The sort of situation I am referring to is http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34...tolen-1154281/

One of the 10 commandments is "Do not steal". I don't understand how God can put things in such a clear cut way. Surely there are grey areas like this where people are wanting to be vigilantes. Especially in situations where the vigilante will definitely be stopping more damage being done.

Basically, what would God think about this in your opinion?

We're stupid and don't understand God's mind. He has no grey areas.

An evil act doesn't have a percentage imo.

You only really control yourself so you can try to talk your friend out of the evil acts but you can't join him under the illusion you'll do less damage than he will and stay clean.

Evil is a slippery slope.

If you steal 1 grain of rice you're going to hell.

Thinking there are no grey areas is insane. In the thread I linked I outlined a hypothetical situation where a vigilante IS reducing the amount of damage being done to the economy, while committing acts which are illegal.

How is this not a grey area?

Judgment is entrusted to Jesus Christ and he already saved everyone on the Cross.

You can continue to make this world a hell though by your own thinking.

Like everyone said it that thread, it's a stupid question. In the hypothetical, "Jack" is clearly trying to justify his wrong by being "less bad" than the other guy. Pretty sure the "greater good" concept doesn't fly with the biblical God.

Clearly the better/right action for Jack is to not spend any of the balances. And/or to go to the police, and also warn the people to cancel their cards, ect ect. By buying stolen goods he is merely fueling the economic motivation for further future crimes.

Merely doing "less bad" than the other guy doesn't equal doing good. Beating my child less than my neighbor beats his child, is no justification for my own actions. I have the power to not beat my child AT ALL.

Better off going with lying. Is a soldier who is captured by the enemy and lies about troop positions during interrogation immoral and sinning?

weas3l; it seems as if you are missing the point.

This is my hypothetical so I dictate what Jack's intentions really are, and what he is trying to justify, and whether or not he is making excuses for crime he wants to commit.

Jack wants to reduce damage done to the economy. This is his primary intention. He has tried snitching on his internet friend, but the police cant catch him. The seller of these stolen details will continue selling and nothing will ever stop that.

1) YOU CANNOT DENY HE IS STOPPING DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY - THAT IS ASSUMED IN THE HYPOTHETICAL. (by not spending as much as the other fraudsters who will definitely strike if Jack doesn't - so bank/victim lose out less).
2) STOPPING DAMAGE TO ECONOMY = GOOD
3) A GOOD ACTION IS ALWAYS GOOD REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A MORE GOOD ACTION EXISTS
4) DOING GOOD + GETTING PAID ISN'T BAD. remember: in this hypothetical, doing good is Jack's primary intention.

Expansion to point 3):
YES THERE ARE THINGS WHICH WOULD BE EVEN BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY (BUYING STOLEN CARD DETAILS AND INFORMING THE OWNERS - ESSENTIALLY FLUSHING HIS OWN MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN), BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE IS SUDDENLY NOT DOING GOOD FOR STOPPING DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY.


You haven't provided A SINGLE LOGICAL REASON as to why this is wrong ETHICALLY, not lawfully. Neither has anybody else. Law and ethics sometimes disagree

Also, vigilantism is definitely a grey area. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=vigilantism+ethics . Lots of people discussing it / writing papers on it etc. You may be able to see why I think its not a stupid question. Unless you've been totally brainwashed by people who have stereotypical mindsets of "crime is bad". "do not steal" etc, and have you stuck in black and white thinking.

PS: Peoples' bad intentions may result in good sometimes. Bad intentions doesn't always lead to bad results.

Flawed premise is flawed.

It's hard to do better than this post from the other thread.

If Jack's primary intention is to do good, he's doing it wrong, so he's bad. He is clearly taking an actual he doesn't have to take which does harm. There is no gray area here.

There are no grey areas, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You sin once and you are not worthy to be in the presence of a Holy God. This one instance you bring up is irrelevant because you are already broken and sinful and need the atonement of Christ.

