BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Pilgrimagain]

Settle down people.

Check my posts very carefully. I never once called God a murderer. I asked a question about the Israelites to get the conversation going.

Obviously what ever God does is the right thing because God is the very definition of righteousness and goodness. But there are things we read in scripture that had anyone else commanded, we would be tempted to cry foul at. So where is the difference?

I think this conversation will help in the debate about morality. What I was hoping to get at was the nature of God, the Character of God. Perhaps our definitions of murder are wierd as well. Certainly some of the things Israel did would appear to the outsider to be un just. Even some of the things God did. As people of faith, however, we try to see a certain justice in those actions and when we can not we rely on our understanding of God being all good and have faith that in the end we will understand.

If we can better explain this faith, make a good argument for it, we will go a long way towards convincing someone like Zakath of a morality that is higher than us.

Zakath always points to a God that would kill innocent babies and we never seem to have a good answer for him. All I am trying to do is get us thinking about that question and building a case for absolute morality from the possitive or proactive stance rather than the negative or reactive stance.

Does that make sense?

And Freak, feel free. He already knows all about you and the conversations we have had in the past. In the mean time, feel free to talk with me rather than making threats. By the way, I liked some of your latest posts on other threads.

Pilgrim

 

[LordBinkus]

Knight has not made his case

Knight has not made his case

I really don't understand Knight's position. He claims that he can prove that there is "absolute morality." In the beginning of the debate he defined this as a morality that somehow transcends human morality. This was not terribly enlightening, and, as far as I am aware, he has not further defined the term "absolute morality." In any case, Knight has failed to show that such a morality exists, which was supposedly the point of this debate. He has asked Zak to say whether he believes a specific set of actions in a specific circumstance is absolutely wrong or not. Regardless of how horrible these actions are and regardless of how Zak answers the question, his answer would not demonstrate that an "absolute morality" actually existed. Zak's opinon of the rightness or wrongness of a particular set of actions in a particular circumstance, no matter how horrible those actions are, would represent Zak's opinion. If Zak believes, and if Knight believes that certain actions are "absolutely" wrong, this would not show anything other than their subjective opinions on the matter. Their opinions would not demonstrate the existence of "absolute morality." Knight could pose any number of hypothetical situations and ask Zak's opinon of them, but this would never advance Knight's case.

In conclusion, Knight has failed to show that an "absolute morality," a morality above and beyond human morality, actually exists. He has failed to accomplish what he claims he has accomplished.

By the way, the biblical god murders children and tortures people for eternity for their thoughts. Are murder and torture morally good if the Christian god commits them? If Christians agree that murder and torture are good when their god does them, does this make Christians moral relativists?

One more question (for Christians): Is there any moral atrocity you would refuse to commit if your god asked you to commit it?

Mr. Binkus

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Oh yeah, about the fool thing...

Matthe 5:21ff. (NASB)
21 " You have heard that the ancients were told, ' YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

You were pretty quick to jump all over me. Maybe you might want to consider a more gentle spirit. Or at least a more discerning one. Anger is indeed sometime justified but I think too often on here (And I know I am really guilty of this one) we get angry way to fast.

Pilgrim

 

[LordBinkus]

P.S.

P.S.

One more thing-before you get enraged that I called the Christian god a murderer, realize that I don't think this god exists. I think it is a fictional being, and I am trying to make a point. I am not trying to be unecessarily obnoxious.

Binky

 

[Eireann]

I do believe in God, and I don't believe he is a murderer either. But most Christians consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority on the interpretation of God. The God of the bible (who I don't believe exists -- my God is much more loving, I hope) allegedly ordered such atrocities. The god of the Bible is a murderer by default. But I don't believe God is a murderer, because I don't believe in the god of the Bible.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by marcelpo
>>Could you describe the color "orange" for me, without showing me it? <<

Sure.

"An electromagnetic wave that is the solution to the Maxwell equations in vacuum with a wavelength of between 680nm and 660nm."

I know that light of this frequency absolutely exists because my SPECTRAL ANALYZER (a measurement device) detects it.

Try again though.

Thanks for the information, but what does it look like.

Nice try though.

