Two Christians in a boat...

[ReluctantProphet]

If there are 2 highly intelligent Christians in a boat and only enough water for one of them to survive before they could reach safety, how “should” they determine what to do?

This is not a new question. In the 1970’s this question was promoted throughout society so as to shine a little light on Christian ethics. Although Christianity had a proper answer at their disposal, I never saw or heard any Christian properly answer the question with any more than “pray to …”.

The words “pray, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, soul” and such have been pretty much skewed into the abyss of ambiguity even within Christianity and thus if your answer begins with “Pray to…”, then it will be declared ambiguous and non-responsive. This is not to say that such an answer is incorrect, but simply that it reveals nothing and does not really answer the question.

Professor John Nash proposed an answer to this many years ago, which led to his social cursings of being declared insane, demonic, a heretic, and just a “rambler”. Today his proposal has been accepted by many nations, but his solution involved the use of deception and thus is not published or discussed openly.

I’m wondering if any of the 150,000+ members on this site ever came up with the real answer that Jesus would have given.

Any new ideas?

 

[Catholicism]

Any new ideas?

Talk about it with each other?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Talk about it with each other?

Well that is certainly a possible start. But doesn't address what their answer would spring from or even if they would ever reach an answer at all.

Or were you proposing that they do much as the people in forums and stay so busy discussing and arguing that the problem is left to take care of itself?

 

[DaveS]

They would both choose to die. In the eyes of eachother (and God) everyone is equal and neither is more deserving of life than the other.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

They would both choose to die. In the eyes of eachother (and God) everyone is equal and neither is more deserving of life than the other.

This is a valid answer, but if you consider the consequences, it might seem dis-favorable.

If all Christians were put into such a situation gradually, 2 by 2 (or similar situations), then Christianity would die out. This would leave the future not to the meek, but rather to the non-Christian (not to mention the similarity to suicide).

The non-Christian proposals tend to advise a competition such as to determine which is more worthy to carry the flag of stronger life into the future.

 

[Catholicism]

Well that is certainly a possible start. But doesn't address what their answer would spring from or even if they would ever reach an answer at all.

Or were you proposing that they do much as the people in forums and stay so busy discussing and arguing that the problem is left to take care of itself?

Here is another question, how filled with grace are each of them? Does one of them have the gift of bilocation? That would come in handy.

 

[DaveS]

This is a valid answer, but if you consider the consequences, it might seem dis-favorable.

If all Christians were put into such a situation gradually, 2 by 2 (or similar situations), then Christianity would die out. This would leave the future not to the meek, but rather to the non-Christian (not to mention the similarity to suicide).

The non-Christian proposals tend to advise a competition such as to determine which is more worthy to carry the flag of stronger life into the future.

I do not think that 'suicide' is necessarily a bad thing as it is often generally thought of. For example, if someone were to take their own life if they found they have an incurable, degenerative disease rather than force their loved ones to watch them slowly die could be argued to actually be more Christian than the other option. Similarly in this case if they both chose to die they would do so out of love and respect for the other.

The 'dying out process' is only speculation really and really has no answer. Bit of a catch 22 really as it is either no Christians or the half of Christians that would rather care for themselves than for their neighbour.

 

[JonF]

If there are 2 highly intelligent Christians in a boat and only enough water for one of them to survive before they could reach safety, how “should” they determine what to do?

This is not a new question. In the 1970’s this question was promoted throughout society so as to shine a little light on Christian ethics. Although Christianity had a proper answer at their disposal, I never saw or heard any Christian properly answer the question with any more than “pray to …”.

The words “pray, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, soul” and such have been pretty much skewed into the abyss of ambiguity even within Christianity and thus if your answer begins with “Pray to…”, then it will be declared ambiguous and non-responsive. This is not to say that such an answer is incorrect, but simply that it reveals nothing and does not really answer the question.

Professor John Nash proposed an answer to this many years ago, which led to his social cursings of being declared insane, demonic, a heretic, and just a “rambler”. Today his proposal has been accepted by many nations, but his solution involved the use of deception and thus is not published or discussed openly.

