"...Except when my God is involved"

[Alzael]

One other thing I wanted to clear up. Does your particular flavour of christianity believe that Jesus was god as well?

Edit: Don't bother with this last question. Quote honestly I no longer care enough to expend the effort to continue wading through this when it's clear that BS can't make a real argument. For what it's worth I do believe that BS is sincerely interested in doing so. He just lacks the ability.

[BibleStudent]

One other thing I wanted to clear up. Does your particular flavour of christianity believe that Jesus was god as well?

Edit: Don't bother with this last question. Quote honestly I no longer care enough to expend the effort to continue wading through this when it's clear that BS can't make a real argument. For what it's worth I do believe that BS is sincerely interested in doing so. He just lacks the ability.

What is a real argument in your book?

[BibleStudent]

1. Just as I caused the man to kill the thief, correct? If not, what is the difference?

2. While the thief is part of the cause in Scenario 2, I was also the cause in the fact that without my doing, the thief would have lived. Is this a correct assessment? If not, what is the difference?

Note: I understand the reasoning for these two overlap, so if you'd like to answer them as one feel free.

I have to ask you something and please try to appreciate why I am asking this. Are you sincerely trying to drill down to a point....or are you just stringing me along for some mischievous reason? And, please, be honest. This is just so odd the way you keep shuffling the circumstances and the players and even entire scenes and never seeming to get closer to a point. This is starting to feel painful.


 

[BibleStudent]

Collaboration is a sin. Lying is a sin.

Try to understand that both those statements, standing independently, are true.

But in certain situations, they may conflict. You have to either lie, or collaborate. There is no third option.

That's your problem. Your current solution to it is to assert that collaboration isn't a sin. But that's a fail, sorry. Try again.

Gnu.

I am burnt out and logging out for the night.
Perhaps we can pick this back up tomorrow.

[Alzael]

One other thing I wanted to clear up. Does your particular flavour of christianity believe that Jesus was god as well?

Edit: Don't bother with this last question. Quote honestly I no longer care enough to expend the effort to continue wading through this when it's clear that BS can't make a real argument. For what it's worth I do believe that BS is sincerely interested in doing so. He just lacks the ability.

What is a real argument in your book?

If you're speaking academically, a proper argument should consist of six parts.
1)The initial claim, the conclusion that must be supported by the evidence.
2)Grounds, this being any evidence or data that will prove the actual claim.
3)Warrant, this is used to connect or relate the grounds to the claim. In other words the warrant justifies the use of the evidence in the argument.
4)Backing, If the warrant cannot stand on it's own, then the backing must serve to support it.
5)Rebuttal, this anticipates and recognizes any potential objection to or restriction of the argument.
6)Qualifier, not always used but serves to increase or decrease the scope of the claim.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you should suddenly start arguing like an academic. But a degree of consistency, substantiation, and intellectual honesty would have been refreshing.

[truehyuga]

1. Just as I caused the man to kill the thief, correct? If not, what is the difference?

2. While the thief is part of the cause in Scenario 2, I was also the cause in the fact that without my doing, the thief would have lived. Is this a correct assessment? If not, what is the difference?

Note: I understand the reasoning for these two overlap, so if you'd like to answer them as one feel free.

I have to ask you something and please try to appreciate why I am asking this. Are you sincerely trying to drill down to a point....or are you just stringing me along for some mischievous reason? And, please, be honest. This is just so odd the way you keep shuffling the circumstances and the players and even entire scenes and never seeming to get closer to a point. This is starting to feel painful.

There is a point to this. I'm sorry if it seems I'm stringing yo along for no reason, and I'll explain my goals here.
I'm trying to see precisely where your morality leads you in certain scenarios, if it contradicts in some places, etc.
Consider the Scenario 2 (again  ): Someone tells the truth, and due to that action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the truth-teller, desired by the truth-teller, nor was it the goal of the truth-teller; but nonetheless, his actions caused it.
You claimed that the truth-teller was not at morally at fault for the death of the thief.
However, we have a similar situation and a different reaction: Scenario 1. Scenario 1 posits a situation in which someone plans and executes a bank heist, and due to this action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the mastermind, desired by the mastermind, nor was it the goal of the mastermind; but nonetheless his actions caused it.
Here you claimed the mastermind was morally at fault for the death of the man.

It is of no doubt that the mastermind's attempt to steal is morally worse than the truth-teller's attempt to tell the truth; but isn't it true that they share equal responsibility for the murders? If not, what differentiates the two scenarios?

