ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Nathon Detroit]

fool, you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously.... you may be the only person (beside allsmilies and Granite) that isn't laughing at your silly argument!

The following post will show beyond any doubt that fool is only fooling himself. (and of course fooling allsmilies and Granite - misery loves company)

fool states...

So you're saying it's not absolutly wrong to butcher an infant or have sex with your sister.
This blows a neat hole in the absolutism you like to espouse. You're unable to condemn an act unless you first know who comanded the act. That's relativism, just admit you're a relativist and I'll let you go.

fool states this because he called into Bob's show and attempted to trick Bob by asking Bob a question in an intentionally vague and misleading way.

fool asked Bob... "Would it be OK for me to butcher a baby", Bob rightly answered "no". To which fool still thinks he has caught Bob in a moral dilemma since God has commanded such things in warfare in the Old Testament. fool thinks that because God has commanded entire villages to be wiped out, then killing babies must not be absolutely wrong.

fool... let me "hip" you up to something.... your argument isn't a good one.

And let me explain why....

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance. In other words, fool could have updated his question and asked.... "Bob is it OK for me to blow up babies with a bomb?" Bob might have responded.... "No, of course not." or Bob might have guessed fool's intentions and responded "Well, if you are in a war you might be forced to blow up babies in an effort to defeat your enemy." Would fool have caught Bob in a moral dilemma or caught Bob promoting moral relativism? Of course not!

The circumstance of warfare is paramount to the discussion. Having a different set of standards for warfare and peace time is NOT a description of moral relativism. fool, moral relativism would be if someone acknowledged the specific circumstance and THEN made the claim it wasn't necessarily wrong. In other words.... you wouldn't be promoting moral relativism until you argued that in a specific situation the morality was relative to individuals. I.e., the moral absolutist states.... it is absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than the self satisfaction of taking the babies life. The moral relativist would argue.... it is NOT absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than self satisfaction of taking the babies life. Did you get that fool? The relativist must stay relative in light of the specifics. And that's the rub.

If there are still folks out there that think fool is making a good argument lets drive the point home even further.

Let's assume fool had his own radio program, lets call it "fool Live". Lets imagine a show that goes something like this....

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: :shocked: "Uh... caller... no. Maybe you should seek mental attention."

Robert: "Why?"

fool: "Because it's murder to stab a woman with a knife!"

Robert: "But I am a doctor, and the woman needs heart surgery."

Did the caller demonstrate that fool has a discrepancy in his world view??? Is anyone compelled to believe that fool thinks its attempted murder to perform heart surgery? Of course not!!! It was very reasonable for fool to assume the caller wasn't asking a trick question. All of this is just plain silly and it's no different than the grade school line of reasoning that fool is using with Bob.

Want even further proof????

Let's assume that fool figured out what the caller was up to and answered him differently.

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: "Well... if you are a surgeon and the woman is your patient who needs treatment then it would not only be OK for you to open up her chest with a knife it would be GOOD thing!"

Would anyone in their right mind think that fool is advocating an immoral act? Of course not!!! Due to the fact that the caller gave a vague and ambiguous example, fool could have rightly answered it either way. The question of absolutes would not have come into the conversation until the circumstances were more properly defined.

fool, the jig is up, and it has been since you started all of this. Didn't you wonder why Bob answered the question differently than I did online? Why was that? Maybe it was because online you supplied me the circumstances yet you withheld the specifics from Bob. :doh:

All in all fool you have proved nothing except you have a hard time critically thinking through your own argument which is fatally flawed.

 

[On Fire]

"A fools foolishness only fools fools."

 

[GuySmiley]

All in all fool you have proved nothing except you have a hard time critically thinking through your own argument which is fatally flawed.

I disagree. I think fool knows all about the fatal flaws in his argument. I think he has some hatred of Bob Enyart for some reason and is willing to give up his integrity in order to try to make Bob look bad.

As evidence you can see how he changes the context when someone admits they'd follow God's command. Suddenly you want to 'butcher' babies left and right and are a moral relativist. His constant use of the word butcher, etc is more evidence that even he knows his argument is weak, otherwise he wouldn't have to use inflamitory language.

He criticizes Bob for using the terms 'bring to the next stage' while he insists on using his own inflamitory language. Now fool can point at Bob and say, "Well he did it too!" but Bob has admitted that in the past he preached a sermon called "When God kills kids." So if anyone is hiding behind terminology, its fool.

Guess what, I think that stealing food is wrong. However, in a war, I would take food from my enemies to feed my troops. Am I a moral relativist?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I disagree. I think fool knows all about the fatal flaws in his argument.

Really?

I actually think fool thinks he has a point. I would like to give him more credit than that (as you do) but after listening to the shows and reading his posts on TOL I honestly think he really believes he is making a good point. :doh:

 

[Servo]

Knight's post = :first:

 

[PureX]

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance.

