It's GOOD to be EVIL

[blackjacked]

Scenerio: A man kidnaps, rapes, and murders a child.

Obviously, a heinous crime by practically all standards or systems of morality.

However....

1) Suffering will be rewarded in Heaven.
2) The child suffered greatly, but temporarily.
3) As a result of such suffering, the child will be rewarded in Heaven.
4) Rewards in Heaven are eternal, as well as good.
5) The eternal good that is resultant of the temporary evil, far outweighs the temporary suffering.
6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.
7) Therefore, the act of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a child is GOOD.

------------------

1) Where does the above go wrong?
2) Why isn't the act above considered GOOD due to the ultimate good that it produces?

This ties in with the creation of beings that exercise free will. By doing so, they may choose evil, but if they do, an ultimate good is the result. Therefore, it is GOOD to be EVIL for the resultant good far outweights the temporary evil that is committed in the "big picture".

--------------------

PS Of course I do not believe that the above scenerio is "good" and do no condone such activity in any way, shape or form. Nor am I seeking to justify such activity. It is an exercise in logic and a seeming problem for apologists. I welcome correction to my line of thought here.

 

[drstevej]

6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.

I think your fallacy lies here.

Point 6 is situational ethics not Biblical ethics. God is holy. He can bring good out of evil, but He does not excuse or rationalize evil. He punishes it.

The crucifiction of Christ was a hideously evil action, yet much good came as a result (redemption), yet Acts 2:22-23 makes it plain that it was a evil act.

Paul asks, Shall we sin that grace might abound? He then answers with a extremely strong negative in the Greek.

In effect he says, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

[blackjacked]

But why not? Isn't more good coming from this act of evil? If it means that the child is eternally rewarded on a level unfathomable to mere mortals, WHY is it wrong? Just because God says so? Is it something that ought not to be questioned, but instead just accepted?

Had Christ not been crucified, and that evil act not had taken place...think of what the world would be like. Isn't it the case that the Romans did mankind a favor on a level that far surpasses any good that a Christian could offer? I mean if through the crucifixion (a great evil), many are capable of being redeemed through Christ (and thus eternally saved)...isn't this better than handing out food to the homeless a couple holidays out of the year?

Also, how has Biblical Ethics been shown to be superior to Situational Ethics?

 

[drstevej]

Your points #1, #3 and #4 make statements that I presume are based upon the Bible. If not, what is your source?

If so, why not accept the judgement of Scripture on your statement #6?

If Gods says so, why is that not good enough?

Read Job 38-42

 

[OldShepherd]

But why not? Isn't more good coming from this act of evil?

Is more good coming from this act of evil? What makes you think so? "Agnostic" means without knowledge. Exactly what parts of the Christian faith do you lack knowledge of?

If it means that the child is eternally rewarded on a level unfathomable to mere mortals, WHY is it wrong? Just because God says so?

Where does it say the child is rewarded, in any way? Which "it" are you asking is it wrong, the assumed rape, murder or both, the assumed reward? Where does God say so, about your scenario?

Is it something that ought not to be questioned, but instead just accepted?

Again which "it" are you referring to?

Had Christ not been crucified, and that evil act not had taken place...think of what the world would be like. Isn't it the case that the Romans did mankind a favor on a level that far surpasses any good that a Christian could offer?

Do you know exactly why Christ was crucified? What was the alternative? And everybody still has that choice available to them. How do you figure the Romans "did" mankind a favor? You have yet to identify who was actually responsible. I don't even understand this, "far surpasses any good that a Christian could offer."

I mean if through the crucifixion (a great evil), many are capable of being redeemed through Christ (and thus eternally saved)

Do you know this of yourself or is it something you heard somewhere? I don't mind discussing the Christian faith and the Bible if I know exactly what I am discussing

...isn't this better than handing out food to the homeless a couple holidays out of the year?

Is that what you do, or do you even do that much? If, not why are you criticizing someone who does?

Do you have any idea how many kids spend their own money, give up weeks of their summer vacations, and go to less fortunate countries to build houses, churches, and clinics for them?

Do you know how many Christian missionaries spend years in foreign countries, spreading the gospel in medical, agricultural, construction, and other hands on ministries?

Do you have any idea how many missionaries have been killed doing that? How are they able to carry out their missions? Through the giving of churches back in their home countries. Much, much more than your imagined "couple holidays out of the year."

Also, how has Biblical Ethics been shown to be superior to Situational Ethics?

Actually this question is so naive it doesn't even deserve an answer. Situational ethics is, "If it feels good do it." Biblical ethics is, if it is sin, it is sin all the time, not just when people feel like it. Many laws grew out of Biblical ethics.

If someone thinks it is wrong for another to steal from them, then it is equally wrong for that person to steal from others. Situational ethics says, "If I'm hungry, then it's alright for me to steal." If I steal your only loaf of bread, is situational ethics still superior to Biblical ethics?

 

[seebs]

Biblical ethics are often situational. It's wrong to lie, unless you're lying to the Egyptians about the male children of the Jews.

 

[OldShepherd]

Biblical ethics are often situational. It's wrong to lie, unless you're lying to the Egyptians about the male children of the Jews.

Don't you think it is a little hypocritical for someone who lists his age as "1" commenting on lying?

And OBTW that was situational not Biblical ethics. It is not condoned anywhere in scripture.

 

[henrylee100]

#1 is not 100% biblical suffering on its own doesn't get automatically rewarded in heaven, suffering for Christ's sake does though. In any case you forget about the purp, what will happen to him/her as the result of all these actions, even if we assume that he child will automatically be routed to heaven and showered with eternal rewards and what of the purp what will happen to their eternal soul? Of course we can say they can just pray the sinner's prayer and be reconciled to God but I don't think anyone really believes that the mere act of saying the sinner's prayer can reconcile a person to God, the evil acts a person commits usually have a lasting adverse effect on their spiritual condition,and not just in Christian terms, their psychi often gets ruined, I've heard of people who after return from a war zone would start going to church fervently and they'd pray until they dropped and still they'd be haunted by nightmares. so your point about raping and murdering a child producing more good than bad is not really valid, they at least canlcel each other out, the child goes to heaven and the purp's soul gets condemned to eternal damnation, you know there's places in the bible where it talks about people seeking repentance and not finding it.

 

[*Starlight*]

6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.

I believe that it is the intention, not the outcome, that really matters. But I don't know, maybe I am wrong?

 

[sinner/SAVED]

6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.
--------------------

Bad can not be made good. Bad can only be forgiven.

 

[nadroj1985]

It seems to me that Christian ethics are not utilitarian, which is what the OP is describing. The intent of a person commiting an action, and not the final results of that action, is generally what is judged as good or evil in the Christian system.

 

[Blackmarch]

Scenerio: A man kidnaps, rapes, and murders a child.

Obviously, a heinous crime by practically all standards or systems of morality.

However....

1) Suffering will be rewarded in Heaven.
2) The child suffered greatly, but temporarily.
3) As a result of such suffering, the child will be rewarded in Heaven.
4) Rewards in Heaven are eternal, as well as good.
5) The eternal good that is resultant of the temporary evil, far outweighs the temporary suffering.
6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.
7) Therefore, the act of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a child is GOOD.

------------------

1) Where does the above go wrong?
2) Why isn't the act above considered GOOD due to the ultimate good that it produces?

This ties in with the creation of beings that exercise free will. By doing so, they may choose evil, but if they do, an ultimate good is the result. Therefore, it is GOOD to be EVIL for the resultant good far outweights the temporary evil that is committed in the "big picture".

--------------------

PS Of course I do not believe that the above scenerio is "good" and do no condone such activity in any way, shape or form. Nor am I seeking to justify such activity. It is an exercise in logic and a seeming problem for apologists. I welcome correction to my line of thought here.

Or the creeds of man don't have all of God's processes and ways to be absolutely right...

 

[mepalmer3]

6) That which produces more good than bad, is good.

I don't think you quantified how you are measuring the amount of goodness or badness. I'm not sure how anyone would necessarily quantify it. But regardless, I think we may all agree that if all people were 100% good, then that amount of good would be quite a bit better than in your case where people were good only a part of the time.

Also I would question if you added more treasuer to the sufferer in heaven.

