Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

This is also assuming that "wizards getting rid of a Shadow" is such a big problem that Nicodemus is not only aware of the possibility but actively working against it. Consider the events of Small Favor, where Nicodemus is caught completely off guard by the fact Harry no longer has the Shadow, plus Lash's own admission that she's never had to tempt anyone for more than a couple weeks before they gave in.

If anything, that indicates that Nicodemus isn't even aware it can be done, not that he's actively and specifically controlling information about that specific thing. Harry getting rid of the Shadow is such a rare thing that, even if it's technically possible, it's so unlikely that the one person on the planet with the most knowledge and experience with the coins completely ignores the possibility that it happened.

You are absolutely and completely correct. Which makes me wonder where Michael got the idea, since all of this is extremely good evidence that it wouldn't work.

I honestly don't see how it's a reasonable expectation -- certainly not to the point of calling someone a liar if they don't conform to that expectation.

Fair enough. I don't think we're going to agree on this point--it seems to be based on what our separate experiences have been. (I grew up in an entire family of scientists, so that's probably where I got my expectations regarding evidence.)

Michael believes that he's saying something that is true. He would not be saying it if he did not believe it to be true

This is your claim. It is not a piece of evidence. I absolutely believe that Michael would lie given the right reasons. To use a more extreme example, if Nicodemus was torturing Michael to extract the location of his family, do you think that Michael would tell him the truth or lie to protect them?

When you say things you believe to be true -- to the point you're advising your best friend on a pivotal life choice without an ounce of hesitation or doubt -- do you immediately follow up with, "If I'm wrong, this won't work and you'll be worse off than if I'd never said anything"?

Um...yes. To take a personal example: I have a learning disability. Despite this, my aunt thinks that I can get through college, even getting a PhD if I want. She absolutely and totally believes this. She has still admitted that she could be wrong, and helped me come up with contingency plans that would still let me get a job that would support me.

What you're proposing is that after Michael says something that he fully believes is true, he should immediately contradict himself and tell Harry the exact opposite of what he was just saying, otherwise he's a liar.

What I'm saying is that I see no reason whatsoever why Michael would fully believe this with no doubts whatsoever (unless he got it mixed up with black magic corruption or some such, or had been fed false information by someone) and there are several reasons for him to doubt this information.

No, he doesn't make that claim..   The exact quote from Proven Guilty is page 459 paper back

That seems pretty absolute to me. It's not like he's saying: "give up the coin and your magic and I think that will probably be enough to get rid of the shadow"--there are no qualifiers in Michael's statement.

Let's not forget that this is what Michael's own wife did to keep from becoming a warlock and it worked.   Something that is very unusual because most of the time when the line is crossed there is no going back that is why most would be warlocks get the chop.  So it stands to reason he thinks it might work in Harry's case.

Which is why the possibility has been suggested that he got the shadow's corruption mixed up with black magic corruption.

However he wasn't "absolute" about it and when Harry said, "fuck that."   He didn't argue the point

I'm not sure how you think Michael wasn't "absolute" or what him not arguing with Harry has to do with it. Could you please explain?

But makes Michael mistaken, not a liar..

Michael might very well be mistaken at first--the possibility has been discussed.

If Michael deliberately had told Harry to give up his power knowing it wouldn't work.. That would be a lie....

Yes. Which is also a possibility.

That isn't what he did, more importantly there is no motive for Michael to lie to Harry in the first place...

Please re-read the thread. I have provided motives repeatedly and am getting tired of repeating myself.

It isn't Michael's motive to get Harry to forsake his power, it is to rid him of the shadow.

Actually, I would argue that it is Michael's motive to save Harry's soul--a subtle but important distinction.

[Mr. Death]

You are absolutely and completely correct. Which makes me wonder where Michael got the idea, since all of this is extremely good evidence that it wouldn't work.

What? It is not evidence at all that it wouldn't work. The only thing it's "evidence" of is that Nicodemus isn't accounting for the possibility, which is only evidence against your supposition that he's specifically propagating the idea.

And where did Michael get the idea? It's not relevant. What's relevant is that Michael believes it to be true, and is sure enough of it to -- again, without the slightest hesitation or hint of doubt, and absolutely no tells that he's lying -- advise Harry that it's the right thing to do.

This is your claim. It is not a piece of evidence. I absolutely believe that Michael would lie given the right reasons. To use a more extreme example, if Nicodemus was torturing Michael to extract the location of his family, do you think that Michael would tell him the truth or lie to protect them.

It's how the character acts and has always acted. Michael hates lying -- he always has. He's urged others not to lie. He has conspicuously avoided lying himself. When Harry lies, Michael is visibly uncomfortable.

Lying is just not something Michael does.

You're completely rejecting one of his central character traits here.

And Michael just plain wouldn't tell Nicodemus anything in that situation.

Um...yes. To take a personal example: I have a learning disability. Despite this, my aunt thinks that I can get through college, even getting a PhD if I want. She absolutely and totally believes this. She has still admitted that she could be wrong, and helped me come up with contingency plans that would still let me get a job that would support me.

You and your aunt are both aware of that learning disability as a tangible, factual, objectively observable factor in the discussion.

The supposition that giving up Harry's magic won't work is not. It has been made up, in this thread, by someone who is not a participant of their conversation and it is clearly and obviously not something that either Michael or Harry have considered as a possibility.

What I'm saying is that I see no reason whatsoever why Michael would fully believe this with no doubts whatsoever (unless he got it mixed up with black magic corruption or some such, or had been fed false information by someone) and there are several reasons for him to doubt this information.

Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth. That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What you haven't explained is why Michael wouldn't believe it to be true, or why he would say it if he didn't believe it was true.

"He could possibly be wrong," is not evidence that he's wrong, nor is it an argument that he has to doubt everything he ever says and argue against his own statements and beliefs.

Michael is a man whose life is based around Faith, not doubt. When he speaks, he says what he believes to be true. He is not someone who's going to hem and haw and contradict himself based on the remote possibility that everything he's saying is completely wrong.

You seem to be expecting Michael to speak and behave like someone who is not Michael, based on a supposition that did not exist until it was made up in this thread, and was obviously not a factor in his thinking years ago when this conversation took place, nor could anyone reasonably have expected it to factor into his thinking.

This doesn't make him a liar in any way, shape or form.

