being shaped like a person, it might be easier for people to comprehend how God can be in all. Knowledge can be in all things even if the object has no brain since those who do have a brain can gain knowledge about the things without brains by studying them and extracting knowlege from them in the sense of learning about them. Therefore even the things without brains can teach us about themselves without words but just by being what they are.
Those who seek knowlege and understanding will find it.
Those who seek God will find God in all things once they understand the concept of God being all and in all. This means God is in the things that have brains as well as in the things that have no brains. Therefore in the things which have brains, that brain becomes a part of God through which God can reveal himself/itself as wisdom, knowlege, intelligence, and anything else that can be perceived through a brain. On the other hand, unintelligent objects are also part of God and God can also reveal himself/itself through unintelligent objects since they are what they are. The statement " I am that I am " can apply to any person or thing at all regardless of whether it is intelligent or not and can communicate or not.

Revelation in that case comes from within the heart and mind of human beings themselves. Those who seek the Truth will find it when they search for it with all their hearts and minds and want it more than the air they breathe.

You seem to be taking a pantheistic approach that in essence defines God as mathematics. Personally I have no use for believing in such a limited god, but if that is the true nature of God then I would agree that it would be possible for God to be unintentionally deceptive.

[Skyangel]

Is the purpose in Nature, not just a perceived purpose which depends on how mankind perceives it ? Nature obviously has no way of deliberately intending anything since it has no way of thinking for itself and no way of deliberately avoiding anything. It just does what it does without any thought at all. It is simply actions and reactions of the elements of the earth interacting with one another.

First definition of purpose per dictionary.com is "the reason for which something exists or is done." By this definition, yes, it has a purpose in nature. If you use a definition of purpose that requires intent then it does not, but not all definitions of the word purpose require intent, so I'm going to go ahead and keep using purpose.

Not all things have a reason for existence. They simply are. What is the purpose for the existence of the universe? What is the purpose for the existence of anything?

That would get back to ones perception and understanding of the word God.
It seems to me that most people perceive God as single spiritual superrnatural invisible being. This perception is in my opinion incomplete. It is the same way a child would understand the concept of "Santa Claus" as a single magical man. Adults understand the concept of Santa Claus is simply the Spirit of giving which is in all people and all people in reality are "Santa Claus" if they have a generous spirit regardless of whether they dress up and play the part or not.
When it comes to an all knowing God, the way I perceive it is that God is a Spirit which is all and in all. This all includes all knowledge of the past present and future as well as all lack of knowledge.
However, when we place knowledge together with lack of knowledge, the lack of knowledge becomes null and void, yet at the same time still exists since the more we know, the more we understand there still is to learn.
Knowlege is something that obviously increases as mankind gains more of it over time.
If people could manage to perceive God as wisdom and knowlege itself rather than as some kind of invisible being shaped like a person, it might be easier for people to comprehend how God can be in all. Knowledge can be in all things even if the object has no brain since those who do have a brain can gain knowledge about the things without brains by studying them and extracting knowlege from them in the sense of learning about them. Therefore even the things without brains can teach us about themselves without words but just by being what they are.
Those who seek knowlege and understanding will find it.
Those who seek God will find God in all things once they understand the concept of God being all and in all. This means God is in the things that have brains as well as in the things that have no brains. Therefore in the things which have brains, that brain becomes a part of God through which God can reveal himself/itself as wisdom, knowlege, intelligence, and anything else that can be perceived through a brain. On the other hand, unintelligent objects are also part of God and God can also reveal himself/itself through unintelligent objects since they are what they are. The statement " I am that I am " can apply to any person or thing at all regardless of whether it is intelligent or not and can communicate or not.

Revelation in that case comes from within the heart and mind of human beings themselves. Those who seek the Truth will find it when they search for it with all their hearts and minds and want it more than the air they breathe.

You seem to be taking a pantheistic approach that in essence defines God as mathematics. Personally I have no use for believing in such a limited god, but if that is the true nature of God then I would agree that it would be possible for God to be unintentionally deceptive.

I might seem to be taking that approach but I am not taking a pantheistic approach at all. I am not saying the universe and God are identical or defining God as mathematics alone. To suggest that God is confined to the universe or mathematics alone makes God very impersonal but on the other hand, to confine God to a single Spirit being is also confining God to certain limitations. I am saying the universe is part of God, as is mathematics, as is nature and all in it including very personal people. The Spirit of God can be very personal as well as very impersonal. I am simply saying I do not confine God to any single thing but can see all aspects and how they fit together as a whole. The Spirit of Life is in every living thing regardless of whether it is plant or animal or human.

