Certainty, Doubt and Sin (Romans 14:23)

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

In the book of Romans, we find Paul, as in other places, advising against making another brother stumble by what one eats/drinks. It is within this context that we find the following verse:

“But, the one doubting, if he should eat, is condemned, because this is not from faith; for everything that is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23 – my translation from the Greek–Feel free to look this up in the translation of your choice, if you wish!)

So, let us consider the following scenario:

I have a question about whether consuming alcohol is something of which God would approve. I look into all the relevant Scripture passages. I examine many commentaries on them. I look at Tradition/tradition and Church teaching on the subject. I find in much of this an approval of drinking alcohol in moderation. I am actually quite certain that drinking in moderation is fine. However, there are some problematic verses like the one in Proverbs wherein Lemuel’s mother says that “it is not for kings to drink wine”. However, given all the other passages I’ve examined on the subject as well as the commentaries and Church teaching/T/tradition and, indeed, using my own logic, I’m pretty well certain that it is fine to drink alcohol in moderation. However, I am not 100%, iron-clad certain because of the problematic passage I mentioned before. (Plus, as I understand it, in this case, there has been no “infallible” teaching on the subject since, apparently, there never needed to be, though I suppose this could also count as further evidence to the soundness of the “moderation” position.) After all, even the problematic passage might have other ways of understanding it to make it consistent with the “moderation” position. (If you like, you can see a thread I did on this problematic passage here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=957905 )

In the above scenario, would I be sinning if I drank alcohol since there is still some, if a small amount, of room for doubt in my position?

Indeed, I think I read somewhere a while back (perhaps it was in the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent…on…Freedom/Liberty?, I think?) that, if there is some room for uncertainty, but if that uncertainty is minor, we are still permitted to go with the option that is most certain for us.

But, if we take the above position, what are we to do with our passage in question? We seem to be told in that passage that anything done with doubt is sin? But, doubt of what sort and how much? Does Paul mean by “doubt” a greater certainty than not that something is wrong? So, if someone is more certain than not that an action is wrong, he should not engage in the action, but, if he is more certain than not that an action is right, it is fine for him to engage in that action?

After all, the context of the above passage is speaking of brothers who might be caused to stumble. Perhaps the one doing it from “doubt” is the brother who, while he largely believes something is wrong, still goes ahead and does a thing, because he either sees someone else doing it or is pressured into doing it by someone else. Does this sound like a valid interpretation?

After all, if one is more certain than not that something is fine/right to do, wouldn’t it be both a benefit to him/her as well as to God if he/she does the thing? After all, he/she gets the benefit of the happiness enjoyed by doing it and God gets both our thanks as we do it as well as (arguably) a vicarious enjoyment in seeing us happy/giving thanks for doing it.

Could folks please help me to understand what this passage means given a scenario like that I gave above? To refer back to my specific example, am I sinning by drinking wine if that examples’ conditions I gave apply?

Gratias multas.

 

[JerryZ]

MysticMissMisty

If you are considering Catholicism you should know that the Priest during mass when he prepares the gifts to confect the Eucharist, uses wine as instructed by Jesus, NOT grape juice.

What the Church teaches that we are not allowed to do, is to drink wine, beer, spirits in excess and as a result, loose the control of our body and minds because of it.
Drunkenness which certainly implies a recurrent condition, that is an addiction to alcohol is considered sinful.
If somebody cannot hold his control over this then he/she should abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Alcoholism is something to be taken seriously and has to be addressed.
However wine and beer can have a positive impact in our health if consumed in moderation. Stronger alcoholic beverages like whiskey, rum etc have to be consumed with greater care and moderation precisely because of their inherent higher alcoholic content.

Please read this blog post by Trent Horn

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/the-bible-does-not-forbid-alcohol

---

 

[MysticMissMisty]

MysticMissMisty

If you are considering Catholicism you should know that the Priest during mass when he prepares the gifts to confect the Eucharist, uses wine as instructed by Jesus, NOT grape juice.

What the Church teaches that we are not allowed to do, is to drink wine, beer, spirits in excess and as a result, loose the control of our body and minds because of it.
Drunkenness which certainly implies a recurrent condition, that is an addiction to alcohol is considered sinful.
If somebody cannot hold his control over this then he/she should abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Alcoholism is something to be taken seriously and has to be addressed.
However wine and beer can have a positive impact in our health if consumed in moderation. Stronger alcoholic beverages like whiskey, rum etc have to be consumed with greater care and moderation precisely because of their inherent higher alcoholic content.

