Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sensei Meela · 10-25-2003, 01:30 AM

Sorry, quick Q for you good folks.

I am looking for the passage in the Bible where it states that one is guilty of sins they failed to prevent. Can anyone offer?

Also, one would assume that it means that they failed to try to prevent the sin of which they are aware, not that one tried but failed, correct?

And just to spice things up, why doesn't this apply to God?

Thanks in advance.

offa · 10-26-2003, 06:38 PM

Sensei Meela
I am looking for the passage in the Bible where it states that one is
guilty of sins they failed to prevent.

Offa
JUB 04:05 And therefore it is written in the heavenly tablets,
"Cursed is one who strikes his fellow with malice.
And all who have seen and heard shall say 'so be it.'
And the man who saw it and did not report (it) shall be
cursed like him."

Apparently someone saw Cain slaying his brother Abel. And, if
Abel was not his brother it would be o.k. to slay him.

Jackalope · 10-26-2003, 09:14 PM

Yes, but that's failure to report, not prevent sin.
The only thing close to what's being asked about in the OP is the catholic idea of scandal. Which to be honest, I always thought was pretty stupid when they tried to explain it in catechism class. The basic idea is an act which tempts another to sin. Or to put it in modern terms, "setting a bad example."

Quote:

It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin (this is strictly inductive scandal, which some call co-operatlon in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when a person without being directly concerned in the sin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on the sin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such a sin in his presence (this is inductive scandal in a broad sense).[...]Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc., for instance blasphemy committed in the presence of a priest or of a religious; it is true that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictly theological terminology it is not the sin of scandal. Hence scandal is in itself an evil act, at least in appearance, and as such it exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin. Furthermore, when the action from which another takes occasion of sin is not bad, either in itself or in appearance, it may violate charity (see below), but strictly speaking it is not the sin of scandal. However, some authorities understanding the word scandal in a wider sense include in it this case

However, I have yet to actually find a biblical verse to support this idea. The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that Matt 18:6 applies, but upon reading I think I remember my teenaged, "What? That's stupid" reaction:

Quote:

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

offa · 10-26-2003, 09:51 PM

offa,
Jackalope, I am at a lost for words. I tried to read Saint Thomas, but he seems so redundant ... you know, get a life. Your post, however, is correct.
In Cain and Abel sin was not mentioned and the failure to report (not repent) was that issue. I do, very much, appreciate critique. Thanks.

TriggerDan · 10-29-2003, 04:58 PM

AHEM!

You do realize that the only people ALIVE to see the whole Cain and Abel ordeal were their parents, Adam and Eve, don't you?

This makes the Bible seem even more ridiculous because in a latter part, it states that Cain populated an entire town. This means that he had to have mated with either his mother OR his sisters. Nice going, God! :notworthy

slaveofChrist · 10-29-2003, 10:45 PM

Hey Offa, Do you want to remind what JUB stands for?
I am not familiar with any passage in the Protestant or Hebrew Canon that states that you are guilty of a sin you failed to prevent.

offa · 10-30-2003, 04:37 PM

slaveofChrist

Hey Offa, Do you want to remind what JUB stands
for?
Offa
JUB stands for "Jubilees". I am sure you are familiar, yet, try
www.crowndiamond.org/tsiri/Jubilees.html

I have my own book in my meager library, ISBN 0-385-18813-7 (v.2).
You can go to www.amazon.com and search for 385-18813 and probably
find it.

slaveofChrist

I am not familiar with any passage in the Protestant or Hebrew Canon
that states that you are guilty of a sin you failed to prevent.

Offa
Neither am I familiar. I found "report" thinking it meant "prevent".
I reasoned that, after Cain slew Abel, GOD made the Law because, until
then it was not necessary to prevent sin (if murder is sin?). After
the murder you were now required to report sin (murder). If Cain acted
on his own then HE was the one who now has to report his actions. If
others were involved in this coup then they are also liable to report
the event. Now, a person committing an atrocity is prevented from
doing that atrocity because it is liable to be reported by someone
else.

BTW, in reading Jubilees I have come to the conclusion that Abraham
was Cain and Haran was Abel. Their father was Tera, thus Tera was GOD.

slaveofChrist · 10-30-2003, 09:58 PM

Well, Jubilees was never canonized for a reason, probably because it leads people to, pardon the blunt statement, ridiculous conclusions such as the ones you have come to. Cain was clearly cursed in Genesis and became a "vagabond". He was the first man that God cursed. He begot a nation of evil. One of his descendants even wrote a poem boasting of his murder (Genesis 9 I believe).
God would not take somebody like that and make them the father of His chosen people. Abraham had faith, that is why he was chosen. Not because he was a cursed man.
That conclusion is, please take no offense, simply ridiculous.