Well, actually, no it's not. The meaning of the word "absolute" implies that the state of being absolute is NOT determined by any external conditions or circumstances. An absolute state is self-determined (think of infinity - can there be degrees of infinity, or relative states of infinity? No, because infinity is an absolute state). So "absolute" morality would not be determined by external conditions or circumstances, as you have claimed, here. "Absolute morality" would by definition be self-determined and unconditional.

The real problem that Bob has that I see, is that he has set himself up as the man who interprets the bible for the rest of us, and then defines God and morality and holiness and righteousness for the rest of us, based on the assumption that he interprets the bible more accurately than we do. Bob has decided that he knows who God is and what God wants better than we do, and so has taken it upon himself to explain who God is and what God wants to the rest of us. This is the fundimental flaw of all evangelists, because in the end they have nothing to base this assumption on but the convitvtion of their own egos.

How can anyone prove that they know God better than anyone else? And if they can't prove it, why are they living by such an arrogant pretense?

My question for Bob would have been: how does Bob know that he understands God better than we do, and if he doesn't know this, why is he behaving as if he does?

But I guess this question belongs on the other thread with fool's question.

 

[GuySmiley]

Really?

I actually think fool thinks he has a point. I would like to give him more credit than that (as you do) but after listening to the shows and reading his posts on TOL I honestly think he really believes he is making a good point. :doh:

I might have been to hasty, but I have noticed that fools posts concerning Bob Enyart have reached almost ThePhy-like levels of anger. I like fool generally and most of the time I think he has honest arguments that any rational person would want answered. My favorite quote from fool during the shows was "You can go ahead and think of me as a question asking machine." Thats what I typically like about fool, he has questions that anyone should have. But after talking with Bob, he comes back to TOL and makes post like this. Which makes me think he just can't be reasonable in regards to Bob Enyart. But you know, as a write this, I suppose fool really could believe he has a serious point.

 

[fool]

fool, you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously.... you may be the only person (beside allsmilies and Granite) that isn't laughing at your silly argument!

The following post will show beyond any doubt that fool is only fooling himself. (and of course fooling allsmilies and Granite - misery loves company)

fool states...fool states this because he called into Bob's show and attempted to trick Bob by asking Bob a question in an intentionally vague and misleading way.

fool asked Bob... "Would it be OK for me to butcher a baby", Bob rightly answered "no". To which fool still thinks he has caught Bob in a moral dilemma since God has commanded such things in warfare in the Old Testament. fool thinks that because God has commanded entire villages to be wiped out, then killing babies must not be absolutely wrong.

fool... let me "hip" you up to something.... your argument isn't a good one.

And let me explain why....

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance. In other words, fool could have updated his question and asked.... "Bob is it OK for me to blow up babies with a bomb?" Bob might have responded.... "No, of course not." or Bob might have guessed fool's intentions and responded "Well, if you are in a war you might be forced to blow up babies in an effort to defeat your enemy." Would fool have caught Bob in a moral dilemma or caught Bob promoting moral relativism? Of course not!

The circumstance of warfare is paramount to the discussion. Having a different set of standards for warfare and peace time is NOT a description of moral relativism. fool, moral relativism would be if someone acknowledged the specific circumstance and THEN made the claim it wasn't necessarily wrong. In other words.... you wouldn't be promoting moral relativism until you argued that in a specific situation the morality was relative to individuals. I.e., the moral absolutist states.... it is absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than the self satisfaction of taking the babies life. The moral relativist would argue.... it is NOT absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than self satisfaction of taking the babies life. Did you get that fool? The relativist must stay relative in light of the specifics. And that's the rub.

If there are still folks out there that think fool is making a good argument lets drive the point home even further.

Let's assume fool had his own radio program, lets call it "fool Live". Lets imagine a show that goes something like this....

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: :shocked: "Uh... caller... no. Maybe you should seek mental attention."

Robert: "Why?"

fool: "Because it's murder to stab a woman with a knife!"

Robert: "But I am a doctor, and the woman needs heart surgery."

Did the caller demonstrate that fool has a discrepancy in his world view??? Is anyone compelled to believe that fool thinks its attempted murder to perform heart surgery? Of course not!!! It was very reasonable for fool to assume the caller wasn't asking a trick question. All of this is just plain silly and it's no different than the grade school line of reasoning that fool is using with Bob.

Want even further proof????

Let's assume that fool figured out what the caller was up to and answered him differently.

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: "Well... if you are a surgeon and the woman is your patient who needs treatment then it would not only be OK for you to open up her chest with a knife it would be GOOD thing!"

