*Just read this in a George Will column:
"...since 1952 federal law has said: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." "
It seems to me that a law such as this carries with it an expectation that at some point, and for some reason, such identification might be required of an alien in this country. Does it make sense that such a law should exist yet law enforcement should be prohibited from ever requesting that an alien produce such documentation? Why is asking for this documentation fascism and a cop asking for license, registration and proof of insurance after pulling someone over not?
*In today's local newspaper there were stories of rallies and marches for immigration reform. It stated that this was planned well before the AZ law became news. Aside from the fact that it presented a great opportunity for ICE to apprehend more illegals, it was basically an event organized to draw attention to the plight of people who broke the law to enter this country. Apparently, that they are "forced" to enter illegally is some kind of "social justice" issue. (I never needed Glen Beck to tell me that use of the term is a ploy.) I wonder where the justice is in demanding citizenship for illegals when we have 10% unemployment in this country. Far better that we deport as many illegals as we can to free up some of the jobs that they have taken. I don't want to hear this crap about them doing jobs Americans won't do. In today's economy, I have personally spoken to many who have "lowered" themselves to take jobs they never would have taken five to ten years ago.
*Also in today's paper, in the same article, was an activist with stats about how long it takes to go through the proper channels to enter this country. Supposedly, the United States is one of the most restrictive and it takes twenty years for some to go through the process. I'm tearing up. How it that our problem? How does it make us responsible for this "social injustice"? Apparently, we screwed up so badly the economies of so many other countries that we now owe these teaming masses a piece of the American pie. Of course that's crap. And La Raza thinks they're gonna get back California.
*So maybe by now, one of those who have posted comments opposing the AZ law could tell me what number would satisfy them as the proper amount we should let in each year, and while they're at it, explain where the hell they're all going to work? Explain also just what is wrong with the numbers we're letting in now. With our unemployment level, why should we let ANY in right now?
Theses are just a few of the questions that keep popping up in my head regarding the illegal invader issue. More will pop up I'm sure, at which time I'll add them to the list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260It seems to me that there is no end to some peoples stupidity and that it is almost a sin to waste too much time with them. mom2
"And would you have engaged in "evil" behavior by stealing bread to save a child?"
I'll repeat. "Thou shalt not steal". Stealing is a sin. You can try to justify why a particular sin is not a sin under some circumstances if you want. But you can't provide biblical support for your hunch that stealing becomes non sinful when you do it for the "right" reasons.
Mark 2. Since the passage in question does not speak to stealing nor hungry children I fail to see the relevance to this thread.
"27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
As you could have seen the issue in this passage was violating the build up of "sabbath" laws that had occurred as the religious leaders kept adding prohibitions to what could be done on the sabbath. Jesus clearly is establishing His authority over the sabbath, not condoning stealing.
So, how many dead innocents are too many?
If torturing one guy would stop the detonation of a chemical/nuclear/biological/radiological device, your saying sorry no "torture".
This seems like another of those instances when you would like to impose your religions morality on our secular government.
Is it a difficult question, Craig? Am I not being clear? My question is straightforward and clear, as far as I can tell.
Is it evil to steal bread to save a child from dying?
(definitions for "evil": morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct; wicked...)
Is it morally reprehensible to steal bread to save a starving child from dying? Is it WICKED to steal bread to save a starving child from dying?
Yes? No? Other?
=====
Mom2, what is stupid? WHOSE stupidity are you speaking of? Is it "stupid" to ask if it's an evil act to save a child from starving by stealing bread? Is it "stupid" to assume that torturing people is an evil?
You're coming down on the side of torture, is that it? You're coming down against saving a dying child, is that it?
IF you have a comment to make, make it like an adult. Your asinine grade school snipes don't deserve further comment. For an elder of the church, you are a graceless little pissant of a whiner and gossip. Grow up and act your age. Lead the way in wisdom and grace, don't drag us down with your bitchy little rumor-mongering/busybodying.
The Bible calls such behavior wrong.
Thanks for that brilliant comment Dan. Taken right from YOUR bible, I guess. mom2
Dan, who cherry picks Bible verses to support the unsupportable, here's one:
Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?
Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind, For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. ~ Matthew 12:24-32
You say it isn't wrong to steal bread to feed a child, but God says don't worry about the child. Place your trust in Him and the child shall be fed.
This is also the reason why abortion is wrong. When you take the decision of life or death out of God's hands, you are demonstrating that you have no faith in God.
O ye of little faith.
Dan, according to God's Word, stealing is wrong. I don't believe the Ten Commandments came with a caveat. You might want to check that to be sure. (hint: it's in Exodus 20)
Also, according to God's word, "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
When you break God's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", you are rebelling against God. If witchcraft is evil(and most people besides apostates consider witchcraft evil), then you are doing evil, even when you consider your motives righteous, and when you are being stubborn about it (such as refusing to admit you are wrong), you are working iniquity, (which is another synonym for evil) and you are worshiping idols(leaning to your own understanding).
Hence, Dan is evil, and not only because he rejects the Word of the Lord (such as when he says God blesses gay marriage in spite of what the word of the Lord says), but because he rebels against God.
Then answer the question, Mark.
Is it EVIL/wrong/wicked to steal a loaf of bread to save the life of a starving child? OR, is it wrong to do nothing in that situation and let the child die?
Yes, no, or some explanation of why it's not an easy answer.
You all aren't doing so good at answering direct questions. Mom2, of course, NEVER does. She only gossips, slanders and snipes out detritus like a gangrenous pimple. That's what she does, she doesn't engage in conversation or reasoned thought, she just bitches.
Lord help her.
But how about you, Mark? Craig? Marshall? ANY ONE out there wanting to answer these direct and simple questions?
Or is it easier to just say "torture good, liberals bad, heh heh heh, they morons..."?
And while I'm at it, let me respond to Geoffrey's rather infantile response to me where he insulted me rather than respond to my points:
I noticed you didn't refute my statements regarding why homos co-habitate. He merely insulted me. That's because I presented a logical argument that Geoffrey could not refute.
So rather than prove he is so much smarter than the rest of us, as he so often condescendingly implies, he instead only proved himself a moron.
