Is there such a thing as absolute morality? - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Knight]

Post #7

Zakath states...

It would appear I hit close to a nerve with my last post, since Knight begins his post with an immediate insult

Your right, you did strike a nerve, you struck my funny bone.

Zakath continues...

I have never claimed to have a perfect worldview. I normally leave such absolute claims to the religionists, like Knight

Gee I didn't realize it took a "perfect worldview" to be able to determine that murder, rape and kidnapping are always wrong!

Zakath continues...

1. He refuses to show us why he thinks rape is absolutely wrong. He merely asserts that it is so.

LOL! I have made myself very clear. Rape, murder and kidnapping are always wrong for two reasons... 1. There are no circumstances that could be present that could make those actions "right". 2. By their very definitions the words indicate these are wrong actions. I.e. if we were to describe an "un-wrong" death we would use words like "kill" or "die" not "murder".

Rape, murder and kidnapping are absolutely wrong, unless Zakath can give us compelling evidence that shows these things are not wrong.

The burden of proof is now (and has been for about the last four rounds) upon Zakath to give us compelling evidence that demonstrates that rape, murder and kidnapping are not necessarily wrong. He has yet to do so.

Zakath continues...

Think about it, all he would have to do is respond to item #2. If what he shows us is actually absolute by his own defnition (by which I agreed to abide), then he wins the debate. Yet he still refuses to show us his "absolute" moral standard.

Now Zakath has really gone off the deep end. The debate is "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" I have demonstrated that absolute morality must exist since we can point to absolute moral's such as rape, murder, kidnapping that by definition can never be "right".

Moreover....
If two gentlemen were arguing the existence of gravity the "pro gravity" side would only need to point to sufficient evidence that gravity exists to win the debate. There is no reason whatsoever that the "pro gravity" side would have to then go on to show the "source" of the gravity. If gravity exists, it exists!

Zakath continues...

What an astounding conclusion! Knight again demonstrates his ignorance or unwillingness to actually debate the topic he chose. We are not here to debate the absolute rightness or wrongness of Knight's Bible

Hmmmm funny... it was Zakath who brought this topic up in the first place! Zakath's age and faulty memory are beginning to show.

Zakath defines rape, murder and kidnapping and then says....

Knight wants to know on what basis I think these things are wrong. There are two primary reasons: the definitions will tell you one reason - they are all crimes in the country in which I live.

Would these actions still be wrong if these actions weren't criminal?

Asked another way... is Zakath asserting that something which is criminal is absolutely wrong?

If not, why would Zakath use this standard?

Secondly, they are all unecessarily injurious to my fellow humans. Since I am a relativist, those provide sufficient reason for me at this time.

A moral relativist has no right to appeal to another apparent absolute standard to show a relative moral standard. Said another way... Zakath, is in essence arguing that the standard "unnecessarily injuring a human" is an absolute standard NOT a relative one, as evidenced by his using this standard to deem rape, murder and kidnapping as always wrong!

Zakath continues...

That wasn't difficult, was it, Knight? Now suppose you tell us why you believe these things are "absolutely" wrong...

ROTFL why should I do that when you just did it for me?

I asked you to provide examples as to why rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT always wrong, but instead the only thing Zakath did was affirm that these actions ARE ALWAYS WRONG!

Was there any evidence from Zakath in his explanation that showed that rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT necessarily wrong? Nope, not a shred!

Zakath ends with...

While I agree with Knight that the actions of the adult in the scenario are wrong. I do not believe in absolute morals.
No matter how many times he asks the question, he'll get the same answer.

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not???

A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

Absolutely wrong or not?

I (and even Zakath) have demonstrated that there are actions that are never right, such as rape, murder and kidnapping. Therefore absolute morality exists! It is up to Zakath to give us compelling evidence as to why those very actions could also somehow be "right". He has yet to even come within a million miles of doing so.

[webby]

DING DING DING

End of round 7. Three posts left for each combatant.

Zakath is back on the clock.

[Zakath]

Knight, you asked for it...

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?
Zakath's eighth post.

Knight keeps hounding this single question, so in the spirit of debate, let’s answer it…

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not???

Wrong? Yes! Absolutely? Maybe not...

The absolutes that you are stating are: it is absolutely wrong to kidnap, commit multiple rape and finally murder a 9 year old girl. A truly horrific scenario, when seen only from the limited imagination of a religionist like Knight.

