ChickenSoup
Banned
*passes out* all I know is a lie!!
Christian Guilds Article
- Thread starter TheChad1215
- Start date
ArchAngel
New Member
haha, yeah I just realized that in the middle of work. haha. weird time, I know. but what else do I think about when entering inventory in?
wishanem
New Member
WildBill- I am now a rather active member of the guild, and I'm glad to be here.
Shagz:"Thankfully, people throughout history haven't followed this to the T. If good people didn't fight back, there would be no good people left in the world, they'd all be dead many centuries ago."
That argument is dangerously close to the one used for pre-emptive violence, and intuitively true. However, Paul was attacked and beaten on quite a few occasions. Rather then fighting back (or fleeing, the general nonviolent solution) in some cases he returned and continued preaching to those who had attacked him. My dad's favorite quote argues that "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", but I'm not wholly convinced that violence is ever the correct course of action.
Motivation and results seem to be major factors for most people. Here's a problem ethics students encounter: Would it be morally right to kill an 85 year old man if it was the only way to save the population of a large city and he was willing to die for that purpose? What if the man was instead a 6 year old? What if it was your child?
Another common question: If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was an infant, knowing what he would become, would it be right to do it?
My main objection to these lines of reasoning is that I don't believe anyone is ever wholly good or evil. I don't think anyone is ever beyond redemption, but the death of the redeemed does little but deprive the world of their witness. If I could take the place of someone on death row I would, because death is no kind of penalty for me. Is that wrong?
Shagz:"Thankfully, people throughout history haven't followed this to the T. If good people didn't fight back, there would be no good people left in the world, they'd all be dead many centuries ago."
That argument is dangerously close to the one used for pre-emptive violence, and intuitively true. However, Paul was attacked and beaten on quite a few occasions. Rather then fighting back (or fleeing, the general nonviolent solution) in some cases he returned and continued preaching to those who had attacked him. My dad's favorite quote argues that "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", but I'm not wholly convinced that violence is ever the correct course of action.
Motivation and results seem to be major factors for most people. Here's a problem ethics students encounter: Would it be morally right to kill an 85 year old man if it was the only way to save the population of a large city and he was willing to die for that purpose? What if the man was instead a 6 year old? What if it was your child?
Another common question: If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was an infant, knowing what he would become, would it be right to do it?
My main objection to these lines of reasoning is that I don't believe anyone is ever wholly good or evil. I don't think anyone is ever beyond redemption, but the death of the redeemed does little but deprive the world of their witness. If I could take the place of someone on death row I would, because death is no kind of penalty for me. Is that wrong?