Some of my older posts on the topic of Easter:
Archive of articles classified as' "Apologetics"Back home
First off, what they were authenticating was not the validity of the text, but the piece of
paper papyrus it was written on.
The fragment has a dubious history. Its chain of possession can’t be accurately tracked back past 1999. The scholar who first studied it thought it may have dated back to the 4th century AD; others scholars who investigated it felt the 7th or 8th centuries AD were more likely periods for its origin, though one dissenting scholar still thinks it is a modern forgery.
This authenticity has kicked off a bit of a kerfluffle in both the Christian and skeptic camps because of how the translated text reads:
It’s important to note what the authentication of the document means.
It does not mean the information contained on it is accurate or even bona fide.
It means the fragment of papyrus did physically originate sometime between 699 and 899 AD, and was written on during that period with an ink common to that era, and in a language that was used at the time.
The text could be:
- An authentic teaching of some Christian offshoot (possibly Gnostic)
- An inauthentic teaching written for some unknown motive (possibly profit)
If “1”, the fragment either:
- Accurately reflects what it appears to reflect (i.e., that there was a debate among Jesus’ disciples and followers as to whether women could be disciples, and Jesus said, “Well, duh, look at my wife…” [paraphrased])
- Or that there was a debate and Jesus was using a rhetorical device (as in “the church is the bride of Christ”, etc.)
- Or that it was an entirely different topic of discussion and Jesus was not referring to an actual real woman he was married to but was making some other reference that is now impossible to follow due to the missing portion of the manuscript.
No matter: Some folks have appeared eager to glom onto interpretation “1a” and insist this is proof that Jesus was married despite lack of reference to a wife in the four gospels, the book of Acts, or the various epistles (including those written by his brothers; more on them in a moment). They correctly cite that in first century Judea all men were expected to marry and at least try to produce children, and only after producing at least one male heir were they allowed to slack off.
Their argument is that if Jesus was indeed a first century Judean, then logically he should have been married.
Well, that ain’t necessarily so…
Jesus was not an only child, at least not for Mary. The Bible indicates a minimum of six siblings: Four brothers (James, Joseph a.k.a. Joses, Judas a.k.a. Jude, and Simon) plus a minimum of two sisters (as they are referred to in the plural).
We know very little about Jesus’ life prior to his ministry’s start, but we do know at age twelve he accompanied both Mary and Joseph on a yearly pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem for Passover.
We know they traveled in what must have been a fairly large group of extended family and friends. While no siblings of Jesus are mentioned, one can assume if any had been born by that time they would have been in the group as well.
The charming story in the Gospel of Luke has the party getting a full day’s journey out of Jerusalem before realizing Jesus is not with them but back at the temple chatting it up with the rabbis.
Anyone who’s seen Home Alone
can appreciate how easy it is to
misplace a kid in the bustle
of holiday travel.
The next time we get a glimpse into Jesus’ home life, he and Mary are attending a wedding in Cana where mom twists his arm to perform his first public miracle and turn water into wine.
Joseph is not mentioned in that story, nor anywhere else in the gospels, so it is presumed he has died by this point.
Somewhere between his twelfth year and the start of his ministry at about age 30, Jesus became the head of his household by being the oldest male son after his father died.
The oldest male son with not one, not two, not three but six younger siblings to care for.
The boys, once they reached thirteen, would be out of his hair:
At that age the would be leaving home to enter apprenticeships, or if at home would be earning money to support Mary and their siblings while simultaneously socking something away for the day when they would marry.
The girls, however, presented a different challenge:
They would require dowries in order to find suitable husbands, and that would mean setting aside some nest egg from the family budget.
Jesus, in this position of responsibility, would have a good reason not to seek marriage himself until the last sister was married off. While his brothers could be expected to contribute something to the extended family coffers, they would also have families of their own to look after.
No one would have looked askance at Jesus for not marrying under those circumstances; rather they’d have pity and respect for the young man trying to do right by his widowed mother and younger sisters.
But they would have also assumed that after the youngest girl was married off, Jesus would start looking for a wife of his own.
Remember that wedding in Cana?
Whose wedding was it?
Luke doesn’t specifically say it was the wedding of Jesus’ youngest sister, but the time line fits. Men were expected to establish themselves in the world before seeking a wife, but girls tended to get married off ASAP. If Joseph had died when Jesus was 16 or 17, nobody would have thought it unusual that his eldest son hadn’t married yet. An infant sister at that age would mean Jesus would have reached his 30s by the time he was ready to hand her off to her husband.