Carry on.
Ok, Dan, I'll be clear enough to permeate even that thick skull of yours:
It is EVIL/wrong/wicked to steal a loaf of bread to save the life of a starving child.
Because, (and I don't know why I have to repeat myself) when you steal, you are violating God's commandment, and when you steal to feed a starving child, it is evil/wrong/wicked to place yourself and/or the child's needs above God.
Interrogation, which you call torture, is not evil because it is righteous.
It is righteous because it helps prevent an unrighteous un-Godly people from killing righteous God fearing people. God protects His people.
God has sent armies after unrighteous people over and over and over to do His righteous bidding.
It's in the Book, Dan. Try just reading it in context. For once.
Are you now so arrogant as to call God evil?
Yes, yes, I think you are.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Mark thinks it is EVIL to steal a loaf of bread to save the life of a child.
Mark probably also thinks it a moral GOOD to torture people, IF the end result might be good.
Just clarifying who thinks what is evil and anyone coming along can decide for themselves who does and doesn't have a good handle on morality.
If you want to side WITH letting a starving child die and WITH torture, go for it.
I'll pass. I think you misunderstand the very nature of good and evil and that would explain a lot.
Dan, I have had plenty of conversations with you, Sometimes under a different name. I've read your comments with so many others, thus I am not a gossip or any of those juvenile names you chose. I would never put in print such vile things as you say about conservatives that disagree with you. Until you learn to have respect for others, don't expect it from them. Your interpretation of the Bible has been clearly shown to be totally in contrast to the Truth. Your length of time spent spreading untruths will not be profitable to you. Take some motherly advice instead of adding to your errors. mom2
I'm always open to advice from reasonable people. All I see from you is one-sided sniping at those who you perceive to be liberal. There is no words of advice to those who regularly spew epithets of the most childish types (moron, jerk, thick skull, etc).
You MIGHT have some credibility 1. IF you actually engaged in conversation and 2. you also called on the carpet those who are much worse in their abusive language than I am.
You say you HAVE engaged in conversation under another name, then NAME it. Say who you are. Quit hiding behind this anonymous name.
Almost ALL I ever hear from you is gossip and sniping, slander and unsupported charges.
You want to have some credibility? ANSWER questions, engage in conversation. As it is, you just remain a pissant to be disregarded as having absolutely nothing productive to say, your comments are spit on the sidewalk, nothing more.
Before I make myself crystal clear on the torture/theft issue, let me be so on the Mom2 issue:
Dan,
For one who constantly makes pleas for "graciousness", there is little grace in your response to Mom2's comments. What's your excuse? That you feel you have some right to chastise those who post comments you don't like? Even those directed at you, the worst ad hominem, the most vile expletive, ignoring them completely is far more gracious behavior than returning volley with your own rude comments. I don't approve of anyone (who isn't me) ripping on anyone else here. I only allow them to stand to give anyone who prefers to engage in such behavior a chance to expose themselves. Then all can decide for themselves if such comments are justified or not. But in YOUR case, you constantly preach civility. There's no excuse to pretend it's OK to make exception when someone like Mom2 makes a comment directed at you. Man up and move on.
cont---
As you know, I DO generally ignore mom2's preening as she ALWAYS has almost NOTHING to say. Today, though, I thought I would call her on her self-righteous moral preening as it just got on my nerves. I shall now go back to ignoring her, if you prefer.
You, Marshall, would have more credibility asking me to leave her alone if you'd do the same for others with their verbal vomit.
Who is it here who generally tries to refer to folk as brother/sister, who tries to be at least a little gracious, who rarely refers to people as morons, thick-skulled, etc? And who is it here who regularly engages in that sort of behavior?
Our words speak for themselves.
There's no excuse to pretend it's OK to make exception when someone like Mom2 makes a comment directed at you. Man up and move on.
It's funny, though. When I "stoop" to behaving like YOU ALL behave, you all tend to find it offensive. Should I stoop to behaving as rudely as many here do? No, probably not. But you're exposing some hypocrisy that you can't take what you all give out.
Man up, indeed.
Move on yourself, brother Marshall. For a man (or a woman) will reap what you sow.
Dan,
I've answered your question. But I'll do it again.
"Is it evil to steal bread to save a child from dying?"
Stealing is a sin. If you were to define sin as evil then yes it would be evil. No matter how much you try to rationalize it certain behaviors are sinful. Stealing happens to be one that really isn't that controversial.
Mark has actually addressed this very well. Why would you not trust God, rather than rely on what you think is expedient?
Now, if I accept that stealing bread for a child is an exception to the rule that stealing is a sin, then how far can we take that.
Is it OK to steal the bread from someone else's hand by knocking them unconscious with a board?
Is it OK to invade the prosperous country next to you and take the bread (or the means of producing the bread) by force?
Is it OK to steal the money to go buy a loaf of bread?
Is it OK to steal more money than you "need" for bread?
Is it OK to systematically defraud the welfare system to feed a dying child?
Is it OK to torture someone to tell your where the bread is hidden, so you can feed a dying child?
Why would you not take God at his word when He says "how much more are ye better than the fowls?"
Quite frankly I just spent a week in Haiti (among other things) feeding the hungry. I can say without hesitation that the Haitian Christians that I have met have a much better grasp of this than Dan. They know what it is to live every day totally reliant on God provision (this doesn't mean they sit around doing nothing waiting for free food). But they have a much better sense of the integration of God's provision into their daily lives than we do. But the best part is, they don't steal.
Finally, you have not addressed my earlier contention that your argument for stealing is equally valid for what you call torture. But since you are using the loaded term torture, maybe you should clarify what you consider torture.
For example. Would it be torture to force someone to sit in a straight backed unpadded chair for 1 hour? 4 hours? 12 hours?
How about kneeling? Loud music? Sensory deprivation?
Ultimately the only question that matters is which do you value more; the innocent people killed by terrorists or the comfort a terrorist? If "torture" could have prevented the deaths of the 3000 people directly killed in the 9-11 attacks, as well as indirectly prevented the loss of life and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, would you or would you not have supported "torture" to have stopped what has happened.