I’m wondering if any of the 150,000+ members on this site ever came up with the real answer that Jesus would have given.

Any new ideas?

If nash didn't speak on this problem directly and you are applying some of his work you don’t meet the requisite conditions. Since there is a strategy that will always favor one side, namely they just duke it out and the physically strongest gets the water.

Nash was denounced for much better reasons than his mathematical views

 

[JonF]

They would both choose to die. In the eyes of eachother (and God) everyone is equal and neither is more deserving of life than the other.

Wouldn’t arbitrarily choosing one be a better option. Drawing lots or some such thing?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Wouldn’t arbitrarily choosing one be a better option. Drawing lots or some such thing?

Again, a valid answer.

But leaving the future to arbitrary chance is the same as leaving it to chaos. The concept of "survival of the fittest" at least provides a higher probability that the continued life of man would grow stronger and faster.

So far, and certainly without the best answer being given, Christianity is most certainly doomed because Satanism has an answer readily at hand which leads to an open path to destroy all of Christianity. - justAthought.

 

[Blackguard_]

flip a coin, let Fate decide?

edit: darn beaten.

Wait, actualy no since I'm not saying "leave it to random chance". That could be any sign the two agree on as showing the will of Fate, whether a coin toss, magic 8-ball, whether or not a certain event happens, etc.

The concept of "survival of the fittest" at least provides a higher probability that the continued life of man would grow stronger and faster.

Well, the luckiest would be the fittest if you left the choice to chaos.

So far, and certainly without the best answer being given, Christianity is most certainly doomed because Satanism has an answer readily at hand which leads to an open path to destroy all of Christianity. - justAthought.

They fight to death over the water? Problem solved whether one or both die?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Here is another question, how filled with grace are each of them? Does one of them have the gift of bilocation? That would come in handy.

You're joking right?

LLH

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Here is another question, how filled with grace are each of them? Does one of them have the gift of bilocation? That would come in handy.

You know only that they are Christian and intelligent.

If such inherently allows for other things to be obtained, that's fare, as long as the answer given doesn't involve "prayer". This is due to 2 reasons. First is that the word itself is misunderstood and thus only misleads the readers. Second is that praying is much like asking the question that I have already asked and thus leads only in a circle.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

They fight to death over the water? Problem solved whether one or both die?

This is actually the answer that has been accepted across the world due to Christianity not responding with a meaningful answer. This answer is "survival of the fittest" - all out, no holes barred, competition, winner takes all. ==> End of Christianity.

(..and then rewrite the story later to anything you like )

 

[Blackguard_]

This is actually the answer that has been accepted across the world due to Christianity not responding with a meaningful answer. This answer is "survival of the fittest"

Oh ok. Although it has a problem in that both have to agree to fight, else its murder. And you could replace "fighting" with any competition.

Although it rasies an interesting question; "if someone's living means you will die, does 'murdering' them count as self-defense"?

-all out, no holes barred, competition, winner takes all. ==> End of Christianity.

How does this follow? I think it might be a situation where surviving may not be the most ethical thing to do, Christianity wise. For example, martyrs; in "deny Jesus or die" surviving is seen as less ethical. Its possible there's no ethical way to survive short of someone volunteering to die or agreeing to should they lose some sort of competition/coin toss type thing.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

Although it rasies an interesting question; "if someone's living means you will die, does 'murdering' them count as self-defense"?

I'm sure in court, it would require substantial evidence that there was truly no other option (or merely the favor of the court lord).

How does this follow?

Is Christianity founded on the concept of "the bigger gun, the meanest opponent, the most clever, and/or the greatest deceiver is to be the victor and inherit the world? If not, then by the Christian accepting this method, he is disavowing Christianity and adhering to another type of lord. Thus the end of Christianity is easy to arrange.

If Christianity has no answer, God will most certainly get rid of it. God will not allow the question to go unresolved. And until the right answer is given, God will support whoever has the best answer such as to keep mankind going.