As for the prevention of sin thing... I dont see how you can logically conclude that you are guilty of sin if you do not report sin.

Secular Pinoy · 10-30-2003, 11:11 PM

Yet there are canonical books which can lead to "ridiculous conclusions", such as vague and silly eschatological prophecies (Revelations) or the belief that death is final (Ecclesiastes). Canonization confers no credibility to a text, it only shows that they have been successfully lobbied to be included in the canon.

slaveofChrist · 10-31-2003, 02:10 PM

Could you please give specific reference to the text from Ecclesiastes to which you are referring.

10-25-2003, 01:30 AM	#1
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	Guilty of Non-prevention of Sin Sorry, quick Q for you good folks. I am looking for the passage in the Bible where it states that one is guilty of sins they failed to prevent. Can anyone offer? Also, one would assume that it means that they failed to try to prevent the sin of which they are aware, not that one tried but failed, correct? And just to spice things up, why doesn't this apply to God? Thanks in advance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2003, 06:38 PM	#2
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	Sensei Meela I am looking for the passage in the Bible where it states that one is guilty of sins they failed to prevent. Offa JUB 04:05 And therefore it is written in the heavenly tablets, "Cursed is one who strikes his fellow with malice. And all who have seen and heard shall say 'so be it.' And the man who saw it and did not report (it) shall be cursed like him." Apparently someone saw Cain slaying his brother Abel. And, if Abel was not his brother it would be o.k. to slay him.

10-26-2003, 09:51 PM	#4
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	offa, Jackalope, I am at a lost for words. I tried to read Saint Thomas, but he seems so redundant ... you know, get a life. Your post, however, is correct. In Cain and Abel sin was not mentioned and the failure to report (not repent) was that issue. I do, very much, appreciate critique. Thanks.

10-29-2003, 04:58 PM	#5
TriggerDan Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 53	AHEM! You do realize that the only people ALIVE to see the whole Cain and Abel ordeal were their parents, Adam and Eve, don't you? This makes the Bible seem even more ridiculous because in a latter part, it states that Cain populated an entire town. This means that he had to have mated with either his mother OR his sisters. Nice going, God! :notworthy

10-29-2003, 10:45 PM	#6
slaveofChrist Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: City of Angels Posts: 50	Hey Offa, Do you want to remind what JUB stands for? I am not familiar with any passage in the Protestant or Hebrew Canon that states that you are guilty of a sin you failed to prevent.

10-30-2003, 04:37 PM	#7
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	slaveofChrist Hey Offa, Do you want to remind what JUB stands for? Offa JUB stands for "Jubilees". I am sure you are familiar, yet, try www.crowndiamond.org/tsiri/Jubilees.html I have my own book in my meager library, ISBN 0-385-18813-7 (v.2). You can go to www.amazon.com and search for 385-18813 and probably find it. slaveofChrist I am not familiar with any passage in the Protestant or Hebrew Canon that states that you are guilty of a sin you failed to prevent. Offa Neither am I familiar. I found "report" thinking it meant "prevent". I reasoned that, after Cain slew Abel, GOD made the Law because, until then it was not necessary to prevent sin (if murder is sin?). After the murder you were now required to report sin (murder). If Cain acted on his own then HE was the one who now has to report his actions. If others were involved in this coup then they are also liable to report the event. Now, a person committing an atrocity is prevented from doing that atrocity because it is liable to be reported by someone else. BTW, in reading Jubilees I have come to the conclusion that Abraham was Cain and Haran was Abel. Their father was Tera, thus Tera was GOD.

10-30-2003, 09:58 PM	#8
slaveofChrist Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: City of Angels Posts: 50	Well, Jubilees was never canonized for a reason, probably because it leads people to, pardon the blunt statement, ridiculous conclusions such as the ones you have come to. Cain was clearly cursed in Genesis and became a "vagabond". He was the first man that God cursed. He begot a nation of evil. One of his descendants even wrote a poem boasting of his murder (Genesis 9 I believe). God would not take somebody like that and make them the father of His chosen people. Abraham had faith, that is why he was chosen. Not because he was a cursed man. That conclusion is, please take no offense, simply ridiculous. As for the prevention of sin thing... I dont see how you can logically conclude that you are guilty of sin if you do not report sin.

10-30-2003, 11:11 PM	#9
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Yet there are canonical books which can lead to "ridiculous conclusions", such as vague and silly eschatological prophecies (Revelations) or the belief that death is final (Ecclesiastes). Canonization confers no credibility to a text, it only shows that they have been successfully lobbied to be included in the canon.

10-31-2003, 02:10 PM	#10
slaveofChrist Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: City of Angels Posts: 50	Could you please give specific reference to the text from Ecclesiastes to which you are referring.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.