But, dear readers are you aware that Knight withheld certain critical information from his audience? I have it on good authority that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Let’s look at, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story…

The forty year old man, let’s call him Ted, was contacted two weeks ago by a person identifying himself as a terrorist who claims to have planted two nuclear devices in New York City, where Ted and the young girl both live. The individual on the telephone told Ted that if he did not snatch, violently rape, and kill this child that he would detonate the devices on Christmas day and kill tens of thousands of Ted’s fellow New Yorkers. Ted is given a remote location to take the body for disposal and was also cautioned against calling the police.

Ted thought the fellow was a nutcase and told him so. The “terrorist” then called the NYPD and gave them the location of one of the weapons. That night, Ted watched on the news as police, acting on an anonymous tip, located and attempted to disarm what turned out to be a nuclear device. Even if they disarm it, a second still awaits to fulfill the “terrorist’s” threat.

Ted is beside himself. Another week has passed and he hasn’t slept in days. Ted watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. The terrorist calls him periodically to describe what Ted is wearing and things in his apartment. Things he can only know if he has some sort of monitors planted. Ted believes that if he does not fulfill the demands of the voice on the telephone that most of the people he knows will cease to exist in a few moments on Christmas Day, only two weeks away.

Finally, … [Ted] decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but [he] is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. [Ted] holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, [Ted] decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When [he] felt the girl no longer breathing his phone rings. It is the "terrorist" assuring him that he has done well and reminding him where to take the body.[Ted] placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body following his instructions. That afternoon, the police received a second anonymous call which described the location of a second nuclear device which they successfully disarmed.

As a postscript to this gruesome scenario unbeknownst to Ted, the 9-year-old girl is the daughter of an Arab diplomat whose security forces tortured and killed the wife and infant son of the “terrorist” ten years before. And as horrible as the ordeal was to poor "Ted", if the "terrorist" had detonated the bomb, the girl (and several thousand other New Yorkers) would have died anyway...

Not that motives should matter for the purposes of this discussion.

[Knight]

Christmas comes early - Zakath flames out! - post #8

I hope everyone has read Zakath's last post in this "Battle Royale II". Message to all moral relativists.... look what your world view does to you!!! It turns you into a raving lunatic!!! I am still laughing!

In an attempt to prove a that a horrible action might not be absolutely wrong Zakath invents an even more horrible and more absolutely morally wrong circumstance and adds it to my hypothetical scenario!!!! I couldn't have imagined I would get this type of assistance from my opponent!

A truly unbelievable twist to this debate! Zakath is literally destroying his side of the debate in plain view of everyone to see! I guess Zakath decided if he is gonna go down in flames he may as well go big!!

Think of it this way....

Firstly Zakath has still avoided the question of the specific example as originally stated (without his addition), more on that later. But more importantly.... what will Zakath have to argue next??? Argue that the actions of the terrorists that forced poor Ted into committing this awful crime were not ABSOLUTEY WRONG??????? I suppose if someone asked Zakath if the actions of the terrorists in his hypothetical scenario were absolutely wrong for what they did Zakath would be forced to invent an even wackier scenario in which aliens from the planet "Htakaz" performed mind control upon the terrorists which in turn forced Ted to rape the little girl and therefore the actions of the terrorists were not absolutely wrong.

But wait, it gets even worse for Zakath....

I asked Zakath...

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not??

And Zakath actually answered...

Wrong? Yes! Absolutely? Maybe not...

Maybe not? Maybe not?????? Maybe not????? In other words, MAYBE YES!!!! [voice of Harry Caray]Cubs win, Cubs win!!!![/voice of Harry Caray]

If you deconstruct what Zakath is saying, it goes something like this....

The actions of Ted raping the young girl were not absolutely wrong in Zakath's eyes - ONLY- when he added his crazy hypothetical about Terrorists forcing Ted to rape the girl or they would blow up New York City.

But if Ted had no ulterior motive and just kidnapped, raped and murdered the young girl for nothing more than sadistic pleasure than Ted's actions ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Zakath has completely conceded the debate.

Zakath you should fire your manager for not throwing in the towel in round 7!

Oh well, I guess I can keep his feet to the fire (he may as well get used to it! )

Zakath I have two questions based on the specific example we have been discussing that goes:

A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

[webby]

DING DING DING....

End of round 8. Zakath is back on the clock.

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (webmaster), Becky, Zakath or Knight. You may discuss Battle Royale II here.

