Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[nicholsmom]

Let me put it another way: What happens when your God's immutable moral laws conflict with each other?

They don't ever conflict.

Say You are in a situation where you must lie to save an innocent's life. Do you compromise your principle not to lie? If you have any shred of decency, of course you do. It's not even a hard decision to make.

Saving an innocent's life is not among "God's immutable moral laws." That makes the choice simpler, doesn't it?

Great error is avoided when we do not "add" to the Laws of God, those things which are doubtful things - those things not explicitly required or explicitly forbidden, are doubtful things. Let's not make doctrine of such. Paul warned very severely against it in Romans 14:1-4.

Can we afford to uphold all our principles all the time...?

Yes we can, as long as we base our principles in the actual Word of God, and be careful to not make doctrine of doubtful things.

From an absolutist worldview, how can absolute morals be prioritized, anyway?

They can't. Again showing why Paul made such a big deal of the issue in Romans 14.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Save a life with napkins???
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Odd as it sounds, I was thinking of cloth napkins that could be used to control bleeding. A little lame but hey, it was the first thing that came to mind!

 

[nicholsmom]

Odd as it sounds, I was thinking of cloth napkins that could be used to control bleeding. A little lame but hey, it was the first thing that came to mind!

Well, thanks for the :chuckle: anyway :wave2:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, thanks for the :chuckle: anyway :wave2:

You are most welcome!

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, except without the horror of socialism.

And her we have the root of the problem. You actually think this is true.

 

[Clete]

I am not going to play word games with you

I have no “evidence” that republicans will appoint “genuinely pro-life judges” and I am not going to spoon-feed you what you should already know.

Look, you dork, I'm not asking you to spoon feed me! You have the beginnings of a decent argument and all I want is for you to actually make the argument, if you can, and stop pretending like all this stuff is so obvious. It isn't obvious and if you cannot or will not make the argument then you need to keep your mouth shut.

You know what the Democratic Party platform says
You know what goes on in the senate when a republican president nominates a judge for the federal courts

Obama will replace old liberal judges with younger liberal judges
With McCain, we at least have a chance to get maybe a moderate

I can tell the difference between Roberts and Ginsburg
I can tell the difference between Alito and Breyer

If you can’t, perhaps you have been resting too much

I can tell the difference but that isn't what you said and it isn't what I asked you to establish. This is why I asked you whether I understood the point you were making correctly, which you acknowledged that I did. Are you recanting that now? Are you saying now that Republicans are really only interested in appointing "moderate" (i.e. pro-abort) judges? If so then your argument is not only moot, its down right ridiculous.

So which is it? Do you believe that it's only because of the power the Democrats have that we don't get pro-life judges from the Republicans or are you simply saying that you're content with judges that only want to murder babies half as often as the really bad ones that the Democrats would nominate?

You're making one or the other of those two points. I believe it is the former but if it is then you need to establish the premise before you can use it to conclude that Bob's argument is defeated on that basis, which I believe is the conclusion you want us all to come to.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

Your lying example didn' work out so good did it?
Lets see, stealing o save the life of an innocent...

Maybe you need to take some napkins from a resteraunt to stop the bleeding of a person that was hit by a car on the sidewalk out front. Is it stealing? Probably not since any reasonable person would offer what assistance they can to save a life.

How about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children. Times are tough so this may happen. Is it stealing to take a loaf of bread from the grocery store to feed your family? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Why? Because you didn't ask. Had you asked, the manager of the store may have given it to you. Also, did you ask the local church for help? Did you check with the local missions? Did you talk to friends and family? Heck, did you check with the welfare office? You have a great many options available to you to feed your family so stealing should never need to be an option.

Do you have any examples of such a situation?

You are a 15 year old boy living with your father and 6 year old sister in a caste-based society. Your family is a member of the lowest caste. Civil war breaks out between the castes, and your village is destroyed in battle. All of your family dies as a result, save for you and your sister, since you manage to escape to the surrounding woods during the violence.

You subsist on the land for a few months, but winter is coming and foraging is becoming steadily more difficult. Neither of you is getting enough to eat. Weeks pass. You haven't seen anyone else in the woods. Your last meal was 2 days ago, and that was a handful of sour berries and 2 insects. It becomes clear that your sister is very weak and near death. If she doesn't get food in the next couple of hours, she will die.

