"Lesser of Two Evils" fallacy

[JonC]

Another example is if a parent tells a child to curse God. If the child disobeys then does the child sin?

Was it a sin for the disciples to evangelze when commanded by the secular authority not to? Was disobeying that authority the "lesser sin"?

Did Jesus choose the lesser sin when He did not abide by the commands of the secular authorities appointed over Him (as a first century Jewish man)?

 

[Dave G]

Another example is if a parent tells a child to curse God. If the child disobeys then does the child sin?

Was it a sin for the disciples to evangelze when commanded by the secular authority not to? Was disobeying that authority the "lesser sin"?

Did Jesus choose the lesser sin when He did not abide by the commands of the secular authorities appointed over Him (as a first century Jewish man)?

Jon,
I think these are 3 examples that clearly fall under this:

" Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." ( Acts of the Apostles 5:29 ).
To me, so was Rahab's and any other who chooses to follow the Lord, come what may.

Additionally, in # 3 the secular authorities under the Law were bound by it to obey God.
But in many cases they were not...
They were teaching for doctrine the commandments of men ( Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7 ).


Jesus, who gave them the Law through Moses, had a particular viewpoint that we don't have.
Also, since He was without sin, then He didn't choose "the lesser sin".

But I think I understand where you're coming from.

 

[InTheLight]

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

Saw this movie recently and the Depp character was supposed to kill the US governor of California, a woman, who was running for reelection.

Now, back to the discussion...

 

[1689Dave]

I think motive determines the sinfulness of the act. Are we lying when we leave a radio on when away? So would be thieves think we are home?

 

[church mouse guy]

I was reading A Clash of Kings (by George Martin) and ran across a very used secular idea. The notion is that one can be placed in a position where they must act wrongly in order to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

I started thinking how common this idea is in our culture (through media, like movies and books) yet how foreign it is to Christianity. The world places not only our decisions but their outcomes in our hands. Scripture places our decisions in our hands but the outcome in God’s.

What I am getting at is that as Christians we are responsible for acting as we are commanded to act, not acting in opposition to God in order to bring a more godly outcome to a situation or set of circumstances.

Is the “lesser of two evils” idea simple faithlessness in God, or are there times when God blesses disobedience provided the intentions are to foster a better result?

Sigh, my whole life has been two or more bad choices. Do you believe in total depravity?

 

[JonC]

Sigh, my whole life has been two or more bad choices. Do you believe in total depravity?

I believe there is nothing in us that merits salvation and that apart from the work of God men will not seek Him.

That said, all men seek God in a sense that men seek a god. This is evident in the false religions we see today. Men even die for these gods. But men do not seek God (the One True God) except via God's own work.

 

[church mouse guy]

I believe there is nothing in us that merits salvation and that apart from the work of God men will not seek Him.

That said, all men seek God in a sense that men seek a god. This is evident in the false religions we see today. Men even die for these gods. But men do not seek God (the One True God) except via God's own work.

Well, here's a quien sabe for you:

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV) The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

So we both agree that Calvin was right about total depravity. The false god such as Allah, another name for Satan, that men make up are not a function of their goodness but of their evil.

Another example of how far America has decayed. John Donne wrote:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

But Americans now wish death upon people that they disagree with and rejoice when someone like David Koch dies although he gave 150 million to the hospital where RBG was treated. So people at the top betray us. Read The Intellectuals by Paul Johnson and you will see how the brightest people without Christ are the worst souls.

 

[HankD]

Anyone who is married knows the value of the "lesser of two evils".

"Hon, who ate the last of the pizza?".

 

[InTheLight]

Anyone who is married knows the value of the "lesser of two evils".

"Hon, who ate the last of the pizza?".

Encountered a version of that scenario yesterday.
Wife (morning): "There's a piece of apple crisp left here from last night. Don't forget to eat it."
Wife (evening): "There's half a blueberry muffin for you to eat tomorrow."

Last night: no apple crisp.
This morning: no blueberry muffin.

Oh well...

 

[agedman]

In this thread a rule, or pre-determined choice is ask.

The NT presents only two full-size that Gentile believers are to follow, what one eats and bed partners.

The Scriptures teach principles to Gentiles not rules.

For example, the principle, “It is never right to do wrong.”

The example in the op desires one to do wrong that some nebulous measure of a greater good be accomplished. That which has more appeal to the fleshly emotions.

Because my children work, travel and live in danger even to that of the op, my wife and I have come to terms with this very matter.

1) We would appeal, and do appeal to the providence of God.
2) We would reach out to publish the need of intercessory prayer made for both captive and captors, that both may reside in the terror of God in not submitting to Him.
3) We would make all attempts to be the best witnesses to the majesty and authority of God in submitting to knowing He approved of all that has and will transpire for His Glory and our best benefit​

It may hair-lip every camel in the Middle East, but the principle of the teaching of Scriptures is where all convictions, standards, preferences, and decisions must be conformed.

One should not look at the statements of Scripture to excuse something. To do so is basically presenting human actions as the standard.

