It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you think you can go to hell for indirectly causing death?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Disclaimer - Not a religious person.

So, follow me here-


First Example

1. Lets say you own company X.

2. Company X lays off worker.

3. Worker being distraught from mental anguish is driving home, crying, gets into an accident and dies.


Does the person that owns Company X going to hell?


Next Example

Ok, same scenario

1. But worker doesnt die driving home.

2. Worker forced to get job at 7-11 to pay bills in meantime.

3. Worker gone when kids come home after school b/c of odd hours working now

4. On the kids way home, since no one was at bus stop, someone comes by and murders kid.


Does person that owns company X go to hell?




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
In those examples?

No. Why would the owner of the company be held responsible by god for the actions of a murderer? or a Car accident? Are these scenarios assuming free will and a random universe or that everything is ordained to happen a certain way? The former precludes the company owner from responsibility for a murderer or for someone who couldn't pull over when they were too distraught to drive. The latter removes culpability from everyone.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I can see that..

Lets say this

NEW EXAMPLE

Same Scenario

1. Owner of company X has lied about financial reports for years and whole company went down b/c of this.

2. Woman either gets in accident/or other scenario I previously stated in the above post

Does owner of company X go to hell?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by GreenBicMan]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I would assume he's going to hell already for his financial chicanery, which led to the uprooting and destruction of lives before any deaths occurred.

Would he be responsible for the deaths themselves? Not sure. I don't believe in Heaven and hell or any of the current religions versions of god so my belief goes; his greed led to circumstances that put certain people into precarious positions that may not have been avoidable by said person, but whose outcomes extend beyond the reach of the company owner.

I believe culpability ends at the man holding the gun. The first scenario leaves the company owner with a closer connection with the death, but I still don't believe he's fully responsible. I'll say he'd definitely go to hell for reckless endangerment.

Bit of a thought exercise. S&F



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Hell is a state of mind. You don't have to be dead to be there.

Your life is a reflection of your perspective on it. If you go around seeing things as being terrible, they inherently will be.

Each of us spend our time in hell, and in heaven, depending on the way we see our life at the moment.

It's a matter of choice. Where would you rather be?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


I don't think anyone is going to Hell.

Especially someone who has not specifically broken one of the Ten Commandments.

I don't see that anyone specifically broke one of the Ten Commandments in your posts, so they won't be going to Hell.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Im not that deep I guess.. I just try to make myself happy as much as possible, by doing what I want at that moment

I guess you wouldnt find that in a jail cell, so that could be your own "personal hell"

But im more referencing the fabled "hell" after you die.

Is there even a straight yes/no answer to the above questions?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


I don't think anyone is going to Hell.

Especially someone who has not specifically broken one of the Ten Commandments.

I don't see that anyone specifically broke one of the Ten Commandments in your posts, so they won't be going to Hell.


Well he indirectly caused someone to die, unless you dont see it like that, I guess I kinda do..



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
I don't see that anyone specifically broke one of the Ten Commandments in your posts, so they won't be going to Hell.

I don't see anything about not raping children in the Ten Commandments.

What does that mean specifically?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Theologically, from the Christian/Catholic perspective, the answer is simply: No. You cannot be held responsible for creating a particular chain of events that unknowingly lead to possible and dramatically unintended consequences.

If you respond that, yes, you can be held responsible, then, still, you are not at fault. Why is this? Because you create a regressive chain of causality. This will lead you back to uncaused causes and such that will make you have to assume that it is God that caused all of these things to happen anyway. So, its God's fault.

Since we can assume, theologically, that there is free will in man, that chain of causality is only slightly linked to God (in that God set the universe and all things in being and order). So, from this, in any chain of events, people have the free will to act on their circumstance.

The soul would be put in mortal jeopardy of damnation if you have orchestrated a timeline or chain of events that puts another person in threat of mortal harm, or you actively take no action to help someone in that position. Granted, this is a deep theological matter and, even if you did not will someone's death, the death still occurred. It's best to think of this: if you had no intention, and, through no ill will, malice, or neglect on your part, someone dies, there can be no mortal sin.

From the Catholic perspective, in summation, the scenario presented would not cause eternal damnation.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by RussianScientists
I don't see that anyone specifically broke one of the Ten Commandments in your posts, so they won't be going to Hell.

I don't see anything about not raping children in the Ten Commandments.

What does that mean specifically?


touché my friend



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iago18
Theologically, from the Christian/Catholic perspective, the answer is simply: No. You cannot be held responsible for creating a particular chain of events that unknowingly lead to possible and dramatically unintended consequences.

If you respond that, yes, you can be held responsible, then, still, you are not at fault. Why is this? Because you create a regressive chain of causality. This will lead you back to uncaused causes and such that will make you have to assume that it is God that caused all of these things to happen anyway. So, its God's fault.