Furthermore, you forgot to add the 3rd person who's simply a bystander. Now this 3rd person gets so torn up by the event and the fact that this rapists is trying to claim he's doing god a favor by increasing the sum of all morality. This 3rd person decides to leave the rest of reasoning behind and let fear and anger at this man be redirected towards god. And he asks, why can a god allow that much evil. So he too chooses to turn away from god. And thus we have 2 people that have completely turned away from god. So god only has 1/3rd of the people in heaven with him in this scenario. How is that better than 3/3rds?

 

[kedaman]

It is important to note that evil can become good, as much as it can stay evil. The former correspond to forgiveness and the latter to blasphemy against The Holy Spirit. However good can only stay good. Compare with truth table of implication:
false => true <=> true
false => false <=> true
true => false <=> false
true => true <=> true

 

[blackjacked]

hmmmm...ok before I respond, here was my original line of thought on the issue (and I just changed it around a bit in the OP).

It was God's will that Christ be crucified.
God does not will evil.
Therefore, the crucifixion of Christ was not evil.

Is that fair or accurate?

 

[Randall McNally]

One of the common defenses to the Problem of Evil is the Greater Good Defense - God can use evil to bring about a state-of-affairs better than one brought about in the absence of evil.

But a further rejoinder holds that the GGD entails apathy about evil - we should not only concern ourselves little with the prevention of evil, we can encourage it knowing that God will make lemonade.

Don't you think it is a little hypocritical for someone who lists his age as "1" commenting on lying?

What is the underlying principle here? That one who has lied may not talk about lying by others? I am afraid you have disqualified roughly six billion people as lying-commentators in one fell swoop.

 

[mepalmer3]

One of the common defenses to the Problem of Evil is the Greater Good Defense - God can use evil to bring about a state-of-affairs better than one brought about in the absence of evil.

But a further rejoinder holds that the GGD entails apathy about evil - we should not only concern ourselves little with the prevention of evil, we can encourage it knowing that God will make lemonade.

God doesn't use evil though, at least not according to christian theology. God only uses good, and he reaches out to people in all situations, good and bad to ask them to return to good, to himself.

So I'll rewrite it like this.

P1. God always wants us to move forward (forward in the progressing towards becoming more like him, more loving).
P2. If I do evil (move backwards) then God will still want me to move forward.
C. Therefore God wants me to do evil (move backwards).

But the conclusion is clearly not sound.

 

[pontius]

What if there is no heaven? Then the kid would be dead and not go to heaven, and his last memories would be of extreme pain. That isn't too good.

 

[OldShepherd]

One of the common defenses to the Problem of Evil is the Greater Good Defense - God can use evil to bring about a state-of-affairs better than one brought about in the absence of evil.

Please show me where Christians use the GGD? You seem to be the one proposing it. Read, e.g., what Jesus said about the millstone in the New Testament. And I don't think scripture supports, "a state-of-affairs better than."

But a further rejoinder holds that the GGD entails apathy about evil -

Only to people like yourself who are not Christians. See previous and next answer. Read, also, e.g. what Paul said about grace abounding and continuing to sin.

we should not only concern ourselves little with the prevention of evil, we can encourage it knowing that God will make lemonade.

You might read the story of Joseph, in the Old Testament, and see if that fits your scenario. While God can and does make lemonade, so to speak, the lemon still gets squeezed and cast aside. The perp(s) is/are still guilty, while the victim(s) may be blessed.

What is the underlying principle here? That one who has lied may not talk about lying by others?

I said it was hyprocritical for someone, who is obviously saying something false about himself, to criticize others for lying. Didn't I see something in this thread about a speck and a beam in someone's eye?

I am afraid you have disqualified roughly six billion people as lying-commentators in one fell swoop.

Not sure what your point is. Mine remains, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Goes to one's credibility, not unlike the Dan Rather - President Bush fiasco.

 

[OldShepherd]

hmmmm...ok before I respond, here was my original line of thought on the issue (and I just changed it around a bit in the OP).

It was God's will that Christ be crucified.
God does not will evil.
Therefore, the crucifixion of Christ was not evil.

Is that fair or accurate?

No!