I think it might be a situation where surviving may not be the most ethical thing to do, Christianity wise. For example, martyrs; in "deny Jesus or die" surviving is seen as less ethical. Its possible there's no ethical way to survive short of someone volunteering to die or agreeing to should they lose some sort of competition/coin toss type thing.

I don't disagree with any of this, but how does this address the problem? The question is "what do they do?" [/FONT]

 

[Blackguard_]

I'm sure in court, it would require substantial evidence that there was truly no other option (or merely the favor of the court lord).

Well, good luck proving you had a duel on the boat and not a murder, and thats assuming you are in a place where dueling is legal.

Is Christianity founded on the concept of "the bigger gun, the meanest opponent, the most clever, and/or the greatest deceiver is to be the victor and inherit the world? If not, then by the Christian accepting this method, he is disavowing Christianity and adhering to another type of lord. Thus the end of Christianity is easy to arrange.

Medieval Christians had no problems with God choosing the winner is such fights, as in trial by combat where God was held to help the guy with truth on his side win.

So fighting or some other competition would reveal which God wills to live. ANd Christianity does have a principle of "God's will be done".

And to the "meek shall inherit the earth" thing you were alluding to, the meek thing to do would be to offer the water to the other. So both would die.

But I see what you are getting at, this is a scenario that supposedly is beyond Christianity to answer.
What is considered a "proper" end to this scenario? Does the question require an acceptable answer to result in someone surving, which might be question begging?

If Christianity has no answer, God will most certainly get rid of it. God will not allow the question to go unresolved. And until the right answer is given, God will support whoever has the best answer such as to keep mankind going.

I disagree with this. So, when did they solve the mystery of the Trinity? That nonbody knows the right answer doesn't mean there isn't one right?

I don't disagree with any of this, but how does this address the problem? The question is "what do they do?"

both would die. They offer eachother their rations, they run out. What happens next depends on if suicide is moral.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

both would die. They offer eachother their rations, they run out. What happens next depends on if suicide is moral.

Perhaps you would understand the significance a little better if I had said "If Jesus and his twin brother were in a boat...".

And to bring it just a little closer to home..

If Jesus (or a truly devout follower) had twin children who had been kidnapped, seemed to be beyond the reach of any rescue efforts, and the kidnapper simply stated "make the decision of which shall die, or I will kill them both along with 10,000 people in some building somewhere.

This kind of scenario is far more relevant than you might think. It not only forces the Christian to make a moral decision outside Christianity and thus facing the "if you are not with me, then you are against me" thing. But with the mere thought of terrorism, it gives authority and power to reign to those outside Christianity.

The Governance cannot be Christian, simply because the government cannot respond to this situation and stay Christian.

Christianity has many very serious enemies. They are fully capable of gradually placing more and more Christians into these kind of pinches. It is the topic of very many motion pictures so as to reveal to the general public that Christianity simply doesn’t work. The government could not use Christianity as their ethics and thus Christianity has nowhere to go except to appeal to those who are not Christian so as to save them time after time. This yields authority to the non-Christian to arrange all security issues which inherently invade every other issue to the final outcome of total capture of the Christian and any freedoms he once had.

The question, as simply as it might seem, is extremely serious and the lack of Christian answer has led already to very serious troubles throughout Christianity in every nation.

Don't take it lightly. [/FONT]

 

[Eryk]

the kidnapper simply stated "make the decision of which shall die, or I will kill them both along with 10,000 people in some building somewhere.

The Christian simply refuses to answer and incurs no guilt. The kidnapper is the murderer and no one pushed him into it.

Back to the boat.. there is no moral necessity in trying to force an outsider to decide who will die. If I was on the boat, I can imagine what I might do, but that wasn't the question.

There is no endorsement of survival-of-the-fittest in saying that these two people should discuss the matter between themselves. It's a discussion, not a fight. The only hard rule here is that neither one of them can use force against the other. The rest is up to them.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Well since they are in a boat and they are very intelligent then I would assume that the boat is in the water. Since there is no mention of the boat being in the ocean I must also assume that it could be in fresh water. In which case an intelligent person would simply reach over the side and get some more water