When you consider all as God and God as all then it is easy to understand how it is people who can be intentionally deceptive and nature is not. Therefore, if we perceive God as all, God is both intentionally deceptive when manifesting deception in people as well as unintentionally deceptive when manifesting deception in nature or in people who don't even know they are deceiving themselves but since the bible clearly states the deception and tells us the reason for it, God is not deceptive at all since the deception is open and above board and ends up being an illusion more than a deception.

[ChaosBorders]

Not all things have a reason for existence. They simply are. What is the purpose for the existence of the universe? What is the purpose for the existence of anything?

You are correct that not everything has a reason for existing (at least not from a physical perspective. Metaphysiccally I disagree, but that is just my opinion.) However, much of deception in nature developed for the reason of it being deceptive, which gave the deceptive species a higher chance of survival.

I might seem to be taking that approach but I am not taking a pantheistic approach at all. I am not saying the universe and God are identical or defining God as mathematics alone. To suggest that God is confined to the universe or mathematics alone makes God very impersonal but on the other hand, to confine God to a single Spirit being is also confining God to certain limitations. I am saying the universe is part of God, as is mathematics, as is nature and all in it including very personal people. The Spirit of God can be very personal as well as very impersonal. I am simply saying I do not confine God to any single thing but can see all aspects and how they fit together as a whole. The Spirit of Life is in every living thing regardless of whether it is plant or animal or human.

When you consider all as God and God as all then it is easy to understand how it is people who can be intentionally deceptive and nature is not. Therefore, if we perceive God as all, God is both intentionally deceptive when manifesting deception in people as well as unintentionally deceptive when manifesting deception in nature or in people who don't even know they are deceiving themselves but since the bible clearly states the deception and tells us the reason for it, God is not deceptive at all since the deception is open and above board and ends up being an illusion more than a deception.

This is more panentheistic then, which is actually a fair bit closer to my own beliefs. By dividing God into multiple perspectives you can allow for both intentional and unintentional deception. However, I disagree that one of those perspectives being upfront about it makes it not deceptive. I just don't think deception is always a bad thing if done for good reasons, so don't have a problem with God being deceptive.

[Skyangel]

You are correct that not everything has a reason for existing (at least not from a physical perspective. Metaphysiccally I disagree, but that is just my opinion.) However, much of deception in nature developed for the reason of it being deceptive, which gave the deceptive species a higher chance of survival.

Obviously animals and insects which can camouflage themselves and blend in with their surroundings have a higher chance of survival by the mere fact that they are harder to see than those which are not camouflaged. However, if the non camouflaged or non deceptive is stronger and more powerful than that which is camouflaged or deceptive, it still has a greater chance of survival since it can overcome the camouflaged as well as that which is not camouflaged.
Deception in itself has a lower chance of survival than Honesty.
Truth can overcome and dispel lies as easily as Light overcomes and dispels darkness. Only the blind and those who have poor eye sight are deceived by camouflage or illusions of nature. The same principle applies in the spiritual invisible, intangible realm of emotions and attitudes. Some people can hide their emotions and attitudes from others and fool them. Some can even fool themselves but a few people can see through the facades.

This is more panentheistic then, which is actually a fair bit closer to my own beliefs. By dividing God into multiple perspectives you can allow for both intentional and unintentional deception. However, I disagree that one of those perspectives being upfront about it makes it not deceptive. I just don't think deception is always a bad thing if done for good reasons, so don't have a problem with God being deceptive.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
"Briefly put, in pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God.""

I perceive it both ways and the bible describes it both ways.
The whole in God and God in the whole. God is all and in all, above all and through all. ( Eph 4:6 )
The Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and the Son in people.
"I in them and thou in me" (John 17:23)

The way I see someone being upfront about a deception is similar to the way I perceive a magician doing magic tricks. You would be aware they are illusions but might not be aware how those illusions are created. An immature or gullible person may not even be aware they are illusions and might therefore perceive them as real magic or real miracles rather than as an illusion which has been created by the illusionist to appear real when the reality of what is perceived is not reality at all but merely an illusion of reality or an alternate reality.

Religion creates an idea or concept of an alternate reality which deceives and confuses people through false doctrines and religious indoctrination.

If we need to forgive anyone for deceiving us, we need to forgive people who do it intentionally and also forgive ourselves for allowing ourselves to be gullible enough to be deceived.
Maturity is about learning to recognize deceptions and recognize whether they are intentional or not. Then to find the Truth behind the deception, we need to figure out the reason why the Truth is hidden in the first place. Is is because someone is afraid to reveal the truth because of fear of consequences or is is because they are trying to be entertaining and merely joking or creating illusions like a magician or some other reason?

