Thread: Ethical Question

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

I've thought about it before, but I'm not sure how theologically sound my answer is.

Was Paul wrongfully imprisoned? How about Daniel? How about Joseph?

How did these men interpret the providence that God had given them?

Not saying I wouldn't want to... but I would have difficulty while searching the Scriptures.

Two more: Christopher Love, John Bunyan.

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

Need more details.

If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

How about if it was in Castro's Cuba? If you were convicted for sneaking in Bible's, say. I think I would also.

How about here in America. That would depend on more details, but since I covenanted to live by the laws here, and if a jury of my peers convicted me, I might not. I could study the law books and go through the proper channels.

But maybe this would be like a 'Fugitive' (Harrison Ford) situation. Say I was scheduled to die. Say I knew where some evidence was that would free me, and say no one would 'listen' to me and my crazy story. Perhaps if the train crashed I'd go on the run to get that piece fo evidence.

Anyway, we'd need a lot more specifics.

I'd say, sometimes it is fine, sometimes not.

If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

Arguably Joseph and Daniel were imprisoned by those who were just as ungodly as Muslims.

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

This text is the first thing I thought of when I read your question.

Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church. And when Herod was about to bring him out, that night Peter was sleeping, bound with two chains between two soldiers; and the guards before the door were keeping the prison. Now behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the prison; and he struck Peter on the side and raised him up, saying, "Arise quickly!" And his chains fell off his hands. Then the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and tie on your sandals"; and so he did. And he said to him, "Put on your garment and follow me." So he went out and followed him, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. When they were past the first and the second guard posts, they came to the iron gate that leads to the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and went down one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. And when Peter had come to himself, he said, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people." (Acts 12:5-11, NKJV)

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. IMHO

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

Arguably Joseph and Daniel were imprisoned by those who were just as ungodly as Muslims.

And what are you trying to prove? They also included their children in the covenant and gave them the sign, but for some reason you don't do that. Why do you think all examples or narratives are noramtive?

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. IMHO

Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.

(And, in case you come back with "But that violates God's laws," Well, I think not being there to provide for my family in the instances I described violate God's laws for me...)

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. IMHO

Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.

(And, in case you come back with "But that violates God's laws," Well, I think not being there to provide for my family in the instances I described violate God's laws for me...)

WOW!
I was responding to the OP. What being wrongly convicted and imprisioned has to with Hitler telling me to kill Jews is far beyond the scope of my answer.

Sorry, it might not be Biblical: but if I were in say South America, (Guilty until proven innocent in most of those places) I would hit the road if I could. Not saying its right, just being honest here.

Originally Posted by etexas

Sorry, it might not be Biblical: but if I were in say South America, (Guilty until proven innocent in most of those places) I would hit the road if I could. Not saying its right, just being honest here.

Yeah, well I'm not saying I wouldn't try to escape either. When I was in the Air Force I was trained in combat survival and evasion due to the nature of my job. I often thought, "What if I ever have to use the skills I've acquired?"

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

I would say no it is not ethical to escape because one is obligated, even if wrongfully, to submit to the authority of the State in this case.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

I would say no it is not ethical to escape because one is obligated, even if wrongfully, to submit to the authority of the State in this case.

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

My first though when I read this was The Count of Monte Cristo!

What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?

Originally Posted by etexas

What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?

To me this is a situation some what different from the OP:

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

Which is different from being in a foreign country:

in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

How about if it was in Castro's Cuba?

The OP specifies nothing about military scenarios, POWs, foreign countries, or Hitler instructing me to kill Jews.

Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.

The OP, to me asks, If I am convicted wrongly and imprisoned for a crime I did not committ should I try to escape? My answer is "No!"

If "escaping" meant a life on the run, versus enduring the trial and being released, and not having to go back--might be better to stay.

If staying means dying soon anyway, why not try to flee, if by doing so (and preserving your life) you will have more opportunity in this life to glorify God? If the RCC were imprisoning you, to [try and] make you convert, wouldn't you wish to escape?