[nadia.skylark]

What? It is not evidence at all that it wouldn't work. The only thing it's "evidence" of is that Nicodemus isn't accounting for the possibility, which is only evidence against your supposition that he's specifically propagating the idea.

...What? I said "you'd think if Nicodemus knew that the Church knew of a way to destroy a shadow, he'd try to get rid of the information"; you said "Nicodemus seems completely unaware of any possibility that a shadow could be gotten rid of, and furthermore Lash agrees with him"; then I said "You're right. And given that both Nicodemus and Lash should have far more information on how shadows work, this is evidence that either getting rid of one's magic does not rid oneself of the shadow or that no one has ever done so successfully." This is the equivalent of saying "Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight. But Uriel says she doesn't. Because Uriel can be supposed to know more about the subject than Mab does, this is evidence that Mab is wrong."

And where did Michael get the idea? It's not relevant.

It's relevant because Michael's source(s) has an effect on the validity of this information. There's a distinct difference between him believing the information because it's a long-held church theory, believing it because he personally disapproves of magic, believing it because it's something Tessa mentioned in a fight, and believing it because the archangel Gabriel came down and told him. And if Harry knew Michael's sources, it has a good chance of affecting whether he believed the information.

What's relevant is that Michael believes it to be true, and is sure enough of it to -- again, without the slightest hesitation or hint of doubt, and absolutely no tells that he's lying -- advise Harry that it's the right thing to do.

...You don't understand how lying works, do you?

It's how the character acts and has always acted. Michael hates lying -- he always has. He's urged others not to lie. He has conspicuously avoided lying himself. When Harry lies, Michael is visibly uncomfortable.

Lying is just not something Michael does.

You're completely rejecting one of his central character traits here.

Michael also carries a concealed weapon on a regular basis. He may be uncomfortable when called on it, but he is willing to conceal information in service to a higher good.

And Michael just plain wouldn't tell Nicodemus anything in that situation.

I'm not going to argue about the effects of torture, so sure, let's go with that.

You and your aunt are both aware of that learning disability as a tangible, factual, objectively observable factor in the discussion.

The supposition that giving up Harry's magic won't work is not. It has been made up, in this thread, by someone who is not a participant of their conversation and it is clearly and obviously not something that either Michael or Harry have considered as a possibility.

The tangible, objective factor here is that Harry has the shadow--they're talking about what to do about that.

The possibility that Harry giving up his magic would not work is supported by evidence in the text. Michael claims it will. Nicodemus, as you pointed out, has clearly never heard of the possibility. Michael also says that no one has gotten rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. That is all the evidence for and against the position.

Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth.

I disagree with this.

That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This, so far as I can tell, is a circular argument: Michael didn't lie in this instance because he doesn't lie ever, and we know he doesn't lie ever because there is no instance in which he lies.

What you haven't explained is why Michael wouldn't believe it to be true, or why he would say it if he didn't believe it was true.

YES I HAVE. Repeatedly. This keeps happening. Before you claim that I haven't said something, please re-read the thread, because you keep getting it wrong.

"He could possibly be wrong," is not evidence that he's wrong, nor is it an argument that he has to doubt everything he ever says and argue against his own statements and beliefs.

I'm saying that there is no evidence that he is right apart from the claim he himself is making.

Michael is a man whose life is based around Faith, not doubt. When he speaks, he says what he believes to be true. He is not someone who's going to hem and haw and contradict himself based on the remote possibility that everything he's saying is completely wrong.

He "hems and haws" about trusting Harry. He doubts Harry. You can't claim that he's not capable of doubting and concealing information when we see him do so in the books.

You seem to be expecting Michael to speak and behave like someone who is not Michael, based on a supposition that did not exist until it was made up in this thread, and was obviously not a factor in his thinking years ago when this conversation took place, nor could anyone reasonably have expected it to factor into his thinking.

This doesn't make him a liar in any way, shape or form.

I am expecting Michael to speak accurately and behave like the character that I believe we have been shown (not the one that you believe we have been shown, clearly) based on clear concerns that he himself brought up, and possibilities that absolutely could reasonably be expected to factor into his thinking.

You apparently think that Michael has some intellectus for truth and to be inhumanly perfect, while at the same time gratuitously leaving information out of his statements such that they are inaccurate.

[Mira]

Except the fact that he says it with certainty, without doubt, and without hesitation. Because he clearly, obviously believes he's telling the truth. That Michael is saying it at all is evidence that Michael believes it to be true. What "evidence" he's basing it on doesn't have to pass your test, because what we're talking about is whether Michael was telling the truth as he saw it, not whether he could convince a jury of his peers that it was absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Michael's evidence is his faith, since Harry never put it to the test we will never know if sacrificing his magical power would have driven Lasciel's shadow out or not.   So it is really a moot point.   

[nadia.skylark]

Michael's evidence is his faith

But why does Michael have faith that giving up his magic will save Harry from the shadow? (As opposed to, say, having faith that Harry's good works will save him, or having faith that Harry converting to Christianity will save him, or having faith that if Harry falls in love that it will save him, or... He has to have a reason, is my point.)

[Mr. Death]

...What? I said "you'd think if Nicodemus knew that the Church knew of a way to destroy a shadow, he'd try to get rid of the information"; you said "Nicodemus seems completely unaware of any possibility that a shadow could be gotten rid of, and furthermore Lash agrees with him"; then I said "You're right. And given that both Nicodemus and Lash should have far more information on how shadows work, this is evidence that either getting rid of one's magic does not rid oneself of the shadow or that no one has ever done so successfully." This is the equivalent of saying "Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight. But Uriel says she doesn't. Because Uriel can be supposed to know more about the subject than Mab does, this is evidence that Mab is wrong."

It really works the other way.

"Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight." == Nicodemus and Lash think you can't get rid of a Shadow

"But Uriel says she doesn't." == Michael says he knows a way for Harry to get rid of the Shadow.

Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus and Lash do not. He is literally someone to talks to a direct agent of an omniscient source of information, after all. Plus? Michael and his people have incentive to figure out ways to get rid of a Shadow, while Nicodemus and Lash do not.

Put it this way -- if you wanted information on how to get clean of drugs, would you ask a medical professional who's never done drugs, or your dealer?

It's relevant because Michael's source(s) has an effect on the validity of this information. There's a distinct difference between him believing the information because it's a long-held church theory, believing it because he personally disapproves of magic, believing it because it's something Tessa mentioned in a fight, and believing it because the archangel Gabriel came down and told him. And if Harry knew Michael's sources, it has a good chance of affecting whether he believed the information.