Since we can assume, theologically, that there is free will in man, that chain of causality is only slightly linked to God (in that God set the universe and all things in being and order). So, from this, in any chain of events, people have the free will to act on their circumstance.

The soul would be put in mortal jeopardy of damnation if you have orchestrated a timeline or chain of events that puts another person in threat of mortal harm, or you actively take no action to help someone in that position. Granted, this is a deep theological matter and, even if you did not will someone's death, the death still occurred. It's best to think of this: if you had no intention, and, through no ill will, malice, or neglect on your part, someone dies, there can be no mortal sin.

From the Catholic perspective, in summation, the scenario presented would not cause eternal damnation.


Ok, did you read my third example where I stated that the Owner of company X has cooked the books and caused this whole fiasco?

Do you think he should go to hell now since there was ill will?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Follow me here for a minute. Here's the Christian theology:

You go to hell to be punished, right?

Your punishment was received by Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ paid the price in full.

Jesus Christ is saying He will accept you into heaven if you want.

You go to hell if you don't take the free E-ticket.

Who could refuse free heaven?

You'd be surprised.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
GreenBicMan and ENumbra, yes those are extremely bad circumstances, and punishment of some type must take place for what transgressions others have done to others; but the Bible still has 10 Commandments.

What GreenBicMan and ENumbra are basically saying is this then.

If a child is born and his mother dies because of his being born, because the mother could not make it through the birth; then according to GreenBicMan and ENumbra the child is automatically going to Hell because they have decided in their own minds that they are now speaking for GOD.

GOD made the rules about going to Heaven and to Hell. Man can pass laws that determines what happens to other men for crimes here on Earth, but once they leave Earth, they are in the hands of GOD as to his intensions as to where they are going.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Even in that scenario, the sin is not murder. Though he created, through his sinful activity, a chain of events that would lead to another person's death, his intention was purely out of self-interested greed.

Now, murder is most certainly not the only thing that, theologically, will earn you a place away from God. From that same Christian/Catholic perspective, we see that the fundamental definition of sin is that which separates us from God.

So, in your third example, the sin is greed and the love of money that results in a whole calamity of terrible consequences. Though not a murderer, the criminal in your example is certainly a sinner. Now, it's not up to me to say who's damned, but as the sin you described indicates that he has full knowledge of what he is doing and the evil of his action, it would seem to be a grave sin in nature. Therefore, in the third example, the culprit is on a, theologically, slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
GreenBicMan and ENumbra, yes those are extremely bad circumstances, and punishment of some type must take place for what transgressions others have done to others; but the Bible still has 10 Commandments.

What GreenBicMan and ENumbra are basically saying is this then.

If a child is born and his mother dies because of his being born, because the mother could not make it through the birth; then according to GreenBicMan and ENumbra the child is automatically going to Hell because they have decided in their own minds that they are now speaking for GOD.

GOD made the rules about going to Heaven and to Hell. Man can pass laws that determines what happens to other men for crimes here on Earth, but once they leave Earth, they are in the hands of GOD as to his intensions as to where they are going.


Interesting, but let me say this..

It was not childs soul decision to be put in that circumstance.. in these instances the man owned the company and the woman willingly worked for him



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iago18
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Even in that scenario, the sin is not murder. Though he created, through his sinful activity, a chain of events that would lead to another person's death, his intention was purely out of self-interested greed.

Now, murder is most certainly not the only thing that, theologically, will earn you a place away from God. From that same Christian/Catholic perspective, we see that the fundamental definition of sin is that which separates us from God.

So, in your third example, the sin is greed and the love of money that results in a whole calamity of terrible consequences. Though not a murderer, the criminal in your example is certainly a sinner. Now, it's not up to me to say who's damned, but as the sin you described indicates that he has full knowledge of what he is doing and the evil of his action, it would seem to be a grave sin in nature. Therefore, in the third example, the culprit is on a, theologically, slippery slope.


So is he on a slippery slope to hell in the third example, yes or no?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Going by the example and Christian/Catholic belief, yes. He is guilty of a mortal sin and his soul is in grave peril.

There's always hope...

and confession...


EDIT: This is not for murder, but for the greed and turning himself over to sinful things and turning away from God.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Iago18]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists

What GreenBicMan and ENumbra are basically saying is this then.

If a child is born and his mother dies because of his being born, because the mother could not make it through the birth; then according to GreenBicMan and ENumbra the child is automatically going to Hell because they have decided in their own minds that they are now speaking for GOD.

You don't speak for me.

Please refrain from professing to know anything about my thought processes in the future.

You also didn't answer my earlier point about child molesters.



[edit on 3/15/2009 by eNumbra]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Jim you are absolutely right according to Jesus. He died for all of our sins. If anyone wants to go to Heaven, then Heaven is still available for anyone to go to. Jesus died for all of our sins in order that all may go to Heaven no matter how serious their sin.

This is in the Bible, unless someone here thinks their word is more powerful than anyone's word in the Bible.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join