The story of the wedding at Cana (a.k.a. Jesus turns water into wine) occurs within three days of Jesus being baptized by John. Jesus had clearly been talking to and recruiting his band of followers in the days preceding that; while more were to join afterwards he already had a core group who were willing to follow him as their teacher.
Further, while Mary seems to have been a key participant in the wedding feast, Jesus and his disciples are considered less important guests.
Jesus’ youngest sister no longer needs him to look after her or build up a dowry. Once freed of family responsibility, Jesus begins spending more time with the men who will become his first disciples; maybe he lets one or more of his younger brothers take over the carpentry shop (and no one begrudges him this; hey, he’s been bearing a man’s burden since his teen years).
But he is starting to get a tad flakey, and his own family is beginning to wonder if his interest in religion isn’t making him go a little funny in the head just like it drove his goofy cousin John out into the wilderness to preach like a wild man.
So Jesus and his best buds get invited,
but nobody wants them to be too
deeply involved in the affair.
Towards the end of the feast the bridegroom hits a major faux pas: The party has run out of booze. For some reason this is A Big Deal to Mary, who promptly tells Jesus he needs to do something about it.
Why would Jesus have any obligation to save the bridegroom from embarrassment for his own failure to adequately plan ahead?
Why would Mary get her kethōneth in a twist?
Who was this bridegroom to them that saving his face was so important?
Well, who was the bride?
Jesus’ kid sister?
The Gospel Of John doesn’t say, but it’s easy to imagine that apostle being eager to tell this story of Jesus’ first public miracle but at the same time not wanting to hurt the feelings of the holy brother-in-law or kid sister so he opts to refer to them anonymously.
This first miracle done, Jesus realizes there’s no point putting off the inevitable any longer, and heads out into the wilderness for his 40 days of fasting before launching his full time ministry.
 Though perhaps “kerfluffle” is too strong a word. “Ado” might be a better substitute, possibly “blather” though it certainly doesn’t reach the proportions of a full-fledged “brouhaha”.
 Judaism having a couple of lines of rabbinical thought that same sex relations between men was excusable provided the men were doing their religious / cultural duty by marrying women and producing children.
 Outlaw theologian Matthew Fox has speculated Jesus was a widower who had no offspring, which helps explains his enlightened view of women and children in his teachings. There’s nothing in scripture to specifically refute that, but neither is there anything that indicates it, either.
 Roman Catholic and some Orthodox Christian churches hold these were not biological children of Mary but either Joseph’s children from a previous marriage left orphaned, or cousins who for some reason were counted among Jesus’ household. There is nothing in the Bible to support either of those two ideas; they spring from the argument that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
 And we’re presuming a sudden death, not a lingering malady that may have rendered him incapable of supporting his family and having to rely on Jesus to run the carpentry shop on his own.
 While Matthew and Luke report that subsequent to this Jesus went into the wilderness to fast for 40 days and be tempted, only Mark indicates it happened “at once” after Jesus emerged from the Jordan river. “At once” is one of those terms that seems to mean one thing, but in reality is highly subjective and can be legitimately interpreted in a variety of ways; ask any mother / toddler combo what “pick up these toys at once” means and see what you get.
 From the frequent mention of wine and drunkards in the gospels, we can only assume that first century Judeans — Jesus’ followers in particular — were one hard drinkin’ crew.
 Indeed, Jesus later tells the parable of the Ten Foolish Virgins who get shut out of a wedding feast because of their lack of preparation.
 John jumps abruptly from the immediate aftermath of the wedding feast to a point two or three years later when Jesus’ ministry is in full bloom and he enters Jerusalem for his final week of confrontation with the Pharisees. Did John write a longer account and the middle was lost in transcription? Or did he just assume the three synoptic Gospels covered that part of the story well enough and chose to focus more on the death and resurrection? Good question, and one I have no answer for…(yet)
While not a great movie, Noah is certainly a good one, and it is certainly the hands down front runner for the title of weirdest Biblical picture ever made. You can’t drag the Nephilim into your story and hope to stay within the bounds of normalcy.
Kudos to director Darren Aronofsky and co-writer Ari Handel for moral complexity, unexpected plot twists, good restrained acting, and top notch production values. It follows the Biblical story closer than either the 1928 version or the 1966 version but it does add stuff that is not specifically excluded in the Bible story (such as how they kept all the animals quiet on the ark) and ends with a positive statement that we are most like God when we show mercy and love.