None of that speaks to whether Michael believes what he is saying is true. That's the measure of whether Michael's a liar, isn't it? Whether he believes what the thing he's saying is true?

Someone who's a Flat Earther might be hilariously wrong about the nature of the world, but if he or she believes what they're saying is true, that means they're not a liar -- stupid, misguided and misinformed, yes, but not a liar.

Michael is trustworthy, and he's smart. He's not some credulous soccer mom who's going to repeat as gospel something he saw on Facebook; I think we can assume that if Michael is saying something is true with confident, he is in turn confident that his source was truthful.

...You don't understand how lying works, do you?

Yes. And I understand that it's not a thing Michael does. It's one of the central tenets of his character.

Michael also carries a concealed weapon on a regular basis. He may be uncomfortable when called on it, but he is willing to conceal information in service to a higher good.

Betcha a dollar that he doesn't lie about it when he's asked. Hell, when he's literally about to be arrested at the start of Grave Peril, his reaction is to keep his Sword where it can be seen and tell the truth.

And here's a question: What is the "higher good" served by this supposed lie? As you have pointed out, at length, if Michael is wrong, if getting rid of Harry's magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it's nothing but bad news for everybody involved.

So, again, why on Earth would Michael lie about it?

The tangible, objective factor here is that Harry has the shadow--they're talking about what to do about that.

You're moving the goalposts. Yes, they're talking about the Shadow. The non-factor is that getting rid of Harry's magic won't work. That is the thing that neither of them have reason to think about.

The possibility that Harry giving up his magic would not work is supported by evidence in the text. Michael claims it will. Nicodemus, as you pointed out, has clearly never heard of the possibility. Michael also says that no one has gotten rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. That is all the evidence for and against the position.

Show me where in the books anybody positively says, "it won't work." Show me where that position is addressed in that manner.

The only data point we have on, "Will giving up Harry's magic get rid of the Shadow?" is Michael's assertion that it would work.

We do not have any data points on someone trying it and it not working.

We do not have any data points of someone saying that it doesn't work, anecdotally or otherwise.

I disagree with this.

Why? What, in any of Michael's characterization throughout the whole series, makes you think he's a liar?

Michael is trustworthy. He's so trustworthy the bad guys trust him to tell the truth and keep his word without hesitation.

This, so far as I can tell, is a circular argument: Michael didn't lie in this instance because he doesn't lie ever, and we know he doesn't lie ever because there is no instance in which he lies.

Well, yes? That's how "not being a liar" works, because if you're not a liar, there aren't instances where you lie.

We've Michael him in situations where he's been asked to lie and he explicitly refused to; we've seen him in situations where others have lied on his behalf and he's been uncomfortable about it. We've seen him presented with lies from various sources and his response has always been some variation on, "Lying is wrong, I don't do it and you shouldn't either."

So, Michael doesn't lie. When he says something as if he believes it to be true, then he believes it to be true. So far, the only thing pointing to Michael being dishonest is your insistence that he must be lying.

YES I HAVE.[/u] Repeatedly.[/I] This keeps happening. Before you claim that I haven't said something, please re-read the thread, because you keep getting it wrong.

You've said why you don't believe it's true.

You haven't presented any proof that Michael has evidence it's not true when he speaks in Proven Guilty. There's a possible inference that he learned he was wrong by the time of Small Favor, but that is by no means evidence that he was wrong and knew he was wrong in Proven Guilty.

You haven't presented anyone having told Michael it's not true at any point.

You haven't presented any compelling reason for Michael to say this thing to Harry if he believed it wasn't true -- in fact, you've presented a lot of reasons why Michael wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

So, again, what is the "good reason" for Michael to take an action that you yourself have argued is going to end badly for everyone involved?

The most I've seen amounts to reasons you think it might not be true, based on a very specific reading of the two dialogs that seems predicated more on your own personal views of how people should talk than it does on how any of the characters have ever behaved.

I'm saying that there is no evidence that he is right apart from the claim he himself is making.

And there's no evidence that he's wrong. There is, again, a possible inference that he might be wrong, but no evidence.

And the question of the thread was not "is Michael objectively right and able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt."

The question is, "Did Michael lie?" Right there at the top of the page.

He "hems and haws" about trusting Harry. He doubts Harry. You can't claim that he's not capable of doubting and concealing information when we see him do so in the books.

Yeah, I didn't say he was not capable of doubting; I said he's ruled by faith, not doubt. I said that when he says something, it's because he believes it to be true.

He worries about and doubts Harry because -- as Harry acknowledges -- Harry gives him tangible, direct reasons to have doubts.

I see no tangible, direct reason for Michael to doubt the thing that he himself is saying as true.

I am expecting Michael to speak accurately and behave like the character that I believe we have been shown (not the one that you believe we have been shown, clearly) based on clear concerns that he himself brought up, and possibilities that absolutely could reasonably be expected to factor into his thinking.

Show me another place in the series where Michael gives advice to someone, then immediately backtracks and says why his own advice that he just gave is bad.

Because that's what you're suggesting Michael should have done. It doesn't sound like anything Michael's done that I can recall.

You apparently think that Michael has some intellectus for truth and to be inhumanly perfect, while at the same time gratuitously leaving information out of his statements such that they are inaccurate.

No, that's not what I think at all. Hell, that's closer to what you seem to think -- that Michael knew for a fact that his own information was wrong, knew exactly what information he didn't have, and gave advice he knew to be wrong.

As I have said, repeatedly, I think that when Michael says something as if it's a fact, he believes that to be a fact.

You seem to be operating under the impression that not-lying is synonymous with being objectively correct and able to prove it. That's just not what the term means. I don't think Michael is wrong; but even if he is wrong, he's still not "lying" by saying what he thinks is true.

[nadia.skylark]

"Mab says that she has the ability to change Harry as her Knight." == Nicodemus and Lash think you can't get rid of a Shadow

"But Uriel says she doesn't." == Michael says he knows a way for Harry to get rid of the Shadow.

Because, you know, Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus and Lash do not. He is literally someone to talks to a direct agent of an omniscient source of information, after all. Plus? Michael and his people have incentive to figure out ways to get rid of a Shadow, while Nicodemus and Lash do not.

