Catch 22 sinning / ripping off the bandaid

[DZoolander]

I'm curious about other people's opinions.

On a different thread in here - a subject was KINDA touched upon that I've always had an interest in...which is the idea of weighing/substituting "sin" for a greater good. Without going into specifics of THAT topic in the event they wouldn't want to be made an example of - let me post a scenario for you.

Let's say you're a cheater. You've always been a cheater. You are always going to be a cheater. I'm not looking for discussions about "God can change hearts" or "You don't know", I'm just postulating that as a fact to begin with. You may feel some degree of remorse, but as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you know that you will cheat again. It's just in your nature. You are self aware enough to know it.

You also are married. Your wife/husband has the same normal expectations of fidelity that anyone else would. Clearly this is a problem.

If someone were to present me with that scenario, I would tell the cheater to divorce his/her spouse. Sure - you could make the argument that divorce is a "sin" - but in my eyes so is spending a lifetime betraying your spouse. With that in mind - I weigh the two and go "rip off the bandaid with the one 'sin' to avoid hundreds more."

That's the idea I'm curious about...and the first example that comes to mind. Maybe not the best example as it might lead to discussion on weighing divorce vs. numerous instances of infidelity - but that's not my interest/intent here...lol Rather the idea that if one 'sin' can solve a situation that would result in many more left alone - what would you do?

 

[dysert]

This is an interesting topic and one I hope to ponder. Another example might be lying for the greater good. In fact, didn't Corrie Ten Boom lie about hiding Jews when the Nazis came looking for them?

Absent counter examples, I rather like the idea of "ripping the band-aid off" so as to preserve a (hopefully) more righteous life for me and others in the future.

 

[mkgal1]

This is an interesting topic and one I hope to ponder. Another example might be lying for the greater good. In fact, didn't Corrie Ten Boom lie about hiding Jews when the Nazis came looking for them?

Absent counter examples, I rather like the idea of "ripping the band-aid off" so as to preserve a (hopefully) more righteous life for me and others in the future.

That's exactly what came to my mind when reading this! I believe she did lie about hiding Jews (she was honoring God's ways over man's).

I'm not a huge "by-the-letter" law abider (is that even a word?).....I usually go by the purpose of the law....and what I believe is "good" and "right" in God's eyes is going to win out.

 

[mkgal1]

If someone were to present me with that scenario, I would tell the cheater to divorce his/her spouse. Sure - you could make the argument that divorce is a "sin" - but in my eyes so is spending a lifetime betraying your spouse. With that in mind - I weigh the two and go "rip off the bandaid with the one 'sin' to avoid hundreds more."

That's the idea I'm curious about...and the first example that comes to mind. Maybe not the best example as it might lead to discussion on weighing divorce vs. numerous instances of infidelity - but that's not my interest/intent here...lol Rather the idea that if one 'sin' can solve a situation that would result in many more left alone - what would you do?

So.....with this example, I'm presuming this habitual cheater underestimated their habit prior to marriage (and thought they could be monogamous)?

If that's the case.....then, IMO, I think that spouse ought to bring this up with their faithful spouse and see what they'd want to do (divorce or try to work something out that is agreeable to both of them). It's something that would dramatically change BOTH lives.....so I believe BOTH ought to get a "vote" in the decision (with all the cards on the table -so to speak).

 

[DZoolander]

Well, that's getting more into the details of the example I put than I intended...lol I was just trying to paint an example of "choice between one time sin and regular ongoing sin"

 

[RDKirk]

Well, that's getting more into the details of the example I put than I intended...lol I was just trying to paint an example of "choice between one time sin and regular ongoing sin"

I think there is a problem in that getting a divorce for the purpose of continuing sin would be an unjust divorce that causes (Jesus' word) the divorced spouse to in in remarriage. I don't think the sin ever "ends" in that case.

 

[DZoolander]

I could get more into that - because I think a fair argument could be made to the contrary - but that's not my interest in this post (the ethics of divorce). Pick something else then - lol - like the lie about hiding jews to the nazis or whatever.

 

[RDKirk]

I could get more into that - because I think a fair argument could be made to the contrary - but that's not my interest in this post (the ethics of divorce). Pick something else then - lol - like the lie about hiding jews to the nazis or whatever.

Lying to the Nazis to save lives is a different scenario IMO. I don't think that's a sin at all--it's "tactical deception," of which God was a hearty proponent.

 

[tall73]

In regards to the lying question, Biblical works on ethics often wrestle with the account in Exodus regarding the Hebrew midwives:

Exodus 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
Exodus
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

 

[tall73]

There are different ethical systems that approach the question of lying to save others from various angles.

Graded absolutism would indicate that both telling the truth and saving lives are moral imperatives, but that one is a higher moral priority than the other. The question then becomes are their degrees of right and wrong or sin and righteousness.And how do you know which laws take priority. It is interesting that many folks have an inherent understanding that preserving life may well take priority over lying, even if they do not have a particular biblical or logical rationale thought out in detail.