For now we'll leave aside the numbers of people who would have been tortured, starved, and dies had Saddam stayed in power.
I've answered yours, it's your turn.
As to the torture/theft issue:
I have absolutely no problem with stealing if it seems the only way to aid a starving child, or any starving person for that matter, including one's self. I think it's clear from Dan's last Scriptural exerpt, as well as the OT story regarding David from which Christ's words were drawn, that the intention behind the theft mitigates the sinfulness of stealing.
In other words, it is an example of what Christ so often tried to teach the hypocrites of His day and their misapplication of God's law. They misunderstood or ignored the spirit of the laws. Stealing is bad. God says so. But what makes it so is the greed that is usually behind the theft as well as the loss to the victim. However, when one is starving, particularly a small child, the immediate impact on the health and welfare of the starving person clearly outweighs the loss to the victim of the theft, unless the victim will now starve instead. In addition, it wasn't greed that motivated the theft. Stealing is bad, but in this case not so, in fact, it is required and necessary for the sake of the starving child. Thus it is NOT sinful but good, especially if restitution to the victim is made later.
In the same way, torture is bad. It is bad because it is direct harm to another human being. But if that human being himself is an evil person, and he has information that would save the lives of innocent people, if only one person, perhaps that same starving child, then it would not be sinful to do what is necessary to make him cough up the information necessary to prevent the harm to the innocents. The intention is not to harm the evil person, for without his having the life-saving knowledge, there is no need to inflict harm upon him, nor any desire (assuming a Christian interrogator). No, the intention is to save the people who's lives are threatened by the acts of the evil person in custody and/or his associates. The harm he will suffer by withholding the info is therefor self-inflicted, by virtue of his own actions that provoked the interrogation in the first place. This is far different than a Gestapo agent torturing for info to further the agenda of the Nazi Party. This is forcing life-saving info from someone very much like a Nazi Gestapo agent.
Thus, the ends do justify the means in each case, both the theft and the "torture". As in the David story, in each case, a normally sinful behavior is mitigated by the intention that motivated it. One can't have it both ways. Either one never commits what is usually a sin or one can if the situation justifies it.
To be sure, there will always be times when one will claim justification and be judged wrong and there will be times when one IS justified and will STILL be judged wrong by the courts, but not God. And of course there will be times when one feels justified but plainly isn't by man or God. But to say that "torture" is always wrong but not any other sin, like theft, is naive if not outright goofy. It shows a very skewed understanding of morality.
"When I "stoop" to behaving like YOU ALL behave, you all tend to find it offensive."
No. I find it incredibly hypocritical and in addition, absolutely and childishly thin skinned that you so poorly bear up under it. Your graciousness is very short lived. And you're certainly not bowing to a greater good by engaging in the same sin against which you preach.
Marshall,
I slightly disagree with you. I would argue that stealing is clearly a sin and that no justification removes its inherent sinfulness. However, I think that depending on context and intent God can forgive a sin without removing its "sinfulness".
I would also suggest that there is a difference between the rules covering the eating of the ceremonial bread, and the law against stealing.
I also think that Mark is on to something in that stealing bread bypasses our reliance on God for provision.
Anyway, I'm not sure we're that far apart, but I thought I'd chime in.
I see you wrote more...
Do you really think that a brother or sister is incapable of being thick skulled or a moron? I don't. What's more, you think you have the special right to call out someone for their shortcomings but we must constantly consider others as brothers and sisters? That you assume I don't isn't very gracious either. That I don't ban anyone or delete their comments, I believe, shows quite a bit of graciousness on my part. And you damned well know that when someone gets too nasty that I will indeed call them on it. Tough luck for you if you think I don't do it often enough for your pleasure.
Craig,
"I would also suggest that there is a difference between the rules covering the eating of the ceremonial bread, and the law against stealing."
No, forbidden is forbidden. Though I disagree with you in the terms you've put the issue. Intention would likely mean forgiveness for the sin being committed. Either way it works out the same way and I don't think we be held to account, which is the main thing.
I meant to say that I DON'T disagree with you, Craig.
Marshall,
That's where I thought you were going, but wasn't sure. It sounds like the difference with Dan is that he is saying that stealing for the "right" reasons is not sinful.
Well, actually I was saying that as well, but your words better describe the sentiment I was feeling. Possibly the same can be said for Dan, although I am compelled to believe he wouldn't hold the same for "torture".
I don't know if any of you guys watch "24" or not, but Jack Bauer is on the rampage. He has recently gutted a Russian agent to literally extract information (he had swallowed a component of his cell phone). But Jack is after revenge. Not good. Not justified, even under the pretense of getting the victim to admit to a connection between his group and a crime aready committed. But earlier episodes had Jack inflicting great harm on known assholes to procure life-saving info. It spurred the "ticking-time bomb" scenario often discussed during the last administration. I find it totally morally justified under such circumstances and due to the intention behind it, something for which God would definitely forgive.
Marshall,
To jump on your use of fiction to illustrate your point. I would submit Memorial Day by Vince Flynn.
In essence you have a group of folks who have smuggled a nuclear device into the US and plan to detonate it in such a way as to kill the leaders of both the US and most of Europe. Mitch Rapp uses "torture" to obtain information that prove invaluable in stopping the bomb.
While the methods used may constitute torture, I would argue that the greater (fictional) good is served by causing (fictional) pain to a (fictional) terrorist.
This does seem to be one more area where some would like to impose their particular interpretation of scripture onto our secular government.
"This does seem to be one more area where some would like to impose their particular interpretation of scripture onto our secular government."
Couldn't the same be said for gay marriage?
Or abortion?
Marty,
It could, but I've heard a number of people argue against abortion on non biblical grounds, gay marriage as well.
For the record, since "torture" is not covered in the Bible, I'm not one that argues against torture for biblical reasons. I do so for logical and humanitarian reasons.
It appears that Marshall and I, at least, agree on some points. See? It can happen. Marshall quite elegantly defended why sometimes, what NORMALLY is a sin, isn't necessarily sinful. Context DOES matter. The Sabbath (and the rules given by God to humanity) IS made for humanity, not humanity for the rules.