Yes, Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus does not. (I have significant doubts that he could have information on this topic that Lash does not, considering what she is, but she doesn't say that it's impossible to be rid of the shadow in such a way--only that no one has ever held out against a shadow for as long as Harry.) Yes, Michael is allowed to be told things by TWG and their agents. I have explicitly brought up the possibility and stated that I was, for purely personal and subjective reasons, I was disregarding it. Since no one said anything about it, I had assumed that others were doing the same for the purposes of this discussion. If your claim is that I am wrong to disregard it, please say so and I will stop arguing the point.

Absent the above point, however, Nicodemus has far more reason to know anything about the shadows than Michael, based on the information he has access to. And I would argue that he does have an incentive to keep track of other people's theories about what could get rid of the shadow in order to either make sure they don't work or see that they are forgotten/discredited.

None of that speaks to whether Michael believes what he is saying is true. That's the measure of whether Michael's a liar, isn't it? Whether he believes what the thing he's saying is true?

Someone who's a Flat Earther might be hilariously wrong about the nature of the world, but if he or she believes what they're saying is true, that means they're not a liar -- stupid, misguided and misinformed, yes, but not a liar.

It speaks to whether a reasonable person would believe it utterly, believe it's probably true, believe it might be true, or disbelieve it. I do not believe that Michael is stupid; I do believe that he is reasonable. I do also believe that Michael is capable of lying to himself about how high the chances are because he genuinely cares about Harry and doesn't want him to give in to the Fallen.

Yes. And I understand that it's not a thing Michael does. It's one of the central tenets of his character.

And Michael forgives people--it's a central tenet of his character. That does not mean that he wouldn't have chosen vengeance against that priest guy who kidnapped his daughter without Harry's help--we have that from Uriel. The fact that Michael generally does not lie does not mean that he would not do so under extraordinary circumstances, and I am arguing that these circumstances are extraordinary.

Betcha a dollar that he doesn't lie about it when he's asked. Hell, when he's literally about to be arrested at the start of Grave Peril, his reaction is to keep his Sword where it can be seen and tell the truth.

By this measure, he did tell Harry that there was no way to get rid of the shadow without taking up the coin when asked (this is support for the "lie of omission" theory, not any of the others).

And here's a question: What is the "higher good" served by this supposed lie? As you have pointed out, at length, if Michael is wrong, if getting rid of Harry's magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it's nothing but bad news for everybody involved.

So, again, why on Earth would Michael lie about it?

Because Michael believes that it will help, just not as much as he says, because Michael believes that Harry never will take him up on it and believes that it is important that Harry have hope that there is some way of getting rid of the shadow, because Michael is lying to himself instead of Harry and doesn't emotionally face the real probability that Harry will be corrupted until he talks to Sanya about it in Small Favor, or because he hasn't quite gotten over the issues he had with magic in Small Favor and believes that Harry's magic is inherently corruptive/leaves him more vulnerable to corruption (if this last is true, then I believe that he got over it after watching Molly's training).

There are plenty of reasons.

You're moving the goalposts. Yes, they're talking about the Shadow. The non-factor is that getting rid of Harry's magic won't work. That is the thing that neither of them have reason to think about.

Can you explain this? I genuinely don't understand either how I'm moving the goalposts or (inclusive or) why Michael has no reason to consider that it might not work (or why Harry would not have had reason to consider it if he'd thought about it for more that two seconds).

Show me where in the books anybody positively says, "it won't work." Show me where that position is addressed in that manner.

The only data point we have on, "Will giving up Harry's magic get rid of the Shadow?" is Michael's assertion that it would work.

We do not have any data points on someone trying it and it not working.

We do not have any data points of someone saying that it doesn't work, anecdotally or otherwise.

We have Michael claiming that it would work. We have Nicodemus having no knowledge that it is possible at all for someone to get rid of a shadow, which I have said is another data point (since if it could be done, there's a good chance that Nicodemus would know about it. We have no evidence of it failing or succeeding. I personally consider the odds of it working to be 60-40 against, but you probably calculate them differently.

Why? What, in any of Michael's characterization throughout the whole series, makes you think he's a liar?

The part where Michael prioritizes saving souls above all else. My argument is, and always has been, that Michael would be willing to lie only for the purpose of saving a soul.

Well, yes? That's how "not being a liar" works, because if you're not a liar, there aren't instances where you lie.

The problem is that I'm saying "well here is a place where he might have lied" and you are saying "he didn't lie there because he doesn't lie ever" when if I'm correct and he did lie there it would invalidate the claim that he doesn't lie ever. That is why I am calling it a circular argument.

We've Michael him in situations where he's been asked to lie and he explicitly refused to; we've seen him in situations where others have lied on his behalf and he's been uncomfortable about it. We've seen him presented with lies from various sources and his response has always been some variation on, "Lying is wrong, I don't do it and you shouldn't either."

So, Michael doesn't lie. When he says something as if he believes it to be true, then he believes it to be true. So far, the only thing pointing to Michael being dishonest is your insistence that he must be lying.

We have never seen Michael in a position where he must lie in order to save a soul, and instead tells the truth. We have seen him do things which he is uncomfortable with to serve a higher good. We have seen him deliberately omit facts when telling Harry things. This is circumstantial evidence, yes, but while it exists it provides support for the possibility that Michael might have lied.

You haven't presented any proof that Michael has evidence it's not true when he speaks in Proven Guilty. There's a possible inference that he learned he was wrong by the time of Small Favor, but that is by no means evidence that he was wrong and knew he was wrong in Proven Guilty.

You haven't presented anyone having told Michael it's not true at any point.

I have presented reasons why Michael wouldn't have evidence that it is true. I have also stated that one of my preferred theories is that Michael did not know he was wrong during Proven Guilty, and only found out later. I have presented evidence that Michael has said that the Fallen have deceived the Church about information before--are you claiming that he was lying then?

You haven't presented any compelling reason for Michael to say this thing to Harry if he believed it wasn't true -- in fact, you've presented a lot of reasons why Michael wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

So, again, what is the "good reason" for Michael to take an action that you yourself have argued is going to end badly for everyone involved?

See above.

Show me another place in the series where Michael gives advice to someone, then immediately backtracks and says why his own advice that he just gave is bad.

Because that's what you're suggesting Michael should have done. It doesn't sound like anything Michael's done that I can recall.