Please read this blog post by Trent Horn

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/the-bible-does-not-forbid-alcohol

---

Thanks for that.

However, we already truly dealt with the specifics on that other thread I started as well as on others other people have started. On this particular thread, I was more concerned with the general principles of uncertainty, doubt and faith and what this particular passage is or isn’t saying as applied in this particular situation. (Someone might also choose to apply another example in order to discuss these generally principles as well!) I mean, I am sure there are many other situations (there are others also for me) where a similar situation would hold, i.e., that, while much of the evidence points toward doing X or Y as fine, there may still be some slight question or uncertainty about doing it based on either one other Scripture passage, on the proper interpretation of some of the other passages in support of it (improbable as some other interpretation may be), or even on some other thought the person has on the issue that he/she might argue in contradiction. Someone may even be afraid that, while all the evidence for doing X or Y points in the positive direction, there may be something he/she is missing that would point towards not doing X or Y.

To get back to the more general principles here: Is “doubt” in the above passage being directly contrasted with “faith”? If so, in what way? Is doubt here faith’s direct opposite? So, the doubter here may doubt, i.e., not believe, that eating meat or drinking wine is right, so, if he does it, he is in sin because he does not do it from faith? Or, rather, is his doubt contrasted with “faith” (“trust”, πιστις) in God? In other words, if one has been taught unequivocally (so that he might understand nothing other than that eating meat and drinking wine is approved of by God) that eating meat and drinking wine is correct, yet doubts, i.e., doesn’t not trust/believe that this is indeed the case, if he does so, he is in sin, because he does not trst God’s Word?

 

[Bookcat]

One can take “faith” there in the sense of example “conscience”. Without getting into all the exegetical aspects one can take it in that sense.

 

[Bookcat]

A unfounded fear or slight but not sufficient reason is one thing. It is another to have serious reasons involved (that is the kind of “doubt” that one needs to attend to).

One thinks - can I drink a glass of wine tonight. Ones reason and Scripture and the Church and theology give you the green light. But some unfounded fear or slight reason in a though bothers one - one can dismiss such odd thoughts and enjoy the wine.

Prudence is the way to go:

Catechism:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#1806

 

[thistle]

Salvete, omnes!

In the book of Romans, we find Paul, as in other places, advising against making another brother stumble by what one eats/drinks. It is within this context that we find the following verse:

“But, the one doubting, if he should eat, is condemned, because this is not from faith; for everything that is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23 – my translation from the Greek–Feel free to look this up in the translation of your choice, if you wish!)

So, let us consider the following scenario:

I have a question about whether consuming alcohol is something of which God would approve. I look into all the relevant Scripture passages. I examine many commentaries on them. I look at Tradition/tradition and Church teaching on the subject. I find in much of this an approval of drinking alcohol in moderation. I am actually quite certain that drinking in moderation is fine. However, there are some problematic verses like the one in Proverbs wherein Lemuel’s mother says that “it is not for kings to drink wine”. However, given all the other passages I’ve examined on the subject as well as the commentaries and Church teaching/T/tradition and, indeed, using my own logic, I’m pretty well certain that it is fine to drink alcohol in moderation. However, I am not 100%, iron-clad certain because of the problematic passage I mentioned before. (Plus, as I understand it, in this case, there has been no “infallible” teaching on the subject since, apparently, there never needed to be, though I suppose this could also count as further evidence to the soundness of the “moderation” position.) After all, even the problematic passage might have other ways of understanding it to make it consistent with the “moderation” position. (If you like, you can see a thread I did on this problematic passage here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=957905 )

In the above scenario, would I be sinning if I drank alcohol since there is still some, if a small amount, of room for doubt in my position?

Indeed, I think I read somewhere a while back (perhaps it was in the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent…on…Freedom/Liberty?, I think?) that, if there is some room for uncertainty, but if that uncertainty is minor, we are still permitted to go with the option that is most certain for us.

But, if we take the above position, what are we to do with our passage in question? We seem to be told in that passage that anything done with doubt is sin? But, doubt of what sort and how much? Does Paul mean by “doubt” a greater certainty than not that something is wrong? So, if someone is more certain than not that an action is wrong, he should not engage in the action, but, if he is more certain than not that an action is right, it is fine for him to engage in that action?

After all, the context of the above passage is speaking of brothers who might be caused to stumble. Perhaps the one doing it from “doubt” is the brother who, while he largely believes something is wrong, still goes ahead and does a thing, because he either sees someone else doing it or is pressured into doing it by someone else. Does this sound like a valid interpretation?

