Paul lying?

[MikeK]

Except that God did not allow Abraham to go through with killing Isaac. It was only a test. And we learned later that its purpose was to foreshadow what the Father in Heaven was going to do with His only begotten Son. So it's not an equal comparison to God blessing Rahab and the Egyptian midwives since God did not tell them to lie nor did He prevent them from lying. But God blessed them for the choice they made since they did it with the righteous intention to save innocent lives from someone evil.

...which is why I clearly said "threatening" to kill him. God blessed Abraham for threatening (or at least preparing and intending to) kill his son, which is not something that we have an excuse to do.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

...which is why I clearly said "threatening" to kill him. God blessed Abraham for threatening (or at least preparing and intending to) kill his son, which is not something that we have an excuse to do.

You are missing the entire point. The binding of Isaac was a Passion Play. It was more about God the Father and Jesus the Son than it was about Abraham and Isaac. Dr. Scott Hahn explains it in this video:

"Abraham: Father or Master?" Dr. Scott Hahn

 

[MikeK]

I fully understand the point, and I have yet to hear Scott Hahn explain anything to my liking - though he is getting better than he was. If you're going to us Old Testament activities that were blessed by God as evidence that those activities were okay, then do it consistently.

 

[LoAmmi]

I fully understand the point, and I have yet to hear Scott Hahn explain anything to my liking - though he is getting better than he was. If you're going to us Old Testament activities that were blessed by God as evidence that those activities were okay, then do it consistently.

I would hope the answer is that they were ok... at that time.

 

[seekingfreedom]

My chagrin is had with the phrase "necessary evil."

In any case, Just War theory is Catholic teaching, and it does not use the idea of "necessary evil," but acknowledges rightly that all killing is not wrong, that there are some kinds which may be moral due to the circumstance, e.g., self-defense. Just War is a collectivization of this fundamental moral intuition.[/QUOTE]



You keep making my point. In the New Testament we are are called not to return evil for evil. The Catholic church teaching of "just" war gets around this by making a doctrine to say that not all killing is wrong. I understand that as human beings, many of us, particulaly in the Western Church, have a need to have this spelled out in a "legal" way, as you say, to be told, it's OK to kill in a "just" war. I get that. The eastern way calls it what it is and explains it with an Eastern mindset. Doesn't mean there is a "flaw" in it as you say.

You fail to grasp and you also ignore "necessary, as to protect a life, and evil because it is wrong to kill."

I realize that it is very difficult to grasp the Eastern way of thinking. it is always about repentance, forgiveness, and healing. I am not saying that either view is right or wrong. I am not pointing out any "flaw" in either the Catholic interpretation or the Eastern interpretation. But I see you went there. My original intent of my post was strictly to uncover the "flaw" in the "sweeping statement" regarding the Eastern Orthodox view on moral issues.

If you want to take it back to the debate regarding lying, my intent was to show what I believe is the absurdity in saying that lying to protect an innocent from being killed, is worse than allowing the innocent person to be killed by an aggressor.

Catholics love to debate the minutiae of the Law. You can point out something in one section of the CCC and find something else in another section of the CCC that would leave a loophole. Even the Doctors of the church disagree. The CCC has been amended regarding lying a couple times in just the past 15 years.

That is why we have confessors.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

If you're going to us Old Testament activities that were blessed by God as evidence that those activities were okay, then do it consistently.

A Passion play is not evil, especially not when God is the one who is conducting it.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I fully understand the point, and I have yet to hear Scott Hahn explain anything to my liking - though he is getting better than he was.

What do you need explained?

 

[paul becke]

If any sin is made necessary, it is also robbed of moral culpability, because if a person or a group of people lacks the capability to resist moral evil, they then do not incur responsibility for rectifying the situation.

Say for instance a person with schizophrenia, or some form of brain pathology. I suppose you could say in some way their actions are 'necessary' in the sense that they cannot control themselves, but if we follow that line of thought, that would also mean that they are absolved from responsibility from their behavior.

So I'm not in favor of this line of reasoning. Although Eastern thought tends toward the synthetic and not the analytic, and that is a legitimate way of approaching matters, I think here a lack of distinction is not good.

People joke that "Ex Oriente Lux, Ex Occidente Lex" - out of the East, Light, out of the West, Law, as if to say we Latins/Romans are far more concerned with legal frameworks for morality. There may be merit to this criticism, but then again, consider all the accomplishments and advances we have made as a result of this point of view. The East has made different accomplishments.

In my opinion, this is not a matter of accepting one and rejecting the other. Both have things to learn from the other if the Church is to, in the words of St. Pope John Paul II, "Breathe with both lungs," accepting the wisdom of all the traditions and theological frameworks within her.

'I will come to the altar of God, God the joy of my youth.'

Beautiful, wonderful words! Pardon the digression, folks.

 

[Meowzltov]

The church has not spoken infallibly on whether it is absolutely a sin to lie to save a life or not. Therefore one cannot appeal to the authority of Augustine or Catholic answers or the present CCC.

As for me, I look to the teachings of Jesus, and the way he railed at the religious teachers for straining at a gnat only to swallow a camel. If we keep one commandment (not lying) only to not love our neighbor (allowing the murder of a Jew), then we have missed the whole point.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The church has not spoken infallibly on whether it is absolutely a sin to lie to save a life or not. Therefore one cannot appeal to the authority of Augustine or Catholic answers or the present CCC.

As for me, I look to the teachings of Jesus, and the way he railed at the religious teachers for straining at a gnat only to swallow a camel. If we keep one commandment (not lying) only to not love our neighbor (allowing the murder of a Jew), then we have missed the whole point.

Well said. I see it that way, too.