Of course, you might decide that to "play the man, Ridley" would be better, because "to depart is far better."

Not very definitive, sorry.

I think:

1. if you get a jewelry hammer in the mail and were wrongly convicted of the murder of your wife,
2. and you're a gifted financier who is able to do the Prison Guard's tax returns,
3. and you're forced to work the books for some sort of crooked scheme that the warden is using to skim money from local contractors,
4. and a young confused man comes into the prison who you help get a high school degree suddenly reveals that he was a prison mate of a guy who confessed to the crime that you were convicted of,
5. and the warden was so obtuse and wicked that he locked you up when you asked him to help open the case back up,
6. and he killed your young protege and told you he'd send you back to live among the Sodomites if you don't continue to cooperate,
7. and you had already begun digging a tunnel with that small jeweler's hammer twenty years before and it was pretty much completed and it was apparent you were going to be a slave of this wicked warden so you might as well escape to report the crime and ensure justice was done to the warden and his sadistic Captain.

Then, yes, it is ethical to escape.

I've got this quote! Pick me, Pick me! Shawshank Redemption

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I think:

1. if you get a jewelry hammer in the mail and were wrongly convicted of the murder of your wife,
2. and you're a gifted financier who is able to do the Prison Guard's tax returns,
3. and you're forced to work the books for some sort of crooked scheme that the warden is using to skim money from local contractors,
4. and a young confused man comes into the prison who you help get a high school degree suddenly reveals that he was a prison mate of a guy who confessed to the crime that you were convicted of,
5. and the warden was so obtuse and wicked that he locked you up when you asked him to help open the case back up,
6. and he killed your young protege and told you he'd send you back to live among the Sodomites if you don't continue to cooperate,
7. and you had already begun digging a tunnel with that small jeweler's hammer twenty years before and it was pretty much completed and it was apparent you were going to be a slave of this wicked warden so you might as well escape to report the crime and ensure justice was done to the warden and his sadistic Captain.

Then, yes, it is ethical to escape.

I think you watch too many movies....

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I've got this quote! Pick me, Pick me! Shawshank Redemption

This is not a game Bruce. Get serious for a moment. I'm trying to offer a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. IMHO

Wow, so if Hitler told you to murder Jews, you would.

(And, in case you come back with "But that violates God's laws," Well, I think not being there to provide for my family in the instances I described violate God's laws for me...)

WOW!
I was responding to the OP. What being wrongly convicted and imprisioned has to with Hitler telling me to kill Jews is far beyond the scope of my answer.

WOW, you're being obtuse.

You were intimating that we should stay in jail "because the government commanded it."

But, Hitler's gov. also would have "commanded" you to kill the Jews.

You wouldn't do that. Or, would you?

So, your point needs a bit more than a simplistic posting of a verse that doesn't help us answer the OP, which is what you "were trying to do." Your proof text is the "obvious" defeater you planned on it being.

originally posted by the Apostle Paul
II Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

So, I guess you can escape from the wicked, Rom. 13 Government if they are on their way to arrest you. But, if you have already been arrested, then you cannot escape... riiiight.

I'd also add that Kear posted of Peter escaping prison. I guess you could say, "But this was God's command. God's desire." But so it was too regarding Joseph and Daniel. So if the former can't be used to show that you can escape in some instances, then the latter can't be used to prove that you cannot escape in any instance. So, at best, those proof texts have been negated.

I cited reference to Paul doing precisely what many here said would be a no-no.

And so again, depending on the details given, my answer would be that I would in some instances, probably not in others. I spelled out some reasons why.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Slippery

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

I would say no it is not ethical to escape because one is obligated, even if wrongfully, to submit to the authority of the State in this case.

Can you prove that?

How about in cases like submitting to Hitler?

Originally Posted by etexas

What about a POW? If you were in the Military would you not have an obligation to attempt an escape from an agressor nation, and return to the Nation and Military to which you have sworn a duty?

