Lesser Evil Dilemma

[tonyrey]

Jesus Christ knew Deicide was coming. How could he not know this?

And how can you not know that he chose to allow the evil of Deicide in order to save mankind?

Indeed! The supreme example of choosing the lesser evil is God giving us free will which is at the root of all the diabolical cruelty, injustice, suffering and bloodshed in the world.

 

[tonyrey]

I think we have to be careful here. It may be painted to look like Jesus knowingly chose evil, even though it was the lesser of the two the way you put it. But Jesus cannot sin. At all.

I may have to digress a bit but I reckon some explanation is necessary. There is a theory of Christology (scapegoat theory) that is making the rounds in that his crucifixion reflects the evil of Man and not that Jesus chose suicide. Jesus was the scapegoat. In the words of the High Priest , it is better than one die rather than the whole nation perish. Jesus mission was to teach us how to live in the kingdom of God. Being human, he may experience death. And we ask ourselves, why this gruesome death. He could die in his sleep peacefully and painlessly and God will still raise him from the dead. He knows how his death going to come by. And he showed us how to live as well as how to die. He continued to preach the Good News in accordance to his Father’s will. He wished he didn’t have to go through that suffering as seen in the Gethsemane Garden. Mat 26:39,42,44 but he remained obedient to his Father. He chose obedience (despite the evil of Man) over disobedience/denial. So it is not the lesser of the 2 evils at all. He taught us obedience even if it leads to one’s death. The torture and suffering are the work of man and incidental to the hazards of his profession to put a modern spin to it. And that is the way to live in the kingdom of God.

And you can see how His example affect the early Christians. So many chose obedience (ending in death) rather than deny Him. I have never heard of the Christian martyrs choosing the lesser of the 2 evils. For these martyrs, it is life(disobedience) or death (obedience).

The Christian martyrs were not philosophers or theologians! Nevertheless they chose the lesser evil even though they were unaware of the fact. They preferred to suffer and die rather than renounce their Lord and Master.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And you can see how His example affect the early Christians. So many chose obedience (ending in death) rather than deny Him. I have never heard of the Christian martyrs choosing the lesser of the 2 evils. For these martyrs, it is life(disobedience) or death (obedience). It always has been good vs evil and not evil vs less evil.

It is not good to choose death.

It is not good to deny Jesus Christ.

It is better to choose death than to deny Jesus.

Some early Christians chose to deny Christ rather than to die.

For them the greater evil was to deny life.

They were wrong, but they were following the principle that one chooses the lesser evil.

 

[ericc]

It is not good to choose death.

It is not good to deny Jesus Christ.

It is better to choose death than to deny Jesus.

Some early Christians chose to deny Christ rather than to die.

For them the greater evil was to deny life.

They were wrong, but they were following the principle that one chooses the lesser evil.

Tonyrey, Charlemagne,

Of course it is possible to arrange the permutation set to show evil vs lesser evil rather than good vs evil. I prefer Jesus vs no Jesus Good /Not Good. Compare that to:

Death :No good vs No Jesus: Even worse. It is just too hard on the eyes and mind to make a decision over more or less evil…

And it is not a very persuasive marketing ploy to ask people to choose between evil vs lesser evil. LOL! And if we are to evangelize, how would you package your presentation?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And it is not a very persuasive marketing ploy to ask people to choose between evil vs lesser evil. LOL! And if we are to evangelize, how would you package your presentation?

Why would I need to package it?

Most people would see the common sense of choosing the lesser evil over the greater evil when you HAVE TO choose between them.

What bothers me about this is that the CCC fails to even mention the dilemma of choosing between greater and lesser evils. Yet the Church has historically always acted as if it was making such a choice in key historical eras.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey, Charlemagne,

Of course it is possible to arrange the permutation set to show evil vs lesser evil rather than good vs evil. I prefer Jesus vs no Jesus Good /Not Good. Compare that to:

Death :No good vs No Jesus: Even worse. It is just too hard on the eyes and mind to make a decision over more or less evil…

And it is not a very persuasive marketing ploy to ask people to choose between evil vs lesser evil. LOL! And if we are to evangelize, how would you package your presentation?

Choosing a lesser evil isn’t a marketing ploy or a choice between “Jesus and no Jesus” or a question of “more or less evil” but a problem we are often faced with in daily life. Do we neglect one person at the expense of another? Does a mother sacrifice herself for the sake of her unborn baby? Do we allow innocent people to be killed or let our nation be invaded by our enemies? They are certainly not easy decisions but we have no alternative. Life is often not a simplistic choice between good and evil - like white and black. Jesus Himself was mentally tortured by the prospect of crucifixion. In a sense He was condoning evil by allowing Himself to be scourged and killed unjustly but He knew it was a lesser evil than abandoning His mission to redeem us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And it is not a very persuasive marketing ploy to ask people to choose between evil vs lesser evil. LOL! And if we are to evangelize, how would you package your presentation?