I could continue with the implications of this, but that is really too much information for now, and I have found clarifying the implications of something tends to make people answer in a manner that avoids them.


As a note, I do happen to post a lot of short, precise questions, but I find debating is easier that way; it stops my opponent from being overwhelmed and it stops us from having to track 12 different ideas that grew out the responses. By keeping it to short answers, a lot more gets done in a lot less time, and in a clearer fashion.
I apologize if this style happens to bother you.

I am burnt out and logging out for the night.
Perhaps we can pick this back up tomorrow.

See you tomorrow.

[Gnu Ordure]

BS:

I am burnt out and logging out for the night.
Perhaps we can pick this back up tomorrow.

Sure. No worries.

But BS, you don't need to be burning out about this. If the whole thing is too intense, then back off a little. Slow down.

If you wanted to, you could say to everyone, Hey, I need a few days to think about what you've said, talk to some people, read some stuff. I'll get back to you next week. That would be completely understandable and acceptable. This is your thread; if you want to pause it for a while, feel free.

Whatever. Catch you later.

Gnu the Chillderbeest.

[Azdgari]

In order for your suggestion to accomplish what Alzael wants, you would have to provide the additional information I indicated.

Right. I understand that. But am I expected to do that for every God ordained moral? I can do it one or two at a time but to take on the whole of the moral law would require a substantial amount of time. That's why I asked if it was "With regards to every single moral issue....or just with a specific moral issue?"

I didn't say that his demand was a reasonable one.  It's a tall order for someone who's already probably putting in more time than anyone else on the thread.

The reason I responded as I did was not to agree with Alzael's demand for information, but to point out the subjective personal preferences involved in selecting and interpreting morals "from" the Bible.

[CutePuppy]

mrbiscoop:

Glad to see this topic is finally in the bottomless pit where it belongs.

Are we in the pit now?

Great. I've spent some of my happiest hours on WWGHA wallowing in the pit.

I second this!

Agent40 and I got real down and dirty here, I swear there was a sex thing going on - but that was probably Catholic projection.

I sec...wait what? Oh right, yes, seconded!

Now that we're in the Pit, I don't feel as guilty mingling with the discussions again. Ho ho ho.

So AFAIK, we have established that BS thinks that lying is morally wrong, no matter what the consequences, which can include the deaths of (a lot of) people. Personally, I don't think BS understands the severity of this claim, because he's religious and he could imagine something silly as how his god will be merciful to those whom died or something.

Other posters have tried to get an answer out of BS on what he thinks about the concept of choosing a lesser evil, e.g. between lying and murdering/killing. Yet, he denies that there is a conflict, e.g. he doesn't believe he can be put in a situation where he has to choose between lying or murdering, since they're both morally wrong/forbidden. Again, I don't think BS understands the severity of his claim, but it is consistent with his silly view of a god existing, giving humans free will and not forcing them into anything (other than the occasional killing and genocides!).

Having understood that, I'm not sure if anything we say really matters. He's applying religious logic: "it doesn't matter how bad it sounds or how deadly my actions are to others, since god is the moral giver, he will eventually take care of everything and give people exactly what they deserve". This is evident in the manner he tried to solve the Nazi/Jew conflict: "god will save those poor Jews, if they really deserve it. And if they don't, then who am I to judge my god? Nobody. As such, it doesn't really matter that I expose them and caused them to be killed on Earth by telling the truth."

When he acknowledged that it's morally wrong to lie about the color of your boxers to save a million people (!), which is pretty horrible from our point of view, he probably thought: "Even if that scenario would end up real and I would have to make that choice correctly: those who died will ultimately still be judged by god when they see him. And that judgment is ultimately what truly matters, not their deaths on Earth. So it doesn't matter that telling the truth caused them to die, it's god they really have to worry about."

So how about it BS? Am I warm? Or cold? Essentially, you don't really care about the people and their lives on Earth, do you? You think, since there is a god out there who will be our final judge, it's everyone for himself morally and god will rightfully sort them out. As long as you don't break the rules, regardless of the consequences (that can cause severe harm to others), you're fine. Since those "consequences" are something your god will handle, one way or the other. Am I right? Wrong? Close?

While waiting for an answer on that, lemme ask you whether lying is as severe a moral wrong/offense as murdering, BS? Or would you say that one is actually less or more "wrong" than the other? Are all of the ten commandments of god equally right? Equally important?

[mrbiscoop]

    Wallow away.

[BibleStudent]

Collaboration is a sin. Lying is a sin.

Try to understand that both those statements, standing independently, are true.

But in certain situations, they may conflict. You have to either lie, or collaborate. There is no third option.

