Boy I’ll tell ya. People do so love to make assertions that filled with terms like "Are, very, don’t, Have, only, know, can, definitely and is. You do have the word “seems” in there.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:Nah, they’re both wrong. And neither matter. The no true scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in cases where the idea being discussed has clearly defined parameters.
Murder itself is what is wrong. So, abortion is wrong, and so is bombing 160K to death, and so is suicide, and so is suicide to save 160K babies from being aborted via bomb.
One may be necessary, or justified to save a greater amount of lives, or unavoidable. Regardless; circumstances, reasons, excuses and justifications have absolutely zero effect upon the intrinsic morality of any individual act.
[/quote]I was talkin about this. It sounded like you were saying that sometimes the lesser of 2 sins must be committed to promote the greater good. I wasn’t accusing you of it, it just sounded that way which I was asking you to clarify. Sorry about your long, but good day btw. (I think)
[/quote]
Certainly not what I meant, but that does bring up a good question:
Say you ARE put in a situation in which you either shoot this innocent person in the head or Dr. Evil will kill him along with 10 others.
So, is the act of killing that one to save the others immoral, but not sinful? Or would the only true moral, sinless path be to let them all die?
[/quote]I would let him kill me first and whoever else he kills is between him and God. My responsibility is to not disobey my Lord. As wise as it may seem to man, it is most unwise to freelance God’s commands in the name of what I may think is a better idea. If, in the act of executing a righteous war, I unintentionally kill non combatant civilians, that is bad, but not sin.
[/quote]
What if you KNOW non combatant civilians will die but do it anyway?
Personally I don’t see how a ‘just war’ killing doctrine can ever be held to be justifiable in a non moral relativist viewpoint. You give yourself a cheesy out for a morally relativistic act right there.
If the war is just and the mission critical then the deaths are on the heads of my enemy who could have avoided them. All wars result in civilian deaths. Hirohito could have saved his citizens by the sensible surrender that was offered him.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If the war is just and the mission critical then the deaths are on the heads of my enemy who could have avoided them. All wars result in civilian deaths. Hirohito could have saved his citizens by the sensible surrender that was offered him. [/quote]
That’s a contortion of note and stature. Punch in at the moral relativism clock over on yonder wall…your personalized name card is ready and waiting hehe
I don’t believe I will thanks. I don’t happen to hold that all killing is murder because I don’t see the bible teaching that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe I will thanks. I don’t happen to hold that all killing is murder because I don’t see the bible teaching that. [/quote]
Of course. But it doesn’t change the relativism of your position.
Ok. Some killing is sin and some is not. If that’s relative, then strictly speaking I guess it is. As long as God defines it, it’s not for me to like or not. It’s for me to agree with and obey.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ok. Some killing is sin and some is not. If that’s relative, then strictly speaking I guess it is. As long as God defines it, it’s not for me to like or not. It’s for me to agree with and obey.[/quote]
That’s good enough for me.
ME TOO!!! Isn’t it wonderful!!! God commands me not to murder and also puts a woman and children under my care who I may be called upon to defend even to the point of taking a life or giving my own. I hope not, but that’s the truth.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ME TOO!!! Isn’t it wonderful!!! God commands me not to murder and also puts a woman and children under my care who I may be called upon to defend even to the point of taking a life or giving my own. I hope not, but that’s the truth.[/quote]
Lol… I was talking about the admission of relativism ;).
As for the rest, I need no moral absolutism to agree that I will kill anyone who I think threatens harm to those close to me. They don’t have to be ‘under’ my care. For example, if my parents are threatened. Let’s turn the clock back to when you and I were younger men and technically may have been ‘under’ the care of our parents (I know our situations may not have been similar, this is just for the sake of discussion)…still would’ve killed anyone who threatened them with harm.
If you get my drift.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ME TOO!!! Isn’t it wonderful!!! God commands me not to murder and also puts a woman and children under my care who I may be called upon to defend even to the point of taking a life or giving my own. I hope not, but that’s the truth.[/quote]
Lol… I was talking about the admission of relativism ;).
As for the rest, I need no moral absolutism to agree that I will kill anyone who I think threatens harm to those close to me. They don’t have to be ‘under’ my care. For example, if my parents are threatened. Let’s turn the clock back to when you and I were younger men and technically may have been ‘under’ the care of our parents (I know our situations may not have been similar, this is just for the sake of discussion)…still would’ve killed anyone who threatened them with harm.
If you get my drift.[/quote]
The conversation was a bit stickier, though. You would have to kill someone who is NOT threatening you harm. You have no power to kill the person threatening you harm.
In fact, this is like a weird version of Saw, and no one has answered my question as I asked it. Probably my fault for not being more clear:
You only have two choiced. Kill one innocent person and save ten. Or let the one go, she dies, and all the others necessarily die, as well. No matter what you do, innocent people die.
To me, this sounds like just war doctrine (albeit a highly distilled version) and would be, as T states above, immoral without being sinful, which is pretty much what I was suggesting in my first post when I used the word “necessary.”
Immorality is not that same as sin to the Christian?
And I still don’t believe this is in any way relative.
It’s not killing that’s wrong. It’s murder. A willful, malicious act of violence. In this case, the actors hand is being forced. As soon as he willingly engages, it becomes sinful, but it is immoral throughout.
@Fletch, see my post above for a very simplified version of my understanding of it.
In most cases, they are equivalent, but they are not the same thing.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
@Fletch, see my post above for a very simplified version of my understanding of it.
In most cases, they are equivalent, but they are not the same thing. [/quote]
I see the explanation, I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
@Fletch, see my post above for a very simplified version of my understanding of it.
In most cases, they are equivalent, but they are not the same thing. [/quote]
I see the explanation, I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me. [/quote]
Sin requires an act of will.
Morality involves the act itself, regardless of will.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
@Fletch, see my post above for a very simplified version of my understanding of it.
In most cases, they are equivalent, but they are not the same thing. [/quote]
I see the explanation, I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me. [/quote]
Sin requires an act of will.
Morality involves the act itself, regardless of will. [/quote]
I think I see now. So when forced in a situation where someone might have to kill another to prevent more lives from being killed it’s not that persons will to be in that situation so that although they kill they don’t sin because it was not their will to have to do that?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
@Fletch, see my post above for a very simplified version of my understanding of it.
In most cases, they are equivalent, but they are not the same thing. [/quote]
I see the explanation, I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me. [/quote]
Sin requires an act of will.
Morality involves the act itself, regardless of will. [/quote]
I think I see now. So when forced in a situation where someone might have to kill another to prevent more lives from being killed it’s not that persons will to be in that situation so that although they kill they don’t sin because it was not their will to have to do that?[/quote]
If, of course hypothetically, there is really no alternative. The moment an act of will enters the picture (say the decision is made out of selfishness, cowardice, self-preservation, neglect, whatnot), then the already immoral act becomes sinful.
^
Crystal clear. Thanks.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
Crystal clear. Thanks.[/quote]
My pleasure. Now let’s see how many people tell me how wrong I got it!