We do not have to evangelize people to choose between greater evil and lesser evil. The choosing usually comes upon them as an unwanted necessity.

I would not call it a marketing ploy to plead through the CATECHISM that we should never choose evil of our own accord. So I would never call it a marketing ploy to plead that we should choose the lesser of two evils when choosing is inescapable.

The Vatican Accord with Nazi Germany was such a choice. Either sign the Accord to keep peace between the Nazis and the Church, or not sign it and suffer the Nazi onslaught against the Church.

Historically the Church has always supported the just war (any war results in evil) if certain conditions prevail, rather than submit to unjust invasion of one nation by another (the greater evil).

 

[ericc]

We do not have to evangelize people to choose between greater evil and lesser evil. The choosing usually comes upon them as an unwanted necessity.

Yes, we don’t do that normally. It is my God(good) vs Satan(evil) mostly, depending on your crowd. Or my God vs your god/gods, my God vs your spirits.

I would not call it a marketing ploy to plead through the CATECHISM that we should never choose evil of our own accord. So I would never call it a marketing ploy to plead that we should choose the lesser of two evils when choosing is inescapable.

Sorry for confusing the usage of the word “marketing ploy”. I meant that marketers tend to ask consumer to choose between good vs bad. Faith is not a consumer good. So it doesn’t apply. But depending on the audience one has to package the presentation, otherwise it won’t have the impact desired. Even the Gospel authors vary the message according to whether the audience is Jewish or non-Jewish. Or in modern day evangelization, whether the audience is atheistic, paganistic, Buddhist, Muslims, or Hindus. We shouldn’t use the same approach, choice of words, etc if we want to customize the message for each of them. Sometimes, one has to customize individual messages as well as because each of us understand, object, rationalize differently. I would not package it evil vs less evil. Doctors/dentists may do that.

I should have made a paragraph break. Between the marketing ploy and the presentation. Sorry!

The Vatican Accord with Nazi Germany was such a choice. Either sign the Accord to keep peace between the Nazis and the Church, or not sign it and suffer the Nazi onslaught against the Church.

Good/bad presentation- peace vs no peace
Evil/less evil presentation - support the Nazis vs no peace

Historically the Church has always supported the just war (any war results in evil) if certain conditions prevail, rather than submit to unjust invasion of one nation by another (the greater evil).

I thought the Church typically abhors all wars preferring diplomacy and reconciliation. Sometimes I don’t agree with the passive stance because the time gained by the enemy resulted in even more deaths and atrocities while the enemy is strengthening and consolidating itself. This usually happen when the victorious party is in no mind to withdraw from the gains achieved and talks are just a way to buy time and strengthening their bargaining hand.

 

[ericc]

Jesus Himself was mentally tortured by the prospect of crucifixion. In a sense He was condoning evil by allowing Himself to be scourged and killed unjustly but He knew it was a lesser evil than abandoning His mission to redeem us.

Jesus will never choose an evil vs lesser evil. In other words sin vs lesser sin. He can not sin, period.

It is choosing obedience vs disobedience.

He didn’t choose evil. Evil was done to him. It doesn’t mean he condoned it. He asked his Father whether can he avoid it in the Gethsemane Garden, but he defered to his Father’s will and not his. When he started his ministry, he already knew that it will end in his death. He repeatedly mentioned that “his hour hasn’t come”.

He knew the Scriptures and the prophecies and how it is going to end. But he chose obedience and for the salvation of the world.

There is another parable where he was presented with 2 evils, stone the adulteress woman or break Mosaic law. He didn’t fall for that one either.

 

[tonyrey]

Choosing a lesser evil isn’t a marketing ploy or a choice between “Jesus and no Jesus” or a question of “more or less evil” but a problem we are often faced with in daily life. Do we neglect one person at the expense of another? Does a mother sacrifice herself for the sake of her unborn baby? Do we allow innocent people to be killed or let our nation be invaded by our enemies? They are certainly not easy decisions but we have no alternative. Life is often not a simplistic choice between good and evil - like white and black.

No response implies assent!

Jesus Himself was mentally tortured by the prospect of crucifixion. In a sense He was condoning evil by allowing Himself to be scourged and killed unjustly but He knew it was a lesser evil than abandoning His mission to redeem us.

Jesus will never choose an evil vs lesser evil. In other words sin vs lesser sin. He can not sin, period.

It is choosing obedience vs disobedience.

1. Do you agree it was evil for Jesus to be scourged and killed unjustly?
2. Do you agree that He permitted it?

He didn’t choose evil. Evil was done to him. It doesn’t mean he condoned it.

NB:

Although English speakers sometimes use “condone” with the intended meaning “approve of” or “encourage,”** the more established meaning is closer to “pardon” **or “overlook.” “Condone” comes from the Latin verb condonare, which means "to absolve. - mid 19th century: from Latin condonare ‘refrain from punishing’, from con- ‘altogether’ + donare ‘give’.

He asked his Father whether can he avoid it in the Gethsemane Garden, but he defered to his Father’s will and not his. When he started his ministry, he already knew that it will end in his death. He repeatedly mentioned that “his hour hasn’t come”.

He knew the Scriptures and the prophecies and how it is going to end. But he chose obedience and for the salvation of the world.

He deferred to his Father’s will by condoning evil:

“Forgive them, Father,for they know not what they do…”

There is another parable where he was presented with 2 evils, stone the adulteress woman or break Mosaic law. He didn’t fall for that one either.

False analogy. This choice was a trap:

This situation is apparently just an attempt to entrap Jesus (v. 6). If he is lax toward the law, then he is condemned. But if he holds a strict line, then he has allowed them to prevail in their ungodly treatment of this woman and has opened himself up to trouble from the Romans, for he will be held responsible if the stoning proceeds. The leaders of Israel are putting God to the test in the person of his Son, repeating the Israelites’ historical pattern on more than one occasion in the wilderness at Meribah and Massah (Ex 17:2; Num 20:13; cf. Deut 6:16; Ps 95:8-9; 106:14).
The third stage, Jesus’ response to the opponents (vv. 6-9), is very memorable. While remaining seated he bends over and writes with his finger on the ground. This act of writing on the ground is itself very significant. Kenneth E. Bailey has pointed out (in unpublished form) that it was unlawful to write even two letters on the sabbath but that writing with dust was permissible (m. shabbat 7:2; 12:5). If this were the eighth day of the feast, which was to be kept as a day of rest, then Jesus’ writing on the ground would show that he knows well not only the law but also the oral interpretations.
Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water” (Jer 17:13).

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

:clapping: This is a superb commentary well worth reading from start to finish.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Do you agree it was evil for Jesus to be scourged and killed unjustly?
2. Do you agree that He permitted it?

Yes to both; and that settles the question of whether Jesus chose the lesser evil of dying for our sins, which turned out to be proof of the greater good that is Jesus Christ who is eternally good, just, and merciful.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes to both; and that settles the question of whether Jesus chose the lesser evil of dying for our sins, which turned out to be proof of the greater good that is Jesus Christ who is eternally good, just, and merciful.

The belief that Jesus cannot choose evil is understandable but it overlooks the immense complexity of a world in which there are many individuals with free will who may not even be malicious but are ignorant and fallible in one way or another. Our Lord prayed for those who believed they were justified in condemning Him to death.

 

[ericc]

No response implies assent!

Wait, wait , wait! Let me copy paste my response to Charlemagne!

Sorry for confusing the usage of the word “marketing ploy”. I meant that marketers tend to ask consumer to choose between good vs bad. Faith is not a consumer good. So it doesn’t apply. But depending on the audience one has to package the presentation, otherwise it won’t have the impact desired. Even the Gospel authors vary the message according to whether the audience is Jewish or non-Jewish. Or in modern day evangelization, whether the audience is atheistic, paganistic, Buddhist, Muslims, or Hindus. We shouldn’t use the same approach, choice of words, etc if we want to customize the message for each of them. Sometimes, one has to customize individual messages as well as because each of us understand, object, rationalize differently. I would not package it evil vs less evil. Doctors/dentists may do that.

I should have made a paragraph break. Between the marketing ploy and the presentation. Sorry!

1. Do you agree it was evil for Jesus to be scourged and killed unjustly?
2. Do you agree that He permitted it?

Yes, and yes. But that is arising out of his obedience to God. In the Gethsemane Garden he chose obedience. Were he to be disobedient to God, both 1 and 2 probably won’t exist. We need to differentiate the root cause vs the consequence.

NB:

He deferred to his Father’s will by condoning evil:

“Forgive them, Father,for they know not what they do…”

False analogy. This choice was a trap:

Yes it was a trap of presenting to Jesus with 2 evils to choose from. Break Mosaic law or Roman law. (Or his own teaching. He has been teaching mercy and forgiveness and calling those scribes as hypocrites. Perhaps it could be presented as a choice between forgiveness vs punishment. If he chose punishment, he could be accused of being a hypocrite and the other would show him to be a law breaker.)

He demonstrated wisdom. I’ve read a similar article before in a Word file but I do not have the author’s name so I can’t credit my source. Probably I copy-pasted it from another source but I can not recollect when or where. It has been a long time and age is catching up on me.

Sorry for the late response. Traveling and migraine last 2 days made me lose focus on who else I owed a response.