Question to religions

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

When someone suffers from brain damage which leads to a change in behavior, how is that calculated in?

And if it doesn't count, then what happens if it is a traumatic experience etc.

[DC Al Fine]

Just to clarify, are you asking about cases where brain damage/trauma leads to changes in one's moral behaviour?

[Consciously Unconscious]

Well, personally I believe that if this person has lost their sense of right and wrong, that God will judge them by what they know.  It would be like judging a baby as someone who knows the scriptures. 

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Well, personally I believe that if this person has lost their sense of right and wrong, that God will judge them by what they know.  It would be like judging a baby as someone who knows the scriptures. 

This is pretty much my take on it.  If a "good" person suddenly turns "bad" after, say, an accident (like a Phineas Gage case), I don't see why God would judge them for that.

[TJ in Oregon]

Something is not a sin, even if it is intrinsically evil, unless it has been consented to. A person with severe brain damage may be unable to consent to their actions. In addition, the sin is less serious than it would otherwise be if only partially consented to, which is a somewhat likely in such a scenario.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

Okay, so in the case of trauma that happens within the brains normal function, and people have mixed moral scripts when returning, say Holocaust survivors.

[Insula Dei]

Something is not a sin, even if it is intrinsically evil, unless it has been consented to. A person with severe brain damage may be unable to consent to their actions. In addition, the sin is less serious than it would otherwise be if only partially consented to, which is a somewhat likely in such a scenario.

Did the men who crucified Christ sin, even if they were not party to God's revelation and as such unaware of the evil of their act?

The problem of Invincible Ignorance is a golden oldie.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Something is not a sin, even if it is intrinsically evil, unless it has been consented to. A person with severe brain damage may be unable to consent to their actions. In addition, the sin is less serious than it would otherwise be if only partially consented to, which is a somewhat likely in such a scenario.

Did the men who crucified Christ sin, even if they were not party to God's revelation and as such unaware of the evil of their act?

The problem of Invincible Ignorance is a golden oldie.

... But they did know.  They surely knew who Christ was, as they mocked him for it.  They rejected him, and that was their choice. 

[TJ in Oregon]

Something is not a sin, even if it is intrinsically evil, unless it has been consented to. A person with severe brain damage may be unable to consent to their actions. In addition, the sin is less serious than it would otherwise be if only partially consented to, which is a somewhat likely in such a scenario.

Did the men who crucified Christ sin, even if they were not party to God's revelation and as such unaware of the evil of their act?

The problem of Invincible Ignorance is a golden oldie.

The thing about Invincible Ignorance is that we can't know the answer (unless they're clearly and obviously invincibly ignorant or clearly and obviously not), because only God can know their intentions and to what degree they were aware of what they were doing. Also, it's very possible, likely even, that some of the people in the crowd were invincibly ignorant and some were not. The random Roman soldiers assigned to Jesus for example probably didn't all understand.