And actually, I expect that Craig and Marshall would probably agree with me at least partially on torture.
Craig said...
While the methods used may constitute torture, I would argue that the greater (fictional) good is served by causing (fictional) pain to a (fictional) terrorist.
BUT, does that mean that Craig et al think that truly any means is justified? For instance, if all forms of torture had failed, but they were certain that the presumed terrorist was afraid of rape, so they rape him until he confesses, would that be okay? Or, if that wouldn't work, but raping his wife repeatedly would make him talk, would that make it acceptable?
I expect that Marshall and Craig would agree that at least SOME modes of torture ARE evil - even for a good cause. Am I mistaken on that front? Could you, in good faith, endorse raping a female (or male) terrorist in order to get information to save an innocent child?
Presuming you agree with me, we probably all agree that SOME modes of torture ARE evil and ought not be engaged in. It then just becomes a matter of which methods one iS comfortable with. Myself, I think torture, by definition, involves inhumane behavior, ungodly behavior. It involves the deliberate and malignant harming of a person. Ripping off toenails, rape, tearing off skin, burning the skin, removal of body parts, plucking out eyes... actual physical torment. I don't see any of that being Godly or moral.
Would I be comfortable with forcing someone sit through a "Left Behind" movie as a means of "torture?" Well, I'd be fine with that as interrogation, but that is not torture, as it is normally defined.
I'm opposed to torture. I'm not opposed to interrogation. Even harsh interrogation. Just not torture. And, as noted, we probably agree that there are at least some behaviors that are beyond the pale, so it just comes down to WHICH sadistic behavior you're comfortable with using - even for a good cause. It would appear you all are more comfortable with more sadistic behavior than I am, but regardless, the point is we AGREE that some forms of abuse/torture are not acceptable, even for a good cause.
Or do we?
Craig said...
Ultimately the only question that matters is which do you value more; the innocent people killed by terrorists or the comfort a terrorist?
It may come down to that for YOU, but it does not come down to that for me. It comes down to: Will I engage in evil behavior to stop an evil and, if so, HOW MUCH evil will I be willing to engage in to try to reach a good end?
Yours seems to be a moral relativism/ends justifies the means approach to ethics. WHAT am I willing to do IF I think it will ultimately work to the good? IF a fella's wife is sick and unable to engage in "marital bliss," and if that is hard for that man to live with, then FOR HIS MARRIAGE'S SAKE, he'd be willing to engage a prostitute.
Torture for peace and justice is like screwing for virginity. It don't make sense.
Craig, you earlier suggested that merely stealing bread to save a dying child was evil, that such betrayed a trust in God to deliver. Do you not trust in God to deliver you from the terrorists and other boogeymen? Is that not the same, only a much more drastic and deadly and morally reprehensible level?
This was exactly one of the problems that Israel KEPT getting in trouble for - they wanted a king and a kingdom with a mighty army to defend them (even by wiping out the enemy and even their children!) themselves rather than trust in God. God repeatedly had to teach Israel that this was not God's way.
If "torture" could have prevented the deaths of the 3000 people directly killed in the 9-11 attacks, as well as indirectly prevented the loss of life and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, would you or would you not have supported "torture" to have stopped what has happened...
I've answered yours, it's your turn.
As I have noted, some might argue that engaging in a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil is warranted. BUT, we ought not forget that a lesser evil IS still evil. Do you agree?
I mean, we could certainly have less of a threat from middle eastern terrorists if we nuke Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan until everyone there is dead, some might argue. Would that make it right?
No. Doing that would be a great, horrifying evil and I would not endorse such an evil. I, personally, would not endorse raping a terrorist suspect in order to stop 9/11, and I certainly wouldn't do that, myself.
Would you?
I personally would not endorse raping the wife or child of a terrorist in order to stop 9/11. Would you?
I personally would not endorse ripping off the toenails and cutting off the fingers of a terrorist suspect in order to stop 9/11. Would you?
The problem is, when we engage in evil acts in order to stop evil, evil has won. Evil IS being done. Now, as I said, maybe some would argue in favor of embracing the lesser evil to TRY to stop a greater evil. I understand that human emotion/fear, but as a Christian, I can't endorse it.
"BUT, does that mean that Craig et al think that truly any means is justified? For instance, if all forms of torture had failed, but they were certain that the presumed terrorist was afraid of rape, so they rape him until he confesses, would that be okay? Or, if that wouldn't work, but raping his wife repeatedly would make him talk, would that make it acceptable?"
Dan, how about answering the questions put to you rather than simply moving the goalposts. When I use the term torture (which I am using because you used it) I am referring to what would usually be called enhanced interrogation techniques. These do not include rape, so why would you go there? No one is suggesting anything beyond what has been used successfully to extract information from various terrorists etc.
You are clear that you feel free to engage in sin if it brings about a result that fits your definition of "good". You still haven't answered my earlier questions so why should I continue to answer yours? But I'll do so once more as a gesture of good will.
"It may come down to that for YOU, but it does not come down to that for me. It comes down to: Will I engage in evil behavior to stop an evil and, if so, HOW MUCH evil will I be willing to engage in to try to reach a good end?"
Yes that's the question, so how about an answer?
"Yours seems to be a moral relativism/ends justifies the means approach to ethics. WHAT am I willing to do IF I think it will ultimately work to the good? IF a fella's wife is sick and unable to engage in "marital bliss," and if that is hard for that man to live with, then FOR HIS MARRIAGE'S SAKE, he'd be willing to engage a prostitute."
No I'm not. I am drawing a distinction between what would be legal and appropriate for our secular government to do to fulfill it's responsibilities to protect it's citizens, and what a Christ follower should do in a situation that affects him more directly. Since this is a silly example, I'll say no more. For you to equate "marital bliss" with human life is just silly.
"Craig, you earlier suggested that merely stealing bread to save a dying child was evil,"
No I said it was sinful, you keep saying evil.
"Do you not trust in God to deliver you from the terrorists and other boogeymen?"
No, I trust God to do what is best for me, in accordance with His plans and purposes. Keeping me physically free from harm is not part of the deal. I do expect our secular govt. to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibility and defend the country from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Contd.
