|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,630
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Was Marx right?
#15518
08/23/05 04:30 PM
08/23/05 04:30 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Does the ends justify the means?
This is from the flood discussion. I thought this question would warrant a thread of its own.
Old Tom:So the short version of the long answer to your question is that God does not do bad things because it is contrary to His character. We have enough evidence regarding His character to know that when He is presented as doing something bad it means He is permitting the bad thing to happen.
Rosangela: Most of the times this is true. But sometimes God has to do something bad to prevent the occurrence of something worse.
Tom: If it's every true that God does bad things to prevent something worse, then Marx was correct: the ends justify the means.
Is this the principle by which God runs His governemnt? The ends justify the means.
(BTW Rosangela, I didn't respond to you SOP quote from the other thread. Regarding that quote, from my perspective, God is permitting something bad to happen to avoid something worse from happening).
-------------------------------------------------
Comments appreciated.
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15519
08/24/05 12:26 AM
08/24/05 12:26 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
(BTW Rosangela, I didn't respond to you SOP quote from the other thread. Regarding that quote, from my perspective, God is permitting something bad to happen to avoid something worse from happening).
God is not permitting, God is commanding. This is the context of the quotation:
"But a large company, mostly of the mixed multitude that instigated the making of the calf, stubbornly persisted in their rebellion. In the name of 'the Lord God of Israel,' Moses now commanded those upon his right hand, who had kept themselves clear of idolatry, to gird on their swords and slay all who persisted in rebellion. 'And there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.' Without regard to position, kindred, or friendship, the ringleaders in wickedness were cut off; but all who repented and humbled themselves were spared.
Those who performed this terrible work of judgment were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi.
It was necessary that this sin should be punished, as a testimony to surrounding nations of God's displeasure against idolatry. By executing justice upon the guilty, Moses, as God's instrument, must leave on record a solemn and public protest against their crime. As the Israelites should hereafter condemn the idolatry of the neighboring tribes, their enemies would throw back upon them the charge that the people who claimed Jehovah as their God had made a calf and worshiped it in Horeb. Then though compelled to acknowledge the disgraceful truth, Israel could point to the terrible fate of the transgressors, as evidence that their sin had not been sanctioned or excused.
Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of His people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. ..." (PP 324, 325)
"And he said to them, 'Thus says the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor'" (Ex. 32:27).
When the Bible says that God commanded something, did He command it or not?
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15520
08/24/05 03:12 AM
08/24/05 03:12 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Is this an argument that the ends justifies the means?
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15521
08/24/05 11:35 AM
08/24/05 11:35 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
One small correction: the phrase is attributed not to Marx, but to Niccolo Machiavelli in his work "The Prince". But such a concept existed well before the time of Machiavelli. The Latin phrase "exitus acta probat" translates into English as "the outcome justifies the deed."
Now, is it always wrong to say that the ends justify the means? This concept may be misapplied by selfish creatures, but is this a wrong concept if applied by God?
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15522
08/24/05 12:47 PM
08/24/05 12:47 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
What you sow, that shall ye reap.
Do you propose to sow evil in order to reap righteousness?
That kind of thinking must be from a different creator than the one who made the above "Law".
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15523
08/24/05 01:38 PM
08/24/05 01:38 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
John,
No. The real question here becomes, which course of action is the most loving one to all parties involved? It is possible to go so far in sin that it is more cruel to let you live than to remove your life.
"In the destruction of the old world by a flood of waters, God gave evidence that men had exceeded the bounds prescribed through His long-sufferance. And whenever a people, with a 'thus saith the Lord' to guide them, presume upon His mercy, and go decidedly counter to His will, despising all His warnings, they finally exceed the limits of grace. Then God interferes and vindicates the honor of His law. He represses the increase of unrighteousness, by blotting out the race who become indifferent to His law which had been made known to the inhabitants of the Noatic [world]. Thus the Lord reveals to the whole human family that it is possible to go so far in sin and disgraceful transgression of His law, that it becomes necessary for Him to limit human life, and interpose in His wrath to prevent their spoiling one another in continual disobedience and defiance of His law" {21MR 65.2}
You seem to think that God is more merciful in prolonging life than in taking life, but in many instances this is not the case.