The motivation determines guilt or innocence in deception.
Since I see the motivations of God as good, I don't have a problem with God being deceptive either and have no reason to forgive the innocent since the innocent are not guilty of anything and do not need forgiveness.

[ChaosBorders]

Obviously animals and insects which can camouflage themselves and blend in with their surroundings have a higher chance of survival by the mere fact that they are harder to see than those which are not camouflaged. However, if the non camouflaged or non deceptive is stronger and more powerful than that which is camouflaged or deceptive, it still has a greater chance of survival since it can overcome the camouflaged as well as that which is not camouflaged.

Only if the more powerful thing does not end up eaten by something even more powerful, or starving because it can't find its prey.

Deception in itself has a lower chance of survival than Honesty.

No, it does not. The reason it exists at all is because it gives an advantage to the user. This is especially true of viruses. Honesty is important for social creatures because society requires it more often than not to function properly. For non-social creatures though, often the more deception the better.

Truth can overcome and dispel lies as easily as Light overcomes and dispels darkness.

Actually, if someone lies to you there is less than a sixty percent chance you will figure that out. Unless they are an idiot.

Only the blind and those who have poor eye sight are deceived by camouflage or illusions of nature.

Only if those illusions aren't very good ones.

The same principle applies in the spiritual invisible, intangible realm of emotions and attitudes. Some people can hide their emotions and attitudes from others and fool them. Some can even fool themselves but a few people can see through the facades.

Try seeing through the facade of a psychopath. Chances are good you will fail if they are a bright one.

The motivation determines guilt or innocence in deception.
Since I see the motivations of God as good, I don't have a problem with God being deceptive either and have no reason to forgive the innocent since the innocent are not guilty of anything and do not need forgiveness.

Likewise. I don't feel God needs forgiveness. However, I don't think trying to label God as not being deceptive is accurate either.

[Skyangel]

Obviously animals and insects which can camouflage themselves and blend in with their surroundings have a higher chance of survival by the mere fact that they are harder to see than those which are not camouflaged. However, if the non camouflaged or non deceptive is stronger and more powerful than that which is camouflaged or deceptive, it still has a greater chance of survival since it can overcome the camouflaged as well as that which is not camouflaged.

Only if the more powerful thing does not end up eaten by something even more powerful, or starving because it can't find its prey.

That is why mankind will always survive. Mankind can create, grow, invent his own food from plants and has no need to rely on any prey. Intelligence and creativity gives people power over certain aspects of nature which mankind has learned to manipulate for their own benefit.

Deception in itself has a lower chance of survival than Honesty.

No, it does not. The reason it exists at all is because it gives an advantage to the user. This is especially true of viruses. Honesty is important for social creatures because society requires it more often than not to function properly. For non-social creatures though, often the more deception the better.

Then it depends on perception and perspective. If we are talking about camouflage in nature, deception might have a higher chance of survival depending on the scenario. If we are talking about people, do deceptive people have a higher chance of survival than Truthful people or do they have a higher chance of being caught in a lie and suffer the consequences of their lies/deceptions? Does it depend on what kind of deceptions they are creating or not?

Truth can overcome and dispel lies as easily as Light overcomes and dispels darkness.

Actually, if someone lies to you there is less than a sixty percent chance you will figure that out. Unless they are an idiot.

If something does not "add up" to me then I will figure out why it does not add up.
If someone lies to me and I cannot detect the lie then either it is not important enough for me to care about it or does not affect me in any way for me to question it further. Liars need to live with themselves all their lives. Other people can choose to live with them or not.

Only the blind and those who have poor eye sight are deceived by camouflage or illusions of nature.

Only if those illusions aren't very good ones.

You missed the cue. Pay attention. You could have said the blind are never deceived by camouflage since they can't see it in the first place. How can anyone be deceived by something they cannot see? Then I would have agreed with you.
The deceived are deceived no matter how good or bad the illusions might be. To not be deceived you either need to not see any illusions in the first place so you have nothing to question or you need to have such a sharp eyesight and observation skills that no illusions can escape your sight.

The same principle applies in the spiritual invisible, intangible realm of emotions and attitudes. Some people can hide their emotions and attitudes from others and fool them. Some can even fool themselves but a few people can see through the facades.

Try seeing through the facade of a psychopath. Chances are good you will fail if they are a bright one.

If they were bright you would not recognize them or judge them as a psychopath in the first place. They would appear to be what average people call "normal".

