Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

Getting rid of a Shadow is, at best, extremely rare, rare enough to be a non-issue for whatever Nicodemus has been up to for the previous 2,000 years. Nicodemus has more important things to worry about than something that may well have never happened. He has no reason to go out of his way to suppress a bit of obscure minutiae that he may well not even know exists in the first place.

Well, given that he's already suppressing a bunch of information, I don't see why he wouldn't add it to the list. Honestly, I just don't think that it would take much effort.

Yeah, that's not what I said or implied. What I said was, after a few centuries of nobody getting rid of a Shadow, Nicodemus would not bother to continue worrying about people getting rid of a Shadow. "Spying on the church" doesn't mean he gets every single minor fact and detail every time he looks.

I figure that he probably tries to keep track of everything the Church thinks about Denarians, just on general principle.

The "missing information" I refer to is the idea summed up as "Harry getting rid of his magic will not get rid of the Shadow." There's no statement or suggestion to that effect in the books. There's only a sort of negative evidence, in that Michael didn't bring it up in the Small Favor conversation, long after the whole idea of Harry giving up his magic is moot and clearly not in play, which has any number of other explanations besides that.

My issue with the idea that Harry giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow has always been the lack of evidence for it--and if this is true in-universe as well, then Michael would be aware of it.

On the other hand, at this point I've found some evidence that Harry giving up his magic would reduce the shadow's influence if nothing else, so I'm happy with that.

[Mira]

My issue with the idea that Harry giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow has always been the lack of evidence for it--and if this is true in-universe as well, then Michael would be aware of it.

  Again, this is where faith comes in....  Michael has been right about things in the past because he
believes it will come to pass because he believes the Almighty has his back..  He doesn't need evidence, he just knows it is so.

[nadia.skylark]

Again, this is where faith comes in....  Michael has been right about things in the past because he
believes it will come to pass because he believes the Almighty has his back..  He doesn't need evidence, he just knows it is so.

Look, even faith doesn't mean believing things for no reason whatsoever. Michael is not going to suddenly start believing in flying polka-dotted elephants because he's a person of faith and as such doesn't need such silly things as facts and logic--that isn't how it works.

I may believe in global warming because scientists say it's real, and I consider scientists a generally trustworthy source of information.

A devout catholic may believe that God wants us to protect the environment because the Pope says so, and he/she considers the Pope a source of trustworthy information.

[Mira]

Look, even faith doesn't mean believing things for no reason whatsoever.

Yes, it does, faith isn't logical nor is it a rational thing.

Michael is not going to suddenly start believing in flying polka-dotted elephants because he's a person of faith and as such doesn't need such silly things as facts and logic--that isn't how it works.

Yes, it is exactly how it works...  There is a whole group of people for example that still believe the Earth is flat in spite of all the evidence and facts to the contrary.. 

I may believe in global warming because scientists say it's real, and I consider scientists a generally trustworthy source of information.

Yes, so do I, however there is as many people who don't believe in it because people in power tell them it isn't true in spite of the evidence..  They consider the people in positions of power telling them this just as trust worthy...  So who is telling the truth?  Who is deliberately lying? Or is one side just totally mistaken?

A devout catholic may believe that God wants us to protect the environment because the Pope says so, and he/she considers the Pope a source of trustworthy information.

Yes, but he may also come out and say we don't have to worry about the environment because God
will protect His creation no matter what...  Should a good Catholic still believe him?  He is still considered a trustworthy source of information, the  Faithful or a lot of them still believe the Pope to be infallible..   

The point I am trying to make here is it is a lot more complicated when you add religious faith to the mix.  It is too simplistic to claim that Michael deliberately lied to Harry about a solution to his problem with the shadow.  What many of us are saying is from his point of view he was speaking the truth. . .  Whether or not he is or was mistaken is moot because it was never put to the test, and Harry was able to come up with his own alternative cure...  It had never happened before as far as the evidence, i.e. Church records show.   Michael still could have been totally right, it is just that we will never know.. Alternatively he could have been totally mistaken, we will never know...  However he wasn't trying to deliberately lie or sell Harry a bill of goods to get him to give up his magic... 

[nadia.skylark]

Yes, it does, faith isn't logical nor is it a rational thing.

There is a difference between saying that faith means believing things for reasons that others don't consider logical and rational and saying that faith means believing in things for no reason.

There is a whole group of people for example that still believe the Earth is flat in spite of all the evidence and facts to the contrary.. 

