You indicated Bonhoeffer's consideration of lying was "absurd" and trivial. The first word is one you yourself used. The second word is my condensation of your comment that it isn't a "big deal". I interpret that as a dismissal of his concern for lying.
The first mistake you constantly make, Resha, is to treat our immediate behaviours and our way of thinking about what to do (the meta-level, as you will) as if they were the same. That´s irritating to say the least.
I have never had any direct interaction with Bonhoeffer, so I couldn´t dismiss anything he had in mind or did. He could act freely on his concern for lying, uninhibited by me.
I justtold you what
I am concerned and not concerned with. I told you what
my way of approaching these questions is and isn´t (as opposed to Bonhoeffer´s).
Pretending I had some sort of relationship or interaction with Bonhoeffer is a category error. There wasn´t even an opportunity for me to interfere with Bonhoeffer´s way of thinking and dealing with the issue, and even if there had been, I had made no statement about how I would have dealt with him and our different ways of thinking.
In the same way you can say I "dismissed his concerns" you could say he "dismissed my concerns" or you "dismissed my concerns". So that´s obviously not a fruitful way to talk about our different approaches in an attempt to understand.
In short: I have offered you my way of approaching such questions. Quite obviously, it is different than that of other people. That´s the nature of presenting our views.
But, just my interpretation. Feel free to clarify.
I am not quite sure what there´s to clarify. You didn´t even address what I had said. You immediately turned it into something different. Sometimes I have problems believing you are following the idea of "understanding first".
Though I'm not sure what I can extract from any attempt to clarify since you feel no need to speak the truth unless it serves your purposes - whatever those might be.
Nice little low blow.
Now, if you want this discussion to have this low level:
I don´t know what to extract from Bonhoeffer´s elaborations - after all, he could have considered his audience is so so "far outside moral boundaries that they had no right to the truth".
Of course, being the "understand first" guy you like to think of yourself as, you could have asked first what my main purposes of morality are - but unfortunately you were more interested in launching your little attack (involving subtle insinuations) than in understanding first.