The middle portion is much stronger than the beginning and end, Anthony Hopkins steals the show as Methuselah, and the fallen angels vs. human army slugfest has gotta be the wildest scene ever filmed for a Biblical movie.
So why do so many people hate it, sight unseen?
A great many people objecting to it are doing so mostly because it says rapacious greed and treating humans like commodities are evil (there are hints of cannibalism in the film as Tubal-Cain’s army prepares to assault the ark). As servants of Mammon and not God, these critics are appalled at the mirror-like reflection Noah shows of contemporary culture, and as such they feel duty bound to condemn it.
Noah gets more into the why & wherefore of the flood than previous versions of the story, and in doing so casts it in a light that doesn’t make God seem to be a petty spoiled child who kicks over the sand castle when things don’t go His way but rather a just and loving creator who realizes that humanity is far from perfect but if there is to be any hope of saving us from ourselves it is to save those who desire to serve Him and His creation (including other humans) rather than those willing to consume the planet with their own greed, gluttony, and lust for power. That is what is driving the prejudice against this film.
God (referred to thru out as The Creator) is depicted as just and righteous, yet loving and merciful. The destruction of the world is a human process, the flood is a cleansing one from God.
Noah is willing to serve God, but in the process makes an erroneous but not wholly illogical assumption; he does not act on that assumption but shows love and mercy instead. This leads to his famous post-flood drinking binge because he feels he has failed God. In the end of the film Noah and his family realize the flood was not to punish the wicked but to save the just from the unjust, and that we are closest to the image of God when we show mercy and love.
So far all the objections I’ve seen have either been from false-flag extremists or nit-pickers who regard any deviation from what they believe to be true and factual as blasphemy.
Does Noah take liberties with details in the Genesis story?
Yes, but without undermining the moral & theological core of that story.
Does the film state there is a Creator God who has the moral right to judge humanity?
Does the film state mercy and love are the most God-like traits humans can hope to aspire to?
Once again, affirmative.
Does the film have the Nephilim in it (referred to as The Watchers in the movie)?
Yes, and I think a lot of people are bugged that somebody dared to depict them other than the way they had personally imagined them.
Has any movie ever followed the true Biblical account?
Movies are works of fiction using actors performing off scripts that are written and edited to form a dramatic whole; that’s why even with historical films we see events and characters dropped or melded together so that the underlying truth of the story can come through even if the actual facts can’t be emulated.
There have been hundreds of films based on various stories in the Bible. This is one of three big budget Hollywood productions based in whole or in part on the story of Noah.
What this movie does state clearly again and again is:
- There is a Creator responsible for everything
- This Creator has the moral right to judge His creation
- Even those who believe the Creator has abandoned them believe He exists
- A just God is more interested in saving the just (i.e., those willing to serve Him and His creation including the humans He has created) than in punishing the wicked
- We are never more God-like than when we shown mercy and love
Sounds like Biblical truth to me…
[1a] Some would argue Godspell deserves that title and I would not oppose anyone who chose to argue that point. But ultimately Godspell is a pretty straightforward adaptation of the Gospel of Matthew set in Manhattan with a troupe of circus performers adding song and dance to the otherwise intact text; it’s odd in appearance, not content. Noah is like the James Tissot of Biblical movies.
[1b] The question also arises as to just what is a Biblical movie? Godspell, despite its odd style, is clearly meant to be the actual story found in Matthew; Jesus Of Montreal, despite being one of the finest religious allegories ever made, is not the gospel story per se but a story about the gospel story; a fine distinction but a real one. And The Sign Of The Cross, the only religious based movie to give Noah a serious run for the title IMO, is technically not a Biblical movie even though it occurs during Paul’s time in Rome.
 That’s one of the things that makes this movie so weird for a Biblical film: It actually shows stuff that no other Biblical movie has shown before. I think the style of the presentation is what is bothering some folks, not the actual content.
 It’s certainly closer to the text than the 1925 version (which was forgiven its egregious departures because it was presented in a pious manner)or 1966 version (which was just an all around bad movie, no matter how sincere the film makers were). We shall not speak of the Disney adaptation with Donald Duck as Noah (admittedly a more even keeled Hollywood personality than Russell Crowe).
Creationism is one of the last sick remnants of slavery. In the days before the Civil War, northern Christian abolitionists cited the Golden Rule as reason to do away with slavery. Southern slave owners funded preachers and teachers who countered with literal readings of the Bible to not merely justify slavery but to denigrate African-Americans as inferior because they were descended from Ham, Noah’s son who was punished for telling his brothers that their father got drunk and was lying naked in his tent. 