"Is that not the same, only a much more drastic and deadly and morally reprehensible level?"
No it's not.
"This was exactly one of the problems that Israel KEPT getting in trouble for - they wanted a king and a kingdom with a mighty army to defend them (even by wiping out the enemy and even their children!) themselves rather than trust in God. God repeatedly had to teach Israel that this was not God's way."
Yes, that is true. But you forget that we are not operating under the rules of the Israelite Theocracy. I know you'd like to impose a few of those rules, but we're not there yet. Besides, how can we know that those stories are true? Maybe they are just the fantasies of a few Hebrews to explain why things were always going so badly for them.
"As I have noted, some might argue that engaging in a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil is warranted. "
No, YOU have argued that a "lesser evil" (stealing) is necessary to prevent a "greater evil" from happening.
So your issue is not with the concept it's with the particulars. You agree with one "lesser" evil but not with another "lesser" evil.
As a side note what kind of biblical support can you offer that would indicate that God "ranks" evil?
"I mean, we could certainly have less of a threat from middle eastern terrorists if we nuke Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan until everyone there is dead, some might argue. Would that make it right?"
So instead of answering my question, you move toward something that no one is suggesting.
"The problem is, when we engage in evil acts in order to stop evil, evil has won. Evil IS being done. Now, as I said, maybe some would argue in favor of embracing the lesser evil to TRY to stop a greater evil. I understand that human emotion/fear, but as a Christian, I can't endorse it."
Again, since no one is suggesting that these things be done why bring it up.
It sounds as though you are saying that the you will accept the deaths of thousands of innocents to avoid "torture" of one person. It's your conscience.
So, now that I've shown you how it works, it's your turn. As you are so fond of saying the answering of questions should be a two way street.
To be clear. I have absolutely no problem with the secular government of the US using any and all methods of interrogating terrorists that are legal for them to use. To further clarify, I have no problem with any methods that do not do permanent physical harm.
So now that you know, you can stop the rape crap.
Craig...
No, YOU have argued that a "lesser evil" (stealing) is necessary to prevent a "greater evil" from happening.
I have tried to be fairly clear that I do NOT think that stealing in order to stop a child from starving IS an evil - not a lesser evil and not an evil at all. It is, instead, a moral GOOD, in a last ditch instance.
It would be WRONG to watch a child starve to death if there was a loaf of bread sitting on someone else's table.
You are free to think that it is "sinful" to take a loaf of bread in order to save a child, but I don't think most ethical and rational adults would agree with you. I don't think the Bible agrees with you. I don't think (and this is just my guess) that GOD agrees with you.
Do you suppose that IF you watched a child starve to death and all the time you were watching, you saw that someone had left their loaf of bread sitting on a table and yet you refused to "steal" that bread because you felt it was better to "trust God" to feed that child rather than take what was there to save that child... do you think if you let that happen and then YOU died and met God, that God would say to you, "Ya know, I saw how you didn't steal that bread and instead allowed that child to die. Way to go, Dude!"? I have to seriously doubt it.
In an emergency situation like that, taking that bread would not be stealing in any real moral sense of the notion. Letting that child die when you could have done something to prevent it WOULD be immoral, I can't see how anyone could see it any other way.
As Marshall rightly noted, that story of Jesus is there to point out to us the importance of not getting so caught up in the letter of the laws that we forget the spirit of the Law.
Craig also said...
No I said it was sinful, you keep saying evil.
So are you saying that stealing bread to save a child is NOT evil? THAT's the question I'm asking you. Why is that hard to answer?
Craig...
You still haven't answered my earlier questions so why should I continue to answer yours?
WHAT questions? These?
Is it OK to steal the bread from someone else's hand by knocking them unconscious with a board?
No.
Is it OK to invade the prosperous country next to you and take the bread (or the means of producing the bread) by force?
No.
Is it OK to steal the money to go buy a loaf of bread?
Depends. Probably not. If you have time to steal money and go buy a loaf of bread, you probably have time to figure out some other solution.
Is it OK to steal more money than you "need" for bread?
No.
Is it OK to systematically defraud the welfare system to feed a dying child?
No, I don't think so. Again, I was speaking of a specific drastic situation where the child needed something NOW. Most other times, there is time to figure something else out.
Now, if I were in a nation where there was a child and I truly had no other means to stop that child from starving other than defrauding the system, maybe so. Usually, there is some other solution.
Is it OK to torture someone to tell your where the bread is hidden, so you can feed a dying child?
No.
Those questions? I thought they were ludicrous and mostly obvious, so I didn't answer them, but now you have answers.
You also said/asked...
you have not addressed my earlier contention that your argument for stealing is equally valid for what you call torture. But since you are using the loaded term torture, maybe you should clarify what you consider torture.
I have addressed your earlier contention.
1. "Stealing" is hardly even the right word to call taking bread in an emergency situation to save a life. It's not sinful and it's NOT evil (even though you suggest ludicrously that it is, when you said... "Stealing is a sin. If you were to define sin as evil then yes it would be evil.).
2. On the other hand, excruciating physical abuse/oppression/harm to another person IS clearly a moral wrong and it's a moral wrong on SUCH a more serious level that it's ludicrous to even compare relatively harmlessly taking a loaf of bread to save a life.
What do I mean by torture? Just the standard English definition...
1. something that causes agony or pain;
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
So, do you agree, then, that there ARE some actions that could be used to torture that are immoral and evil?
Have I missed any of your questions?
Art, you must be wrong. Dan agrees with you.
I had said...
"It may come down to that for YOU, but it does not come down to that for me. It comes down to: Will I engage in evil behavior to stop an evil and, if so, HOW MUCH evil will I be willing to engage in to try to reach a good end?"
To which Craig asked...
Yes that's the question, so how about an answer?
I'm not willing to engage in evil in order to try to prevent evil. I'm not willing to engage in sex in order to save my virginity. I'm not willing to stop breathing in order to stay alive.
I'm generally opposed to things that are innately impossible.
Is that clear enough? NO. I would not rape a man in order to prevent 9/11. How about you?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
Dan has apparently missed the point.