That fits in with part of my criteria. If I am a U.S. citizen, then the Islamic country that imprisoned me on trumped up charges, isn't my government. I don't have to submit to them in any and all instances. They have no sovereignty over me.

Like in Prison Break, you can escape - but don't let T Bag escape with you. He's a bad man.



We are not obligated to obey wicked laws. ANd obeying a law that imprisons an innocent man is wicked. Escape if you can. In military scenarios, escape doubly so..you are in fact obligated to at least try.

Flight (if possible) is an obligation. It is your duty to preserve your own life. The example of David fleeing (escaping) is a counter point to the citation of Godly men in the scripture who sat in jail.

One issue overlooked in the discussion here, is the nature of modern prison vs the ancient concept. In our day long terms are the norm as part of the punitive process. In the ancient world jail was mearly a holding place for (relativly) short periods of time. In the Hebrew law code it was unknown.

The fact that some men may (and have) forgone this opportunity to escape (such as Paul did with divine assistence!) for some reason does not prove that remaining incarcerarted is the "christians duty". IMO

sorry for leaving this almost open ended guys. But when I say wrongly convicted, I mean that a real crime was committed, just not by you. The prosecutor was sincere, the jury was sincere and the judge was sincere and the cops were sincere. The only problem is, since they were not omniscient, they got the wrong guy "You". And you were wrongly convicted. Now the opportunity came to escape. Would you do it?

ps thanks for the preceeding responses and the eventual proceeding responses.

He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.

The difference between the two examples is rather glaring, surely? Murder is explicitly forbidden, while the same is not true of escaping from prison when unjustly accused/convicted.

Since we're told to obey the laws of the government so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of God, then a Christian could not murder upon the government's command, but could - and I'm thinking should - obey the government's law against escaping from prison.

I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics?

Unless the law specifically allows prisoners to escape so long as they didn't actually commit...to their own mind, anyway...the crime of which they've been accused, and I'm fairly certain there's no such caveat in any nation's laws. Including ours.

Considering fallen mankind's propensity for rationalizing sin, saying that it's permissible to break the law by escaping prison if one is convinced one has been wrongly accused/convicted is tantamount to erasing the law entirely. We're capable of convincing ourselves it wasn't really theft because we were owed money; it wasn't murder, it was self-defense; etc.

A few years ago at a mission luncheon at church we heard from someone who'd been to North Korea, training pastors. Naturally this is not acceptable to the government there, and the word had come down that the authorities were aware of the actual reason for the man's visit and where the meeting would take place, and was going to swoop down and arrest everyone.

The speaker admitted he was scared almost witless at the thought of winding up in a foreign prison, and there was discussion at the meeting with the pastors as to whether it should be canceled and moved. The pastors were puzzled as to why this should be necessary. Virtually all of them had spent time in prison for their faith, and as one of 'em put it, "I can evangelize just as well in prison as out of it! They need to hear the gospel, too, and if that's where the LORD wants me to preach it, that's where I'll be."

Humbled by these men's cheerful faith and ready acceptance of possible imprisonment, the meeting continued (with no visit from the authorities, BTW).

Point being, if we wind up in prison for a crime we didn't commit, it doesn't mean the LORD slipped up somehow. Presumably He wants us in that place at that time, for reasons of His own (evangelization of other prisoners or guards, whether through word or example?), and is perfectly capable of arranging us to leave without breaking the law through an illegal escape.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

originally posted by the Apostle Paul
II Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

So, I guess you can escape from the wicked, Rom. 13 Government if they are on their way to arrest you. But, if you have already been arrested, then you cannot escape... riiiight.

I'd also add that Kear posted of Peter escaping prison. I guess you could say, "But this was God's command. God's desire." But so it was too regarding Joseph and Daniel. So if the former can't be used to show that you can escape in some instances, then the latter can't be used to prove that you cannot escape in any instance. So, at best, those proof texts have been negated.

I cited reference to Paul doing precisely what many here said would be a no-no.