The motivation determines guilt or innocence in deception.
Since I see the motivations of God as good, I don't have a problem with God being deceptive either and have no reason to forgive the innocent since the innocent are not guilty of anything and do not need forgiveness.

Likewise. I don't feel God needs forgiveness. However, I don't think trying to label God as not being deceptive is accurate either.

God admits to being a deceiver in the bible so anyone who tries to claim He is not, is foolishly contradicting what God says about Himself in the bible or they are trying to ignore and deny what they do not like about that concept/idea of God since it implies God is evil to those who see deception as evil and bad.

[ChaosBorders]

Then it depends on perception and perspective. If we are talking about camouflage in nature, deception might have a higher chance of survival depending on the scenario. If we are talking about people, do deceptive people have a higher chance of survival than Truthful people or do they have a higher chance of being caught in a lie and suffer the consequences of their lies/deceptions? Does it depend on what kind of deceptions they are creating or not?

It depends very much on the kind of deception. White lies have been shown to often be conducive towards better relationships and increased survival. Optimism can be considered a form of self-deception and also has been shown to increase ones odds of surviving longer in most cases. But highly manipulative people generally don't do as well as generally honest ones.

If something does not "add up" to me then I will figure out why it does not add up.
If someone lies to me and I cannot detect the lie then either it is not important enough for me to care about it or does not affect me in any way for me to question it further. Liars need to live with themselves all their lives. Other people can choose to live with them or not.

Everyone lies, with the exception of autistic people and some others with mental disabilities. The question is to what degree and whether they recognize they are telling a lie or not. But yes, the less important the lie, the less likely you are to detect it. Even on important ones though, it is often hard to distinguish between someone lieing and someone just being wrong.

If they were bright you would not recognize them or judge them as a psychopath in the first place. They would appear to be what average people call "normal".

Not the case. Psycopaths have a genetic abnormality that makes them nearly incapable of considering the consequences of their actions. But those with high IQ's can learn to blend in much better and can be nearly impossible to detect if good enough. In the long run there's a good chance their lies and deception will eventually be discovered, but that doesn't mean they aren't bright and won't get away with it for a long time.

God admits to being a deceiver in the bible so anyone who tries to claim He is not, is foolishly contradicting what God says about Himself in the bible or they are trying to ignore and deny what they do not like about that concept/idea of God since it implies God is evil to those who see deception as evil and bad.

Perhaps it was just your phrasing then, because it sounded earlier like you were trying to absolve him of being deceptive.

[Skyangel]

If something does not "add up" to me then I will figure out why it does not add up.
If someone lies to me and I cannot detect the lie then either it is not important enough for me to care about it or does not affect me in any way for me to question it further. Liars need to live with themselves all their lives. Other people can choose to live with them or not.

Everyone lies, with the exception of autistic people and some others with mental disabilities. The question is to what degree and whether they recognize they are telling a lie or not. But yes, the less important the lie, the less likely you are to detect it. Even on important ones though, it is often hard to distinguish between someone lieing and someone just being wrong.

Some people can't distinguish a lie from the Truth at all, especially when a statement can be both a lie and the truth at the same time depending on perception.

If they were bright you would not recognize them or judge them as a psychopath in the first place. They would appear to be what average people call "normal".

Not the case. Psycopaths have a genetic abnormality that makes them nearly incapable of considering the consequences of their actions. But those with high IQ's can learn to blend in much better and can be nearly impossible to detect if good enough. In the long run there's a good chance their lies and deception will eventually be discovered, but that doesn't mean they aren't bright and won't get away with it for a long time.

My point is that if a person judges another person to be psycopathic in the first place, it would seem obvious that they are detecting something different about them from the start. It really makes no difference what abnormalities any person might have, lies and deceptions eventually get discovered by those who want to know the truth and search for it, no matter how high an IQ the deceiver might have.
People who believe in God would say God has the highest IQ of all. He hides the Truth from those who reject the Truth and at the same time reveals the Truth to those who really want to find it. Therefore anyone with a lower IQ than God can find the Truth if they really want to find it.

God admits to being a deceiver in the bible so anyone who tries to claim He is not, is foolishly contradicting what God says about Himself in the bible or they are trying to ignore and deny what they do not like about that concept/idea of God since it implies God is evil to those who see deception as evil and bad.

Perhaps it was just your phrasing then, because it sounded earlier like you were trying to absolve him of being deceptive.

Yes I am absolving Him of being deceptive. I am like an advocate who knows a person is guilty of an action but also sees the innocence in the motive for the action and therefore declares the guilty party not guilty because the motive and intention justifies the action and takes away the guilt.