That's your problem. Your current solution to it is to assert that collaboration isn't a sin. But that's a fail, sorry. Try again.

Gnu.

I recognize that there are two independent moral issues being alleged.

Since I am unwilling to lie, it is a question of whether I am guilty for any harm that comes to my house guests as a result of my honesty. This the issue we are unable to agree on. You say I am guilty. I say I am not.

I maintain my innocence based solely on the fact that the sinful nature of the Nazi crimes are the only source of blame for whatever dilemma you allege exists. To place any blame or responsibility on me for the sin of another person (or persons) is irrational and un-Biblical. The charge being made against me amounts to nothing more than projection of the evil being carried out by the true criminals. I profusely dismiss any notion or accusation, regardless of where I am in the scene, that I can be held accountable for the evil existent in the situation that I had no hand in creating. Absent any desire, intent, willingness, or hope that my house guests would be killed, I am free of any moral responsibility for their fate. While my heart aches for them, and I may fight to the death to protect my guests, it is ultimately the murderers who are to blame.

 

[BibleStudent]

So AFAIK, we have established that BS thinks that lying is morally wrong, no matter what the consequences, which can include the deaths of (a lot of) people. Personally, I don't think BS understands the severity of this claim, because he's religious and he could imagine something silly as how his god will be merciful to those whom died or something.

Other posters have tried to get an answer out of BS on what he thinks about the concept of choosing a lesser evil, e.g. between lying and murdering/killing. Yet, he denies that there is a conflict, e.g. he doesn't believe he can be put in a situation where he has to choose between lying or murdering, since they're both morally wrong/forbidden. Again, I don't think BS understands the severity of his claim, but it is consistent with his silly view of a god existing, giving humans free will and not forcing them into anything (other than the occasional killing and genocides!).

Having understood that, I'm not sure if anything we say really matters. He's applying religious logic: "it doesn't matter how bad it sounds or how deadly my actions are to others, since god is the moral giver, he will eventually take care of everything and give people exactly what they deserve". This is evident in the manner he tried to solve the Nazi/Jew conflict: "god will save those poor Jews, if they really deserve it. And if they don't, then who am I to judge my god? Nobody. As such, it doesn't really matter that I expose them and caused them to be killed on Earth by telling the truth."

When he acknowledged that it's morally wrong to lie about the color of your boxers to save a million people (!), which is pretty horrible from our point of view, he probably thought: "Even if that scenario would end up real and I would have to make that choice correctly: those who died will ultimately still be judged by god when they see him. And that judgment is ultimately what truly matters, not their deaths on Earth. So it doesn't matter that telling the truth caused them to die, it's god they really have to worry about."

So how about it BS? Am I warm? Or cold?

You are close to being warm. See my last response to Gnu Ordure for a summary of the my position I have been making.

While waiting for an answer on that, lemme ask you whether lying is as severe a moral wrong/offense as murdering, BS? Or would you say that one is actually less or more "wrong" than the other? Are all of the ten commandments of god equally right? Equally important?

Sin is sin....however, I believe that God does see some sins as being more repugnant than others.

[/quote]

[Disciple of Sagan]

Sin is sin....however, I believe that God does see some sins as being more repugnant than others.

But is not the punishment (eternal damnation) still the same for all sins, BS?

[CutePuppy]

You are close to being warm. See my last response to Gnu Ordure for a summary of the my position I have been making.

Your last passage doesn't quite clarify the issue for me. So let me try it with this statement: Ultimately, what happens to the people on Earth will be decided by your god, so you have little to no responsibility in how they turn out, regardless of how your actions, as long as they are not sinful, may have (directly) caused them grief? Agree? Disagree?

While waiting for an answer on that, lemme ask you whether lying is as severe a moral wrong/offense as murdering, BS? Or would you say that one is actually less or more "wrong" than the other? Are all of the ten commandments of god equally right? Equally important?

Sin is sin....however, I believe that God does see some sins as being more repugnant than others.

How can you tell? Are there any biblical references to this? And would you mind ranking the ten commandments for me in the order of "the degree of God's repugnance" or "degree of immorality" or something to that trend? For example, if "murdering" is an 9 (where 1 represents the lowest degree of immorality and 10 the highest degree of immorality), what grade would "being a non believer" have?

I maintain my innocence based solely on the fact that the sinful nature of the Nazi crimes are the only source of blame for whatever dilemma you allege exists.

Assuming that that's true, how does that change the fact that you had only two options, both considered sins?

To place any blame or responsibility on me for the sin of another person (or persons) is irrational and un-Biblical.