The result was southern and rural western and midwestern churches (as dispossessed southerners moved out after the Civil War) who held to a false doctrine of Biblical literalism.
Recently the creationist position was
brutally sodomized mercilessly gutstomped given a pants down spanking bitch-slapped to a faretheewell demonstrated to be sadly lacking humiliatingly defeated bested in a much publicized debate.
But I do want to touch on part of the fallout, specifically this lady’s question from the creationist side.
The sunset question gets quite fascinating when you start to unpack it.
For starters, you can’t have a “sunset” without an observer:
Planets rotate all the time but unless someone is actually there to observe it there’s no sunset to see.
Further, a sunset is not so much a noun as a verb; it is more of an event than a thing. Observers on Earth placed a hundred miles apart on an east-west line would not see the same thing: One could still be in daylight, another in night while the one in the middle enjoyed the view.
Set them up on a north-south axis and while the rotation of the planet may cause the sun to appear to dip behind the horizon, one observer many be in a cloudless area and see nothing spectacular, another much further to the south may be in an overcast area and not even be able to see the sun, while someone between the two might have the optimum blend of light and just the right kind / number of clouds to observe a spectacular show.
Further still, enjoying a sunset is something pretty much limited to people with unimpaired vision: A terribly nearsighted person might perceive a smudge of color, a color blind person would see only shades of purple and grey, a blind person wouldn’t see anything at all (though they might sense the passing of the warmth of the sun’s rays on their skin).
Even humans with perfect (for our species) 20-20 vision are at a disadvantage. We see only three colors; our good friend the mantis shrimp sees sixteen! No human can even imagine what the mantis shrimp’s world must look like because no human is capable of visualizing those colors.
Further further still, only a human could look at a sunset and say “That’s beautiful.” A camera can record the light and the position of the sun and clouds relative to that vantage point on Earth, but a camera conveys no meaning. A person with no sense of aesthetics might see colors and details but not be able to put them together as “beauty”, likewise a person under some form of psychological stress might not appreciate the beauty that overawes their companion.
Clearly, the beauty of a sunset has much less to do with the Earth’s atmosphere and sun than it does with the state of consciousness of the observer.
Which, when you think about it,
is a pretty apt metaphor for
the religious experience.
We, and the materialists,
are experiencing the same set of sensory inputs;
we are just processing them differently.
This does not have to be a needless either/or proposition; there is nothing incompatible with faith in a a great metaphysical being/spirit/concept that is responsible for/links together everything in our universe and an understanding of the physical mechanics of that universe.
So, yeah, in a very real sense only God can make a sunset insofar as no religion postulates a theology where human consciousness is not in some fashion intrinsically linked to the divine.
 On the basis that since nobody wants to be a slave, ergo it must be wrong to own slaves.
 Slave owners plied both sides of the street, citing Darwin as biological proof to justify slavery.
 Personally, I prefer the term “plain text reading” as opposed to “literal” or even worse, “inerrant”. “Inerrant” means the theological teachings are without error, not that every word is literally true, but sloppy usage has confused the two terms in the minds of most people. Using the term “plain text reading” allows one to study the particular passage for its inherent meaning without requiring it to be 100% factual.
 And, technically, our sun never sets; it’s a relative fixed point to the real motion of the Earth, although the Sun itself and the Milky Way galaxy are all traveling through space on their own. I suppose ala Pitch Black there may be some double or triple star systems where one member actually does move behind another at some point, but that’s another topic for another time…
 Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, and William S. Burroughs excepted.
 The people who do make it incompatible generally tend to have a host of other hoops they require you to jump through for their benefit.
BuzzFeed (no relation) asked 22 creationists what they would like to ask people who believed in evolution.
I intended to do a reply, but these ladies were all over the creationists like ugly on an ape.
If you come from your parents,
why do you still have parents?
If that sounds like a dumb question,
consider that it’s exactly the same question.
There’s more — much, much more — and the snarkometer goes all the way to eleven. My hat’s off to Amanda Marcotte and Beth Spencer for administering the much need industrial strength arooga lift; I only wish I had moved faster to get in on the fun.
It’s amusing that one group of skeptics deride creationists for demanding science produce an unbroken fossil record for every single transitional form of every single species in order to accept evolution, while another group demands a greater degree of historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus than is required for any other historical figure.
The skeptic argument goes along the lines that if Christ didn’t really exist, then his whole ministry as presented in the Gospels is a hoax, and as such the whole Christian message is false.
