Mad Dawg wrote:
“I think that it would depend on what led to the misplacing.”
You are over-thinking this. Try to think as a child. It isn’t that difficult. To refuse to accept the un- or anti-Scriptural teaching of, say, a bishop (even of Rome) is the same thing as a soldier refusing to carry out an illegal order. To carry it out is to disobey. Just ask any court martial. It doesn’t depend at all on what led to what. Wrong is wrong is wrong. Why one thing led to another is an interesting and, perhaps, useful subsequent exercise for the historian and his readers. But it finally is no justification for accepting as right that which is wrong.
You are over-thinking this. Try to think as a child. It isn’t that difficult. To refuse to accept the un- or anti-Scriptural teaching of, say, a bishop (even of Rome) is the same thing as a soldier refusing to carry out an illegal order. To carry it out is to disobey. Just ask any court martial. It doesn’t depend at all on what led to what. Wrong is wrong is wrong. Why one thing led to another is an interesting and, perhaps, useful subsequent exercise for the historian and his readers. But it finally is no justification for accepting as right that which is wrong.
QUITE TRUE. QUITE TRUE.
THX.
The soldier who obeys an illegal order because he thinks it legal still does a bad thing, but the quality of the act in his soul is different from that of the solider who knows that it's illegal or who obeys because he likes the whole thing.
Even law looks for a mens rea, a criminal intent, and thus distinguishes between capital murder and negligent homicide.