 

[Valmoon]

Nice try? His answer was much better then your silly follow up.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Valmoon
Nice try? His answer was much better then your silly follow up.

All he gave me was information on the color "orange" I want to know what it looks like. How will I KNOW "orange" once I see it. You could show me a color and tell me it's orange, but that's only from your point of view, right? How could you prove to me that it's aboslutely orange, and not some other color?

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

Actually, they are exactly the opposite. If there is anything that is absolute in this area, it is ethics. Sit in on any basic philosophy class and they will explain the difference. It is one of the first things they teach.

Morals deal with acts and behaviors, societal norms
Ethics deal with motives and internal causes, feeings, right/wrong

There is no actual or behavioral difference between killing and murder. The difference is in motive. But both combatants insist on using murder as a standard for morality, so I'm using their examples. If they were both using academic definitions of morality, then murder would be a moot point, since murder is not a moral issue, but an ethical issue. The moral issue would be the normality or lawfulness of killing.

No, ethics is relative since society makes up the rules. So if the vote was rigged it wouldn't be wrong if the majority wanted it rigged. Democracy rules.

ac

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
All he gave me was information on the color "orange" I want to know what it looks like. How will I KNOW "orange" once I see it. You could show me a color and tell me it's orange, but that's only from your point of view, right? How could you prove to me that it's aboslutely orange, and not some other color?

Goose,

Are you sure that he gave you information? I think that he just said that because he wants to take over the world...After all, he doesn't have any proof.
ac

duck..duck..duck............GOOSE!

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by anna


No, ethics is relative since society makes up the rules. So if the vote was rigged it wouldn't be wrong if the majority wanted it rigged. Democracy rules.

ac

We didn't fiddle around with the votes. But if we did, would it be absolutely wrong? How many different opinions would it take to make it right?

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by anna


Goose,

Are you sure that he gave you information? I think that he just said that because he wants to take over the world...After all, he doesn't have any proof.
ac

duck..duck..duck............GOOSE!

*Quack!* You're right. I'm not even sure if I exist, come to think of it. :doh: :crackup:

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
*Quack!* You're right. I'm not even sure if I exist, come to think of it. :doh: :crackup:

You are not I ....I am I and I am me and you are you. Got it?
(assuming you exist)
Oh and BTW I voted for Knight because I FELT like it. No...I voted for Knight because the MAJORITY voted for Knight.
I love peer pressure!
:crackup:
ac

 

[Lion]

Because of the "cause" clause.

Because of the "cause" clause.

Pil-Anyone that claims that they are a Christian and then says something like what you said, is a fool. Now that doesn’t mean you have to stay a fool (and by your last post where you are trying to get out of what you said it looks like you have reconsidered).

Did I get angry? Yes. I get angry when Christians misquote the Bible that badly, thereby helping the lost continue on their way to hell.

You say you did it on purpose?

And how does that help someone like “Z”? It does nothing more than speed him on his way down… and believe me he’s going that way fast enough without your help.

Oh and by the way;

Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

The context demands that you add the without cause clause to each statement in this verse so that it would read;

Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, without a cause ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, without a cause ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Your translation sort of left that without a cause part out.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Goose
We didn't fiddle around with the votes. But if we did, would it be absolutely wrong? How many different opinions would it take to make it right?

The sky is green and the grass is blue.
ac
:angel:

 

[anna]

Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Originally posted by Lion
Pil-Anyone that claims that they are a Christian and then says something like what you said, is a fool. Now that doesn’t mean you have to stay a fool (and by your last post where you are trying to get out of what you said it looks like you have reconsidered).

Did I get angry? Yes. I get angry when Christians misquote the Bible that badly, thereby helping the lost continue on their way to hell.

You say you did it on purpose?

And how does that help someone like “Z”? It does nothing more than speed him on his way down… and believe me he’s going that way fast enough without your help.

Oh and by the way;

The context demands that you add the without cause clause to each statement in this verse so that it would read;

Your translation sort of left that without a cause part out.