You cannot risk going back into the remains of your village because you will be shot on sight if seen. What's more, your sister is too weak to move, and you cannot travel to safer territory for help because doing so would leave her alone for too long, surely leading to her death.

In a frantic search for food, you happen upon an camp that is empty, but clearly not abandoned. There is no solid indication who the camp belongs to -- It may belong to enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, or to someone as desperate as yourself. All you can surmise is that whoever is camped here left in a hurry, but is almost certainly coming back.

You see a locked, loosely woven wicker basket. The basket is so constructed that you can see that there is food inside. You pick the lock and take the food, saving your sister's life, at least for the time being.

Now, in this situation, property was taken without permission or right.

Is this a case of:
Not stealing?
Stealing, which is absolutely morally wrong and a sin in this and every case?
Stealing, which is morally neutral and may be a sin based on the circumstances?

By the way, I picked stealing to avoid obfuscation - there is a direct, unambiguous commandment against it. I didn't expect anyone in the forum to admit that lying is morally neutral.

 

[chrysostom]

Do you believe that it's only because of the power the Democrats have that we don't get pro-life judges from the Republicans

Yes, thanks for helping me make my argument

 

[avatar382]

They don't ever conflict.

I think they do conflict, sometimes. See the post directly above.

Saving an innocent's life is not among "God's immutable moral laws." That makes the choice simpler, doesn't it?

Great error is avoided when we do not "add" to the Laws of God, those things which are doubtful things - those things not explicitly required or explicitly forbidden, are doubtful things. Let's not make doctrine of such. Paul warned very severely against it in Romans 14:1-4.

Yes we can, as long as we base our principles in the actual Word of God, and be careful to not make doctrine of doubtful things.

If you have the power to save the life of an innocent from an unjust death, and yet do not, do you not bear some responsibility in that injustice?

If so, then acting to save the life of an innocent is part of God's immutable moral laws because failing to do so is a sin.

I believe the technical term for this is "sin of omission".

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are a 15 year old boy living with your father and 6 year old sister in a caste-based society. Your family is a member of the lowest caste. Civil war breaks out between the castes, and your village is destroyed in battle. All of your family dies as a result, save for you and your sister, since you manage to escape to the surrounding woods during the violence.

You subsist on the land for a few months, but winter is coming and foraging is becoming steadily more difficult. Neither of you is getting enough to eat. Weeks pass. You haven't seen anyone else in the woods. Your last meal was 2 days ago, and that was a handful of sour berries and 2 insects. It becomes clear that your sister is very weak and near death. If she doesn't get food in the next couple of hours, she will die.

You cannot risk going back into the remains of your village because you will be shot on sight if seen. What's more, your sister is too weak to move, and you cannot travel to safer territory for help because doing so would leave her alone for too long, surely leading to her death.

In a frantic search for food, you happen upon an camp that is empty, but clearly not abandoned. There is no solid indication who the camp belongs to -- It may belong to enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, or to someone as desperate as yourself. All you can surmise is that whoever is camped here left in a hurry, but is almost certainly coming back.

You see a locked, loosely woven wicker basket. The basket is so constructed that you can see that there is food inside. You pick the lock and take the food, saving your sister's life, at least for the time being.

Now, in this situation, property was taken without permission or right.

Is this a case of:
Not stealing?
Stealing, which is absolutely morally wrong and a sin in this and every case?
Stealing, which is morally neutral and may be a sin based on the circumstances?

By the way, I picked stealing because there is a direct, unambiguous commandment against it. I didn't expect anyone in the forum to admit that lying is morally neutral.

How about this. An American soldier is trapped behind enemy lines and frequently raids the enemy camp or food and other needed supplies. Is it theft? What about a enemy soldier trapped behind U.S. lines. The enemy raids U.S. camps for the supplies he needs to survive, is that stealing? What about these two kids trapped behind enemy lines stealing what they need to survive, is it stealing? In all cases it is stealing. Is it morally wrong? Harder to answer. When you lie to protect the innocent you are not lying for personal gain. Your intention is only to protect the innocent. In this case you, are not stealing for personal gain but only to survive. In the case of the soldiers, they want to survive to return home. In the case of the children, they are just trying to survive. Since the sin is in the intention behind the act, I am not inclined to see this type of theft as a sin. Admittedly, I would be hard pressed to support that statement with scripture as clear as the scripture about the Jewish midwives. Within the confines of a war, I do not think this would be sealing.

