The Moral Challenge

[GodsRevolt]

And the "Do no harm" thing gets me, because what about in the defense of the weak?

Doesn't the fact that the weak need defending imply that there's something attacking them? If so, the harm brought to the threat is justified, really.

Because, as a Christian (and I'm not bringing up God, just stating a moral dilemma that I think about every now and then) it seems that I should be as much of a pacifist as possible, turning the other cheek and all that, but am doesn't Evil win when Good does nothing?

If you believe that, ask yourself why god, the ultimate good, also does nothing.

I can answer second one if you really want me to, but we already know that we do not agree with each other on it.

I am really more interested in what you had to say with your first statement, about justifying the harm done to those who harm the weak. It's a really interesting point.

Because if we look at history (and I am not a history buff so please feel free to fill in the details) we see two figures that acted in different ways to the same evil. MLK Jr and Malcolm X

MLK Jr promoted a nonviolent civil disobedience, maybe not complete pacifism but certainly not the same level of harm that his oppressors brought to the people of that time (and the time before).

Malcolm X was another human rights activist, but he promoted "any means necessary" a much more extreme approach.

In my opinion, MLK Jr has the moral high ground here because he kept to a standard higher than his enemies.

What do you think?

---

Your marriage, your problem.

No doubt!