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15524
08/24/05 02:59 PM
08/24/05 02:59 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Life is not possible without the active intervention of God. We are not like watches which are wound up and just work until we wind down. quote:
God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting.(MH 416)
Even our planet depends upon God to remain in its rotation:
quote:
It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation.(same page)
And we as humans are not exempt, of course:
quote:
The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God.(same page)
So it is evident that God must actively work in order to prolong our life. If God chooses to cease His work, we die. For God to cease sustaining our life is not contrary to the principles of His law, as He is under no obligation to keep us alive. In fact, it is only by the grace of God that we live at all.
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15525
08/25/05 03:33 AM
08/25/05 03:33 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Before Machiavelli wrote of it, Protestants had already accused Jesuits of applying the principle that "the end justifies the means." Of Marx's movement: quote:
To undermine the Old World Order, the Revolution chose to use the same dirty tricks that the Old Order used to maintain itself, which Machiavelli had described in The Prince. That is, it adopted the ethic that the end justifies the means. This is clearly stated by Rousseau in The Social Contract: "Machiavelli's Prince is a handbook for Republicans" (Penguin edition, p.118)http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/rights.html
So it is not inaccurate to attribute this philospophy to Marx. "Was Marx right?" sounds better than "Was Machiavelli right?", and is easier to spell!
quote:
Now, is it always wrong to say that the ends justify the means? This concept may be misapplied by selfish creatures, but is this a wrong concept if applied by God?
The question is of course if it is always wrong. No one is arguing that the ends always justifies the means. The question is, as you are asking, does it ever justify the means.
In your question, you see to be suggesting the following:
1)The ends never justifies the means for us.
2)The ends does justify the means for God (sometimes).
You don't actually state 1), but suggest it by saying the concept may be misapplied by selfish beings. Actually this implies it could be correct implied by us as well, so if correctly applied, would be OK for us too. So let me restate:
1)The ends may sometimes justify the means, if the principle is correctly applied.
Clearly God would always correctly apply the principle, while we might or might not. If we correctly applied it, then you seem to be implying, if I am reading you correctly, that it is OK for us too. Am I understanding you correctly?
Another question that comes to mind is if this concept follows logically from the principle of attributing "bad" things to God (if inspiration doesn't exaplain these "bad" things elsewhere as being God who does them). It sort of seems to me that it does. It would be interesting if any of the others who share the traditional view that God maims, inflicts disease, and so forth also share this idea. It seems to me one would have to hold to this, the only alternative being to argue that maiming, inflicting disease, and so forth are not "bad" things.
The question gets really interesting when applied to us. Would it be OK for us to do "bad" things to others, if we correctly applied the principle? I'm not sure what "correctly applying the principle would mean". I suppose it would mean to do the "bad" thing if God commanded us to. Of course that leads to the question of how do we know if it's really God who is telling us to do the "bad" thing. Is there some other way of correctly applying the principle that the ends justifies the means?
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15526
08/24/05 04:13 PM
08/24/05 04:13 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
So it is evident that God must actively work in order to prolong our life. If God chooses to cease His work, we die.
When Ellen White says, “Thus the Lord reveals to the whole human family that it is possible to go so far in sin and disgraceful transgression of His law, that it becomes necessary for Him to limit human life”, she is referring to the flood. God didn´t just cease to prolong the lives of the antediluvians. He took their lives.
|
|
|
Re: Was Marx right?
#15527
08/24/05 05:47 PM
08/24/05 05:47 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
This is the Marx thread. The flood thread is down the hall, a couple of doors to the right.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
