Ethical dilemma

[Daza]

Yes, that is a sin.



In this day and age, I would not condemn anyone that kept driving, because you never know if the guy is actually bleeding to death or if it's a scam and some other guy is waiting around the corner to hit you over the head with a brick.



I don't think much of that argument. Many of those starving in the world are starving because they're ran by tyrants and dictators and many times the aide that is provided is taken by corrupt warloads and militias, such as happened in Somolia. I don't favor spending one nickel on prolonging such a problem. The only answer is coercion via sanctions, or overthrowing such governments either by internal or external forces.

To your last point... a corrupt government does not serve as an excuse to rid ourselves of the obligation to help. Suffering is occuring, and it is immoral to do nothing to stop it. Period.

By 1971, there was a civil war in East Bengal, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths by starvation and lack of shelter. The British government by 1972 had given approximately 15 million pounds. At the same time, they had invested 275 million in the Concorde project. This means that the British government valued a supersonic jet more than thirty times as highly as the lives of 9 million refugees. -ref: Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality.

We are capable of giving more. Singer himself gives 30% of his annual salary.
I suggest reducing ourselves to marginal utility... the minimum required to keep ourselves with a comfortable lifestyle, but not more.

Those who would do nothing are negatively responsible for their inaction.

Amor Vincit Omnia... your last post has nothing in common with the OP. We're talking about death and famine, not chocolate.

Daza

 

[Nadiine]

To your last point... a corrupt government does not serve as an excuse to rid ourselves of the obligation to help. Suffering is occuring, and it is immoral to do nothing to stop it. Period.

By 1971, there was a civil war in East Bengal, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths by starvation and lack of shelter. The British government by 1972 had given approximately 15 million pounds. At the same time, they had invested 275 million in the Concorde project. This means that the British government valued a supersonic jet more than thirty times as highly as the lives of 9 million refugees. -ref: Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality.

We are capable of giving more. Singer himself gives 30% of his annual salary.
I suggest reducing ourselves to marginal utility... the minimum required to keep ourselves with a comfortable lifestyle, but not more.

Well, this would contradict the vast riches God gave His own people - Job, Abraham, King Solomon & others.
We also can't forget that God also allows people to become impoverished in that He promises people will reap what they sow!
How can people reap what they sow when all those who don't lack are giving all they make to support them. That's basically global socialism isn't it?

I support all of you no matter what you do or don't do. Sometimes God can't BLESS nations that are doing evil (which many countries do in persecuting Christians regularly).

Amor Vincit Omnia... your last post has nothing in common with the OP. We're talking about death and famine, not chocolate.

I think his statement was bringing a point to the specific questions with what sin is in different scenarios.
Our INACTION as Christians to standing up for God and Truth.

 

[Daza]

To Your First Point:

Does the child's faith come to your mind when you see it drowning? Do you decide against saving it because it is an atheist baby? Is this the child's just desert? This is no different.

To the Second Bit of your First Point:

The fact that rich men exist outside of the realm of Christianity... by your logic they too must be blessed and "given" their "vast riches".
Or, perhaps if we examine the fact that there are many, many, many impoverished Christians in the world. I see no evidence of "vast riches" there.

The Third Part of your First Point

Is a child dying of starvation in the Sudan reaping what he has sown? Christianity is built on individual salvation, not group punishment as the pagan religions were. Through the Christian lens, he is not responsible for the actions of his people.

Your Second Point:

Socialism is "forced charity", ie through the government. Giving without compulsion is charity through goodness.

Your Third Comment:

It is all well and good that he is presenting such an argument, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand: a person's moral responsibility to give charity.

Daza

 

[Nadiine]

To Your First Point:

Does the child's faith come to your mind when you see it drowning? Do you decide against saving it because it is an atheist baby? Is this the child's just desert? This is no different.