Stealing bread to feed a hungry child instead of having faith that God will provide is the same as rebellion against God, which is as sinful and evil as the practice of witchcraft.
So, Dan does not have faith in God.
AND....Dan has left something else out of the example:
What of the person who Dan steals the bread from? Perhaps stealing bread from him to feed the child puts him in an equally life threatening position. Would Dan think that stealing bread from someone who would also starve without it be a moral decision?
Have you ever had anything stolen from you, Dan? How did you feel? Violated? Would you have felt better if you knew the thief had more need of it than you?
"So are you saying that stealing bread to save a child is NOT evil? THAT's the question I'm asking you. Why is that hard to answer?"
Since I've said multiple times that stealing is a sin, and that if you want to define all sin as evil you are free to. But, you keep introducing the term evil, I have only said sin. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this concept.
So, let me be clear. You are saying that stealing a loaf of bread to "save" a dying child is "good" only if it is an "immediate" need. But it would be wrong if the child could live another day or so.
So what you have done is to set up a situation that is so limited as to be unrealistic and use that as your example. If you seriously had a child (you appear to be willing to let an adult die) who was that close to death bread would not help, and you or the caretaker would be culpable for waiting to the last possible second.
"Is that clear enough? NO. I would not rape a man in order to prevent 9/11. How about you?"
Since I have never suggested that this is an actual possibility why would you even bring it up. It does bring up an interesting hypothetical.
If you knew 100% that raping someone would get you information that would save thousands of innocent lives. What would you say to the families of the dead?
I'm not sure how I'd deal with it.
Just to be clear. If I was confronted with the highly improbable hypothetical scenario of a starving child within seconds of dying and only my neighbors loaf of bread (why wouldn't I give the child some of my bread?) will save the child (again why not just ask?). I would take the bread, acknowledge my sin to God and my neighbor, ask forgiveness from both and make restitution to my neighbor.
Lets look at something in the real world, and that has to do with this post.
A 3 year old girl from Haiti is diagnosed with bilateral retinal blastoma, a hospital in the US is willing to treat her at no cost. The Haitian government won't allow her out w/o a passport, do you smuggle her out?
Mark,
Good point, let's see how much more improbable we can make this silly hypothetical.
let them eat cake
Oh Eddy!
I, too, have issue with the sin/evil situation. To clarify my position, I would insist that though I may still be committing the sin of theft by stealing to feed a starving child, be it bread OR money, my action is not in the least bit evil, because my intention is just and noble. In the same way, there is no action I would not approve to force a known terrorist to give up life saving information. Indeed, the more convinced I am that the terrorist possesses such knowledge, the more vicious I'm willing to get to extract it. And though cutting off his limbs inch by inch is horrible and sinful, it is not evil to do what is necessary to save innocent lives, especially at the cost of a known asshole who could prevent it all by giving up the info right away.
One has to keep in mind that I have no desire to even scold a person much less inflict immeasurable pain and suffering. No desire whatsoever. I have no desire to go to war and shoot people dead as often as I have opportunity. But circumstances often force us to make decisions that come down to doing harm or allowing harm to befall us, including loved ones. If you want to be noble and allow your own death when no other life is at stake rather than inflict serious harm on your oppressor, have at it. But to suggest that the comfort of a terrorist outweighs the lives of innocent people, that is as evil as evil can be.
When the Bible speaks of not meeting evil with evil, I don't think it is referring to mere violent action, but also the intention behind the action. I don't speak of torturing a terrorist in a tit for tat, vengeance kind of manner. THAT would be returning evil for evil. But if the terrorist has no info to extract, there would be no need to do what I have no desire to do in the first place. As I stated earlier, and this is indeed the case, if the terrorist with life-saving info refuses to divulge the info, then he is torturing himself. Giving up the intel will eliminate the need for torture. The decision is his, he is forcing my hand, just as an enemy on the battlefield forces my trigger finger.
Have you ever had anything stolen from you, Dan? How did you feel? Violated?
By design, I don't have much worth stealing, but yes, I have had stuff stolen from me and it's a sad thing.
Would you have felt better if you knew the thief had more need of it than you?
Absolutely. Wouldn't you?
If someone stole a loaf of my bread to save a child's life, I would celebrate with great joy. If he tried to apologize to me for committing a sin, I would tell him no sin was done. He worked to do good, not evil.
Marshall is dead right on this one. At least in this scenario.
Craig...
If you knew 100% that raping someone would get you information that would save thousands of innocent lives. What would you say to the families of the dead?
I'm not sure how I'd deal with it.
Wow. How about if you were asked to rape a little girl and you could save thousands of innocent lives, THEN would you STILL have any doubt as to how you'd deal with it?
Some things are wrong. If we let the "terrorists" dictate how we behave and how much evil we're willing to embrace in order to stop their evil, then the terrorists truly have won. It's like you're suggesting that whatever dance the Devil wants you to dance, you'll do it, as long as you think it will stop the Devil.
Craig asked...
A 3 year old girl from Haiti is diagnosed with bilateral retinal blastoma, a hospital in the US is willing to treat her at no cost. The Haitian government won't allow her out w/o a passport, do you smuggle her out?
I don't know what retinal blastoma is. Is it life-threatening? Are there no other options? Failing that, I might think that attempting to smuggle her out might not be a wrong action.
I'm not saying that there are not difficult situations and some instances where there are no good answers. For instance, now that Bush got us into Iraq, there is simply not a good solution to that quagmire. Leaving is what we have to do, morally, I think, but leaving will have horrible moral consequences. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Our actions have consequences and sometimes there is no clear goo d answer.
I certainly don't have all the answers to all the difficult situations.
All this started because I was simply trying to point out that it's ridiculous to suggest that we have some great chasm in our sense of morals. We are all opposed to torture. We are all opposed to stealing. We are all in favor of being honest and hard working.
Will there be difficult questions on the edges of any of these issues? To be sure. Would I punch a terrorist if punching him would save thousands of lives? Sure. Would I punch him a dozen times? Sure, probably.