BY the way, lying is not morally neutral. There is a direct commandment against bearing false witness (lying) against your neighbor. It is more accurate to say that our definition of a lie and God's definition of a lie are not synonymous. Lying to protect your Jewish neighbor from the Nazi's is not a moral act. Telling the Nazi's that your next door neighbor is Jewish when, in fact, they are not is an immoral act.

 

[nicholsmom]

If you have the power to save the life of an innocent from an unjust death, and yet do not, do you not bear some responsibility in that injustice?

We are not arguing relative responsibility, we were talking about "God's immutable laws." When we place "doubtful things" superior to these immutable laws (I'd call them apodictic), then we always run into this sort of "dilemma."

If so, then acting to save the life of an innocent is part of God's immutable moral laws because failing to do so is a sin.

Nope. You can't reason your way to a command. God's commands (apodictic laws) are worded such that you cannot miss them: "You shall love the LORD your God..." and "You shall not steal." They are not circumstantial, CM example of the "justifiable stealing" of napkins notwithstanding. There is no instance in which stealing can be justified.

I believe the technical term for this is "sin of omission".

Nope. That would be failing to "love the LORD your God..." - in direct violation (by omission) of his apodictic law.

It cannot be overstated: do not make law out of "doubtful things" - things not expressly, explicitly declared as apodictic law.

 

[Clete]

How about this. An American soldier is trapped behind enemy lines and frequently raids the enemy camp or food and other needed supplies. Is it theft? What about a enemy soldier trapped behind U.S. lines. The enemy raids U.S. camps for the supplies he needs to survive, is that stealing? What about these two kids trapped behind enemy lines stealing what they need to survive, is it stealing? In all cases it is stealing. Is it morally wrong? Harder to answer. When you lie to protect the innocent you are not lying for personal gain. Your intention is only to protect the innocent. In this case you, are not stealing for personal gain but only to survive. In the case of the soldiers, they want to survive to return home. In the case of the children, they are just trying to survive. Since the sin is in the intention behind the act, I am not inclined to see this type of theft as a sin. Admittedly, I would be hard pressed to support that statement with scripture as clear as the scripture about the Jewish midwives. Within the confines of a war, I do not think this would be sealing.

BY the way, lying is not morally neutral. There is a direct commandment against bearing false witness (lying) against your neighbor. It is more accurate to say that our definition of a lie and God's definition of a lie are not synonymous. Lying to protect your Jewish neighbor from the Nazi's is not a moral act. Telling the Nazi's that your next door neighbor is Jewish when, in fact, they are not is an immoral act.

The "direct command" you speak of is a about perjury (i.e. bearing false witness in a trial). It is not an outright command against deceiving people (i.e. unrighteous enemies). If it were, God would be a hypocrite.

1 Kings 22:21-23
21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The LORD said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the LORD said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.”​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Yes, thanks for helping me make my argument

If it is true that it is only because of the power the Democrats have that we don't get pro-life judges from the Republicans then your argument against Bob's position has some merit. But if it is true then you should be able to establish it as such.

Can you do that or are you content with simply making the assertion and letting everyone take your word for it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PKevman]

If it is true that it is only because of the power the Democrats have that we don't get pro-life judges from the Republicans then your argument against Bob's position has some merit. But if it is true then you should be able to establish it as such.

Can you do that or are you content with simply making the assertion and letting everyone take your word for it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, good luck getting anything clear or substantive from Chrysostom, other than rhetoric.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

BY the way, lying is not morally neutral. There is a direct commandment against bearing false witness (lying) against your neighbor. It is more accurate to say that our definition of a lie and God's definition of a lie are not synonymous. Lying to protect your Jewish neighbor from the Nazi's is not a moral act. Telling the Nazi's that your next door neighbor is Jewish when, in fact, they are not is an immoral act.

Bearing false witness is a type of lie which is always wrong.

Lying in and of itself is morally neutral.