To the Second Bit of your First Point:

The fact that rich men exist outside of the realm of Christianity... by your logic they too must be blessed and "given" their "vast riches".
Or, perhaps if we examine the fact that there are many, many, many impoverished Christians in the world. I see no evidence of "vast riches" there.

The Third Part of your First Point

Is a child dying of starvation in the Sudan reaping what he has sown? Christianity is built on individual salvation, not group punishment as the pagan religions were. Through the Christian lens, he is not responsible for the actions of his people.

Your Second Point:

Socialism is "forced charity", ie through the government. Giving without compulsion is charity through goodness.

Your Third Comment:

It is all well and good that he is presenting such an argument, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand: a person's moral responsibility to give charity.

Daza

First of all Daza, I never once said DON'T GIVE TO CHARITY, AND DON'T HELP OTHERS.

I do however take opposition to using guilt trips on people in the way of telling everyone they're guilty of not 'caring' if they don't keep just enough money to exist on (comfortably) - and have to give the rest away.
That's not for YOU to dictate over each persons life or lay guilt at their feet. The truth is this, there will ALWAYS be many people in need & always be many people suffering. And some of it IS the direct result of people's sin. I also never said ALL suffering/poverty is the result of sin either.
But if you remember the tsunami a few yrs ago, Israel OFFERED HELP to Indonesia, and Indonesia refused to let Israel help out in their country.
Indonesia is one of the most well known countries for Christian persecution... THAT is the type of junk I"m referring to.
There are more examples of countries like this.

I don't feel responsible for everyone on this planet, however I do dislike anyone struggling. I struggled for quite some time in my own life - I literally was barely able to afford a beater car and lived off of happy hour buffet's for awhile.

Anyways, your point is taken.

 

[NHB_MMA]

To your last point... a corrupt government does not serve as an excuse to rid ourselves of the obligation to help. Suffering is occuring, and it is immoral to do nothing to stop it. Period.

I favor regime change (from within) wherever possible, rather than wasting money with temporary "solutions" that produce very watered-down results due to the corrupt government.

We are capable of giving more. Singer himself gives 30% of his annual salary.

Assuming you're referring to Peter Singer from Princeton, I would say he's no man to look up to, although his donations are commendable.

 

[Daza]

I favor regime change (from within) wherever possible, rather than wasting money with temporary "solutions" that produce very watered-down results due to the corrupt government.



Assuming you're referring to Peter Singer from Princeton, I would say he's no man to look up to, although his donations are commendable.

To your first comment:

I agree. Finding a sustainable solution is the highest form of charity according to Aristotle. Teach a man to fish then...

I am indeed referring to Peter Singer. Much of what he argues for is what I happen to believe, and his logic is one that I wish to emulate. In a world as fallen as our own, I find my role models where I can.

Daza

 

[NHB_MMA]

I agree. Finding a sustainable solution is the highest form of charity according to Aristotle. Teach a man to fish then...

It's a tough dilemma. Overthrowing a corrupt regime does not always go well...as we see everyday on the news. However, the aide we provide in the form of food to some places in the world is often like putting a bandaid on a massive chainsaw wound.

I am indeed referring to Peter Singer. Much of what he argues for is what I happen to believe, and his logic is one that I wish to emulate. In a world as fallen as our own, I find my role models where I can.

I am not an expert on the man. I don't doubt he has some good intellectual contributions. However, I have heard of some views I find appalling such as advocating bestiality and essentially what some would call "post-birth abortion" allowing a person to euthansize children for a time period after birth.

 

[Daza]

So how do we go about the chainsaw wound...? I suggested charity, but I didn't suggest where you should send it! I happen to think along your lines, and send my money to organizations that promote state institution building.

As for Singer... Well, his logics do take him to some extremes I find... abhorrent. The euthanasia idea is mostly theoretical, and not one he actually advocates (there is always adoption!).

