Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[Bradski]

Can you give a specific example of God doing something that appears to be wrong?

Well, He did a lot of smiting in the early days. Checking the thread title again and it specifically says ‘permit evil’. I don’t think that had been argued against, so it had been accepted as a given for the sake of the argument. Cancer, tsunamis, Adam Sandler…the list goes on.

The question: Has God permitted evil? is a different topic.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, He did a lot of smiting in the early days.

As a Believer can we assume that God made it up to the innocent victims in Eternity?

And if they were not innocent, how is God’s smiting them evil?

 

[PRmerger]

Checking the thread title again and it specifically says ‘permit evil’

Fair enough.

I was just responding to your conjecture that God seems able to “do” something that appears to be wrong.

Are these not your words (bold mine)?

But the means to an end is meant to be an evil one. Why does **God seem to be able to do **or to allow something that appears to be wrong to, as it says in the first post, draw out a greater good?

 

[oldcelt]

One has to wonder how your spouse would react to that question, if you posed that to her (him)?

One would think the response would be, 'Um…no. You can’t love me if you don’t do anything except say, ‘Hey. I said I loved you. What more do you want???’ "

And one has to have a true image of God in order to love Him. One cannot create a false image of God and say, “This is the god that I want to love because I like this one so much better!”

That would be like telling your wife, “I don’t really like so much the demands that you make on me. So I am going to create a new image of you. And this is who I’m going to love!:”

http://mightyhips.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/barbie-doll.jpg

And naturally I have the wrong image of God in your opinion. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to live with that. I can tell you that I have a clear consciousness.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 

[oldcelt]

As a Believer can we assume that God made it up to the innocent victims in Eternity?

And if they were not innocent, how is God’s smiting them evil?

So the ends DO justify the means. We’ll have to issue a pronouncement on this.

 

[Bradski]

As a Believer can we assume that God made it up to the innocent victims in Eternity?

So you do agree that there were innocent victims, smote by God (that word is sounding more odd every time I use it). But He can make it up to them in eternity and there may be a reason why He did what He had to do which we cannot understand. Being mortal and all.

But I’ll pass on the active and go with the passive for the sake of the argument. That is, as per the thread title, how is it He can seem to permit evil to draw out the greater good, but we can’t.

So I’ll change my lifeboat hypothetical accordingly. Now Menegle has fallen overboard and Max can reach out and pull him back in, therefore guaranteeing a watery death for all, or he can let him drift off, therefore saving everyone.

Should he pull him aboard or leave him to the sharks?

 

[PRmerger]

And naturally I have the wrong image of God in your opinion.

Logically, one of us is wrong. If God exists.

Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to live with that. I can tell you that I have a clear consciousness.

And perhaps you think you have a clear conscience as well. But that’s irrelevant to our discourse, is it not?

The Catholic paradigm is: conform your views to what is True. Not to what you wish were true.

Your paradigm is: I don’t like this particular God, so I’m going to construct one that is to my liking.

Except that there is no evidence that your god exists, except in your own “clear consciousness”.

And there is evidence from your own life, I am sure, of the existence of a loving parent who permits suffering in his children. Therefore, one could use logic and reason to conclude, “And therefore a God could permit suffering while still being loving.”

Logic and Reason Alone have been appealed to in my argument here, oldcelt.

 

[PRmerger]

So the ends DO justify the means. We’ll have to issue a pronouncement on this.

Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. This is true.

Here’s an example: I give my children immunizations that hurt them. The means are painful. The ends are good.

Do you not think this to be the case?

 

[PRmerger]

So you do agree that there were innocent victims, smote by God (that word is sounding more odd every time I use it). But He can make it up to them in eternity and there may be a reason why He did what He had to do which we cannot understand. Being mortal and all.

Of course.

Do you not believe this occurs every day? (The injuring/suffering of innocents)

But I’ll pass on the active and go with the passive for the sake of the argument. That is, as per the thread title, how is it He can seem to permit evil to draw out the greater good, but we can’t.

I don’t see why He can’t permit suffering to draw out greater good.

And who says we can’t? I already gave an example of immunizations.

But we must, of course, give a caveat: evil and suffering are not the same thing.

 

[PRmerger]

So I’ll change my lifeboat hypothetical accordingly. Now Menegle has fallen overboard and Max can reach out and pull him back in, therefore guaranteeing a watery death for all, or he can let him drift off, therefore saving everyone.

Should he pull him aboard or leave him to the sharks?