Would I break his arm to save thousands of lives? Well, I don't know. Would I take a sledge hammer to his feet to turn them into mush? No, I wouldn't. Would I rape someone to "save lives"? No. Would Craig rape a child to save thousands of lives? It remains to be seen, but I would have to say that I'm almost certain he wouldn't.
Sometimes on all these edges of these ideals, we might have gray areas where we individually don't know for sure what the right thing is and where we collectively can't agree on what the right thing is. But that doesn't mean that Craig or Dan or any of us don't generally agree on morality. That's all I was saying.
Dan,
Retinal Blastoma is cancer of the eye. At a minimum this will require the enucleation of her second eye, at worst it is a death sentence. Yet in all of the pressure, non of the good Christians involved has ever considered breaking the law.
I agree with Marshall, and you Dan. Innocent lives are important and to save those lives might require doing some things that may seem wrong to some.
Dan,
Retinal Blastoma is cancer of the eye. At a minimum this will require the enucleation of her second eye, at worst it is a death sentence. Yet in all of the pressure, non of the good Christians involved has ever considered breaking the law.
I agree with Marshall, and you Dan. Innocent lives are important and to save those lives might require doing some things that may seem wrong to some.
So, is torture evil? Is it a sin?
And what was your final answer to my actual question, Is taking a loaf of bread (that does not belong to you) to save a starving child evil?
I know you think it is a sin, apparently. But do you think it is evil has been my question. What's your answer to THAT question?
Reminding you that you said earlier...
Since I've said multiple times that stealing is a sin, and that if you want to define all sin as evil you are free to. But, you keep introducing the term evil, I have only said sin. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this concept.
I fully understand that YOUR answer to the question, "Is stealing bread to save a child a sin?" is Yes. But MY QUESTION is different. I'm asking you if it is EVIL?
The reason that this is an important difference is because evil has connotation/meaning that goes beyond merely sinful. Telling a white lie (No, dear, those tight jeans DON'T make you look fat) might be considered by some to be a sin. Stealing bread to save a child might be considered a sin by some. BUT, clearly, it is not evil in the sense that Hitler's genocide was evil, it is not evil in the sense that a serial killer killing off children one after another is evil.
If we call every minor infraction and little sin "evil," then we are downgrading what it means to do evil and making the word meaningless.
And thus, my question to you: Is torture in general evil? (or do you need to know a particular type of torture? How about cutting off appendages in order to get answers, is that evil?) Is stealing bread to save a child evil?
What are your answers to THOSE questions.
Expecting an answer to the question actually asked is not "having a hard time with the concept." Refusing to address the question asked, THAT is having a hard time with the concept, wouldn't you say?
Craig said...
I agree with Marshall, and you Dan. Innocent lives are important and to save those lives might require doing some things that may seem wrong to some.
I'm glad we agree on that point. That was all I was initially trying to say.
You also said...
Yet in all of the pressure, non of the good Christians involved has ever considered breaking the law.
Given your previous comment, wouldn't you say that if there were an unjust law (You can't take a child out of the country in order to save their life), that good Christians should sometimes break those laws, if the wrong consequences are high enough to warrant it.
Were the Christians in Germany "good Christians" when they went along with the laws and joined the army to wage war? Or would they have not been better off (morally) to refuse to obey laws, refuse to turn in Jewish, Gypsy, gay people to the authorities, REFUSE to fight in an unjust war, etc?
I expect we agree on this point.
Dan,
I have answered your question several times. What I think about sin v. evil is really immaterial. The real question is does God equate sin with evil. I have told you what I would do in your improbable hypothetical, and I have told you that I believe stealing is a sin. Am I willing to say that all sin is evil, not necessarliy. But this is really just a semantic distinction. If it will make you happy I will say that under the very limited unrealistic hypothetical you have described I would lean toward not calling the theft evil. It is however still theft.
As to the passport issue.
First, are you actualy equating the laws that require passports to travel between countries legally equivelent to the racial purity laws in NAZI Germany. If so that is a bizzarre equivelence. To make the presumption that laws requiring passports are unjust on their face certainly requires twisting the definition of just. I realize that you are all for just openingthe borders and letting everyone in, but the current laws of two countries disagree with you. So, while Christians can break laws that are unjust, this doesn't seem to be a situation where one could justify that.
Second, I was just recently raked over the coals by your buddy Geoffry for even suggesting that the folks who tried to relocate some Haitian orphans to the DR without one particular form might have been doing a good thing. Geoff was insistant that the folks in question were kidnappers and should be punished. (Of course the Haitian judicial system disagreed with him)
Given that I would think that any means to protect innocent children from kidnapping would be justified.
While we do agree that there are instances where Christians can in cood conscience break unjust laws, the burden is on you to demonstrate that laws controlling the movement of people from one country to another are inherently unjust.
Further what of the long term consequences should these floks get caught. How many others would die if the work that these missionaries was shut down. Again, how many dead, blind, malnourished folks are you willing to accept to smuggle one girl out of Haiti?
Personally, I'm willing to go with the folks who believe that God is capable of making this happen within the legalities of the situation. In much the same way that I refuse to limit God's ability to feed those in need without resorting to theft.
If it will make you happy I will say that under the very limited unrealistic hypothetical you have described I would lean toward not calling the theft evil. It is however still theft.
yes, it does make me happy. I can't imagine any reasonable person calling the saving of a child's life by "stealing" bread to be an evil thing. And this was my point. WE agree on morality in general.
When it comes to some more specific circumstances in gray areas where none of us are clear on what the exact right thing to do is, we will all likely disagree at times. But we agree in general that stealing is wrong. We agree in general that trying to help save a life - even if it crosses a lesser law - is NOT an evil. Hopefully, we could even agree that it is a good, even if it is technically stealing (in that instance).
My point remains: We generally agree on most moral issues. I'm relatively sure we agree on the morality of a VAST number of specific actions. All of that was to address Mark's contention that those who disagree with him (me, in this case) are always on the wrong side morally. It's a ridiculous presumption, even if one assumes he was speaking in hyperbole.
I was just recently raked over the coals by your buddy Geoffry for even suggesting that the folks who tried to relocate some Haitian orphans to the DR without one particular form might have been doing a good thing. Geoff was insistant that the folks in question were kidnappers and should be punished.