Would anyone in their right mind think that fool is advocating an immoral act? Of course not!!! Due to the fact that the caller gave a vague and ambiguous example, fool could have rightly answered it either way. The question of absolutes would not have come into the conversation until the circumstances were more properly defined.

fool, the jig is up, and it has been since you started all of this. Didn't you wonder why Bob answered the question differently than I did online? Why was that? Maybe it was because online you supplied me the circumstances yet you withheld the specifics from Bob. :doh:

All in all fool you have proved nothing except you have a hard time critically thinking through your own argument which is fatally flawed.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Knight.
You still haven't listened to the show? If you did you should check your hearing. Bob spotted the possiblity that it might be a trap ( I have already pointed this out to you in the foolish question thread) And he answered with reference to intent. If you kill a child when bombing a city that's not murder cause killing the child isn't your intent. Destroying the city is. But if your intent is to kill the child then that's murder. This has been pointed out to you by me in the Ask Knight thread when you tried the same angle. I pointed it out to you again in the the foolish question thread http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1071773&postcount=95
If Bob does teach a sermon on this then you would think he would condition his response to be "it's murder, unless Yaweh tells you to do it."
Oh by the way your analogy is flawed cause "Robert " is a surgeon and his work will save someone whereas your work in Joshuas army is going to kill them, that's your goal.
The only difference between you and any other murderer is you think you're doing Yawehs will. The act is the same, the result the same, a dead child. So your analogy is so flawed it's dishonest.

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance

So you say morality is relative to the circumstances. Thanks for conceding the debate.
Oh and by the way, why another thread? you couldn't just jump into one of the other two going on the subject? Trying to spread me out in the hopes you can score some cheap points? I'll remind you I invited you to call the show when I had a appearence scheduled, I was man enough to take you both on during one show but here we see both of you can't take me in one thread.

 

[On Fire]

fool. Get over yourself. You have NOT singlehandedly overthrown Christianity.

 

[bob b]

Well, actually, no it's not. The meaning of the word "absolute" implies that the state of being absolute is NOT determined by any external conditions or circumstances. An absolute state is self-determined (think of infinity - can there be degrees of infinity, or relative states of infinity?.

I hate to burst your bubble, but in mathematics there are different degrees of infinity.

 

[Lucky]

What's relative to the circumstances is whether the killing is murder or just killing. Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not. What the Israelites did was not murder.

 

[avatar382]

Well, actually, no it's not. The meaning of the word "absolute" implies that the state of being absolute is NOT determined by any external conditions or circumstances. An absolute state is self-determined (think of infinity - can there be degrees of infinity, or relative states of infinity? No, because infinity is an absolute state). So "absolute" morality would not be determined by external conditions or circumstances, as you have claimed, here. "Absolute morality" would by definition be self-determined and unconditional.

The real problem that Bob has that I see, is that he has set himself up as the man who interprets the bible for the rest of us, and then defines God and morality and holiness and righteousness for the rest of us, based on the assumption that he interprets the bible more accurately than we do. Bob has decided that he knows who God is and what God wants better than we do, and so has taken it upon himself to explain who God is and what God wants to the rest of us. This is the fundimental flaw of all evangelists, because in the end they have nothing to base this assumption on but the convitvtion of their own egos.

How can anyone prove that they know God better than anyone else? And if they can't prove it, why are they living by such an arrogant pretense?

My question for Bob would have been: how does Bob know that he understands God better than we do, and if he doesn't know this, why is he behaving as if he does?

But I guess this question belongs on the other thread with fool's question.

PureX, you beat me to it. I was about to post a rebuttal saying basically what you have stated here.

Knight, the statement "it is absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than the self satisfaction of taking the babies life" is conditional - on motive.

Believe it or not, you have actually stated the case for relative morality.

Knight: Is it absolutely wrong to kill a baby?

If so, then the killing of babies is ALWAYS morally wrong.

 

[fool]

fool. Get over yourself. You have NOT singlehandedly overthrown Christianity.

I'm just trying to get people to examine why rights right and wrongs wrong. And maybe save some children along the way. Who speaks for them? I will.

 

[Lucky]

IOW, I disagree with Knight when he says

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance

What is determined in light of the specific circumstance is what action is actually taking place. For example, if the action is murder, it's absolutely wrong.

 

[fool]

I hate to burst your bubble, but in mathematics there are different degrees of infinity.

Maybe the White Knight could weigh in on the matter. Are you a smoter of children Bob?

 

[fool]

What's relative to the circumstances is whether the killing is murder or just killing. Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not. What the Israelites did was not murder.

So just change the name and it's all OK. They've got a cubicle waiting for you at Planned Parenthood.

 

[avatar382]

What's relative to the circumstances is whether the killing is murder or just killing. Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not. What the Israelites did was not murder.

Lucky, any moral statement on murder is conditional because "murder" itself is a conditional term.

Murder is conditional on the motive of the killer and the state of the kill-ee.

 

[avatar382]

fool. Get over yourself. You have NOT singlehandedly overthrown Christianity.

Maybe not, but he's shown that Christians are moral relativists just like the rest of us...

 

[Shalom]

I agree with Guy. I believe Fool knows what he is doing and he isnt just innocently ignorant. The number one clue is the terminology game he plays with you. He asks is it okay to kill an infant if God commands it? those who answer yes are then labeled people who are willing to "butcher babies"

 

[Shalom]

So just change the name and it's all OK. They've got a cubicle waiting for you at Planned Parenthood.

I think Lucky's point is like the example people use all the time with war Fool. Are the US soldiers murdering their Iraqi enemies or killing them?