Another person? You played a direct role in their deaths/murders by collaborating with the Nazis. Isn't that sinful?

The charge being made against me amounts to nothing more than projection of the evil being carried out by the true criminals. I profusely dismiss any notion or accusation, regardless of where I am in the scene, that I can be held accountable for the evil existent in the situation that I had no hand in creating.

Of course you had a hand in creating it. You're the one who exposed the Jews to the Nazis. How can you say you had no hand in creating it? If you chose to lie, and the choice was yours to make, then those Jews wouldn't have been murdered (hypothetically).

Absent any desire, intent, willingness, or hope that my house guests would be killed, I am free of any moral responsibility for their fate.

Completely absent? Not really. This could be true prior to being asked whether Jews are hiding in your house, but not after. See, after they've asked that question, by choosing not to lie, you've the intent to honestly aid the Nazis in their quest to kill/murder the Jews. That is what it means to not lie, after all.

[truehyuga]

I think I got skipped over by accident.

[BibleStudent]

Consider the Scenario 2 (again   ): Someone tells the truth, and due to that action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the truth-teller, desired by the truth-teller, nor was it the goal of the truth-teller; but nonetheless, his actions caused it.

No. His actions did NOT cause the death. You are projecting blame onto the truth-teller for the actions of the murderer.

However, we have a similar situation and a different reaction: Scenario 1. Scenario 1 posits a situation in which someone plans and executes a bank heist, and due to this action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the mastermind, desired by the mastermind, nor was it the goal of the mastermind; but nonetheless his actions caused it.
Here you claimed the mastermind was morally at fault for the death of the man.

Yes, because the mastermind created the moral “wrong” that led to the death….plus, as you indicated, he was wiling to condone a murder if it was necessary in order to carry out the robbery. He knowingly created a moral “wrong” that led to another moral “wrong.”

Consider how the law may examine the mastermind’s role in this hypothetical using “direct and proximate cause” …also referred to as “but for”- It is the cause that directly produces an event. The event would not have occurred but for the cause. This is also referred to as direct cause, efficient cause, initial cause, first cause, legal cause, producing cause, primary cause or jural cause. (source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proximate-cause/). The goal is to link negligence to liability for injury or death.

As you can, this element is missing from the scenario involving the truth-teller. Was the truth-teller negligent? No....at least from a legal standpoint, negligence is not present with the truth-teller.

[truehyuga]

Insert Quote
Quote from: truehyuga on September 11, 2010, 12:14:21 AM
Consider the Scenario 2 (again   ): Someone tells the truth, and due to that action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the truth-teller, desired by the truth-teller, nor was it the goal of the truth-teller; but nonetheless, his actions caused it.

No. His actions did NOT cause the death. You are projecting blame onto the truth-teller for the actions of the murderer.

Quote from: truehyuga on September 11, 2010, 12:14:21 AM
However, we have a similar situation and a different reaction: Scenario 1. Scenario 1 posits a situation in which someone plans and executes a bank heist, and due to this action, someone dies. This death was not caused by the mastermind, desired by the mastermind, nor was it the goal of the mastermind; but nonetheless his actions caused it.
Here you claimed the mastermind was morally at fault for the death of the man.

Yes, because the mastermind created the moral “wrong” that led to the death….plus, as you indicated, he was wiling to condone a murder if it was necessary in order to carry out the robbery. He knowingly created a moral “wrong” that led to another moral “wrong.”

The problem with answering this way is that the morality of the act has nothing to do with the causality. Just because one did something good that caused the situation does not make it any less of a cause of the murder then when someone did so for bad reasons. Causality is separate from morality.
Note the bolded and underlined parts. Replace the words "carry out the robbery" with the words "tell the truth". Does this not sound like what you have been insisting throughout the thread? How is this an argument against the robber if it can be applied just as well to the truth-teller?

Before I quote and respond to the next part, I just want to reiterate that I do not care for the legal terminology; I want your beliefs on it, from a moral standpoint. If you'd like to post legal documents to help explain your case, continue, butnote that I will treat these as a part of your moral philosophy.
Carrying on:

Consider how the law may examine the mastermind’s role in this hypothetical using “direct and proximate cause” …also referred to as “but for”- It is the cause that directly produces an event. The event would not have occurred but for the cause. This is also referred to as direct cause, efficient cause, initial cause, first cause, legal cause, producing cause, primary cause or jural cause. (source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proximate-cause/). The goal is to link negligence to liability for injury or death.