I like what Capt. Picard said in a Star Trek episoid: "There is no justice in a Universe of absolutes." There must be situational ethics, not code ethics in the context of the time, place, and society you live in. For an all loving and forgiving God for the whole world there cannot be one book, one man, or one religion that speaks exclusively for Him. It just doesn't seem fair. Also, I like what I think the pysicist Steven Weinberg said: "Good people can do the most evil things to others when they have a religion that justifies it." I do believe in a God (or Universe Intelligence), an after life, and that this life is only a fraction of the eternal learning experience. I don't believe in sin or eternal punishment as this doesn't make eternal sense for an all loving God. I believe it is an insult to God to think that He/She would allow eternal suffering. I do not equate punishment with justice. I also believe that there is no tragedy, no accident, and no human atrocity that happens in this earth life that God cannot make right in the hereafter. Just do no harm to others and allow others to believe as they wish.

Let it go, Original. Or come up with a better example, at least. Resisting doing the maximum possible bad does not somehow equal doing good. Regardless of the actions of others around you. Being less bad is merely being... less bad.

I don't think I ever mentioned law in my argument? Aside from suggesting involving the police force, I guess. MORALLY; he is taking money from other people, for himself. He is stealing. Other people are being hurt by actions that he is taking, that are unnecessary for him to take. This is morally wrong.

Do you need why stealing is morally wrong explained, or...?

I have always wondered what religious peoples thoughts were on the different levels of goodness needed to make it into heaven. For example, if someone is a believer in the right God and barely good enough to make it do they get the same exact rewards as someone who lives as perfect a moral life as possible throughout their entire life? Or another example would be if someone is terrible for most of their life and then becomes "saved" at some later point do they get to experience the same level of heaven?
Yes I am very much a non believer but I am not asking this a smart alek type of way. I am genuinely curious as to how people think about this and the effects it may have on their lifestyle.

Who's atonement does Christ need since he has "sinned" many times as well..

If Claus von Stauffenberg would have succeeded with his assassination of Hitler (clearly breaking the commandment number 6) how would he have been judged by God? As a hero since he risked losing his life by trying to stop more mass murdering of innocent people or as a sinner who needs to be sent to hell by breaking the commandment?

This has been covered already in previous threads. Most christians say that the only way to be saved is to believe in jesus christ. It doesnt matter how much good you do, its never going to outweigh the bad. But somehow , if you believe in him ( ie I think that means, believe that he is the son of god, and died for your sins) then its all ok, and you are forgiven.

From Aquinas on Theft:

On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article5---Article #7 is above

Of course, this has many variants as can be noted in the above reference. And also, of course, this is the presentation of the "Angelic Doctor" who may or may not find consideration in the hearts of others, but it is at least worth looking at this one perspective.

Christianity is not based on following commandments. It is about loving God and loving others (and acting upon this.)

It is not a sin to lie in order to keep others from harm. Think about people hiding Jews in Nazi Germany. Definitely not a sin to say, "I don't have any Jews hiding in my house." While there are some in the attic. This would be a selfless act that you are doing out of love for your fellow human being.

The same thinking should be applied for all situations. It's not about "Is this against the rules?" It should be "Will this help others and will God be happy with my actions or is this just the self serving thing to do?"

Your soul is eternal and more important than earthly needs, so there is never an excuse for violating the commandments. That's a profound and beautiful position to take if you think about it, but it requires tremendous courage to pull off.

You don't truly believe this. If you did, you would refuse to pay any taxes to the government, which uses the money to maintain an army that kills people, and take the consequences for refusing (assuming you've ever worked!). You would also refuse to buy any good made in China, a portion of which are made with forced slave labor. You are complicit in many evils already, and you seem not to care.

Have you read the Old Testament? Methinks your view of Christianity and God lacks a great deal of understanding.

Do you have a biblical citation for this?

You bore false witness to another human being. That is forbidden very clearly in the bible.

So you can judge the mind of God now? How do you think he feels about you letting the homosexuals walk around without being stoned? God himself said that homosexuality is an "abomination" to him, and that those who do it should be stoned to death. Why do you defy his will because of your squeamishness at killing people? That's very selfish of you IMO.

Your question is good because it just shows how asinine the whole God-myth is.

Any allegiance to a deity or concept or universal principal which puts obedience above decent behavior toward an innocent human being is evil.

The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith."