('beekeeper'; also, this site is handy for short translations, and they do Russian to English.)
if I see evil about to happen, and I am in a power to stop it, will I be commiting any evil myself, if I dont stop it?
I would say that you would be guilty of an evil act yourself, unless you have some better reason for not stopping it. For example, allowing one person to kill another would generally be wrong, but if you allow a police officer to shoot and kill a terrorist who is about to murder hundreds or thousands of people, that is different. In the same situation, killing someone is generally wrong, but killing that terrorist might well be less wrong than not killing him.
When dealing with the concept of an omnipotent (and, therefore, omniscient) god allowing things to happen, we run into a big problem regarding the issue of knowledge. If God knows everything, then God knows why this person should suffer horribly today so that those 10 000 people do not have to suffer horribly next year. We lack that capacity, and so we cannot
( ... )
By definition, omnipotence includes being able to do anything, and so an omnipotent God could create a world in which everyone has free will, but no one sins.
That this has not happened does not mean that God is not omnipotent, let alone is absent: it might just mean that, in some way unknown to us, the current world is better than one with free will and yet no instances of sin. I could speculate that this could be because it is better for us to learn to be good through facing sin and temptation and others' needs, but I cannot think of any way that any of us can ever know about this.
Part of the joy of religion, in my opinion, is the fact that we cannot prove the answers either way.
In my opinion, it depends upon the situation. Generally speaking, yes, I think you are allowed to allow evil to happen; it may not be the "best" option in a technical sense, but I don't think it is necessarily evil to do so.
Some situations we are given responsibility for people: children, family, heads of state, etc. In that case, I do think it would be unethical to act on behalf of said people.
dis agree; it is this kind of thinking that allows war, violence, loose laws etc. etc. as long as i kiss the cross that hangs around my neck, and pray to God before one goes out to pretend that killing is ok. etc etc. your opinion is a lie, along with all opinions, including my own. so, does it really depend on the situation? or an interal, situation? and what would that be? heads of state? give me a break... you are allowed to allow evil....wow, i think i just became enlightened...
Of course I believe we should try to stop evil, but we are not responsible for others committing evil acts. Stopping evil would be an ethically superior act to allowing it to happen, but allowing it to happen I believe is ethically neutral - unless one is responsible for the people acted upon.
is this your offering of a solution? positive icon my friend:) positive impression toward the solution; come again? is that blood from the eyes? do i have to look at you? give me a break; try again
Not surprisingly, given the difficulty of the question, we're not going to fully satisfy this question here in an lj post. I think some good progress was made, and you've been given a lot to think about. Just to add to that, may I recommend that you read this. It is John Paul II's Apostolic Letter, Salvifici Doloris. It's very good.
I'm sorry, I should have said we've all been given a lot to think about. This isn't about lecturing you, it's about all of us learning together. Sorry if that came across that way.
Comments 94
if I see evil about to happen, and I am in a power to stop it, will I be commiting any evil myself, if I dont stop it?
I would say that you would be guilty of an evil act yourself, unless you have some better reason for not stopping it. For example, allowing one person to kill another would generally be wrong, but if you allow a police officer to shoot and kill a terrorist who is about to murder hundreds or thousands of people, that is different. In the same situation, killing someone is generally wrong, but killing that terrorist might well be less wrong than not killing him.
When dealing with the concept of an omnipotent (and, therefore, omniscient) god allowing things to happen, we run into a big problem regarding the issue of knowledge. If God knows everything, then God knows why this person should suffer horribly today so that those 10 000 people do not have to suffer horribly next year. We lack that capacity, and so we cannot ( ... )
Reply
Reply
That this has not happened does not mean that God is not omnipotent, let alone is absent: it might just mean that, in some way unknown to us, the current world is better than one with free will and yet no instances of sin. I could speculate that this could be because it is better for us to learn to be good through facing sin and temptation and others' needs, but I cannot think of any way that any of us can ever know about this.
Part of the joy of religion, in my opinion, is the fact that we cannot prove the answers either way.
Reply
Reply
Some situations we are given responsibility for people: children, family, heads of state, etc. In that case, I do think it would be unethical to act on behalf of said people.
Reply
as long as i kiss the cross that hangs around my neck, and pray to God before one goes out to pretend that killing is ok. etc etc.
your opinion is a lie, along with all opinions, including my own.
so, does it really depend on the situation? or an interal, situation?
and what would that be?
heads of state? give me a break...
you are allowed to allow evil....wow, i think i just became enlightened...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
is that blood from the eyes? do i have to look at you?
give me a break; try again
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment