What to do?

[John21652]

No, John, not fair enough.
You imagined that the OP met the son, spoke to him.

No I was writing Op as I was thinking friend. If you can manage to think clearly, over and above your apparent apoplectic fit, you will notice I actually did use the word ‘friend’ quite a lot. I mistakenly substituted Op where Meant friend. There, I admit to a mistake. Happy now?

You imagined that. That’s inadmissable.
Your fantasy life has no relevance here.

Your attempt at condescension belittles you.

The old man, estranged from his son,
might have been isolated from most folks.

And he equally may have been talking to his life long best friend. Which is most likely, seeing how he entrusted him with his dying wish and the money.

For you (or the OP) to decide to
“change” an agreement is ludicrous,
and in this nation it would also be illegal.

What agreement? Show me the words which stipulated what agreement there was. Come on, your ‘expert’ at directing people to quotes.

As to a sense of justification and a spirit
of ungrounded defensiveness, I’ll suggest that
you go back through the thread and read your own posts.

I have and the logical inferences hold up.

The “solution” you gave is not a Christian response.

This is where the true Christian dilemma went right over your head. The very obvious dilemma, which was between giving the money to the son or to the family, was obviously and easily resolved on the basic Christian principle of “honesty”. The real dilemma was not so apparent and that was the notion of being trusted to hand over a dying/dead man’s money to a son involved in an immoral activity. You just weren’t able to see it. Or deal with it. So you dismissed it.

You refererred me to post #19, which was puzzleannie’s post. You referred me to that post with the words You are wrong see #19. Therefore you were telling me that post v#19 would show where I was wrong. Correct? You also got on your high horse because you thought I was substituting puzleannie’s post, when you had actually referred me to it. So, that’s two apologies you don’t have to give!

 

[John21652]

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess I see no need to complicate such a simple issue with inferences and assumptions. And, you are correct. I don’t like arguments, especially when I see no need for one.

I concede that I should not have engaged when you began with hypothetical situations, which were intellectual exercise for you. I meant no offense.

I wasn’t trying to be belligerent and I’m sorry if I came across that way. To me it was just an intellectual exercise in solving a moral dilemma. I actually saw two dilemmas, one obvious and one not so obvious, so I tried to nut it out as I went. But gee, there’s some wot loves a war!

 

[SwizzleStick]

I wasn’t trying to be belligerent and I’m sorry if I came across that way. …

No, I don’t think you were belligerent to me, so no apology necessary to me. Everything is fine as far as I am concerned.

…To me it was just an intellectual exercise in solving a moral dilemma. I actually saw two dilemmas, one obvious and one not so obvious, so I tried to nut it out as I went. …

I understand that now.

… But gee, there’s some wot loves a war!

Maybe some do, but not this one.

 

[catharina]

No I was writing Op as I was thinking friend. If you can manage to think clearly, over and above your apparent apoplectic fit, you will notice I actually did use the word ‘friend’ quite a lot. I mistakenly substituted Op where Meant friend. There, I admit to a mistake. Happy now? Excellent beginning.

**Your attempt at condescension belittles you. **

And he equally may have been talking to his life long best friend. Which is most likely, seeing how he entrusted him with his dying wish and the money.
What agreement? Show me the words which stipulated what agreement there was. Come on, your ‘expert’ at directing people to quotes.

I have and the logical inferences hold up.

This is where the true Christian dilemma went right over your head. The very obvious dilemma, which was between giving the money to the son or to the family, was obviously and easily resolved on the basic Christian principle of “honesty”. The real dilemma was not so apparent and that was the notion of being trusted to hand over a dying/dead man’s money to a son involved in an immoral activity. You just weren’t able to see it. Or deal with it. So you dismissed it.

You refererred me to post #19, which was puzzleannie’s post. You referred me to that post with the words You are wrong see #19. Therefore you were telling me that post v#19 would show where I was wrong. Correct? **You also got on your high horse **because you thought I was substituting puzleannie’s post, when you had actually referred me to it. So, that’s two apologies you don’t have to give!

John, re bolded above in black, these comments are entirely without charity. You deserve to be reported. I won’t be doing that - because I pity you. Nonetheless, God bless you, of course.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I think there has been misunderstanding or just a different viewpoint from several posters. I know that I personally shouldn’t have continued to engage. I hope we can all try to see it as just misunderstanding and ego with just some :slapfight: and no real animosity from anyone.

Dona Nobis Pacem.

 

[catharina]

I think there has been misunderstanding or just a different viewpoint from several posters. I know that I personally shouldn’t have continued to engage. I hope we can all try to see it as just misunderstanding and ego with just some :slapfight: and no real animosity from anyone.

Dona Nobis Pacem.

Yes, dona nobis pacem.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Yes, dona nobis pacem.

 

[copperblade]

How do you know any of the money you give the son will go to his business?

Therefore, I think the son’s business is irrelevant and the only question is whether or not you steal the money to use for something you think is more important than stealing.

Basing this on the son’s business is an act of judgment and punishment in this case.