Michael tells Harry that it was wrong to torture Cassius only to laugh about the subject a moment later. It's not explicitly backtracking, but it certainly undermines his point.

As I have said, repeatedly, I think that when Michael says something as if it's a fact, he believes that to be a fact.

And what is your response to my claim that he might have believed it at the time, and found out later that he was wrong, or that Michael was lying to himself?

[Mira]

But why does Michael have faith that giving up his magic will save Harry from the shadow? (As opposed to, say, having faith that Harry's good works will save him, or having faith that Harry converting to Christianity will save him, or having faith that if Harry falls in love that it will save him, or... He has to have a reason, is my point.)

For one thing it would be a real sacrifice on Harry's part, as I said it saved Charity from being a warlock.   It really doesn't matter, it is a sincere belief on Michael's part, and he sincerely wants to help his friend.   Faith isn't logical, it is what it is and Michael has more of it than almost anyone.

It is said that faith can move mountains...    If I sincerely have faith that it can and tell you that, am I lying?

[nadia.skylark]

For one thing it would be a real sacrifice on Harry's part,

True. But Harry makes a real sacrifice by endangering his life helping people rather than using his talents to make him rich and comfortable.

as I said it saved Charity from being a warlock.

Corruption from the Fallen =/= corruption from black magic. But I suppose it could be Michael's thought process, sure.

It really doesn't matter, it is a sincere belief on Michael's part, and he sincerely wants to help his friend.   Faith isn't logical, it is what it is and Michael has more of it than almost anyone.

Faith may not be logical, but unless you're crazy then beliefs generally have some basis. It might just be the black magic warlock thing, though.

Although, if that's the case, you would think that seeing Molly reform after having used black magic would encourage Michael to believe that Harry could get rid of the shadow without giving up his magic. Maybe not, though--I doubt he wants to think of anything his kids have done as being equivalent to touching a Denarian coin, so it might not have occurred to him.

[nadia.skylark]

Sorry for the double post. I thought I'd post what likelihood I think each of my theories has of being right, since I realize that my posts here probably sound like I'm not changing my mind at all.

45%: Michael believes what he said because he was told by TWG/his messengers, even though it's never happened.

20%: Michael sincerely believes what he told Harry in Proven Guilty, but finds out at a later date that it is false, and can't bring himself to tell Harry.

15%: Michael is lying to himself about the chances of success of his proposal in Proven Guilty, up until he has a talk with Sanya during/just before Small Favor.

10%: Michael is upset enough during Small Favor that he just misspeaks slightly, and there have in fact been examples of the shadow being gotten rid of by giving up one's magic.

5%: Michael was lying to Harry because, having soulgazed Harry, he knows that it is unlikely in the extreme that Harry would give up his magic but feels it is important to believe that there is some way to rid himself of the shadow without taking up the coin.

5%: Theories I mentioned earlier, but don't remember at the moment.

Like I said earlier, I'm ignoring the first possibility for purely subjective reasons, but objectively it's the one with the greatest likelihood of truth.

[Mr. Death]

Yes, Michael is allowed to have information that Nicodemus does not. (I have significant doubts that he could have information on this topic that Lash does not, considering what she is, but she doesn't say that it's impossible to be rid of the shadow in such a way--only that no one has ever held out against a shadow for as long as Harry.) Yes, Michael is allowed to be told things by TWG and their agents. I have explicitly brought up the possibility and stated that I was, for purely personal and subjective reasons, I was disregarding it. Since no one said anything about it, I had assumed that others were doing the same for the purposes of this discussion. If your claim is that I am wrong to disregard it, please say so and I will stop arguing the point.

Given it's a source we know Michael has gotten information from before, yes, I think it's wrong to disregard. It'd be like saying, "How does Harry know this? And don't say Bob told him."

Absent the above point, however, Nicodemus has far more reason to know anything about the shadows than Michael, based on the information he has access to. And I would argue that he does have an incentive to keep track of other people's theories about what could get rid of the shadow in order to either make sure they don't work or see that they are forgotten/discredited.

If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."

It speaks to whether a reasonable person would believe it utterly, believe it's probably true, believe it might be true, or disbelieve it. I do not believe that Michael is stupid; I do believe that he is reasonable. I do also believe that Michael is capable of lying to himself about how high the chances are because he genuinely cares about Harry and doesn't want him to give in to the Fallen.

Michael believes it. Harry trusts Michael implicitly -- so to Harry, Michael believing it means that it's trustworthy, because Michael is trustworthy, and to Harry's knowledge -- and ours -- Michael would not tell Harry something that Michael believed would bring Harry to harm.

And Michael forgives people--it's a central tenet of his character. That does not mean that he wouldn't have chosen vengeance against that priest guy who kidnapped his daughter without Harry's help--we have that from Uriel. The fact that Michael generally does not lie does not mean that he would not do so under extraordinary circumstances, and I am arguing that these circumstances are extraordinary.

How? Who's putting the gun to Michael's children's heads and forcing him to lie?

I still do not see any compelling reason for Michael to say this if it's a lie (more below).

By this measure, he did tell Harry that there was no way to get rid of the shadow without taking up the coin when asked (this is support for the "lie of omission" theory, not any of the others).

No. When asked, Michael told Harry that to get rid of the shadow, he needs to get rid of his magic.

In the later conversation, Michael is not answering a question, he is making a point about why he thinks Harry still has the Shadow -- because, to Michael's knowledge, Harry has not done the things he knows of to get rid of a Shadow.

Because Michael believes that it will help, just not as much as he says,

If what Michael is saying is a lie and Michael knows it, then Michael telling Harry does not help at all. As you have argued, if Harry tries to get rid of his magic and doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it will only make things worse.

because Michael believes that Harry never will take him up on it and believes that it is important that Harry have hope that there is some way of getting rid of the shadow,

Michael's reaction is clearly disappointed that Harry won't take him up on the offer; there are a number of ways Michael could have given Harry hope without lying if that was the case. There is no indication in the scene that Michael was trying to offer false hope.

If Michael truly did not know a way to get rid of the Shadow, he would have straight up told Harry, "I don't know how. But that doesn't mean there isn't a way, and I will be right there with you helping you through this."

because Michael is lying to himself instead of Harry and doesn't emotionally face the real probability that Harry will be corrupted until he talks to Sanya about it in Small Favor,

Not true, because Michael ends the conversation by explicitly and directly confronting Harry with what he will do if Harry succumbs to the coin.

or because he hasn't quite gotten over the issues he had with magic in Small Favor and believes that Harry's magic is inherently corruptive/leaves him more vulnerable to corruption (if this last is true, then I believe that he got over it after watching Molly's training).