Well, okay, but that still leaves one little problem:
Even if Christ didn’t exist, even if the Gospel accounts are bogus, somebody still created one of the most morally brilliant documents ever written.
And it’s brilliant because it works. A sincere follower of Christ finds their life drastically improved on a personal level, and typically by extension on a relational and societal level as well.
We’re not talking pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye here but real benefits that start as soon as Christian principles are put into application. The genuine, mature Christian leads a life with a lot less anxiety for status and possessions, a calmer life with less envy and strife with one’s neighbors, a life where compassion and empathy replace a desire to retaliate. It is by its very nature a more stable, charitable, and just life, and because of this it evokes a different sort of response from one’s family, friends, and acquaintances as well has having a positive effect on society as a whole.
It only takes a handful of sincere, dedicated Christians actually following the Gospel teachings to make a glorious positive impact on their community.
So if Jesus didn’t exist…if he never taught what it was reported he taught…
…those lessons still had to come from somebody…
…and whoever that person was,
they were clearly as moral a thinker
as the Christ of the Gospels was.
Robert A. Heinlein is one of the all time masters of sci-fi, and arguably the master of the time paradox story.
The time paradox story is a familiar but fun trope in sci-fi. The most basic form goes something like this:
A man finds a piece of paper with secret instructions / formulas / plans on it that he’s never seen / heard of / conceived before. He applies those instructions / formulas / plans and makes a fortune and / or creates a huge benefit to society. At some point in the future the original paper becomes torn and faded so the man copies the instructions / formulas / plans onto a new but otherwise identical sheet of paper, and then either that piece of paper gets sent back in time or his much younger self travels forward in time to get it and take it back.
Who created the original instructions / formulas / plans? Clearly not the man who found them, for they were already fully formed when he saw them for the first time.
WhereWhen then did they originate?
Substitute “Gospel” for “instructions / formulas / plans” and you see the problem as it relates to Christianity.
All right, for the sake of argument Christ did not exist:
Where then did his teachings originate?
Some hoaxster trying to manipulate the masses? For what end? The very nature of the Gospel precludes a quest for fame, power, and wealth. None of the earliest church figures enjoyed much in the way of status. Who would create a bogus religion to sucker the masses that would only benefit some as yet unborn generation of leaders who might not even be related to the hoaxster, and then only if the hoax took root and flourished long after the originator died?
The argument is made that Christianity was a psychological weapon created by the Romans to help subjugate the Jewish population by getting them to believe a false story about a non-existent messiah who taught a lesson radically at odds with both their tradition and history in order to make them more submissive to Roman rule.
To which one can only respond: Really?
A culture notorious for its heavy handedness, its lack of original philosophical and psychological insight, its elaborate and intricate pagan tradition would somehow figure out what made the Jewish people tick and successfully promote to that alien culture an idea equally alien to both the empire and its subjects? That’s like saying the communists championed the idea of supply side economics in order to dupe capitalism into destroying itself.
Another argument skeptics put forth is that the Gospel teachings evolved from previous Jewish theological thought without leaving a race in the extensive rabbinical writings of the time, that despite dozens-going-on-hundreds of well documented Jewish scholars and rabbis writing & arguing & debating fine points of religion no one tracked this train of thought as it sharply veered off the tracks of mainstream Jewish theology and into a wholly new religious expression.
I mean, we can see the gradual build up to the Protestant reformation in the history of the Western church, and long before Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the doors there had been others who argued (and were persecuted, and suffered, and died) for the same or similar points.
There’s no similar line of footprints leading up to Christianity. It’s suddenly…there…and while one can find links to the past, they are trivial in comparison to the radical break with that same past.
Hard proof of Christ’s existence we do not have, but we do have Occam’s Razor:
Either some unknown individual or committee created the Gospel teachings out of whole cloth and in a vacuum, or else there was a first century rabbi whom we know today as Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was pretty much sui generis and who taught basically the same things as recorded in the four Gospels.
There are no other reasonable explanations…
 Seriously, Jesus is better documented than Hannibal, and nobody doubts Hannibal was real or that he led an army of elephants across the Alps.
 This still leaves the Old Testament intact, but that’s a debate for another day…
 That in and of itself would require almost God-like omniscience.
 Not to mention the fact that it didn’t work, and that the very people it was supposed to subjugate instead exploded into open rebellion requiring direct military action and a forceful political solution. That would make Christianity not only a psy-war plan that didn’t work, but one that loses its entire raison d’etre in the process, and yet somehow manages to blindly continue on to influence literally millions of people into believing it’s true!
