From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ends justify the means?
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:15:21 PST
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to soc.religion.christian

> Slight difference there. A surgeon could show you why you're going to
> die, and so he isn't so much invoking fear on purpose. Can you show me
> hell, so that I can see it's there? You're nothing like a surgeon in
> that you have no proof to back yourself up. The analogy doesn't work.

The case of the surgeon is not as black-and-white as you think it is.
Sometimes exploratory surgery is recommended.  Other times I might have
an 80% chance of dying without surgery and a 10% chance of dying with it.
Other times the doctor is not 100% sure of his diagnosis, but is merely
proceeding according to his best judgment.  If a doctor thinks I need
surgery to avoid greater pain, then it's his responsibility to tell me.
If I think someone needs Christ to avoid pain, then it's my responsibility
to tell them.

> How is it that you can admit you believe, not know, about hell, and one
> second later go off preaching as if you do know?

I'm acting according to my conscience.  How is it that you can tell me
not to preach about hell, when you can't prove that I shouldn't preach about
hell?  Because you BELIEVE that I should not preach about hell, and you
communicate that belief to me.  You act according to your conscience
(and try to convince me to act according to your conscience too).
I also act according to my conscience.

> So basically, what's wrong with god just proving himself to me? Much
> less fear involved, I should hope. Why should the ends ever justify
> the means? 

Lying is wrong.  But it may be ok if it is done to prevent a greater
evil (e.g. those who protected Jews in their homes during WWII).
Grabbing a kid and throwing him through the air is wrong.  But it may
be ok if done to prevent a greater evil (e.g. he's about to be run
over by a car).  Cutting a baby with a knife is wrong.  But it may
be ok to prevent a greater evil (e.g. surgery).

Just out of curiousity, why would an agnostic or atheist believe that
the ends do not justify the means?  What is your basis of morality
for saying such a thing?

> Perhaps if you didn't preach like you knew [hell] was there, and you knew
> I was going there, I couldn't consider it to be scare-tactics. But you
> act as if you know, not believe, and consequently terrorism is precisely
> what you are doing. 

I believe hell exists.  I know hell exists.
I believe I exist.      I know I exist.
I believe you exist.    I know you exist.
What's the difference between belief and knowledge?  Only a matter of degree.
In fact, I have KNOWN certain things to be true, only to find out
later I was wrong.  That doesn't mean I never again act according to
my understanding.  It just means I'm not perfect.  I still do my best
and act according to my conscience.

>>As far as I can tell from your postings, NO ONE who "thinks it through"
>>will be a Xian.
> 
> So what are you suggesting then? That I _not_ think it through? 

No.  You stated that "fear based methods" will not work on anyone who
thinks it through.  So what are you suggesting will work on those
who think it through?  What would work on you?

> Why don't you try thinking?

Uh - I don't know.  I guess I'll have to think about your suggestion. :-)

- Dan Simon -