Also not true, because the event they're driving home from is Harry volunteering to train Molly and Michael clearly approving of such an arrangement.

And I don't see anything to indicate Michael considers Harry putting aside his magic to be a higher priority than the risks you say exist if putting aside magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow.

There are plenty of reasons.

And none of them work.

Can you explain this? I genuinely don't understand either how I'm moving the goalposts or (inclusive or)

Putting this in spoilers just to save room.

(click to show/hide)

In this analogy (and I do not intend this as any judgment or statement on disabilities), you going to and finishing college is analogous to Harry getting rid of the coin. Your learning disability is, if anything, analogous to Lash; the obstacle to doing the thing you want, a thing that you/Harry are well aware of as an obstacle.

Saying the disability is the equivalent of Michael's idea not working is disingenuous, because Michael's idea not working is just not a factor that Michael or Harry are aware about or would be, except in the sense that all plans that anyone ever makes have the unspoken rider of, 'If this works.'

why Michael has no reason to consider that it might not work (or why Harry would not have had reason to consider it if he'd thought about it for more that two seconds).

See below.

We have Michael claiming that it would work. We have Nicodemus having no knowledge that it is possible at all for someone to get rid of a shadow, which I have said is another data point (since if it could be done, there's a good chance that Nicodemus would know about it. We have no evidence of it failing or succeeding. I personally consider the odds of it working to be 60-40 against, but you probably calculate them differently.

Nicodemus having no knowledge is not a data point -- it's a lack of one. If Nicodemus had positively claimed Michael was full of crap, that would be one thing -- though I would probably still doubt it, because Nicodemus is a liar who has incentive to lie here.

The part where Michael prioritizes saving souls above all else. My argument is, and always has been, that Michael would be willing to lie only for the purpose of saving a soul.

And how does Harry giving up his magic, retaining the Shadow, resenting Michael for it, and possibly taking up the coin again save Harry's soul?

The problem is that I'm saying "well here is a place where he might have lied" and you are saying "he didn't lie there because he doesn't lie ever" when if I'm correct and he did lie there it would invalidate the claim that he doesn't lie ever. That is why I am calling it a circular argument.

I'm saying we have a whole lot of evidence that Michael doesn't lie; and someone who doesn't lie often, has an aversion to lying, and has been shown as visibly uncomfortable when other people lie? They don't lie very well. Michael presents no tells that he's lying. He doesn't hesitate, he doesn't stop to think, he doesn't look away, he just straight up, instantly, tells Harry that there's a way to get rid of a Shadow.

How does he know? In the same scene, he admits that he's known for years that Harry picked up the coin. It only makes sense that -- knowing his friend has a Shadow in his head -- he would look into some way to help him.

We have never seen Michael in a position where he must lie in order to save a soul, and instead tells the truth. We have seen him do things which he is uncomfortable with to serve a higher good. We have seen him deliberately omit facts when telling Harry things. This is circumstantial evidence, yes, but while it exists it provides support for the possibility that Michael might have lied.

I think Michael would posit that lying doesn't save souls; in fact, that lying taints the soul. Lying is, among other things, one of the problems he has with the Denarians in general. I mean, hell, isn't Satan referred to as things like the "lord of lies"? With all that in mind, I do not for a second believe Michael is the kind of person who would make that compromise based on what we've seen in the books.

I have presented reasons why Michael wouldn't have evidence that it is true. I have also stated that one of my preferred theories is that Michael did not know he was wrong during Proven Guilty, and only found out later. I have presented evidence that Michael has said that the Fallen have deceived the Church about information before--are you claiming that he was lying then?

I am claiming that, he makes his own judgments of whether the information he finds is true or not, with the knowledge that sometimes the Church's information is not accurate.

He is, again, a smart man. If there's a possibility that his information was wrong, do you believe he would not have even tried to verify it? If he found some old book that claimed you could get rid of a Shadow by giving up magic, do you think he wouldn't have looked into it? Prayed for guidance? Straight up gone, "Hey, Big Guy, we both know you owe me a solid -- will this help Harry? One lightning bolt for yes, two for no."

See above.

As said, I am as unconvinced that any of those are compelling reasons.

Michael tells Harry that it was wrong to torture Cassius only to laugh about the subject a moment later. It's not explicitly backtracking, but it certainly undermines his point.

Michael still doesn't think it's right, and even afterward Harry has to continue justifying the action. You can see where Michael makes a sort of "clean break," where he goes from, "That was wrong and I don't approve," to, "Well, what's done is done. He's an asshole anyway."

You're right in that it is a contradiction -- but it's not on the scale of him questioning and undermining his own beliefs and advice. He still doesn't think it's right, just that it's funny. There's lots of things that are hilarious but still wrong.

Bottom line, though, if the situation came up again, Michael would not do it himself and offer forgiveness -- just like he does to Nicodemus in Skin Game.

And what is your response to my claim that he might have believed it at the time, and found out later that he was wrong

It's possible, but unlikely; and even if this is the case, his failure to mention it in Small Favor is inconsequential. Whether or not giving up the power removes the Shadow is a moot point because Harry has clearly not given up his power and shows no intention of ever giving up his power.

or that Michael was lying to himself?

I don't see any reason to believe he was, as I said above.

ADDENDUM: Michael doesn't know Charity had any magical power. So whether or not it prevents warlockness is not a factor in his thinking, at least not because of anything Charity's done. I honestly just don't think the two are linked in his mind.

[nadia.skylark]

First I'm going to respond to what you're saying, then at the end I'm going to post a couple of explanations that are related but don't fit into my responses.

Given it's a source we know Michael has gotten information from before, yes, I think it's wrong to disregard. It'd be like saying, "How does Harry know this? And don't say Bob told him."

Yeah, fair enough. This is probably what happened.

If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."

And my point is not "Nicodemus would look into it on his own" it is "Nicodemus would keep track of what the Church believes about the subject, and attempt to prove/disprove their theories, because as a spymaster that's what he does."

Michael believes it. Harry trusts Michael implicitly -- so to Harry, Michael believing it means that it's trustworthy, because Michael is trustworthy, and to Harry's knowledge -- and ours -- Michael would not tell Harry something that Michael believed would bring Harry to harm.