Well, now that we (hopefully) have agreed that we generally agree on moral issues, here's a case where a specific issue we may have hard time coming together.
This particular case is different in that no one's lives were at immediate risk and it was not clear at all that the parents were approving of the kidnapping.
Having said that, I would tend to agree with Geoffrey that it was a wrong for them to try to do this, but I would DISagree with him that it was any serious wrong. They appear to have been acting out of the goodness of their hearts trying to do a right thing in a difficult situation. I think their main error (sin, if you will) was in presuming that they knew what was best for those children - better than their parents, better than their nation.
Was that an EVIL presumption on their part? No, of course not. It would be ridiculous to call their actions evil, just as it would be ridiculous to call the bread thief who was striving to save the life of a child evil.
Thank you for finally answering the question that was asked.
Craig...
Am I willing to say that all sin is evil, not necessarliy. But this is really just a semantic distinction.
? How so? I think it is a fundamental difference in how you look at behaviors. How is it a only a semantic distinction?
If EVERY little sin = EVIL, then you will certainly behave differently, feel differently about humanity and about yourself rather than recognizing that all of us poor sinners are humans created in God's glorious image with the ability to choose right and wrong. We may choose wrong way too often, we may try to do right and STILL choose wrong, due to a lack of understanding, but are we all generally EVIL?
I don't think that is a biblical view point or a very healthy view to hold, either for yourself or for your neighbors.
A further problem is that the more people tend towards thinking we're all EVIL is that it too often (in my experience) becomes a self-righteous thing - "YOU PEOPLE are evil, wicked!" becomes all too easy for us "good saved and sanctified" folk to stake claim to.
Look, we all recognize that at one level, all sin is the same. It is a rejection of God's ways and it separates us from fellowship with God and humanity. Any sin.
But at the same time, in the real world, we DO recognize distinctions between "sinful" and "maybe sinful" behavior. The person who out of the good of his heart takes bread that does not belong to him in an effort to save a child's life, is that REALLY sinful? I don't think so.
Regardless, it obviously isn't evil. I just don't know that someone can do something in an honest attempt at love and compassion and commit an evil act. I suppose it's possible, but perhaps only with the mentally disturbed who might hurt or kill someone in a twisted notion of expressing love.
There's just an obvious and large difference in the real world between a Hitler-esque slaughter and a white lie. One IS evil and the other is not.
I think you both have overlooked a distinct possibility, that God would use any of us to further His plan, which may include stealing to feed a starving child (that child could grow up to be a great servant of God doing even more to further His plan), and it may even include the torture of a truly evil person to extract life-saving information he is certain to have.
And Dan ignores the fact that he is making judgements regarding what is or isn't a good reason to set aside God's law based on his own prejudices regarding right and wrong. Both theft and torture harm the victim. The question is who is being harmed and is that harmed justified by the end result. In both cases being discussed here, a greater good is sought by the sin committed. In both cases we're talking about the ends justifying the means. Seems to me that there is little difference except to our own sensibilities. But our sensibilities have little to do with what is a sin and why. A sin is a sin because God says it is, and our own feelings are not a part of His decision, at least not based on anything Biblical I can think of.
Marshall,
I agree with your point, I'm not sure I would say that I have overlooked the possibility of God acting through any one of us. I'm not 100% sure God would command us to steal, but I agree that He could use the act for good. I guess my bias (as opposed to Dan's) is that I am more inclined to trust that God will work (either through us or supernaturally) rather than to put the onus on what man can come up with to solve any given "problem".
Excellent point about making judgements Dan and Geoffry are quite willing to judge the 10 folks accused in Haiti and decide that they (G&D) know better than those on the ground what would have been best for the kids. (Again, it would seem that the Haitian justice system disagrees with G&D, and we could reasonably presume that they have a better grasp on the situation. Not that D&G will ever admit that they could have been wrong...) Anyway, it seems as though Dan is willing to make value judgements that I am not wiling to make as it is notmy place to judge motives. Dan seems willing to do so.
To make his improbable hypothetical even more improbable. What if the child in question was a bone marrow match for a parent with leukemia, and the only reason to keep the child alive is to cure the parent. Isn't that just selfishness.
Ultimately this whole improbable scenario comes down to motives, and I'm certainly not qualified to judge those, maybe Dan is, but I'm not.
I'm perfectly wiling to let God be God.
Dan,
All I am saying regarding sin v. evil is that things look different from our perspective than from Gods. I am willing to reserve the possibiility that by Gods standard all sin is "evil" in some sense. But yes we all sin, and some sins are "worse" than others. Where I have a problem is that the label "evil" gets into motive and other things that are not so obviously discernable.
As I tried to point out earlier innocent life is worth saving it's just a question of degree as to how far one would go to save innocent life.
One final thought. We know through scripturethat God numbers our days and knows the span of our lives. Is it not possible that the "saving" of a life may be in conflict with God's plan. Or put another way, is it not possible that no matter what we do or what sins we commit, the kid might just die anways because God might have some larger purpose or plan that we may not be aware of.
You shouldn't agree with Dan, Craig. It only encourages him.
Mark,
I know, but sometimes it just happens.
I'm still waiting for an explaination of how you get to some sort of moral equivelence between immigration/passport laws and the racial purity laws of the Third Reich. That was quite a leap.
I don't believe I made that leap or suggestion.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
As far as I know, the only thing I said about Nazi Germany was...
Were the Christians in Germany "good Christians" when they went along with the laws and joined the army to wage war? Or would they have not been better off (morally) to refuse to obey laws, refuse to turn in Jewish, Gypsy, gay people to the authorities, REFUSE to fight in an unjust war, etc?
And the reason I made that comment was to suggest that we probably all agree that if there is a horribly unjust law, we might ought to refuse to obey it. I had said..
Given your previous comment, wouldn't you say that if there were an unjust law (You can't take a child out of the country in order to save their life), that good Christians should sometimes break those laws, if the wrong consequences are high enough to warrant it.
I was talking about the concept, not the specifics. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Post a Comment