I haven’t been following the thread in its entirety, but in your above example of course Max pulls Mengele back in! There is no guaranteeing that a watery death will occur for all.

 

[Bradski]

And who says we can’t? I already gave an example of immunizations.

But we must, of course, give a caveat: evil and suffering are not the same thing.

So your example is not valid. You are not permitting evil when your kids get a shot, you are permitting suffering.

So what about allowing Mengele drift off? Max makes a conscious decision to allow him to die. Does the end result - everyone saved, justify the means?

 

[PRmerger]

So your example is not valid. You are not permitting evil when your kids get a shot, you are permitting suffering.

Does it not appear to be evil to the child?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...R_byRye2vfRjMPHYtSK6VRGV-MqTUHgu6bsNdplrLNLLg

 

[PRmerger]

So what about allowing Mengele drift off? Max makes a conscious decision to allow him to die. Does the end result - everyone saved, justify the means?

That is indeed evil and never permitted.

 

[oldcelt]

Of course.

Do you not believe this occurs every day? (The injuring/suffering of innocents)

I don’t see why He can’t permit suffering to draw out greater good.

And who says we can’t? I already gave an example of immunizations.

But we must, of course, give a caveat: evil and suffering are not the same thing./QUOTE]

And immunizations and leukemia most certainly are not. So far as a Deity permitting the suffering of the innocent when He is capable of stopping it, of course he could. However, to then call that deity loving, etc., is highly inconsistent to people like myself.

 

[PRmerger]

And immunizations and leukemia most certainly are not.

Are not what?

So far as a Deity permitting the suffering of the innocent when He is capable of stopping it, of course he could. However, to then call that deity loving, etc., is highly inconsistent to people like myself.

So you are against immunizing your children?

 

[oldcelt]

1. Not the same thing…just following your bolded comment.

Quote from Oldcelt:

So far as a Deity permitting the suffering of the innocent when He is capable of stopping it, of course he could. However, to then call that deity loving, etc., is highly inconsistent to people like myself.

PR Merger’s reply: So you are against immunizing your children?

Oldcelt’ reply: I have to guess that you have reached the stage where you have anything substantial to add to this discussion. To make such an off-hand remark when we are talking about the suffering and death of children…well…it’s pretty obvious what it is.

 

[PRmerger]

Oldcelt’ reply: I have to guess that you have reached the stage where you have anything substantial to add to this discussion. To make such an off-hand remark when we are talking about the suffering and death of children…well…it’s pretty obvious what it is.

You still have never responded.

I will conclude that you have indeed permitted the suffering of your children, and perhaps even held them down while a nurse injected them, multiple times.

Would that your children never reject you for permitting this suffering, telling you, “You don’t love me! How dare you do such a thing!”

Again, QED.

 

[Bradski]

Does it not appear to be evil to the child?

I think that we know that that is irrelevant.

That is indeed evil and never permitted.

But we’d do it anyway. If you were the one in the boat, with your family, and pulling Mengele back in would result in the boat capsizing and everyone ending up swimming with the sharks, then you’d let him drift off. In fact, I’d bet good money that you’d beat him off with an oar.

I’m not sure I could believe that you would sacrifice your children simply because an action is deemed to be ‘never permitted’. What would seem to be the case is that we all could do something that is ‘never permitted’ to attain the greater good despite knowing that it is held to be evil.

The question then becomes, is it indeed an evil act? On that I’m not entirely sure but would suggest not. Although it would depend on the situation. And, wouldn’t you know, we’re then talking about whether evil is a relative concept.

 

[PRmerger]

To make such an off-hand remark when we are talking about the suffering and death of children…well…it’s pretty obvious what it is.

I find your objection here to be quite abstruse.

It seems to demonstrate an inability to think in the abstract–something that I would think you would otherwise be capable of.

It’s similar to a Jew getting offended when Jesus says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings…” exclaiming, “How dare this Jesus compare us to poultry!”

Any Jewish leader who couldn’t see the metaphor or comparison would be suspicious, in my eyes, of purposely wanting to be offended.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that we know that that is irrelevant.

Oh, but Bradski, it is not irrelevant. At all. It is of the greatest import to this discussion.

You can see how to a child immunizing him would appear to be the greatest evil, esp. when attached to parental consent.

And comparing a child’s intellect compared to an adult’s–the gap is finite. While comparing our intellect to God’s-- well…the gap is, of course, infinite.