After all, if one is more certain than not that something is fine/right to do, wouldn’t it be both a benefit to him/her as well as to God if he/she does the thing? After all, he/she gets the benefit of the happiness enjoyed by doing it and God gets both our thanks as we do it as well as (arguably) a vicarious enjoyment in seeing us happy/giving thanks for doing it.

Could folks please help me to understand what this passage means given a scenario like that I gave above? To refer back to my specific example, am I sinning by drinking wine if that examples’ conditions I gave apply?

Gratias multas.

Jesus drank wine. Are you suggesting he sinned by doing that?

 

[recentrevert]

I recommend ‘The Way of the Lord Jesus’, which is available to read free on twotlj.org, specifically the sections on forming conscience. Also, you could look up ‘probablism’ and ‘aeqiprobablism’.

‘After all, the context of the above passage is speaking of brothers who might be caused to stumble. Perhaps the one doing it from “doubt” is the brother who, while he largely believes something is wrong, still goes ahead and does a thing, because he either sees someone else doing it or is pressured into doing it by someone else. Does this sound like a valid interpretation?’

I think your interpretation Is correct.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I am only now coming back to the topic of how much certainty we must have in a thing befroe we are permitted to do it because yet another verse seems to suggest that we must have ABSOLUTE and COMPLETE certainty in the rightness of a thing before we are permitted to do it. In other words, even if we have “pretty good” certainty that a thing is right to do based on prayer, reason, reading of Sacred Scripture/Church Fathers/commentaries, even if there is some little bit of uncertainty, say, based on some confusion over one passage or argument of whatever, or even if you think you possibly may have missed something out there that may speak against doing a thing, you are STILL not permitted to do it because you still have even the smallest amount of uncertainty about doing it.

The verse that I am about to cite occurs in a passage where Paul is talking about the fact that some people esteem one day as more holy than another and some esteem all days alike. After he states these facts, he goes on to say:

“Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5 RSVCE)

This would seem to indicate, as I stated above, that, before someone does a thing, he MUST be FULLY convinced in his mind of its rightness or it is a sin to do it.

Still, as I have been told, many Catholic theologians state that, if the certainty that a thing is right to do outweighs the uncertainty, it is still right to do it. Are these theologians wrong based on the verse I cited above? Or, am I misunderstanding the verse?

Indeed, it appears that, in both the original Greek and the Latin Vulgate, the word used actually relates to the notions of “being filled” or “being full” or “increasing” in something, so that it would more literally read something like, “Let him be full/increase in his own judgment”. So, if “being absolutely certain” is NOT what is meant here, what IS meant? I mean, the literal sense seems more confusing than the sense given in most translations (which I cited above).

Is this some idiomatic expression of which I am unaware that means “being fully convinced” in something? Do we have evidence in other texts, biblical or otherwise, that this is the proper meaning?

Or, rather, might Paul be referring to people who were already pretty fully convinced in their minds what was wrong/right here and were trying to persuade those of the opposite opinion that they were right? If this is the case, there would be no need (arguably) for Paul to urge them to be “fully convinced”. Perhaps the emphasis here is “in his own mind”. Perhaps what Paul means here is, if it’s going to create, as it were, warring factions, then those who believe this way or that should just keep it to themselves, or between themselves and God, even if they are “fully convinced” in their own minds?

Which, ifany, of these interpretations are valid? Is there some other understanding that I am missing? And, what of the word “fully convinced/full/filled up/increasing”/etc.? How are we to understand its meaning here?

Gratias.

 

[Abu]

MysticMissMisty #8
This would seem to indicate, as I stated above, that, before someone does a thing, he MUST be FULLY convinced in his mind of its rightness or it is a sin to do it.
I have been told, many Catholic theologians state that, if the certainty that a thing is right to do outweighs the uncertainty, it is still right to do it

Consider this:
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
CERTITUDE. Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

This is obviously based on the question of doubt which is considered by Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M., Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995, p 82-4, explains:
Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent."

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua).

 

[fisherman_carl]

Certainty is a psychological phenomenon. How much certainty one has about something should not be the most important factor. If something is more probably true than not and it is the best explanation then it is enough to believe in it. One doesn’t have to be completely certain about it. Since certainty is psychological it can vary by individual. One could for instance have all the evidence in the world for something and yet still be uncertain about it. Or, one could have very little evidence for something yet be entirely certain about it. If we waited until we were completely certain before doing things we may never do anything.

