PDA

View Full Version : Evil: Motive is Everything



-Cp
05-29-2010, 09:55 PM
Several years ago, a man named Timothy
McVeigh parked a blue van alongside a
city street in front of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma
City. The van contained a bomb. Minutes later,
after McVeigh had fled, the bomb exploded. In
the horrible blast, the Murrah building crumbled.
Brick upon brick, it fell upon itself: rent;
dismantled; shattered. And many precious human
lives turned to dust with it.

One early summer Sunday morning, I stood on
a downtown street in St. Louis. A man parked a
blue van alongside a city street, next to a large,
government building. As I looked on, he and
several helpers loaded dynamite into the building.
Watching from a safe distance, I saw the
men detonate the load. In the horrible blast, the
building crumbled. Brick upon brick, it fell
upon itself: rent; dismantled; shattered. But no
human lives were lost.

What was the difference between McVeigh's
act, and that of the crew in St. Louis? I first
want you to think about the similarities: they
both did evil to a building. They both brought
nearly identical destruction upon a structure of
brick. For this is what evil is: destruction, dismantling,
shattering.

The Hebrew word is “ra,” and it literally means, “to shatter.”
The word, by itself, has no moral bias. Evil is an indifferent
tool, capable of being bent toward either right
or wrong purposes.

Back to my two examples of identical evil.

What were the motives in each case?
McVeigh's intent was to destroy lives. He was
out for revenge, his heart full of hate. McVeigh
committed an evil act. But he also sinned, and
sinned grievously.

What about the St. Louis crew? They were a
special team, hired by the city to destroy an already-
dilapidated building to make room for a
new hospital. Did the crew commit an evil?
Yes. They broke down, dismantled, and shattered
a building. But did they sin? No. Their
intention was to eventually save lives, not destroy
them. They were operating under the law.
The workers committed an act that was as evil
as McVeigh’s, but they did not sin.

Allen grabs a hammer and breaks glass; he's a
hero. Joe grabs a hammer and breaks glass; he
goes to jail. The difference? Allen summoned
the fire department; Joe robbed the hardware
store. Smashing glass with a hammer is an evil
act, and both men did evil. Their motives, however,
were as opposite as can be.

John killed a man last Thursday. He washed his
hands, picked up his paycheck, and went home
to dinner. Bryan killed a man the same day. He
was arrested, handcuffed, and led away in a squad car.
The difference? Joe worked for the
state and was assisting in the death of a convicted,
serial rapist. Bryan got burned on a drug
deal and was stalking a pusher on the street.
Both men killed, that is, they took a life. But
one committed murder, and the other did not.
The difference: motive.

Motive. This is what makes an evil act either
sin or not sin, and this is why God can do evil
without sinning; His motives are always right.
God created evil so that we might appreciate
the presence of good. When evil has done its
necessary work, God abolishes it from His universe
forever (1 Cor. 15:26).

chloe
05-29-2010, 10:50 PM
So God makes evil people do evil things ?

-Cp
05-29-2010, 10:51 PM
So God makes evil people do evil things ?

See:

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=27955

chloe
05-29-2010, 10:54 PM
See:

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=27955


I already read that thread but I don't understand the bible verses, so I replied to this one, I understood this thread better.

DragonStryk72
05-30-2010, 03:06 AM
So God makes evil people do evil things ?

No, we have free will, so it is a matter of choice. McVeigh could have at any point realized that what he was doing was wrong, terribly wrong, and turned himself in, and lives would have been saved. He chose that path that led to evil and sin.

God doesn't really "make" people do anything, just like the devil doesn't "make" anyone commit evil acts. People get too tied up in the idea that God is all-powerful, without stopping to think about the point that being with intelligent reasoning capacities most likely has a moral code of some sort, however skewed that code might be. For instance, most people, likely including yourself, would balk at killing babies, even though they obviously have physical ability to do so. Why? Because we recognize it as being wrong.

Most parents have near absolute power over their children, the ability to teach them anything they want pretty much, but again, most parents want to teach their child to think independently (I say most cause there are some nutjobs out there that are hurting their child's ability to do so), to make good choices on their own, without the parents having to be present to enforce such good decison making skills.

PostmodernProphet
05-30-2010, 06:58 AM
I first
want you to think about the similarities: they
both did evil to a building. They both brought
nearly identical destruction upon a structure of
brick. For this is what evil is: destruction, dismantling,
shattering.

The Hebrew word is “ra,” and it literally means, “to shatter.”
The word, by itself, has no moral bias. Evil is an indifferent
tool, capable of being bent toward either right
or wrong purposes.


Do you realize the error of your argument?......you didn't say "they both did "ra" to a building......thus it doesn't matter what "ra" means......you cannot say they both did "evil" to a building because "evil" does not mean "to shatter"....."ra" does.....