Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Read the story of the Hebrew midwives. They lied to save the babies but they did not violate a moral principal. Any idea why? Because a lie is something you do when you are trying to slander another person or to avoid a just consequence for your own actions or to hide your guilt. Telling a "lie" to save an innocent is no lie at all from God's point of view. You attempt to create a conflict where none exists.
    Originally posted by Knight
    That's not a good example.

    Lying is morally neutral, it can be both bad or good depending on the circumstance.

    CabinetMaker provided and excellent example in his last post.
    From dictionary.com:

    Originally posted by dictionary.com
    lie [lahy] verb, lied, ly·ing.
    –noun
    1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
    Falsehood, lie, deceit, not telling the truth... Lets not play games with definitions -- the Hebrew midwives lied.

    We all agree that what is interesting here is not whether or not a lie was told, rather whether that lie was morally justified, which you both agree depends on the situation. So, you both agree that lying is not absolutely morally wrong.

    Originally posted by dictionary.com
    steal stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
    Originally posted by The Ten Commandments
    Neither shall you steal.
    Suppose you were in a situation in that you had to steal property (that is, take property without permission or legal right) in order to protect the life of an innocent.

    Is taking property in this situation is not stealing?
    Is stealing is morally neutral, and can be good or bad depending on the situation?
    Is stealing is absolutely morally wrong, and this situation illustrates a case where immutable, absolute moral laws conflict?

    Which is it?
    Using no way as a way
    Using no limitations as a limitation

    Comment


    • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
      From dictionary.com:

      Falsehood, lie, deceit, not telling the truth... Lets not play games with definitions -- the Hebrew midwives lied.
      Well.... first off, I don't worship Merriam Webster, do you?

      But even if I did why didn't you post the other definitions?

      lie
      1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
      2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
      3. an inaccurate or false statement.
      4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

      A lie can be merely "an inaccurate or false statement." which can be a good thing. It was good for people to lie to the Nazi's about a Jewish person hiding in their attic. It was good when people lied about black slaves that were escaping slavery in the south.

      False statements i.e., "lies" can be a righteous thing.
      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
        Suppose you were in a situation in that you had to steal property (that is, take property without permission or legal right) in order to protect the life of an innocent.

        Is taking property in this situation is not stealing?
        Is stealing is morally neutral, and can be good or bad depending on the situation?
        Is stealing is absolutely morally wrong, and this situation illustrates a case where immutable, absolute moral laws conflict?

        Which is it?
        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?



        Last edited by CabinetMaker; October 22nd, 2008, 07:15 PM.
        Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

        What are my fruits today?

        Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

        "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
          The right thing to do is to put an end to Communism, period. In America and in China. And anywhere else it exists, like North Korea.
          Let's do it. How many guns do you have? I have one. Voting sure isn't going to get it done - voting's been going on in our nation long enough to realize that we're not going to end Communism as simply as making our mark on a ballot. It's gonna take a great lot more work than that - unless Ronald Reagan can get back on the ballot & we can elect him a decent Congress. So... lots of work at the grassroots level for a couple or three decades might just get us a gov't we can work with.

          One election? Not so much.

          Do you honestly think things will remain the same? We've been going in a downward spiral since before any of us was born. And that is what will continue no matter which of the two major party candidates get the office of President.
          Yep. I think that McCain will be mostly ineffective in the Oval Office, except perhaps with the military endeavors.
          What I want is for people who promote abortion to get a bullet in the head. And, yes, I know Hitler was democratically elected. If you take a look at my record on here you'll notice I'm not a proponent of Democracy.
          I tried to be careful to not lead you astray on this one, but Hitler [i]was never elected[i] - his party gained huge ground in a single election, but still they did not make up a majority. Hitler used this "mandate" to force the President to appoint to Hitler the chancellory & give him (Hitler) supreme power over many branches of their government. When the Nazi party later lost several of their rapidly-gained seats, Hitler & his supporters lost patience & just took over wholesale.

          The point of the "democratically elected" posts in their congress was that the people were blind to the real impact of socialism - just as the citizens of the USA are today

          P.S.
          Democracy isn't even what we have in this country.
          I never said it was.

          And if McCain wins I get the same scenario.
          Yes, except without the horror of socialism.

          You're the one voting for a socialist.
          :squint: You might want to do a bit of study on what socialism is.

          Lighthouse knows all about Hitler's rise to power.
          Aparantly not, though I did not intend to bait him, he did say that Hitler was democratically elected...

          And you're a sad little hypocrite, whining about people comparing McCain to Hitler and then doing the same with Obama.
          Where did I whine? I don't whine.
          McCain has not campaigned for a brutal, socialist in Africa; McCain did not have his career launched by an unrepentant terrorist (who says he wishes he'd "done more" in his terrorism days - can we all say government overthrow?); McCain does not have a mentor like Jeremiah Wright who is a rabid racist; McCain's wife, though not particularly bright, is not ashamed of her country as is Michelle Obama.

          Obama has violent, socialistic, elitist supporters - just like Hitler. Obama likes judges who need no precident to make law from the bench (all the easier for him to usher in his socialistic government).

          In trying to save a couple dozen babies, you are damning not only millions more than are currently being slaughtered, but also choosing enslavement to an entire system of government that would force women to abort.

          But hey, you can say "Whul... I didn't vote fer 'im" Congratulations. At least I'm doing what I can to keep him out of the Oval Office.

          Tell me, if you could go back in time and, by your vote, ensure that Hitler's party never got a "mandate," and perhaps keep Hitler out of the chancellory, would you do it?

          If Obama were Hitler, would you still vote third party?
          Last edited by nicholsmom; October 22nd, 2008, 12:37 PM. Reason: @#%!! tags

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post

            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.
            Save a life with napkins???

            Comment


            • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by nicholsmom View Post
                Save a life with napkins???
                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!
                Last edited by CabinetMaker; October 22nd, 2008, 07:16 PM.
                Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                What are my fruits today?

                Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                  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 anyway

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by nicholsmom View Post
                    Well, thanks for the anyway
                    You are most welcome!
                    Last edited by CabinetMaker; October 22nd, 2008, 07:16 PM.
                    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                    What are my fruits today?

                    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by nicholsmom View Post
                      Yes, except without the horror of socialism.
                      And her we have the root of the problem. You actually think this is true.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chrysostom View Post
                        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
                        sigpic
                        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                          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.
                          Using no way as a way
                          Using no limitations as a limitation

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            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
                            a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by nicholsmom View Post
                              They don't ever conflict.
                              I think they do conflict, sometimes. See the post directly above.

                              Originally posted by nicholsmom View Post
                              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".
                              Using no way as a way
                              Using no limitations as a limitation

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
                                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.


                                Last edited by CabinetMaker; October 22nd, 2008, 07:16 PM.
                                Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                                But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                                What are my fruits today?

                                Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                                "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X