 

[Clete]

Clete, good luck getting anything clear or substantive from Chrysostom, other than rhetoric.

This is unfortunately an accurate assessment of his historical pattern. :down:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Bob E on C-SPAN

Bob E on C-SPAN

Just a head's upL I'll appear on C-SPAN Thu. Oct. 23 from 8:50 to 9:30 a.m. E.T. re: Personhood!

Thanks,
-Bob Enyart

 

[Nick M]

1. A person who denies the right to life to the innocent and advocates, defends, and funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder.
2. John McCain is such a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
3. Christians should not support mass murderers, even if they are afraid of other mass murderers.
4. Our standard of behavior should be based upon trusting and obeying God, not fearing some alternative evil.

-Bob

Do you think Winston Churchill was wrong to side with to communist heathens (FDR, Stallin) to defeat Nazi Germany? Because that is all his argument is. And it is a very good one. One that I have pondered.

How about supporting blatant idolaters (Keyes)?

Exodus 20
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Does God hate murder more than idolatry?

He might. Since he is clearly giving everybody a free pass their whole life. He doesn't force people to love him, but he told the governments to force people to act morally.

You all seem to be ignoring the Supreme Court, which is in control and the only way to change it is with conservative judges

The only way to get conservative judges is by voting republican

The Democratic Party platform supports free and legal abortions and they are committed to blocking any attempts to change this.

It only takes 41 votes to block a conservative judge and only 34 to block a right to life amendment.

The answer is clear, vote republican

Your Catholic voting guide in front of me contradicts you. It says;

The Five Non-Negotiable Issues.

These five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by law....It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable pricinples involved in this issue.
1. Abortion
2.Euthanasia
3.Embryonic Stem cell research
4.Human cloning
5.Homosexual "marriage"

And you know full well that McCain is on board with some of this. John Paul II said it is non-negotiable. You better hit your confessional after the first Tuesday in November.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are a 15 year old boy living with your father and 6 year old sister in a caste-based society. Your family is a member of the lowest caste. Civil war breaks out between the castes, and your village is destroyed in battle. All of your family dies as a result, save for you and your sister, since you manage to escape to the surrounding woods during the violence.

You subsist on the land for a few months, but winter is coming and foraging is becoming steadily more difficult. Neither of you is getting enough to eat. Weeks pass. You haven't seen anyone else in the woods. Your last meal was 2 days ago, and that was a handful of sour berries and 2 insects. It becomes clear that your sister is very weak and near death. If she doesn't get food in the next couple of hours, she will die.

You cannot risk going back into the remains of your village because you will be shot on sight if seen. What's more, your sister is too weak to move, and you cannot travel to safer territory for help because doing so would leave her alone for too long, surely leading to her death.

In a frantic search for food, you happen upon an camp that is empty, but clearly not abandoned. There is no solid indication who the camp belongs to -- It may belong to enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, or to someone as desperate as yourself. All you can surmise is that whoever is camped here left in a hurry, but is almost certainly coming back.

You see a locked, loosely woven wicker basket. The basket is so constructed that you can see that there is food inside. You pick the lock and take the food, saving your sister's life, at least for the time being.

Now, in this situation, property was taken without permission or right.

Is this a case of:
Not stealing?
Stealing, which is absolutely morally wrong and a sin in this and every case?
Stealing, which is morally neutral and may be a sin based on the circumstances?

By the way, I picked stealing to avoid obfuscation - there is a direct, unambiguous commandment against it. I didn't expect anyone in the forum to admit that lying is morally neutral.

God's law requires people to leave some crops in the field for the poor to glean so they would not have to steal.
Your example is trying to make two wrongs equal a right, which never happens.
You think this is a good argument because of your flexible morals.

What you don't understand is that God provided laws for peace and laws for war.
You are trying to apply laws for peace to a time of war.

 

[avatar382]

God's law requires people to leave some crops in the field for the poor to glean so they would not have to steal.
Your example is trying to make two wrongs equal a right, which never happens.
You think this is a good argument because of your flexible morals.

What you don't understand is that God provided laws for peace and laws for war.
You are trying to apply laws for peace to a time of war.

Shouldn't an absolute, immutable moral law like "Thou shalt not steal" apply in both peace and war?

Otherwise, it wouldn't be absolute, would it?