Was he using the New Century version?
I once had a NCV that had that same misquote. It could be a common error in the translation.
ac
Oh..NASB version..well still it could be a translation error.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


No, ethics is relative since society makes up the rules. So if the vote was rigged it wouldn't be wrong if the majority wanted it rigged. Democracy rules.

ac

The key word here is "rules." Ethics aren't rules, morals are rules. Morals are behavioral codes (not thought codes), thus they are external and shaped by society. Ethics are internal. Morals are the external application of ethics. Morals are relative because society shapes how we apply those ethics. Society may or may not shape the ethics themselves. That's a topic for another discussion. This one is about morals only. Many people are failing to make a distinction between the two, but in fact the distinction is very important when dealing with issues of relativism vs. absolutism. Morals govern what is normal or not normal, not what is right or wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say that, because I'm obviously not dealing with academic people here, am I? That's unfortunate, because if more of you were aware of the academic and scholarly definitions of morals and ethics, then fewer of you would be falling all over yourselves to muddy those waters.

 

[marcelpo]

>>All he gave me was information on the color "orange" I want to know what it looks like. How will I KNOW "orange" once I see it. You could show me a color and tell me it's orange, but that's only from your point of view, right? How could you prove to me that it's aboslutely orange, and not some other color?<<

I can't because what you SEE could be different from what I see. A colorblind (for red, say) person doesn't see the color red like we do. Science has proven that they cannot distuingish the color red from an equally intense color grey.

Second, what you see in this world is an interpretation made by your visual cortex. Therefore I cannot show you the color orange because the color "orange" is an INTERPRETATION made by your brain of the information provided by your eye.

What I can prove is that light of a certain frequency exists. What your visual cortex does when that light falls into your eyes is something else entirely because people whos visual cortex is damaged might see things differently.

If you don't believe me, then you should try magic mushrooms and see what happens to the world.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by marcelpo
A colorblind (for red, say) person doesn't see the color red like we do. Science has proven that they cannot distuingish the color red from an equally intense color grey.

I have a friend who is completely colorblind. He has learned to distinguish all sorts of subtle hues according to the intensity of the grey he sees. I can show him a piece of light green pastel paper and a piece of equally light blue pastel (I can't tell the difference in the greytones of the two sheets -- I tried by looking at them through a greytoned camera), but he could tell them apart easily. We used to take him out after dark with a walkie-talkie and put him in a dark area between street lights, and he would tell us the colors of cars passing by. We would wait until the car got under the light near us, and I'll be darned if he wasn't right every single time. It really blew our minds! Amazing.

By the way, blind people can also tell the difference between different colored sheets of paper by the way it feels. Supposedly the heat radiated by different colors is subtly detectable in the fingertips. When people are forced to rely on their sense of touch to compensate for not having eyesight, they can apparently consciously tell the difference in such things. That is actually the scientific principle behind the tarot cards, too. It is the reason they work the way they do when they are properly done.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Originally posted by Lion
Pil-Anyone that claims that they are a Christian and then says something like what you said, is a fool. Now that doesn’t mean you have to stay a fool (and by your last post where you are trying to get out of what you said it looks like you have reconsidered).


The context demands that you add the without cause clause to each statement in this verse so that it would read;

Your translation sort of left that without a cause part out.

Lion, if you use the KJV only you would add the without just cause. Even then, the grammar does not carry it over for the whole pericope because of the "but' which indicates a new line of thought. (Jaltus just went round about with that one on another thread.) But that's beside the point because the clause "with out cause" is a late edition to the text and is not carried by the oldest and best manuscripts. This is why text critical work is so important. Check at the NA27 (Nestle-Alland Novum Testamentum Graece) and look at the variants yourself (if you understand Greek and the critical apparatus contained in the NA27 that is) and you will see why the only versions that carried "without cause" are the KJV and the NKJV.

My point is that in this entire argument, none of us has said why we are right, only why Zakath is wrong. I think a proactive argument would be a more effective one.

You were wrong about my intent and jumped to conclusions. You attributed to me a statement I never made and attacked it (known as the strawman) if you want to leave it there then so be it. I had hoped, however, that having made myself clear, that we as brothers in Christ would be able to find some grace or charity between us so that we could do as the rest of the passage in Matthew tells us, and come to the Lord's table honestly.

Pilgrim