There is a difference between being delusional/in denial and having faith. I seriously doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires.

Yes, so do I, however there is as many people who don't believe in it because people in power tell them it isn't true in spite of the evidence..  They consider the people in positions of power telling them this just as trust worthy...  So who is telling the truth?  Who is deliberately lying? Or is one side just totally mistaken?

Yes, but he may also come out and say we don't have to worry about the environment because God
will protect His creation no matter what...  Should a good Catholic still believe him?  He is still considered a trustworthy source of information, the  Faithful or a lot of them still believe the Pope to be infallible..   

You are agreeing with me. People believe things because they have reasons to, generally, even if others disagree with those reasons.

he point I am trying to make here is it is a lot more complicated when you add religious faith to the mix.  It is too simplistic to claim that Michael deliberately lied to Harry about a solution to his problem with the shadow.

Pay attention. Not only have we moved past this, but I have never claimed that Michael lying to Harry deliberately was anything more than one possibility of many.

This claim is too simplistic because you are oversimplifying what I said.

[Mira]

You are agreeing with me. People believe things because they have reasons to, generally, even if others disagree with those reasons.

  So what is your point then?  Michael had very good reasons to tell Harry what he did...

Pay attention. Not only have we moved past this, but I have never claimed that Michael lying to Harry deliberately was anything more than one possibility of many.

This claim is too simplistic because you are oversimplifying what I said.

Oh?  How?  The original question was did Michael lie to Harry?  The answer is no, he didn't.. 

There is a difference between being delusional/in denial and having faith. I seriously doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires.

No, there is no difference, one person's delusional/in denial is another person's profession of faith..  You may doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires, but try to tell that to someone who sincerely believes it...  Whether it is really true or not is immaterial to them..

There is a difference between saying that faith means believing things for reasons that others don't consider logical and rational and saying that faith means believing in things for no reason.

Why?  People do that every day, whole movements have been based on indoctrination, Jones Town being a good example of that...  The Hale Boop suicides are another, there was no logical reason for these people to believe they way they did, yet they did and they died for it. 

[nadia.skylark]

So what is your point then?  Michael had very good reasons to tell Harry what he did...

Oh?  How?  The original question was did Michael lie to Harry?  The answer is no, he didn't.. 

No, there is no difference, one person's delusional/in denial is another person's profession of faith..  You may doubt that people's belief that the world is flat can ward off vampires, but try to tell that to someone who sincerely believes it...  Whether it is really true or not is immaterial to them..

Why?  People do that every day, whole movements have been based on indoctrination, Jones Town being a good example of that...  The Hale Boop suicides are another, there was no logical reason for these people to believe they way they did, yet they did and they died for it.

PLEASE READ THE FREAKING THREAD.

Edit: My apologies for shouting. What I meant to say is: Most if not all of this has been addressed on this thread already, and I feel like you either haven't read it or are ignoring it, which frustrates me. Furthermore, as I have also said earlier, I'm not comfortable delving too deeply into the faith thing because it gets too close to real world issues and I don't feel this is the place for that discussion.

[morriswalters]

It's just as well that any talk of faith, in terms of the Dresden Files, be left on the floor.  Michael has tangible proof of the the existence of the white god.  In particular, his interaction with an Archangel.  Not to mention glowing swords, an in with the Papal authorities and the occasional takeover for godly announcements.  His knowledge of the nature of the Shadow could be revealed knowledge given to him off the text by some angelic source.

[Mira]

It's just as well that any talk of faith, in terms of the Dresden Files, be left on the floor.  Michael has tangible proof of the the existence of the white god.  In particular, his interaction with an Archangel.  Not to mention glowing swords, an in with the Papal authorities and the occasional takeover for godly announcements.  His knowledge of the nature of the Shadow could be revealed knowledge given to him off the text by some angelic source.

I am sorry but when discussing Michael and his motives, it does come down to his faith, that is what the character is about.  That is how the author in my opinion has written him...  The title of the thread is, Did Michael Lie?  No...  You can try to come up with a thousand logical reasons, but beyond his desire to help his friend based on his knowledge, experience, and faith in his Boss, the Almighty as Michael calls him, not the White God, only Mab refers to Him as that, this is what Michael came up with..  Sacrifice your magic and the shadow will fade, it worked for his wife, she was well on her way to becoming a warlock and that faded when she gave up her magic...  Nothing scientific here, no logic, no concrete evidence which seems to be what is being reached for... What I am saying is you won't find any or at least none that would satisfy what you are looking for....  What is constantly repeated is there has to be a reason etc for this faith... No, there doesn't.. It has also been suggested that when Michael realized that Harry did indeed rid himself of the shadow he should have admitted that he was wrong, since he didn't,somehow he was dishonest with Harry.. I doubt that from Michael's point of view that he'd think he was wrong given his beliefs.. Just because Harry found another way doesn't make Michael wrong in his mind... So no, he wasn't being dishonest..