That is an absolutely accurate assessment of why Harry wouldn't question it (even though I like to believe that if he thought about it he would ask how giving up the one thing he has faith in is supposed to help him against the Fallen--but that's beside the point).

How? Who's putting the gun to Michael's children's heads and forcing him to lie?

To play devil's advocate: The White Council, (well, technically a sword rather than a gun). Or what do you think would happen to Molly if Harry took up the coin? Whether she stays with him or leaves, that's not going to be good for her.

In all seriousness, I think this is a fairly remote possibility--I'm more inclined to believe that Michael exaggerated rather than just lied.

No. When asked, Michael told Harry that to get rid of the shadow, he needs to get rid of his magic.

In the later conversation, Michael is not answering a question, he is making a point about why he thinks Harry still has the Shadow -- because, to Michael's knowledge, Harry has not done the things he knows of to get rid of a Shadow.

What I was trying to say here is that if he believed what he said in Proven Guilty and then found evidence disproving it, it is not out of character for him not to mention that evidence unless confronted, just as he conceals his sword but almost certainly would not lie about it when asked.

If what Michael is saying is a lie and Michael knows it, then Michael telling Harry does not help at all. As you have argued, if Harry tries to get rid of his magic and doesn't get rid of the Shadow, then it will only make things worse.

If what Michael is saying is an exaggeration (which I have been calling a lie, but am realizing now that that's not a clear way to talk about it) then giving up his magic would help Harry. If Michael doesn't believe that Harry would give up his magic, then he doesn't need to factor the consequences of Harry doing so into the equation.

Michael's reaction is clearly disappointed that Harry won't take him up on the offer; there are a number of ways Michael could have given Harry hope without lying if that was the case. There is no indication in the scene that Michael was trying to offer false hope.

If Michael truly did not know a way to get rid of the Shadow, he would have straight up told Harry, "I don't know how. But that doesn't mean there isn't a way, and I will be right there with you helping you through this."

This is very true. At this point, I don't believe that Michael did more than exaggerate.

Not true, because Michael ends the conversation by explicitly and directly confronting Harry with what he will do if Harry succumbs to the coin.

Michael acknowledged the possibility intellectually, and knew what his duty was. He didn't necessarily accept it emotionally. If he had, I would think he would have had a stronger emotional reaction to Harry turning down flat the only way he knows to get rid of the shadow. (Of course, he could have just gone home and dealt with his emotions where they wouldn't undermine Harry--we don't know).

Also not true, because the event they're driving home from is Harry volunteering to train Molly and Michael clearly approving of such an arrangement.

And I don't see anything to indicate Michael considers Harry putting aside his magic to be a higher priority than the risks you say exist if putting aside magic doesn't get rid of the Shadow.

If any such prejudice existed, I would expect it to be unconscious. Also, Harry just saved Molly's life, so I would expect Michael to approve of that. As for your second point, see the explanations below.

In this analogy (and I do not intend this as any judgment or statement on disabilities), you going to and finishing college is analogous to Harry getting rid of the coin. Your learning disability is, if anything, analogous to Lash; the obstacle to doing the thing you want, a thing that you/Harry are well aware of as an obstacle.

Saying the disability is the equivalent of Michael's idea not working is disingenuous, because Michael's idea not working is just not a factor that Michael or Harry are aware about or would be, except in the sense that all plans that anyone ever makes have the unspoken rider of, 'If this works.'

Ah. I understand the problem now. The disability is not the equivalent of Michael's idea not working. The equivalent to Michael's idea is my aunt's belief that I can get through college, and the possibility of it not working is why we discussed contingency plans.

On the other hand, thinking it over again, Michael probably would have expected Harry to contact him if he changed his mind about giving up his magic, so he might have saved discussing "what if it goes wrong" for then.

Nicodemus having no knowledge is not a data point -- it's a lack of one. If Nicodemus had positively claimed Michael was full of crap, that would be one thing -- though I would probably still doubt it, because Nicodemus is a liar who has incentive to lie here.

Nicodemus not knowing that it is possible to get rid of a shadow is a data point. Here's why:

If there was a known method to get rid of a shadow, there is a good chance that Nicodemus would know it. As such, the chance of Nicodemus not knowing it is significantly less than 100%.

If there is no known method to get rid of a shadow, then the chance that Nicodemus did not know of one is 100%.

According to my understanding of formal logic, this works out to mean that Nicodemus not knowing the information means that it is more likely that there is no known way to get rid of a shadow than that there is one, based on the information given.

And how does Harry giving up his magic, retaining the Shadow, resenting Michael for it, and possibly taking up the coin again save Harry's soul?

See explanations below.

I'm saying we have a whole lot of evidence that Michael doesn't lie; and someone who doesn't lie often, has an aversion to lying, and has been shown as visibly uncomfortable when other people lie? They don't lie very well. Michael presents no tells that he's lying. He doesn't hesitate, he doesn't stop to think, he doesn't look away, he just straight up, instantly, tells Harry that there's a way to get rid of a Shadow.

How does he know? In the same scene, he admits that he's known for years that Harry picked up the coin. It only makes sense that -- knowing his friend has a Shadow in his head -- he would look into some way to help him.

Good point. This is why I have changed my opinion to believing that what he does here might be exaggeration, but no worse a lie than that.

I think Michael would posit that lying doesn't save souls; in fact, that lying taints the soul. Lying is, among other things, one of the problems he has with the Denarians in general. I mean, hell, isn't Satan referred to as things like the "lord of lies"? With all that in mind, I do not for a second believe Michael is the kind of person who would make that compromise based on what we've seen in the books.

Good point; very possible.

I am claiming that, he makes his own judgments of whether the information he finds is true or not, with the knowledge that sometimes the Church's information is not accurate.

He is, again, a smart man. If there's a possibility that his information was wrong, do you believe he would not have even tried to verify it? If he found some old book that claimed you could get rid of a Shadow by giving up magic, do you think he wouldn't have looked into it? Prayed for guidance? Straight up gone, "Hey, Big Guy, we both know you owe me a solid -- will this help Harry? One lightning bolt for yes, two for no."

I think he does try to verify his information. How successful he is and when he is successful are different questions.

Michael still doesn't think it's right, and even afterward Harry has to continue justifying the action. You can see where Michael makes a sort of "clean break," where he goes from, "That was wrong and I don't approve," to, "Well, what's done is done. He's an asshole anyway."

