Ethical Question

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I probably should have provided commentary with my verse. A mistake I'll probably repeat, but what else can you expect from an obtuse being?

At any rate you seem like you think you know what I mean, and are content to debate with the straw man you have created. So, I'll leave you carry on our discussion by yourself. Let me know what we decide.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion

Notice the verse says nothing about escaping.

Notice he admits he meant it that we should not escape.

Notice he underlines whoever resists the power of the gov.

If he took that in a universal way, then he wouldn'ty resist Hitler's commands.

If he doesn't take it in a universal way, then his post was irrelevant, especially minus any commentrary.

So, either his post was irrelevant or absurd.

I thought my Hitler point was obvious as a rejoinder to his post.

He didn't get the Hitler point.

I gave him credit to grasp this simple point.

His response to me, given that I credited him with understanding the simple implication of his own post, his own emphasis, etc., I called him obtuse.

But, he says that is an improper word to throw at him.

In that case, he didn't get the Hitler point, which would make him obtuse.

He wasn't putting forth the mental effort to grasp his interloctor's point.

Thus on both scores, however he wants to be read, he was acting obtuse.

I don't know how else to judge the matter.

I have been obtuse on a number of occasions. When I am, I am. It is not a problem to point this out to people. As Paul said, "You foolish Galations..." Christ called the discplies "slow," etc.

Our culture has been feminized and has bought into false notions of tolerance. We are very touchy feely in the 21st century. As post modernist ideas creep into our grid, we think that when people attack our interpretations of things, we attack *them,* since the interpreter cannot be divorced from his interpretation. So, we get "offended" when people attack our arguments, or point out we are being foolish or even obtuse.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I'm done with this thread!

Really? We'll see.

I was copying Pres Deacon.

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

I'm done with this thread!

Really? We'll see.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Our culture has been feminized and has bought into false notions of tolerance. We are very touchy feely in the 21st century. As post modernist ideas creep into our grid, we think that when people attack our interpretations of things, we attack *them,* since the interpreter cannot be divorced from his interpretation. So, we get "offended" when people attack our arguments, or point out we are being foolish or even obtuse.

Bingo.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I'm done with this thread!

Really? We'll see.

But since I was copying someone else, playing that game, and he has still posted, then the is not on me.

 

[Jim Johnston]

At any rate you seem like you think you know what I mean, and are content to debate with the straw man you have created. So, I'll leave you carry on our discussion by yourself. Let me know what we decide.

You told us what you know. You said, after quoting that verse, that "we should not try to escape." You underlined "whoever." If you didn't meant this universally, then you post had no relevance. if you did, then my comments were sport on. So, was your post irrelevant or were my comments sport on? You are now calling your own position a straw man. This all could have ben avoided had you admitted that you were too hasty with your post. Which is what I tried to point out with my Hitler comment.

But perhaps I was being to abstruse, ambiguous, apocryphal, arcane, cabalistic, cryptic, dark, enigmatic, equivocal, esoteric, evasive, hidden, incomprehensible, inexplicable, murky, mysterious, mystic, mystical, mystifying, occult, opaque, oracular, perplexing, puzzling, recondite, secretive, strange, tenebrous, unclear, unfathomable, uninformative, vague, and veiled in my reference to Hitler.

There' now I was "rude" to myself! I was "mean" to myself.

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

I should have added commentary to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dennis, did you read the entire thread???

Sorry, I was choosing to skip the interesting points about Hitler and Rom 13 in favor of dealing with what MIGHT possibly be an actual pastoral scenario suggested by the OP.

Keon was pretty cloaked in his original question and even his clarification.
He tried to give more specificity when he wrote:

sorry for leaving this almost open ended guys. But when I say wrongly convicted, I mean that a real crime was committed, just not by you. The prosecutor was sincere, the jury was sincere and the judge was sincere and the cops were sincere. The only problem is, since they were not omniscient, they got the wrong guy "You". And you were wrongly convicted. Now the opportunity came to escape. Would you do it?