As you can, this element is missing from the scenario involving the truth-teller. Was the truth-teller negligent? No....at least from a legal standpoint, negligence is not present with the truth-teller.

Actually, from the legal standpoint, both the truth teller and the robber were negligent. Your article actually is in my favor. From the article:

There may be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Multiple acts of negligence by different people may concur to cause the same accident, yet each may be deemed to be a proximate cause of the accident. Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes after the original negligence of the defendant and the injured plaintiff, which will either reduce the amount of the defendant's liability. If this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the defendant will not be liable at all.

Look at the bolded specifically. There may be multiple causes for a single event; whilst in both cases an unnamed killer actually pulled the trigger, the situation was only made possible by the robber and truth-teller respectively. Without them, the situation could not have occurred. This is at the very basis of causality.
Now, you COULD make a case on the italicized area, that the gunman is the substantial cause, and thus the truth-teller should get off... but that ALSO applies to the robber. Taking this path would force you to change your answer...

You brought up the but-for clause with this article. So I'll use it.
BUT FOR the robber setting up the heist, would the man have been killed?
BUT FOR the truth-teller accusing the thief, would the man have been killed?
You'll find the answer to this is the same.

[BibleStudent]

The problem with answering this way is that the morality of the act has nothing to do with the causality.

See, this is where I profusely disagree with you. Cause is the most important element in determining moral responsibility with your hypotheticals. From a Biblical perspective, the Nazi’s were guilty of sin by initiating a plan to exterminate the Jews. It is their sin that caused the predicament, not mine. It is unBiblical and morally incorrect to project that sin onto me in any way, shape, or form. For me to be morally liable, I would necessarily have to be party to that cause…either by condoning it or, at the very least, believing that it was not a sin to exterminate the Jews. The fact that I was forced into the circumstances of their sin does not make me morally liable for it. Absent the initial cause, any predicament I may be in does not exist. Therefore, it is the first cause which is responsible for the murdering of the Jews.

Likewise, the truth-teller was honoring his Biblically based duties to be honest and was, in no way, the cause for the sin of murder. Now, had he hoped that the murder would take place or provoked it in some way, then he is morally guilty. Would you consider yourself morally guilty of a moral wrong if you were the truth-teller in this hypothetical? I have news for you, the law would not find you guilty.

I only use the legal analogies to help hone in on what I am trying to convey as respects the obligation of ‘cause’ to account for where moral liability is imposed. I realize you are not as interested in the legal aspects but, again, I am using them for illustrative purposes only.

What you seem to have looked past was the issue of ‘negligence.’ Returning to the Nazi hypothetical, let’s consider whether I was ‘negligent’ or not. If the Nazi’s were aware of the danger they were in (and surely they were) and they were also fully aware of the dangers they were placing me in (which they surely were), then it is unreasonable to accuse of me of having a moral duty to protect them. This becomes especially true if you were to posit that the Jews were an accessory for any harm that may have come to me. ….because, using your analogy, you must concede this and, as a result, you are now in a catch-22 if you attempt to accuse me of being ‘negligent.’ Do you see how this rules out any ‘negligence’ on my part.

The only way I become obligated (and notice I left out the word “morally”) is if I had indicated to the Jews that I would lie to protect them and I did not keep that promise. To do so would mean that I have committed a moral “wrong” because I lied to the Jews….and, as a result, my sins have overwhelmed me and contributed to the deaths of my house guests. Absent any promise on my part, any assumptions they may have made that I would lie is still unworthy of imposing a moral obligation on me given that we were all aware of the dangers we were in.

Lastly, I am going to challenge you to do something. Could you please point to a passage (or passages) in the Bible that could be interpreted to mean that I have a moral obligation to protect the Jews….or anyone else for that matter….given the circumstances in this hypothetical. You are, obviously, not going to find text that refers to this particular set of circumstances but anything that comes as close as you think it needs to come in order to create an obligation on me would be fine.

[Gnu Ordure]

Hi, BS,

The problem in this Nazi scenario seems to be that you think that your actions aren't sinful.

This all seems to hinge on issues of consent and promises and so on. Instead of arguing about it, wouldn't it be easier to simply refine the scenario, so that the action becomes more obviously sinful? Then you can come back to my question:

Collaboration is a sin. Lying is a sin. Try to understand that both those statements, standing independently, are true. But in certain situations, they may conflict. You have to either lie, or collaborate. There is no third option.
That's your problem. Your current solution to it is to assert that collaboration isn't a sin. But that's a fail, sorry. Try again.