 Oh, the irony of that phrase…
 And, yes, let it be stipulated that Christ — be he real or fictitious — did not overtly come to start a new religion but to cleanse and reform the Jewish faith already in existence. Nonetheless, the difference between what he reportedly taught as compared to what had been taught by others before and contemporary to his reported time is so vast a gap that those teachings could only form the basis of a new religion, not reform a hidebound one set in its ways.
 And it’s easy to understand the comfort many find in that thought: If it is a hoax or just some nice ideas cobbled together by a bunch of anonymous editors then one need feel no compelling reason to regard it seriously enough to bother changing one’s life in order to follow it. If it’s all just a pretty fiction then one can go on behaving pretty much as one damn well feels like instead of making inconvenient personal changes in order to would produce a better quality of life not only for oneself but for those in the community at large. And believing the Gospel teachings to be true and valid in no way requires one to believe in the carrot-or-stick of Heaven or hell; one can follow the teachings of Christ for no other reason than to live justly and abundantly and peacefully with one’s neighbors.
 At least to the same degree as the Buddha or Mohammed or Gandhi were sui generis in their cultures and eras.
Without the ability to choose to do or not do a moral act, there can be no morality.
A moral act is an act that prevents harm.
Harm is anything that hinders the right and ability of others to make moral choices.
At the simplest, most basic level, a moral act is preserving the life of another person.
A firefighter performs a moral act by rescuing a victim from a fire.
A parent performs a moral act by caring for their child.
At a more nuanced level, a moral act is promoting the ability of another person to make good, informed moral choices.
An educator performs a moral act by passing along knowledge that helps others make good, informed moral choices.
What is moral for one may not be moral for another; an act that is moral under one set of circumstances may not be moral under another.
A thief who steals bread to feed their family has committed a moral act by preventing their family from starving. However, it is an immoral act insofar as depriving a baker of their property without compensation hinders, to however small a degree, the ability of the baker to make moral choices of their own by depriving them of the material that gives them the ability to live and thus the ability to make moral choices of their own.
It is possible for a person to commit what they genuinely believe is a moral act that nonetheless has harmful repercussions.
It is possible for a person to knowingly commit an immoral act that nonetheless will result in enabling others to make good, informed moral choices.
It is possible for a person to commit an immoral act yet genuinely justify it in their own opinion as moral.
It is possible for a person to commit a moral act that some other person will then use to enable them to commit an immoral act.
All things considered equal, the greatest moral act is the one that enables the most people to make the best, most informed moral choices for the longest period of time.
It has been said “give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach someone to fish and they will eat tomorrow.” That is not an either / or proposition: If someone will starve today without a fish, feed them a fish then teach them to fish so they may feed themselves in the future.
Anyone who denies another person a necessity of life so that the denier may live in greater luxury is committing an immoral act.
Anyone who initiates an action without considering the long term repercussions is at the very least behaving recklessly. A moral act today may nonetheless cause harm to others in the future; the person committing the moral act needs to consider possible consequences and to think ahead of what they will need to do to mitigate any potential harm.
No one should interfere with the non-harmful actions or behaviors of others.
One may justify interference in another person’s actions if those actions are causing harm to a third party without their fully informed consent. A trained martial artist gives their fully informed consent before beginning a sanctioned match with another trained martial artist; an untrained victim does not give fully informed consent to a surprise attack by a robber.
Harming someone to prevent them from harming others is justifiable only in acute, clear cut cases: Striking down a shooter firing into a crowd of school children is justifiable insofar as it spares innocent lives, putting a robber in prison is justifiable insofar as it prevents them from committing more robberies while incarcerated.
What would be best, of course, is to be aware of others to the degree that one can spot potential trouble before it occurs, and to take steps to prevent someone from harming others without harming them in the process.
There is a difference between directly causing harm, indirectly causing harm, and potentially causing harm.
Preventing someone from harming a third party today does little good if no steps are taken to prevent harm from befalling that third party in the future. The immediate acute problem is taken care of, to be sure, but if a chronic long term problem still exists, that needs to be addressed as well.
Sometimes all that can be done at the moment is to handle the immediate problem.
Sometimes one can do nothing about the immediate problem, but can take steps that will help the third party in the future; then all one can do is hope and have faith that the third party will be able to enjoy the benefits of those steps when the time comes.
Ultimately, there can be no morality at all without a realization that we are all connected to everyone else in the human race, and that everyone else is just as entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as we are, not one iota more, not one iota less.