Still, I could not tell if this was a "what if" or a "please help me with a problem" kind of situation. Since many of the posts in the thread raised the more profound issue of the biblical record on obedience to the government and what that entailed, I elected to respond to what might be a very homely practical situation with someone claiming that "I wuz wronged." Having dealt with more than my share of lying folks trying to pass their problem off on someone else, I decided to jump in on the point of the original post in the thread, rather than trying to interact with the somewhat heated debate some of the rest of you were already having. Plus, I'm not smart enough to keep up with all of the back-and-forth and quotes and counter-quotes. So, to answer your question: Did I read it? yes. Did I follow it all? no.

Sorry if I stepped in something.

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul,


This has been a lot of fun to watch.

 

[Gryphonette]

No, it hasn't.

I'm going to run an errand, and if the lack of civility continues in this thread, I'll lock it when I return.

Or maybe another moderator'll beat me to it. You never know.

If someone has something of substance and value to say regarding the original post's topic, by all means, say it.

Otherwise, please don't.

Thanks.

Mrs. Ivy

 

[etexas]

POST 48 has a good question!!!!!!

 

[RamistThomist]

To be fair, in regard to OP, I would say "sometimes" (for the reasons Paul mentions). Heck, if the accomodations were nice enough, I could catch up on my reading. But we can't say all jailbreaks are sinful, because God helped Peter escape (which would equal God helping Peter sin, if the argument holds) and Paul evaded criminal charges in Acts (which he shouldn't do given that he wrote Romans 13).

 

[Jim Johnston]

I should have added commentary to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.

You didn't need to add commentary. You did a great job being obtuse without the commentary. Sorry "doc."

 

[Herald]

Words mean things my friend. You make all of us hang on your words. Any misstatement or verbal faux pas on our part and you attack with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. Ah, but let your own words be used against you and you become the incredible "Teflon Man." Since you hold others to exactness in their words, should we not do the same with you? Where we to guess that you were using Pres Deacon's words against him? You never stated that you were. Perhaps we were to assume? But no. You would have scolded us for taking your words out of context. You come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument. You take great pleasure in trapping people in your "web" (isn't that what you called it?). The affection you display for your family, who you so eloquently wrote about here, is not shared towards others.

fini

 

[Jim Johnston]

If someone has something of substance and value to say regarding the original post's topic, by all means, say it.

That's what I've been begging for. We're "on the same page." Rather than deal with the arguments, the thread has been "conveniently" re-focused on subjective issues. As if we're too good to be called "obtuse," or whatever. This gets pity and shifts the focus away from the bad arguments and the OP. By all means, if I post a bad argument, or am being as thick as abrick, by all means, point it out. Don't worry about catering to my pride. When you've been wrong as often as I have, you get used to it!

 

[RamistThomist]

Words do mean things, Bill, but they need contexts. The word "bank" has about 8 different meanings, for example. Likewise, Scriptures not only need contexts but acceptable (or at least stated) fields of application. That is why appeals to Romans 13 don't go very far. Likewise, your references to J & D were shown to prove that we should baptize infants. We grant the meaning to your words, but left without a context, or given a faulty one, we did the best we could with what we had.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Words mean things my friend. You make all of us hang on your words. Any misstatement or verbal faux pas on our part and you attack with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. Ah, but let your own words be used against you and you become the incredible "Teflon Man." Since you hold others to exactness in their words, should we not do the same with you? Where we to guess that you were using Pres Deacon's words against him? You never stated that you were. Perhaps we were to assume? But no. You would have scolded us for taking your words out of context. You come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument. You take great pleasure in trapping people in your "web" (isn't that what you called it?). The affection you display for your family, who you so eloquently wrote about here, is not shared towards others.

fini

I know words mean things.

Do the same with me.

You were not to guess if I was using his words against him. But, I commented on this above. I was even "mean" to myself. So, you're beind, as usual.

Indeed, given his post, his underlined words, and what he said, there was nothing mysterious about my comment. If you didn't get my point, this could explain why you have problems with my posts.

Look, I expect a certain amount of poor sportsmanship. I understand its no fun having your arguments (here and in other places) put through the wringer. When I'm on your "side," no one has a problem. People PM me and ask, "Can you look at my argument here. Or, can you come in this thread and argu?" It's only when I argue against someone that people have a "problem." Seems odd.