You're right in that it is a contradiction -- but it's not on the scale of him questioning and undermining his own beliefs and advice. He still doesn't think it's right, just that it's funny. There's lots of things that are hilarious but still wrong.

I don't mean that he should undermine what he has said. I mean that he could say "I'm 95% certain of this" rather than "I'm 100% certain of this."

ADDENDUM: Michael doesn't know Charity had any magical power. So whether or not it prevents warlockness is not a factor in his thinking, at least not because of anything Charity's done. I honestly just don't think the two are linked in his mind.

Very true.

Explanations:

Why Michael would tell Harry to give up his magic if he were uncertain it would work, given the consequences:

I believe that if Michael thought that Harry would ever willingly give up his magic, then that implies that he didn't understand how important magic is to Harry and how much damage it would do for him to give it up. As such, either Michael did not expect Harry to give up his magic, in which case he wouldn't have any reason to consider the consequences if Harry did so; or Michael was missing information that would have told him how dire the consequences might be, and as such could not make an accurate assessment of the risks.

On Michael exaggerating:

As I've said before, there is no evidence apart from Michael's word that Harry giving up his magic would destroy the shadow. There is, however, evidence that Harry giving up his magic would weaken the shadow's hold on him--the way hellfire ties into the shadow's influence. Hellfire is clearly a vector for the shadow to influence Harry. In the same book we see Harry using hellfire, we see the first negative effects the shadow has on Harry's mood. Further, the shadow can only interact with Harry's conscious mind once Harry has used hellfire consciously. Just as Mab prevented Harry from using fire magic because summer fire was entwined with it and would let Summer find him, Michael might believe that Harry needs to stop using magic in order to weaken/eliminate the shadow's influence on him, even if it doesn't destroy the shadow.

[Mira]

If getting rid of a Shadow is a possibility, it is exceedingly rare. I mean, it's probably super rare that a wizard gets a coin in the first place -- most of the wielders we've seen don't appear to have been wizards or sorcerers before they got the coin. My point is not, "Nicodemus doesn't know about it, so it's impossible," the point is, "Nicodemus doesn't consider it a factor because it almost never happens, so he doesn't care enough to bother looking into it. Michael and his ilk, on the other hand really really want a way to remove the Shadow, therefore they'd have looked for it actively."

Nic doesn't know, and in fact he believes it impossible...  Evidence of this is on the island in Small Favor Nic actually calls out with confidence to Lasciel's shadow to take over Harry and is shocked when Harry tells him that she is no longer at home.

I believe that if Michael thought that Harry would ever willingly give up his magic, then that implies that he didn't understand how important magic is to Harry and how much damage it would do for him to give it up. As such, either Michael did not expect Harry to give up his magic, in which case he wouldn't have any reason to consider the consequences if Harry did so; or Michael was missing information that would have told him how dire the consequences might be, and as such could not make an accurate assessment of the risks.

He understands, thus the depth of the sacrifice would bring the reward, the end of the shadow..

As I've said before, there is no evidence apart from Michael's word that Harry giving up his magic would destroy the shadow. There is, however, evidence that Harry giving up his magic would weaken the shadow's hold on him--the way hellfire ties into the shadow's influence. Hellfire is clearly a vector for the shadow to influence Harry. In the same book we see Harry using hellfire, we see the first negative effects the shadow has on Harry's mood. Further, the shadow can only interact with Harry's conscious mind once Harry has used hellfire consciously. Just as Mab prevented Harry from using fire magic because summer fire was entwined with it and would let Summer find him, Michael might believe that Harry needs to stop using magic in order to weaken/eliminate the shadow's influence on him, even if it doesn't destroy the shadow.

Key word here, evidence...  Michael is a man of faith, he doesn't work on evidence, he works on his faith in the Almighty...  His sincere belief is that if Harry sacrificed his magic with the help of the Almighty, he be rid of the shadow...  For him it isn't about logic or evidence, it is about faith..  You can go on and on about this and that, but for Michael it is a very simple truth...

[nadia.skylark]

He understands, thus the depth of the sacrifice would bring the reward, the end of the shadow..

I refuse to believe this on the basis that if TWG genuinely demanded that Harry destroy an essential part of himself and also much of his capacity for helping people purely because it would be a sacrifice in order to rid Harry of the shadow, then He would definitely not be a good guy, and I'm confident that Jim is writing TWG as the good guy.

It would be different if Harry was giving up his magic to save someone's life/soul or something, but he clearly wouldn't be in this scenario.

Key word here, evidence...  Michael is a man of faith, he doesn't work on evidence, he works on his faith in the Almighty...  His sincere belief is that if Harry sacrificed his magic with the help of the Almighty, he be rid of the shadow...  For him it isn't about logic or evidence, it is about faith..  You can go on and on about this and that, but for Michael it is a very simple truth...

Yes, but even faith has some basis. This is why Michael believes in TWG, but not in fire breathing pink elephants.

Evidence is usually a pretty good basis for believing something. I'm saying "this might be why he believes it"; other reasons might be "because TWG/his messengers said so" or "because the Church said so."

[Mira]

Yes, but even faith has some basis. This is why Michael believes in TWG, but not in fire breathing pink elephants.

No, it doesn't...  That is the whole point,  when something is taken on faith it isn't taken on any material basis at all...  It really doesn't matter whether Michael's faith is in the Almighty or pink elephants, it's the belief that counts.... 

I refuse to believe this on the basis that if TWG genuinely demanded that Harry destroy an essential part of himself and also much of his capacity for helping people purely because it would be a sacrifice in order to rid Harry of the shadow, then He would definitely not be a good guy, and I'm confident that Jim is writing TWG as the good guy.

It would be different if Harry was giving up his magic to save someone's life/soul or something, but he clearly wouldn't be in this scenario.

But Michael does see Harry as a good man, with or without his power, he'd still be a good man... As to giving up his power to save lives or souls, if Harry failed to rid himself of the shadow, how many do you think he'd kill?   He came very close to losing it and killing innocents because he thought he had a handle on the shadow as it is, he was fooling himself..  Also who is to say that if he gave up his power to rid himself of the shadow that Harry could have become an effective Holy Knight, or save people in other ways.  Michael would simply have said it was all the plan of the Almighty and not for mere mortals to question.