And so again, depending on the details given, my answer would be that I would in some instances, probably not in others. I spelled out some reasons why.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.

.

Actually, he was.

I know the cases are different.

But, he postedsome verses with NO commentary.

This lead the reader to believe his argument was that you should saty put in jail if the gov. put you there because you should do *everythin* a gov. commands.

If this *wasn't* his argument, then without supplying commentary, he's made *no* point. if you don't *always* have to obey the gov. and you put forward *no* argument saying that x case is a case where you do, then you've done *nothing* to help the discussion out.

I just get bothered when people put forth a verse, and nothing else, and think that somehow proves their case. It's as if they are saying this: "Well of course I'm right, God's word is obviously on my side here."

So, yes, my point about Hitler was *very* relevant, and his comeback was obtuse.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

I thought it was rather obvious. I even spelled it out with an argument above.

I say we can escape in some situations.

You say, "No, we can't, look at the examples of Daniel and Joseph."

I say, "What does that prove?" (drawing you into my web :-) )

You say, "it proves those govs were sinful to, and they stayed."

I say, "Okay, so I guess your argument is:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2) J & D stayed in jail.

3) We should too.

Now, if that *wasn't* your argument, they *what* were you trying to prove. That a Muslim country was "just as bad" as the countries that imprisoned J & D? Well, despite this questionable assumption (i.e., have you studied the ANE here? Read detailed histories of Egypt and Babylon, etc.? Have you studied modern reports on Muslim countries. Do you have any detailed analysis to go along with you claim, etc.), we can let it slide for now. Because even *if* it were true, it has no relevance to my argument. Unless, you assume something like the above argument (1-3).

If so, we can do this:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2*) J & D did (or would have) included their children in the covenant, and given them the sign.

3*) We should too.

Now, this is valid just like my representation of your argument above. The only debatable premise is (1), if it is true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, you are bound to baptise your children!

Now, of course you can deny (1), but then what happens to your positive argument against my position? It vanishes.

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics?

.

There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."

Guess what, in some situations I would not lie, in others I would (to protect a wife from a husband looking to murder her).

Guess what, in some instances the right thing for me to do is to save your grandchild from a burning building, not in others (if *my own* child was in there and I only had time to save one. I have a higher moral obligation to my own children than yours).

Many, if not most, Christian ethicists have recognized a place for situational ethics within a broader Christian framework.

Read J.M. Frame's "Doctrine of the Christian Life" for a more robust defense of this position.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

I thought it was rather obvious. I even spelled it out with an argument above.

I say we can escape in some situations.

You say, "No, we can't, look at the examples of Daniel and Joseph."

I say, "What does that prove?" (drawing you into my web :-) )

You say, "it proves those govs were sinful to, and they stayed."

I say, "Okay, so I guess your argument is:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2) J & D stayed in jail.

3) We should too.

Now, if that *wasn't* your argument, they *what* were you trying to prove. That a Muslim country was "just as bad" as the countries that imprisoned J & D? Well, despite this questionable assumption (i.e., have you studied the ANE here? Read detailed histories of Egypt and Babylon, etc.? Have you studied modern reports on Muslim countries. Do you have any detailed analysis to go along with you claim, etc.), we can let it slide for now. Because even *if* it were true, it has no relevance to my argument. Unless, you assume something like the above argument (1-3).

If so, we can do this:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2*) J & D did (or would have) included their children in the covenant, and given them the sign.

3*) We should too.

Now, this is valid just like my representation of your argument above. The only debatable premise is (1), if it is true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, you are bound to baptise your children!

Now, of course you can deny (1), but then what happens to your positive argument against my position? It vanishes.

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!

I hate to unravel your "web" but I believe words mean things. Show were I said that because Daniel and Joseph were imprisoned by ungodly captors that it prohibited you from escape. Read my words carefully. All I did was take away the relevance of your Muslim comment in relation to biblical precedent. In light of that I think you should revisit the whole or your retort.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."

*Gasp* He's a relativist!!!