Rehab lied, so It is approved to lie.
Judas coveted, so It is approved to covet.
David was a fornicator, so It is approved to fornicate.
Don’t be drunk, but drink.
Don’t covet, but steal.

It all boils down into the thinking, getting by with sin because grace abounds.

 

[John of Japan]

Rahab lied and is listed in the hall of faith for the lie and deceit.

Your statement is nowhere in the Bible. Here is the actual statement in Heb. 11:31--"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace." Rahab was listed in the hall of faith for her faith. That seems self evident. Here

Her lying was the means by which she protected the spies. It was not approved anywhere in Scripture. She could have used misdirection instead, as did the battle plan give by God for the conquest of Ai.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was reading A Clash of Kings (by George Martin) and ran across a very used secular idea. The notion is that one can be placed in a position where they must act wrongly in order to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

I started thinking how common this idea is in our culture (through media, like movies and books) yet how foreign it is to Christianity. The world places not only our decisions but their outcomes in our hands. Scripture places our decisions in our hands but the outcome in God’s.

What I am getting at is that as Christians we are responsible for acting as we are commanded to act, not acting in opposition to God in order to bring a more godly outcome to a situation or set of circumstances.

Is the “lesser of two evils” idea simple faithlessness in God, or are there times when God blesses disobedience provided the intentions are to foster a better result?

Moses parents willingly disobeyed Pharaoh, so they chose to do that for the greater good, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

I was reading A Clash of Kings (by George Martin) and ran across a very used secular idea. The notion is that one can be placed in a position where they must act wrongly in order to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

I started thinking how common this idea is in our culture (through media, like movies and books) yet how foreign it is to Christianity. The world places not only our decisions but their outcomes in our hands. Scripture places our decisions in our hands but the outcome in God’s.

What I am getting at is that as Christians we are responsible for acting as we are commanded to act, not acting in opposition to God in order to bring a more godly outcome to a situation or set of circumstances.

Is the “lesser of two evils” idea simple faithlessness in God, or are there times when God blesses disobedience provided the intentions are to foster a better result?

"It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right."--Bob Jones Sr.

"7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."--The Apostle Paul (Rom. ch. 3).

 

[John of Japan]

No.
Isaiah 38:1-9

Point is the illness was unto death....then it wasn't.

I do not believe God intended him to die from the illness but to live those extra 15 years.

Do you seriously believe that changing one's mind is lying?

Dad: "You can't have that cookie."
Son: "Mom gave it to me."
Dad: "In that case, its all right."

Did Dad lie?

 

[John of Japan]

I think motive determines the sinfulness of the act. Are we lying when we leave a radio on when away? So would be thieves think we are home?

That would be misdirection, not lying. The thief deceives himself.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think motive determines the sinfulness of the act. Are we lying when we leave a radio on when away? So would be thieves think we are home?

What is wrong with you?

 

[John of Japan]

Another example is if a parent tells a child to curse God. If the child disobeys then does the child sin?

Was it a sin for the disciples to evangelze when commanded by the secular authority not to? Was disobeying that authority the "lesser sin"?

Both of these examples completely miss the "higher authority" principle. It is the higher authority who must be obeyed even when a lesser authority commands something. God is the highest authority, so obeying Him instead of committing the crime/sin a lower authority commands is never a moral or ethical problem.

Every military man understands this. (I am not one.) When given an unlawful order, the soldier does not have to obey it. The My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam is a classic example.

Did Jesus choose the lesser sin when He did not abide by the commands of the secular authorities appointed over Him (as a first century Jewish man)?

You can't be serious. Are you saying that the Messiah, by definition the King of the Jews, had to obey His underlings (who did not recognize Him)???

 

[HankD]

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

A sheep in wolves clothing? Read this again

 

[Reynolds]

Your statement is nowhere in the Bible. Here is the actual statement in Heb. 11:31--"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace." Rahab was listed in the hall of faith for her faith. That seems self evident. Here

Her lying was the means by which she protected the spies. It was not approved anywhere in Scripture. She could have used misdirection instead, as did the battle plan give by God for the conquest of Ai.

Misdirection is a lie.

 

[John of Japan]

Misdirection is a lie.

No it's not. If it is, then God lied with His battle plan for the 2nd battle of Ai. Are you willing to call God a liar? Satan is called a liar by Jesus. Must Jesus then call God a liar? That would equate the eternally holy God with the source of all evil.

Misdirection is when one takes an action which can be interpreted one way or another. A wise person will interpret misdirection correctly and not be fooled. A fool (like the Ai general) will convince himself. You don't have to lie to him, because he lies to himself.

When I do martial arts sparring, and fake a low front kick but turn it into a round kick to the head, I am using misdirection. My fake kick is an action which, when the unwary opponent sees it, he will convince himself of the low kick being the real attack. A good fighter will not be mis-directed.

On the other hand, a lie is always words. Note the difference. Misdirection is an action, but lying requires words.