So you would try everything ─ drugs, torture &c ─ rather than stop trying to find the bomb in time?Wow wow, jeez - slow down. How did we get here?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you would try everything ─ drugs, torture &c ─ rather than stop trying to find the bomb in time?Wow wow, jeez - slow down. How did we get here?
God did not do evil; but gave Himself into the hands of evil. This is about people who commit immoral acts to further a supposedly "righteous" cause.So you just gave yourself an answer.
If god can do evil to generate good, than evil can be a good thing
That basically describes every attack Jehovah ordered.This is about people who commit immoral acts to further a supposedly "righteous" cause.
There are some situations where the end might justify the means. Consider the question:
Where's that atom bomb you planted under New York city set to go off at noon?
If our suspect refuses to answer, to respond to bribes, to negotiate, to help in any way to prevent the disaster, is it fair to torture him or her? Not just thumbscrews and lit cigarettes but all the subtle stuff too?
Can you morally face the public and say,
No, even when all other avenues were exhausted, we didn't torture our suspect, because that would be wrong. Yes, the bomb went off at noon.?
I know. So does our efficiency-conscious hero in the example, and accordingly he or she saves it till last, in case it works this time. After shooting the suspect's family in front of him or her has failed, for example.Torture doesn't work, statistically speaking.
I must disagree because God can't be immoral. (James 1:13) I think you were not present at these wars. So you can't judge very well the right and wrong of the situation. I trust that God was right.That basically describes every attack Jehovah ordered.
Genocide and sex slavery are never moral. It doesn't matter if I was there or not. What is written in the Bible is not a very flattering account. God's wrath is so much over kill that he kills off innocent animals because he's mad at humans.I must disagree because God can't be immoral. (James 1:13)
including Sodom and GomorrahThat basically describes every attack Jehovah ordered.
The Lord gives and takes away. (Job 1:21) God gave life; He can take it. But who knows what spirits will be spared? Just because someone dies that's not the end of them. There is a resurrection. Everyone has an appointed time to die anyway which God apparently does decide. So please understand this is another form of questioning God's sovereignty and His decision of when someone must die. Well, what can I say to that? We have to do the right thing and repent so we can be saved in the resurrection. What else could I say?Genocide and sex slavery are never moral. It doesn't matter if I was there or not. What is written in the Bible is not a very flattering account. God's wrath is so much over kill that he kills off innocent animals because he's mad at humans.
That's not what "the end justifies the means" is about, though. The point of the expression is something like "if you can get good fruit from a bad tree, then that's fine." But you're arguing that getting good fruit from a bad tree is impossible. It's apples and oranges.I'm saying when people corrupt themselves in order to achieve something they think is good then they should not expect anything good to come of it. Because they've corrupted themselves. How can they suddenly switch back to being good once they've achieved their objectives? Once someone is corrupted then they are going to have a hard time making themselves good again.
God has a right to judge. God is the Judge. The people there should have not been preying on helpless travelers; then they would have passed the test when the angels came disguised as travelers.including Sodom and Gomorrah
If we (God's "fruit") are immoral, then God (the "tree") must be immoral too, no?I must disagree because God can't be immoral. (James 1:13)
Like Lot, who passed the test by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped. Very morally upstanding.God has a right to judge. God is the Judge. The people there should have not been preying on helpless travelers; then they would have passed the test when the angels came disguised as travelers.
In this case I am yes. Every communist dictator so far for example has supposedly had lofty goals. Some kind of utopia was planned. Look how it turned out. Some kind of cesspool of tyranny.That's not what "the end justifies the means" is about, though. The point of the expression is something like "if you can get good fruit from a bad tree, then that's fine." But you're arguing that getting good fruit from a bad tree is impossible. It's apples and oranges.
Maybe he panicked I don't know. What would you do? Anyway they got their revenge because they raped him. I'm joking, but seriously ... they did. But yes we all can make mistakes, but the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were purposefully preying on innocent travelers. This obviously wasn't the first time.Like Lot, who passed the test by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped. Very morally upstanding.
But Lot didn't hand his daughters over. If you read the story the angels shut the door on the crowd of people and blinded them so they couldn't find the door. Basically the angels did everything to give Lot and his family a chance to escape. Nothing happened to the daughters.Edit: that story actually makes a good example scenario. In the Sodom and Gomorrah story, "the ends" was Lot and his family (minus his wife) being saved from God's wrath. "The means" was Lot handing his daughters over to be gang-raped. Did the ends justify the means in that case?
So then you aren't even arguing that "the end justifies the means" is false.In this case I am yes.
So the ends justified the means?Maybe he panicked I don't know. What would you do? Anyway they got their revenge because they raped him. I'm joking, but seriously ... they did. But yes we all can make mistakes, but the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were purposefully preying on innocent travelers. This obviously wasn't the first time.
He offered them; that's what I was referring to.But Lot didn't hand his daughters over.
So the ends (nothing bad happening) justified the means?If you read the story the angels shut the door on the crowd of people and blinded them so they couldn't find the door. Basically the angels did everything to give Lot and his family a chance to escape. Nothing happened to the daughters.
Why do the ends justify the means? Like let's say ISIS wanted to establish a global Caliphate full of peace and goodwill and what not. Everyone would be Muslim and obey the Sharia. Is beheading people and blowing people up a good way to go about it? Will that be a happy utopia? Or will the leaders go on being what they have already proven themselves to be? Ruthless killers and psychopaths? You see where I am going with this? You can't take the psycho out of the psycho. He's still psycho even after he achieves everything he wanted to achieve.So then you aren't even arguing that "the end justifies the means" is false.
So the ends justified the means?
Yeah, he's human. He made a mistake. He probably panicked. Anyway, the fact is he's still not as bad as the people of Sodom who were intentionally trying to rape peaceful travelers and probably kill them and steal their stuff.He offered them; that's what I was referring to.
Okay, so Lot's not a paragon of virtue? Are you saying that people have to be perfect?So the ends (nothing bad happening) justified the means?
There's no sign in the story that Lot knew that any of this would happen when he decided to let his daughters be gang-raped.
What I mean is that I do not "hold that the end never justifies the means".So you would try everything ─ drugs, torture &c ─ rather than stop trying to find the bomb in time?