 

[littlestsouls2]

“When a precept is susceptible of a twofold interpretation — one strict and the other more gentle — other things being equal, this latter must be preferred. The reason is because the commands of God and the Church have not been framed so as to destroy all spiritual sweetness, which must inevitably disappear under a too narrow and fearsome interpretation. The intention of God and His Church is not to prescribe the impossible, because, according to the law of justice, ‘no one can be bound to that which he cannot perform.”
– St. Antoninus

“The central doctrine of Probabilism is that in every doubt which concerns merely the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, even though the opposing view is more probable.”
Source: newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

 

[fisherman_carl]

People can be certain about things but be completely wrong.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Romans 14:22–23. When declaring all food to be clean, Jesus pointed out that “the things, which come out of a man are what defile him” (Mk 7:15; cf. Mt 15:16–20). The Apostle will apply this teaching of Christ to the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols and to Jewish practices (cf. 1 Cor 8:8; Tit 1:15). Here specifically he says that “nothing is unclean in itself” (v. 14) and that “everything is indeed clean” (v. 20). Therefore, what the “strong” are doing is in principle morally neutral. However, it can become something bad if it causes brethren to fall (cf. vv 20–21; 1 Cor 8:9–13), for the moral value of an action is determined also, though not principally, by the intention of the doer and by the circumstances of the situation.
Sometimes it can happen that a person is unaware that he is doing something wrong and in fact, acting in good faith, thinks he is doing something good. This is an instance of conscience being “certain” but not “right”, because the dictate of conscience is not in line with the objective moral order. In connexion with this, the text says that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”: here, “faith” refers to the certain conviction of the judgment of conscience which dictates that something is to be done or to be avoided.
Although conscience is what provides the immediate criterion for action, this does not mean that conscience is to be given total sway. Firstly, because, if it is wrong in what it directs, the person must first insofar as possible ensure that it accords with the truth and then embark on the right line of conduct; and, secondly, because one has an obligation to discover what God’s will is and do it. “To man in his ignorance and weakness, the Divine Saviour has brought his truth, and his grace—the former to show him the way that will take him to his goal, the latter to give him the strength to reach that goal. What this means in practice is that one should accept the will and commandments of Christ and bring one’s life into line with them—that is, all the internal and external acts involved in human decisions” (Pius XII, Address, 23 March 1952).

• Navarre Catholic Commentary

 

[Mintaka]

Paul is talking about moral issues where an individual believer can make a moral judgment either way.

So let’s move it away from alcohol. Let’s say that the moral issue is whether or not Bob buys a beautiful antique Buddha and installs it in his art collection.

Bob can legitimately decide, “Yup, this Buddha is a nifty artwork, and I’m collecting it! Spoils of the Egyptians, just like the art museum at the Vatican!”

Bob can legitimately decide, “Ew, I don’t want some pagan idol statue in my house!”

Either answer is perfectly fine for Generic Christian. But what does Bob really think and feel?

If Bob really thinks that ex-idols are creepy and bad, he shouldn’t buy that Buddha against his better judgment.

If Bob really thinks that ex-idols are awesome artworks (and maybe even trophies of God’s victory), then he shouldn’t refuse to buy and display that Buddha against his better judgment.

(Though if Bob has a family member in the house who would be scandalized or worried by Bob’s new Buddha, possibly he should pass up that Buddha, or lend it out anonymously to an art museum.)

Whatever you do personally should be in consonance with your own moral judgment for yourself, as long as that’s in concert with Church teaching.

So to go back to the OP’s worry about alcohol – I would say that you shouldn’t drink alcoholic drinks unless you feel comfortable with the morality of it. (And the same thing for quitting all drinking.)

If you are unsure of what to do, you can always just let the question sit and stew for a while. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you decide in five minutes.

If you have a fairly strong intellectual understanding as to alcohol being okay to drink, you don’t have to start guzzling, either. Try going to a wine tasting at a wine shop, where you can try various things without having to have very much of any of them. And if you don’t like any of the wines, you can probably nosh on fruit and cheese.

Frankly, if you’ve never had anything alcoholic before, it’s quite likely that you won’t like the taste of beer or wine. It’s an acquired taste, much like coffee or other strange things that only adults like to eat. (That’s why a lot of junky drinks that are marketed to silly young drinkers are full of sugar.) So again, you are not likely to be overly tempted to drink too much on your first try.

Obviously if you have, say, alcoholism in the family, you would have more reason to be leery of yourself drinking anything.

Prudence is a virtue. Do what you think is right and reasonable, and don’t worry too much about what other people do or think.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Thanks to everyone so far for helping me in this and similar matters.

