The question of if the end justifies the means is getting at this:



This is the definition given earlier. I don't see how any Christian could think this could apply to God, because how can God perform any morally wrong actions. This is why I brought up this topic, was to see if anyone other than MM would venture to say that "the end justifies the means" in the context of things which God is doing.

Speaking for myself, it wouldn't cross my mind to use it in relation to God. Applied to men it's a more difficult question, getting into situation ethics.

Suffering and death is never neccessary to teach us the truth, but suffering and death is the reality of sin and evil. Sin and evil shifts the blame and asserts that it is God causing it. God is seeking to save from sin and evil hence from suffering and death.

He certainly does not use evil and sin, but overcomes it with good.

That which is neccessary to learn truth is "faith".

TE: If sin results in death and destruction, God's killing and destroying would not teach us that sin kills and destroys but that God kills and destroys.

MM: I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin, and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning produce natural consequences. But when God commands or permits consequences they are unavoidable.

…………………….

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

TE: Previously you were arguing they were the same, right? You seemed to be writing whether evil or holy angels destroyed, it didn't make any difference. So good and evil would look the same. Unless you think the evil angels were doing good, and destruction and death are always good, since it only happens from evil angels when God permits.

MM: True, the results, from our perspective, look the same whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction. But these two outcomes do not contrast good and evil.

When God commanded the holy angels to destroy the world with a Flood and then, later on, when He gave the evil angels permission to influence the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, the results were essentially the same, namely, sinners were destroyed in accordance with God’s will.

Good and evil are contrasted when sinners either accept or reject Jesus. Good and evil will be clearly contrasted, so much so that the GC will end, when the world is divided between having the seal of God or having the mark of the beast. The way these two groups behave during the outpouring of the seven last plagues will define the truth about good and evil.

DF: Does the end justify the means? = Do two wrongs make one/it right?

MM: No, those two expressions are not equal, at least not in this case. Besides, which two “wrongs” are you referring to? When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, can we consider this “wrong”?

TE: If sin results in death and destruction, God's killing and destroying would not teach us that sin kills and destroys but that God kills and destroys.

MM: I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin, and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning produce natural consequences. But when God commands or permits consequences they are unavoidable.

It does not appear to me that this addresses my point.

…………………….

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

TE: Previously you were arguing they were the same, right? You seemed to be writing whether evil or holy angels destroyed, it didn't make any difference. So good and evil would look the same. Unless you think the evil angels were doing good, and destruction and death are always good, since it only happens from evil angels when God permits.

MM: True, the results, from our perspective, look the same whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction.

You're bouncing back and forth like a ping pong ball. "Good and evil do not look the same." "So good and evil would look the same."

But these two outcomes do not contrast good and evil.

When God commanded the holy angels to destroy the world with a Flood and then, later on, when He gave the evil angels permission to influence the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, the results were essentially the same, namely, sinners were destroyed in accordance with God’s will.

Good and evil are contrasted when sinners either accept or reject Jesus. Good and evil will be clearly contrasted, so much so that the GC will end, when the world is divided between having the seal of God or having the mark of the beast. The way these two groups behave during the outpouring of the seven last plagues will define the truth about good and evil.

Given that good and evil are back to looking the same, there's still my original question to address, "If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?"

When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, as was the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, God is only pronouncing and executing His judgment against the sinners.

The breaking of God's law results in death, sooner or later, but sooner in the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, and sooner or later for us, as we all also die the first death as a result of sin.

DF: When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, as was the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, God is only pronouncing and executing His judgment against the sinners.

MM: Is it "wrong" when God commands holy angels to destroy sinners? Does the end justify the means?

TE: Given that good and evil are back to looking the same, there's still my original question to address, "If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?"

MM: We are not on the same page. Please do not try to make it look like we are. I clarified my point. You chose to ignore it.

If God is commanding holy angels to destroy sinners in judgment, then it isn't wrong for Him to do so.

Whether or not the end justifies the means depends on what both the end is and the means is.

DF: If God is commanding holy angels to destroy sinners in judgment, then it isn't wrong for Him to do so.

MM: I think we all agree on this point. When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners it is equivalent to God doing it Himself.

DF: Whether or not the end justifies the means depends on what both the end is and the means is.

MM: In this case, the means is holy angels destroying sinners, and the end is the destruction of sinners. So, do you believe the end justifies the means?