Now I've got a very simple scenario, BS, but before I give it to you, I want to clarify that collaboration is a crime and a sin. It's as bad as being an accessory to murder, and that's pretty bad. Wiki starts off:

Collaborationism is cooperation with enemy forces occupying one's country. Legally, it may be considered as a form of treason. Collaborationism may be associated with criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, which may include complicity with the occupying power in murder,

OK, BS? It's a sin. And giving the Nazis information about the whereabouts of Jews is defintely cooperating. It's being an informer/informant.

So, a simplified scenario:

You somehow overhear that some Jews are hiding in a certain nearby house. Five minutes later, a Nazi happens to ask you if you know where any Jews are hiding. What do you say, yes or no?

(As before, you know that answering truthfully means that the Jews will die).

So, no issues of consent or promises or who knew what about your compulsive honesty.

If you tell the truth, you're an informer. That's collaboration. It's a sin.

If you lie, that's a sin too.

What do you say, BS?

Gnu.

[BibleStudent]

So, a simplified scenario:

You somehow overhear that some Jews are hiding in a certain nearby house. Five minutes later, a Nazi happens to ask you if you know where any Jews are hiding. What do you say, yes or no?

(As before, you know that answering truthfully means that the Jews will die).

So, no issues of consent or promises or who knew what about your compulsive honesty.

If you tell the truth, you're an informer. That's collaboration. It's a sin.

If you lie, that's a sin too.

What do you say, BS?

Gnu.

Well, before we go any further, perhaps it would be a good idea to identify how the Bible attributes this as sin. Same challenge to you as I proposed to truehyuga......

Could you please point to a passage (or passages) in the Bible that could be interpreted to mean that I have a moral obligation to protect the Jews….or anyone else for that matter….given the circumstances in this hypothetical. You are, obviously, not going to find text that refers to this particular set of circumstances but anything that comes as close as you think it needs to come in order to create an obligation on me would be fine.

[jynnan tonnix]

Wouldn't loving your neighbor as yourself pretty much cover that? Shouldn't we all be looking out for each others' wellbeing?

I wonder how sorry you would be to hear someone deny they knew where you were if you were hiding from a certain, undeserved death?

[Gnu Ordure]

BS:

Well, before we go any further, perhaps it would be a good idea to identify how the Bible attributes this as sin.

Well, if you're happy with the wiki description of collaboration which I posted before...

Collaborationism is cooperation with enemy forces occupying one's country. Legally, it may be considered as a form of treason. Collaborationism may be associated with criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, which may include complicity with the occupying power in murder,

... the answer to your question is in the final word of that description.

Exodus 20: You shall not murder.

And by implication, you shall not murder in the first degree, nor in the second degree, nor in the third degree, nor aid and abet a murder, nor be an accessory to murder. These are all sins, according to God.

And thus collaboration, if it involves complicity in murder, which my new scenario definitely does, is a sin.

Well, before we go any further,

I'm ready to proceed, if you are?

[truehyuga]

See, this is where I profusely disagree with you. Cause is the most important element in determining moral responsibility with your hypotheticals. From a Biblical perspective, the Nazi’s were guilty of sin by initiating a plan to exterminate the Jews. It is their sin that caused the predicament, not mine. It is unBiblical and morally incorrect to project that sin onto me in any way, shape, or form. For me to be morally liable, I would necessarily have to be party to that cause…either by condoning it or, at the very least, believing that it was not a sin to exterminate the Jews. The fact that I was forced into the circumstances of their sin does not make me morally liable for it. Absent the initial cause, any predicament I may be in does not exist. Therefore, it is the first cause which is responsible for the murdering of the Jews.

Nope. None of this has anything to do with causality.
BUT FOR you telling them about the Jews, would they have been killed? The answer is no, as it is in my two scenarios. That is all that is needed for causality.
While it is true that BUT FOR the Nazis this would not have happened (or but for the gunmen), it is still true that the person in question lays on the line of causality.

Likewise, the truth-teller was honoring his Biblically based duties to be honest and was, in no way, the cause for the sin of murder. Now, had he hoped that the murder would take place or provoked it in some way, then he is morally guilty. Would you consider yourself morally guilty of a moral wrong if you were the truth-teller in this hypothetical? I have news for you, the law would not find you guilty.

YES I WOULD. I would consider myself morally guilty because I could have easily saved the life of another human being and did not.
As to law, yes, they would find a person guilty. Actually, if you REALLY want to get into law, they would ASSUME murderous intent based on the content of his actions; a willful action of placing someone in danger for their life.

I only use the legal analogies to help hone in on what I am trying to convey as respects the obligation of ‘cause’ to account for where moral liability is imposed. I realize you are not as interested in the legal aspects but, again, I am using them for illustrative purposes only.

Will you please point out what part of these laws you believe, however? It is difficult to continue if you use moral stances that you don't honestly believe in.

What you seem to have looked past was the issue of ‘negligence.’ Returning to the Nazi hypothetical, let’s consider whether I was ‘negligent’ or not. If the Nazi’s were aware of the danger they were in (and surely they were) and they were also fully aware of the dangers they were placing me in (which they surely were), then it is unreasonable to accuse of me of having a moral duty to protect them. This becomes especially true if you were to posit that the Jews were an accessory for any harm that may have come to me.

I assume the bolded is supposed to mean Jews?
Regardless, in the scenario, you willingly took them in. Are you saying they are negligent for you willingly protecting them? That is ludicrous.
If you honestly want to try to test the scenario again with the statements "I wouldn't let them in", "I would let them in if they were ok with me giving them up", then simply use Gnu's new scenario, or stick with my relatively airtight ones. Preferably mine.

….because, using your analogy, you must concede this and, as a result, you are now in a catch-22 if you attempt to accuse me of being ‘negligent.’ Do you see how this rules out any ‘negligence’ on my part.

Nope. In the Nazi scenario you agreed to protect the Jews. In my (again, these are the focus) scenarios no one was negligent to the person in question in the slightest.

he only way I become obligated (and notice I left out the word “morally”) is if I had indicated to the Jews that I would lie to protect them and I did not keep that promise. To do so would mean that I have committed a moral “wrong” because I lied to the Jews….and, as a result, my sins have overwhelmed me and contributed to the deaths of my house guests. Absent any promise on my part, any assumptions they may have made that I would lie is still unworthy of imposing a moral obligation on me given that we were all aware of the dangers we were in.

Yup, already noticed you could use this as an escape, please stick to my scenarios.

Lastly, I am going to challenge you to do something. Could you please point to a passage (or passages) in the Bible that could be interpreted to mean that I have a moral obligation to protect the Jews….or anyone else for that matter….given the circumstances in this hypothetical. You are, obviously, not going to find text that refers to this particular set of circumstances but anything that comes as close as you think it needs to come in order to create an obligation on me would be fine.

I don't give a shit about the Nazi scenario as you are constantly probing all the technicalities of it. Stick with mine, it has nothing to do with any of this.

But if I must give one, the all encompassing "Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself" that tonnix suggested works well.

EDIT: Actually, I have a few more of these, though I don't really care about debating scripture...

Luke 22:36-38: He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.  37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: k‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For lwhat is written about me has its fulfillment.”

Here Jesus tells them to buy swords... could this mean it may be okay to kill (sin) to protect someone or something from evil?
Whilst you can argue that this is for self-defense, are you to sit by and let a friend die until you yourself are attacked? COmbine with Love thy Neighbor for the answer.

Ps 82:4: Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

Seems like you should be helping weak and needy peoples... maybe like, I don't know, Jews during the Holocaust?

John 15:9: Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Actually, you can one-up this. What is a man who gives up ETERNAL life for his friends?

Prov 24:11: Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter

DO we know anyone who was being taken to their death at this time period?

[BibleStudent]

EDIT: Actually, I have a few more of these, though I don't really care about debating scripture...

What??!!! What do you mean you don’t really care about debating scripture?  If you are going to accuse me of sin and/or committing a moral wrong according to the morality I believe in, then surely you must demonstrate that I can be charged according to the Bible. Where is the sin you charge me with found in the Bible?


Mark 12:31 -Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself
Would I love myself so much that I would lie to save my own life? No, I would not lie to save my own life therefore I am not compelled by the wording of this text to lie for someone else.

Luke 22:36-38: He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.  37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: k‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For lwhat is written about me has its fulfillment.”
Could refer to self defense but most theologians interpret this to mean that Jesus was encouraging them to take up the Sword of the Spirit.

Ps 82:4: Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Instructions provided to the judges and magistrates to apply justice equally to everyone.

John 15:9: Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Even if it means lying? I don’t think so....particularly since God commands us not to lie!

Prov 24:11: Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
if thou seest the innocent taken by the hand of lawless power or superstitious zeal, and they are about to be put to death, thou shouldst rise up in their behalf, boldly plead for them, testify to their innocence when thou knowest it; and thus thou wilt not be guilty of blood; (source: Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)

[OnePerson]

So Biblestudent would rather be an accessory to murder rather than a liar.  Interesting.

