.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Big Picture

'Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons.' -- Vizzini from "The Princess Bride"

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Rhology and Morality

A while back Rhology challenged me to respond to a thesis of his. I did. He then challenged me to respond to a moral situation. I did, here.

He then wrote a non-rebuttal rebuttal (read the comments --ignore mine for obvious reasons -- they are hilarious). I responded on his blog. But along the way I re-challenged him to examine his theistic morals/morality.

His response:

..Crickets chirping..

I really did not think my meager challenge would amount to much, because of its sheer simplicity. But maybe simplicity is the hardest thing to refute after all. Occam's razor and all that.

Here was my simple and meager challenge:
And finally. Here is my situation. You believe in the Ten Commandments I presume. One of which is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Now presume your neighbor is married. His wife comes to your door; she is bloodied, barely conscious, obviously been hit by a baseball bat (or other blunt instrument) and says to you, protect me, my husband is trying to kill me. So you bring her in and give her all the aid you can, and call the police. Then your neighbor comes banging at your door, he has a gun and a bloody baseball bat. "Do you know where my $%@$#$ wife is?" Do you bear false witness against the wife and tell your neighbor, "No." Or do you tell the truth that she is inside (and the police are coming)? Sometimes lying is a good thing, but you would never know that from the Ten Commandments. Another example is a parent who sexually abuses their child. Should that child submit to the abuse and be right under the fifth Commandment that all children should "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you". Or should the child dishonor their parent and bring to light the evil that that parent does and therefore violate God's unequivical dictate?
Because it was buried within the comments of a post Rhology had been responding to, but is now ignoring, I will assume he did not read it. So I will pull it forward and open it up to everyone. What are your thoughts?

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

At April 17, 2008 8:44 AM, Blogger Rhology said...

The short answer is that this evil man is not my neighbor. He has disqualified himself socially and biblically from that. I will bear false witness to this evil man and incidentally do good by protecting the innocent.
This question shows as much depth of thinking as your other comments in our interactions.

The best part is that your worldview would have to lead you to the conclusion that saying no she's not here versus raping and killing her yourself are both devoid of any objective moral value. Neither is right, neither is wrong. You're in a tough spot to be setting out moral quandaries for others.

Peace,
Rhology

 
At April 17, 2008 10:27 PM, Blogger jeffperado said...

Great answer, not your "neighbor".

I find it amazing that Christians can dodge absolutely anything and still pretend to maintain any sort of self-purported rationality.

How do you do that? It must be an amazing feeling to have rationalizations for everything and evidence for nothing.

I have to say I was amused by your answer. Thank goodness I dumped Christianity for a more rational and moral view of the world.

 
At April 17, 2008 10:34 PM, Blogger jeffperado said...

P.S. and what that other commandment I mentioned. Should I write up a big ol' post about how you dodged the question and provided no substance at all?

Oh, wait, you already did that. I would just be copycatting you.

Rhology, learn one thing. Even the bible told you this. Live by the sword and die by the sword.

You, being a hold person of God, should at least live by God's sword. Your dodge is admirable in that you you ignore the absurdity of the bible while still claiming to cling to it, but it does not work on a discussion level as it is wholly dishonest. I, as I pointed out, have risen and even surpassed every challenge you laid out for me. I responded to every point fully and with well thought-out responses. That you didn't like them is immaterial. Your childish and petty tauntings and wah-wah-ing that I responded in a way that you could not respond to does not make my responses weak, only that you are incapable of coming up with worthwile and valid counter-arguments.

 
At April 18, 2008 5:15 AM, Blogger Rhology said...

Make the argument. Show that you even begin to understand my answer.

How is a neighbor defined, biblically? What is the believer's obligations to violent men?

Start there and justify your disdain of my answer.

 
At April 18, 2008 11:23 AM, Blogger jeffperado said...

bzzt...

Try again. I only report what the bible says. You as a believer in it, bear the burden of defining it.

Either play by the rules or admit defeat and move on.

 
At April 22, 2008 9:54 PM, Blogger jeffperado said...

Rhology, I've noticed that you've been completely silent since I called you out.

So I will make this easy for you. You asked me, "What is the believer's obligations to violent men?"

Well look up in the bible how "believers" view David, Joshua, the rest of the kings, judges and leaders in the Old Testament. What about Peter? According to the Gospel of John he cut off a man's ear. Certainly you can see that killing and maiming are violent acts. That makes these men violent. What are your views of them?

So I can make your challenge -- that you still have yet to answer to -- even more difficult. Suppose that that neighbor was a baptist preacher, and his wife had just renounced Christianity, declaring herself to be an atheist. Now we have violence of a biblical scale.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home