• Good and Evil

    From Raskolynikov@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 12:26:38 2022
    "Before the child learns to choose good and reject evil,
    there will be replaced three kings."

    Once upon a time, I thought that the people who can do evil will eventually
    do it. Choosing only those who could not. But that was limiting great

    We are created to be more than just automatons who have no option but
    to do the good they are programmed for.

    What is the value of doing good if there is no possibility to do otherwise
    and do evil? What is the value of a right decision if there were not at least ten times as much wrong ones?

    What would be the purpose of a game of chess in which every move
    would lead to victory?

    Inevitably, making decisions will involve making some wrong ones,
    and that is a part of being human.

    Putting humans in the position of God Creator who cannot err or sin
    does them a disservice.

    God can glorify himself by deposing a bad ruler, but even more by
    making a bad ruler repent, do good, and lead the entire nation to
    good (like young kind Joash in the ancient Kingdom of Israel).

    God doesn't want the death of anyone who is dying. Convert yourself
    to good and live!

    in the Lord

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raskolynikov@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 29 10:10:27 2022
    Pounding cities full of unsuspecting, innocent civilians based on the assumption that they
    support neonazis, when only fewer than 5-10% actually are ... the rest probably view this as
    some kind of folklore, or are explicitly against, but silent, as ordinary peaceful citizens are ...
    I know this from my own country.

    This is undoubtedly wrong.

    And evil.

    Even without explicit war crimes and summary executions of PoWs and civilians. It is
    simply wrong. Undoubtedly, the "denazification" story goes along with the more significant cause of
    political and strategic balance. In which Putin tried to ward off the possibility of having nuke
    launchers in Ukraine, but now may have them even closer ...

    This is obviously not something that can be resolved with killing more civilians in Ukraine, or
    even more Azov members.

    Mr. Putin needs to go back to the negotiating table, and also prove that his word in negotiation
    is worth something, that it has some weight. Apart from the Soviet-style oppression apparatus
    applied to dissidents in Russia itself.

    No doubt, Russia needs security against the nuclear threat and no doubt that the Russian
    security is a part of global nuclear security.

    However, not all paths lead to that goal, and I believe Mr. Putin had chosen the wrong path.
    Even if he succeeds in the secession of the Donbas region violating the Budapest Memorandum
    of Ukrainian sovereignty, he will not make Russia safer, because he is losing on other fronts. Adding them
    to the list of enemies for denazification won't do the trick, for apparently countries will from now
    on be prepared for that type of outcome.

    Even the Donbas Russians would be better off in a democratised, multinational Ukraine than in
    the oligarchic, totalitarian Russia under Mr. Putin or his would-be heir.

    Ukraine just needs to reassure the ordinary Russian citizens and the insurgents who have not
    committed war crimes of abolition and reassured cultural autonomy and constitutional rights
    withing Ukraine.

    I believe any peace is better than any war, but Mr. Putin now thinks he can score on temporary
    military advantage in the Donbas region and still proclaim victory in the war.

    But this may also be a Pyrrhic victory.

    In peace, Russia would get a chance for the economic revival, but this is exactly what the "silovniki"
    fear: the change that would weaken their monopoly of power.

    in the Lord

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)