Daza

 

[Nadiine]

As for Singer... Well, his logics do take him to some extremes I find... abhorrent. The euthanasia idea is mostly theoretical, and not one he actually advocates (there is always adoption!).

Daza

Sounds like no one I'd set up for my role model; there are plenty of CHRISTIANS that do wonderful charity - not to mention Missionaries who give their entire lives [hands-on work] to leading whole villages to Christ that are better role models to follow than someone that promotes perversions like bestiality & abortions of any kind.

 

[Piedpiper123]

Who is the richest person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they have? - Bill Gates!

Who is the most generous person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they give? - Bill Gates!

A generous person is going to be blessed by God, it's almost like a spiritual law.

 

[Nadiine]

Who is the richest person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they have? - Bill Gates!

Who is the most generous person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they give? - Bill Gates!

A generous person is going to be blessed by God, it's almost like a spiritual law.

Well, we have a poverty stricken woman in the NT who gave her 1 mite which was all she had, and Jesus said she gave more than everyone else...
She was the most generous with her giving yet had the least. So I'm not sure this principle is actually the case.
It would also mean that everyone who isn't wealthy is in lack becuz they aren't generous people & God can't trust them with wealth... (I don't agree with that one!).

We also can't know motives behind people's charity... only God knows that. Are they truly blessed when they do it becuz of the tax write-offs? When they need publicity & do something huge so people see how loving they are?

But that's true, a better role model might actually be Gates instead of this other guy :o

 

[Piedpiper123]

Well, we have a poverty stricken woman in the NT who gave her 1 mite which was all she had, and Jesus said she gave more than everyone else...
She was the most generous with her giving yet had the least. So I'm not sure this principle is actually the case.
It would also mean that everyone who isn't wealthy is in lack becuz they aren't generous people & God can't trust them with wealth... (I don't agree with that one!).

You don't think a generous person will be blessed by God?

As for your example of the poor woman giving her last coin. We DO know that she was blessed by having her generosity given as an example forever in the Bible. We don't know if she starved to death because she gave her last coin to God but I doubt it. Your example does not prove that the biblical principle of a generous person will be blessed is wrong.

"Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing." Proverbs 28:27

"One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another witholds unduly, but comes to poverty." Proverbs 11:24

"Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly and whoever sows generously will also reap generously". 2 Cor 9:6

I don't believe that blessings for generosity do not have to be financial as per some prosperity teachings.

 

[Nadiine]

You don't think a generous person will be blessed by God?

I don't honestly know WHO all is and isn't blessed by God... I don't think any of us do.
I think there's lots of generous people that may not be blessed and many who are.
It's up to God & His sovereignty in each individual; He knows all hearts & He is merciful on whom He will have mercy...

As for your example of the poor woman giving her last coin. We DO know that she was blessed by having her generosity given as an example forever in the Bible. We don't know if she starved to death because she gave her last coin to God but I doubt it. Your example does not prove that the biblical principle of a generous person will be blessed is wrong.

Again, you don't know who's blessed with what. Technically, EVERYONE is "blessed" by God - He gives them life, food, shelter, family, love, jobs, material things, health, happiness, etc etc.
Everyone is 'blessed' in some things by God whether generous or not.

My point is this, if ONLY generous people are blessed by God, then those who go thru a period of lack or "drought" can be viewed as not generous.
This goes along the same lines with those who get very sick or terminally ill - where some people claim "you don't have enough faith if you get sick".
That's just POOP.
So anyone who gets sick/seriously ill, lacks faith, those who aren't sick have strong faith.
That's ridiculous, we can't judge faith by that, and so in the same way, I don't think we can judge people's generosity by God's blessing (as if it's some litmus test in character).
I've seen extremely loving, meek & generous Christians be bedridden with terminal illnesses, impoverished, and many other sad things they've had to endure; I can't judge they aren't generous people if God seems to bring them into suffering/lack.

"Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing." Proverbs 28:27
"One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another witholds unduly, but comes to poverty." Proverbs 11:24
"Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly and whoever sows generously will also reap generously". 2 Cor 9:6
I don't believe that blessings for generosity do not have to be financial as per some prosperity teachings.

Right, but the context was Bill Gates financial blessing which is why I went that route specifically...
I never knocked the principles of sowing & reaping - what I take issue with is us judging people's spirit or characters of generosity by outward blessing from God.
ie. "oh, that person is poor (or has problems), they must not have a generous spirit, or else God would bless them" etc etc.

And yes, blessing is not just financial - blessing comes in many other ways including long life, extended life of loved ones, joy or peace, deeper & more intimate relationship w/ God, being loved & cared about by others, careers, posessions lasting a long time, etc.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Not analogous to the examples I gave, although nice try. Drowning isn't a sin, blaspheming is.

What if you are walking down the street and someone begins to blaspheme? What if you go to a hotel lobby and see an anatomically correct chocolate statue of our crucified Lord (sans loincloth)? Would remaining silent be a sin?

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Good man. Not read any of Singer, i'll check it out now though

To your last point... a corrupt government does not serve as an excuse to rid ourselves of the obligation to help. Suffering is occuring, and it is immoral to do nothing to stop it. Period.

By 1971, there was a civil war in East Bengal, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths by starvation and lack of shelter. The British government by 1972 had given approximately 15 million pounds. At the same time, they had invested 275 million in the Concorde project. This means that the British government valued a supersonic jet more than thirty times as highly as the lives of 9 million refugees. -ref: Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality.

We are capable of giving more. Singer himself gives 30% of his annual salary.
I suggest reducing ourselves to marginal utility... the minimum required to keep ourselves with a comfortable lifestyle, but not more.

Those who would do nothing are negatively responsible for their inaction.

Amor Vincit Omnia... your last post has nothing in common with the OP. We're talking about death and famine, not chocolate.

Daza

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Get thee behind me, and take your 'logic' with you.

If money equates to resources, and Bill Gates possesses more wealth than the 20th richest country in the world [which he does], what right does he possess [and people assume that he does, along with every other human being] to claim ownership over this many resources? Fundamentally, because he possesses more paper notes than others. And people think that this is 'right'

Who is the richest person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they have? - Bill Gates!

Who is the most generous person on the planet, in terms of how much $ they give? - Bill Gates!

A generous person is going to be blessed by God, it's almost like a spiritual law.

 

[ScottBot]

Get thee behind me, and take your 'logic' with you.

If money equates to resources, and Bill Gates possesses more wealth than the 20th richest country in the world [which he does], what right does he possess [and people assume that he does, along with every other human being] to claim ownership over this many resources? Fundamentally, because he possesses more paper notes than others. And people think that this is 'right'

What makes you think that his abundance of resources makes him in anyway superior to anyone.

P.S., the communist forum is down the hall, last door on the left.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

He possesses no 'abundance of resources'; he has no claim to them, nor could he formulate one that would stand up to scrutiny. This is because such a right does not exist.

On the other hand, you seem to have opted for a bit of rhetorical hocus-pocus. There's only so many ways you can beg the question

What makes you think that his abundance of resources makes him in anyway superior to anyone.

P.S., the communist forum is down the hall, last door on the left.

 

[pehkay]

The fundamental problem is not that man sins, but that every man is a CONSTITUTED sinner. Each man is a sinner and commits sins not because of its action but because of the nature of sin indwelling within man (in your very DNA ).

Trying to say right or wrong is just eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After all, good and evil, right and wrong comes from the same tree ...

 

[lmnop9876]

Ok, what if driving down some lonely street you encountered a man bleeding to death, and drove on by instead of lugging him into your car and driving him to the hospital. Would this also be a sin?

no. lugging him into your car and driving him to the hospital would be sinful without his consent to do so. it would be sinful to drive on by & not do anything, i would stop and see if i could help him in anyway.