[Mr. Death]

Well, given that he's already suppressing a bunch of information, I don't see why he wouldn't add it to the list. Honestly, I just don't think that it would take much effort.

I figure that he probably tries to keep track of everything the Church thinks about Denarians, just on general principle.

I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.

I don't think he picks and chooses what he destroys with that kind of granularity. If anything, that would only give away his intentions -- if you go out of your way to, for example, specifically destroy someone's theorizing on get rid of the Shadow, but leave other things right next to it intact, the logical conclusion there is, "He's afraid someone can get rid of a Shadow," which will only encourage the Church to look into that specific thing even more.

But if you just torch the whole building, the survivors won't know what he wanted destroyed, whether there was anything specific in there or whether he was just in a mood that day and happened to be passing by your library.

That seems more Nicodemus's style, to me.

My issue with the idea that Harry giving up his magic would get rid of the shadow has always been the lack of evidence for it--and if this is true in-universe as well, then Michael would be aware of it.

On the other hand, at this point I've found some evidence that Harry giving up his magic would reduce the shadow's influence if nothing else, so I'm happy with that.

Fair enough.

[Mira]

I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.

I don't think he picks and chooses what he destroys with that kind of granularity. If anything, that would only give away his intentions -- if you go out of your way to, for example, specifically destroy someone's theorizing on get rid of the Shadow, but leave other things right next to it intact, the logical conclusion there is, "He's afraid someone can get rid of a Shadow," which will only encourage the Church to look into that specific thing even more.

But if you just torch the whole building, the survivors won't know what he wanted destroyed, whether there was anything specific in there or whether he was just in a mood that day and happened to be passing by your library.

That seems more Nicodemus's style, to me.
Fair enough.

  And actually it doesn't matter if Nic destroys the records from time to time, this little fact if it had happened before escaped him...  Apparently even he had no clue that the shadow had left Harry..  If he even had thought it possible I doubt that he was have so confidently called to the shadow in Small Favor to take Harry over, adding "we will have a little talk with him later..."  He was totally shocked when Harry told him that the shadow didn't live in his head anymore...

[nadia.skylark]

The title of the thread is, Did Michael Lie?

And the thread has 11 pages worth of posts after that. At this point, I don't think anyone on the thread is claiming that Michael lied outright; my opinion, at least, is that it's 50/50 whether Michael was told the solution by TWG or whether he exaggerated based on evidence.

it worked for his wife, she was well on her way to becoming a warlock and that faded when she gave up her magic...

What's that got to do with anything? Being a warlock is completely different from having a shadow.

What is constantly repeated is there has to be a reason etc for this faith... No, there doesn't..

And here is the real world issue I have repeatedly said I don't want to discuss here. If you must keep bringing it up, could you do it on another thread please?

It has also been suggested that when Michael realized that Harry did indeed rid himself of the shadow he should have admitted that he was wrong, since he didn't,somehow he was dishonest with Harry..

...What? Have I missed something? I can't remember anyone suggesting this. It was my understanding that Michael did admit that he was wrong when Harry convinced him that he'd gotten rid of Lasciel's shadow.

I think we have different ideas of what "Nicodemus destroys the records every once in a while" entails.

I don't think he picks and chooses what he destroys with that kind of granularity. If anything, that would only give away his intentions -- if you go out of your way to, for example, specifically destroy someone's theorizing on get rid of the Shadow, but leave other things right next to it intact, the logical conclusion there is, "He's afraid someone can get rid of a Shadow," which will only encourage the Church to look into that specific thing even more.

But if you just torch the whole building, the survivors won't know what he wanted destroyed, whether there was anything specific in there or whether he was just in a mood that day and happened to be passing by your library.

That seems more Nicodemus's style, to me.

Fair enough. I was thinking more about the timing of when Nicodemus would destroy the records, or if they were kept in different places which one he would destroy.

You're right that it would be really obvious if he was selectively going through each record to destroy them.