Then there are some who are absolute absolutists who think that you should just not lie and God will work out what happens with the death part, but you need to have faith to do what is right. They would see this not as a moral dilemma, but a crisis of faith.

Then there is more the Rogerian school acting on the basis of love, though that too has to be fleshed out, etc.

I do think that the lying issue is a bit different than the marriage issue. In the lying scenario you have a person wanting to act in a moral way, faced with circumstances imposed by someone set on doing something immoral.

But in the marriage scenario you have the person who is committing the immoral act weighing their options, and therefore it is not really a moral dilemma. The person could choose to deny themselves the cheating.

Perhaps it would be more parallel if you looked at the decision of the faithful party who is then having to act within the framework of the circumstances presented to them by the immoral party.

 

[tall73]

Rahab hid the spies of the Israelites, and was commended:

James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

 

[tall73]

God tells Samuel to be at the very least reticent in regards to traveling to anoint David:

I Samuel 16:1 And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord

 

[tall73]

Based on these examples I would say something like a graded absolutism seems warranted at times. Some moral goods may trump what would otherwise be a moral evil.

When it comes to ceremonial laws you also had laws that trumped other laws. The priests would offer more sacrifices on the Sabbath than usual, but did not profane the day, and they were commanded to do so.

 

[DZoolander]

Lying to the Nazis to save lives is a different scenario IMO. I don't think that's a sin at all--it's "tactical deception," of which God was a hearty proponent.

lol - ok.

Gotta ask. Is the reason why we're quibbling over the examples and not discussing the question itself because you're taking the stance that you cannot envision a situation where one sin might short circuit/preclude other sins so you NEED an example that satisfies you on that account?

If that's the case - I'm perfectly happy to try and come up with an example that makes you happy so we can progress to that original question. But I think that I've tried to make it clear a few times that I'm not really interested in discussing the ethics of divorce/lying/whatever because those aren't the focal point of the question - but rather just trying to use whatever "example" there may be as a quickly put together bit to get the main conversation going.

Lemme know. If so I'll put more concrete thought into something that might pass muster for you just to get off that subject. lol

 

[Paidiske]

I'm struggling to come up with a plausible example, so that I can take the question seriously.

Maybe self-emasculation to avoid sexual sin?

 

[RDKirk]

lol - ok.

Gotta ask. Is the reason why we're quibbling over the examples and not discussing the question itself because you're taking the stance that you cannot envision a situation where one sin might short circuit/preclude other sins so you NEED an example that satisfies you on that account?

If that's the case - I'm perfectly happy to try and come up with an example that makes you happy so we can progress to that original question. But I think that I've tried to make it clear a few times that I'm not really interested in discussing the ethics of divorce/lying/whatever because those aren't the focal point of the question - but rather just trying to use whatever "example" there may be as a quickly put together bit to get the main conversation going.

Lemme know. If so I'll put more concrete thought into something that might pass muster for you just to get off that subject. lol

I did discuss it. I'll repeat:

I think there is a problem with your example in that getting a divorce for the purpose of continuing sin would be an unjust divorce that causes (Jesus' word) the divorced spouse to in in remarriage. I don't think the sin ever "ends" in that case.

Like Paidiski, I can't think of an example that would fit the question. Self-emasculation wouldn't even work because we know that the sin is committed in the head before it's executed by the body.

 

[dysert]

Personally, I don't see why the perfect example is needed in order to grasp the concept. As I understand it, DZoolander is simply pondering if it's better to commit *a* sin now in order to prevent *continual* sinning in the future. Perhaps it's a bit more abstract than the examples you all are trying to come up with, but it seems a simple enough concept. Eh?

(Did I get it right DZoolander? ;-)

 

[Paidiske]

I guess I want an example because I question the premise that this is a possibility to start with.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, that's getting more into the details of the example I put than I intended...lol I was just trying to paint an example of "choice between one time sin and regular ongoing sin"

Except the cheater will still be sinning over and over with every non-marital encounter he has.

I don't see the difference, beyond not hurting the spouse over and over.

 

[Dave-W]

. Another example might be lying for the greater good. In fact, didn't Corrie Ten Boom lie about hiding Jews when the Nazis came looking for them?

I would submit that is NOT a sin at all.

On multiple occasions our Lord was seen breaking the Sabbath, a sin that could bring the death penalty. BUT, if our Lord ACTUALLY sinned, ever, it would have invalidated his sacrifice for our sins. (would have been for his own)

So how did HE avoid sinning in those situations? By invoking a Pharisaic tradition (thereby validating it) that when 2 commands are in opposition to the other, the positive command (thou shalt...) takes precedence over the negative. (thou shalt not ...)

So in the case of the Ten Booms, the positive command to preserve life takes precedence over the prohibition on lying.