OK, here is another very generalized/hypothetical scenario:

I am considering whether doing Action A is morally correct. Prior to me considering whether or not to do it, the Church, at least in recent times, though not always, has expressed few if any reservations about doing it. In fact, even people within high-up Church circles have been fine with doing it. Still, there is Church Document B (not considered infallible but still from a saint and significant in the history of the Church) that could be interpreted as speaking against doing Action A. There are also other early documents (not infallible but from saints and others high up in the Church) that seem to express reservations about doing Action A. There is also a particular Scripture passage which could be interpreted (although perhaps indirectly.circuitously) to speak against doing Action B, but it could equally (at least according to my current knowledge) be interpreted not necessarily to speak against doing Action A. So, in this case, is any doubt I may have sufficient to merit my not doing Action A?

I at first speak in generalities so as to prevent any lack of knowledge of my specific subject from hindering any of your analysis, but, here, for those who have a background, I will specific what all these “variables” represent.

Action A = reading classical literature

Church Document B = St. Jerome describing his famous Dream wherein he is flogged and is called “a Ciceronian, not a Christian”

other church documents = reservations by authors for various reasons against reading/studying classical literature which, I believe, could be argued against, based on my present level of knowledge

the passage from Scripture = that wherein Paul might imply that it is better not to have associations with non-Christians (though he never comes out with it directly, simply stating that “bad company corrupts good morals” and, in fact, may be interpreted to say that it is impractical though preferred(?) not to associate with non-Christians, since we would have to “go out of this world”). My question would be, therefore, whether simply reading about and trying to understand/empathize with non-Christian people in pre-Christian classical literature would have the same negative effects that Paul may be speaking to when he advises us not possibly not to associate with non-Christians.

Both the alcohol and the classical literature issue as well as several others are those I wish to address in bringing up the question of doubt/faith/certainty.

I’m wonderin, too, if the possible level of ignorance might play a role in the permissibility of me doing either of these things.

There is, as you can see, also the issue of, in modern times, hanging out with non-Christian friends, whether they be in any way major or minor sinners, as it were, because of potentially Paul warning us against their corrupting influence. I think I have good reason to allow myself to associate with them, based on my current level of knowledge and my understanding of Scripture as a whole, but, again, I cannot be 100% certain as to whether my understanding is correct. Part of the issue that comes into play here is the matter of excommunication for sinful “brothers” possibly relating to removing a corrupting influence from within the Church and whether that can also apply in the case of non-Christians who are sinners and whether or not we should still associate and even do good to them. There is the matter of Christ associating with “sinners” to be considered and I would like to think, admittedly, that that gives us permission to do so, though, in our sinful state, we should surely be careful with our souls given each particular situation, but, again, we could say that, since Christ was sinless, He did not have to worry about associating with sinners and so we should not because we are liable to fall into sin ourselves.

You see all of the uncertainties in all of these situations that I have. So, in these situations, should I drink alcohol, read classical literature, associate with non-Christians? OR, should I hold off on any of this until I gain more certainty? Or, rather, am I (presently) permitted to act with an eye to liberty, as was suggested in a post above?

There is indeed the question of how practical it is to spend how much time to find certainty (or as much certainty as I can) in all these matters and even the issue of not always knowing where to look to find answers.

Thanks again for all your help so far and I look forrward to your future responses!

 

[inocente]

Could folks please help me to understand what this passage means given a scenario like that I gave above? To refer back to my specific example, am I sinning by drinking wine if that examples’ conditions I gave apply?

One scenario for Romans 14 has it like this:

Rome is still pagan, and some in the church used to worship those pagan gods before becoming Christians. The church is still small, and they live communally, taking turns at tasks. When it’s the turn of those who have been Christians for a while (“the strong”) to go to market, they buy meat that has been sacrificed to a pagan god. It’s cheap, having already served its main purpose, and they know those gods don’t exist so who cares.

But when the newer Christians (“the weak”) learn of this they’re scandalized - they were worshiping those gods only days or weeks before. The strong now taunt the weak, and the weak feel they’re being forced to do something which repulses them. There’s a rumpus, and Paul steps in.

His solution is brilliant - he tells them that in “disputable matters” the strong are right, but also the weak are right. Those who eat and those who don’t are all right with God so long as they act in faith. But neither side should try to force the other to act against what they believe, since everything that does not come from faith is sin.

So the message is drink if you think it’s OK, don’t drink if you have doubts. Don’t give in to peer pressure and don’t apply peer pressure. Never act against your conscience, and never try to make anyone else act against their conscience.