[Azdgari]

Someone has no compassion.  Or does have compassion, and is lying about it for the purpose of being "right".

[BibleStudent]

So Biblestudent would rather be an accessory to murder rather than a liar.  Interesting.

PROVE that I am an accessory. More specifically, since my moral beliefs come from the Bible, demonstrate it using Biblical texts. Otherwise, you are just making a bunch of noise.

[truehyuga]

Quote from: truehyuga on 1 hour  ago
EDIT: Actually, I have a few more of these, though I don't really care about debating scripture...

What??!!! What do you mean you don’t really care about debating scripture?  If you are going to accuse me of sin and/or committing a moral wrong according to the morality I believe in, then surely you must demonstrate that I can be charged according to the Bible. Where is the sin you charge me with found in the Bible?

Because I want to see how you judge it. I don't want you to have to back it up with anything but logical consistency and solid reasoning. I don't give a fuck where it comes from, it just has to work.

Also, because I knew it would lead to you ignoring the actual argument to debate scripture.

Mark 12:31 -Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself
Would I love myself so much that I would lie to save my own life? No, I would not lie to save my own life therefore I am not compelled by the wording of this text to lie for someone else.

Fair enough.

Luke 22:36-38: He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.  37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: k‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For lwhat is written about me has its fulfillment.”
Could refer to self defense but most theologians interpret this to mean that Jesus was encouraging them to take up the Sword of the Spirit.

You have to sell a cloak for money to buy that? And is it capable of chopping off ears? And are two of them enough for everyone?
Honestly, bad interpretation on your part, IMO.

Ps 82:4: Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Instructions provided to the judges and magistrates to apply justice equally to everyone.

So? Seems to be a rather sound moral lesson for everyone.

John 15:9: Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Even if it means lying? I don’t think so....particularly since God commands us not to lie!

Way to ignore what I said regarding it. If giving up one's life for a friend is a good thing, loving thing to do, how loving is it for one to actually give up not mortal life but ETERNAL life for another? And how do you think your god will judge the most selfless loving person of all time?

Prov 24:11: Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
if thou seest the innocent taken by the hand of lawless power or superstitious zeal, and they are about to be put to death, thou shouldst rise up in their behalf, boldly plead for them, testify to their innocence when thou knowest it; and thus thou wilt not be guilty of blood

...which thou wouldst be, if, through any pretense, thou shouldst neglect to save the life of a man unjustly condemned.
So what? The third part says that if you neglect to save their life you are guilty. While this doesn't outright condone sinning to save them outright, the last part is clear.


Regardless, let's not get off topic.

BUT FOR you telling them about the Jews, would they have been killed? The answer is no, as it is in my two scenarios. That is all that is needed for causality.
While it is true that BUT FOR the Nazis this would not have happened (or but for the gunmen), it is still true that the person in question lays on the line of causality.

Do you disagree? On what grounds? Please reference my scenarios.

[OnePerson]

So Biblestudent would rather be an accessory to murder rather than a liar.  Interesting.

PROVE that I am an accessory. More specifically, since my moral beliefs come from the Bible, demonstrate it using Biblical texts. Otherwise, you are just making a bunch of noise.

You'll just find some other way to justify it so you can come to whatever conclusion you want.  I don't know why I bother.

http://preachersfiles.com/are-you-an-accessory-to-sin/

How does the Bible say that we can be an accessory to sin? One of the first passages that comes to mind is 2 John 10  and 11. In this passage, John writes to a Christian woman telling her not to receive false teachers into her house. There was nothing wrong with receiving strangers into one’s house to care for them as they were traveling through town. In fact, Hebrews 13:2  states that when Christian’s practice such they are acting in a way approved by the Holy Spirit. However, when receiving a false teacher into one’s home, the situation is different. John states in verse 11 that when one does this, one is partaking of that false teacher’s evil deeds. There is a difference between doing something that is right to support that which is right and doing something that would otherwise be right to support that which is wrong. The Holy Spirit says that the latter is sin. When we give aid and comfort to false teachers, that is being an accessory to sin."

If letting a false teacher into your house counts as "partaking in that false teacher's evil deeds", surely telling murderers where their targets are hiding is even worse.

Finally, a Christian can also be an accessory to sin by providing service to that which is sinful. John writes in 1 John 2:10  “He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.” The one who loves will not provide an occasion of stumbling in another. The opposite is also true, the one who sets forth an occasion of stumbling before another does not love him. And, when one does not love his neighbor, he violates what Jesus calls the second command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39)."

You may not be providing murderers with their weapon, but you are knowingly providing them with the location of their target.