Anyway, do you snip out those places in your Bible where Paul and Jesus "come on like a blustering thunderstorm seeking to uproot anything in your path for the sake of your argument?"

I have also presented arguments as to why I used the word "obtuse." It was your side who has blown this out of proportion. Perhaps you are now jumping in because I also pointed out that you made a totally irrelevant, or absured (depending on which horn of the reductio you accept). Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But you are not your argument.

Okay guys, let's all save the dramma for our momma.

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

I should have added commentary to the . My bad. Then again, I should probably add some commentary to this commentary, but I'm not. My bad again.

You didn't need to add commentary. You did a great job being obtuse without the commentary. Sorry "doc."

No apology necessary. I was amazingly obtuse. In fact, I was so obtuse I actually transcended obtuse and ventured into obthreese.

 

[Gryphonette]

The LORD's sending an angel to get Peter out of jail makes non-divinely-aided jail breaks acceptable?

I dunno. That seems like rather a stretch.

One thing that occurred to me is how there are myriad stories still told of brave, devout saints who went fearlessly to their deaths for Christ; off the top of my head I can't recall any such stories about saints who dug their way out of prison and escaped.

Peter didn't dig himself out. He had to be prodded by an angel and ordered to get up, dress himself, and hurry up about it. Scripture doesn't say Peter was looking for ways to sneak out.

Come to that, let's keep in mind Acts 16:

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the jail were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's chains came loose. 27 When the jailer woke up and saw the doors of the prison open, he drew his sword and was going to kill himself, since he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul called out in a loud voice, "Don't harm yourself, because all of us are here!"

Huh. Fancy that. The way was clear for an escape but Paul and the others just stayed put.

In the book of Acts when Peter escaped, both times it was at the behest of an angel (Acts 5:19-20; 12:6-10).

So the two times Scripture records an apostle escaping, it wasn't the apostle's idea, but at the urging of an angel, and the one time Scripture records an angel-less opportunity for escape, the apostle didn't go.

This hardly seems to support "if you're satisfied you're innocent, make a break for it if you get the chance".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Paul,


This has been a lot of fun to watch.

I don't agree at all. I just woke up to read this and it is not at all fun.

I've called men obtuse before and there are times when I regretted it and there were times when I used it as a Godly rebuke. In this case, it's use should be regretted in my estimation.

There is such a thing as poisoning the well. Whether or not we believe people should "grow up" in certain dialogues is immaterial to the point that we have a responsibility not to speak (or write) in such a way that inflames emotions.

Do people make statements that are unreasonable here? Absolutely. Perhaps they are using the Scriptures improperly and that is dangerous but our job is often to have patience with our Brothers when that is not done in willfull obstinance (which is what the nature of what it means to be obtuse).

Do you know why this sidebar is more important than the original issue? Because the real life people on this board who are concerned about being trashed here are more important than getting the hypothetical question answered correctly. Whatever we might "settle" here isn't going to settle every situation anyhow as prudence could dictate a million different scenarios where it would be more or less ethical to escape from your captors.

What is absolutely clear, however, is what our attitude ought to be toward those of us who name Christ:
[bible]Romans 12:9-10[/bible]

Even if a brother of ours is caught in a sin:
[bible]Galatians 6:1[/bible]

Thankfully, our High Priest knows and is sympathetic to our weaknesses and the fact that we are spiritually obtuse or we would be surely lost:
[bible]Hebrews 4:15-5:2[/bible]

Signed,

The chief of sinners

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me add one further clarifying point.

I believe we all can be reminded of the above and this was not intended to single out a single party in the affair. It was unfair of me above to use a specific word and attribute this whole altercation to a single man. Several of us failed here and fail throughout the board.

I would also add that we ought to be held responsible for poor use of Scriptures to make a point. I had no issue with that. Again, let us merely consider how we do so. If an argument decimates our position then sometimes it's better to just admit that we were knuckleheads. Personally, it stings to admit it but it also undergirds our integrity when we're willing to admit that we were mistaken.

All I'm asking is that the mistaken and those pointing out mistakes be kind and tender-hearted to one another. Even as God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven you.