[Zakath]

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?"
Zakath's ninth post

We are two posts from the end of the debate and I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered at Knight's tactics. He was asked, back at the beginning of the debate, to provide the standard by which he claimed moral absolutes can be determined. Post after post, he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Instead he plays storytelling games. During the last post, I volunteered to play along and he appears somewhat discomfited. One can always tell when Knight is at a loss for real content. He goes immediately to insults, like calling me a "raving lunatic". I think his attitude of laughing at the murder/rape scenario we are discussing speaks volumes about his moral character. Time will tell, I suppose...

Well, on to Knight's post:

I am still laughing!

Well, Knight. Now you can gain a bit of understanding about how I feel when I deal with your baseless assertions that a specific action is "absolutely" wrong merely because you say so.

Knight, in your first post you provided this definition of "absolute morality":

...absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong...

We have patiently (or impatiently in my case) waited for you to produce even a glimmer of this standard. For six succeeding posts all you have done is assert (without proof) that some act or other is "absolutely" wrong without referring once to this alleged standard.

To demonstrate your case, you propose an outlandish scenario.

To demonstrate the flaws in your case, I propose an even more outlandish scenario.

Your response? Ad homimen and insults, but still no standard.
Where's the standard that you allege exists, Knight? Upon what do you base your claim to absolute morality?

Firstly Zakath has still avoided the question of the specific example as originally stated

Untrue. I answered it from the perspective of a moral relativist. Your question is a rough moral equivalent of my asking you whether it is absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin. Since it is unlikely that you believe that either of them are deities, the question is nonsensical to you. Likewise your question to me about whether or not something is "absolutely" wrong is nonsense to someone who does not believe in the existence of the concept you are proposing.

If you deconstruct what Zakath is saying, it goes something like this....

The actions of Ted raping the young girl were not absolutely wrong in Zakath's eyes - ONLY- when he added his crazy hypothetical about Terrorists forcing Ted to rape the girl or they would blow up New York City.

Well, it's good to see you got that much of my point. My egregious example does serve to demonstrate that the actions you cited were not absolutely wrong. If they were "absolute", there would not be a circumstance in which they would be morally acceptable. I merely provided such a circumstance. Remember, your question was about the actions, not the motives.

But if Ted ...than (sic) Ted's actions ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Zakath has completely conceded the debate.

You can propose more and more hypothetical situations until you run out of posts. But, since each is a hypothetical, you can no more be certain of "Ted's" "real" motives than can I. One completely fabricated story is as good as another in the story telling game.

My use of the word "maybe" does not indicate that I have conceded any point, at present. Your intense desire to see the entire world as black and white is causing you to put words in my mouth, Knight. Go back and read my reply. I have still not acknowledged that absolute morality exists. All that "maybe" indicates is that I'm still willing for you to convince me.

I'm still waiting to see this alleged standard which supercedes human wisdom. All you've done is show us a scenario which, if interpreted in a certain perspective, can demonstrate a completely different set of moral elements. A villain in your scenario, Ted, becomes an unwitting hero in my scenario as he saves a sizeable chunk of NYC from firey nuclear destruction. Good or evil is sometimes merely a matter of perspective. Is it wrong to sacrifice the life of a single individual to save thousands? It seems to those of us looking in from the outside that your entire religion is based upon a similar torture/murder scenario. Was it "absolutely" wrong to allow the Romans to torture Jesus of Nazareth to death to save the human race? If not, then is that not another example where torture and murder are not "absolutely" wrong?

1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

My previous answer stands. Wrong, yes. Absolute? I cannot speak to that since I personally do not believe in asolute morality and, after eight posts, you have not yet revealed by what standard of absolute morality by which you claim to be measuring.

2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

You must be more clear on your question, Knight. Which "actions of the terrorists" are you questioning? You are now expanding your "absolute moral standard" to include what? Seeking retribution? Punishing wrongdoers? Vengance on those who destroy your family?
To answer your question, I need to see this alleged standard that is so broad that it includes whatever items you happen to find objectionable at the moment. Keeping us in the dark means I cannot answer your question the way you'd like.

Your question will remain unaswerable until you show us your "absolute moral standard" Knight...

[Knight]

Knight's post #9! One to go!

Zakath stumbling and groggy attempts to erase the bad memories of round 8!

Zakath states...

He was asked, back at the beginning of the debate, to provide the standard by which he claimed moral absolutes can be determined. Post after post, he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Nice attempt at a diversion. But incorrect, I have been asked to provide evidence that absolute morality exists. NOT the source of the absolute morality. Again this debate is like proving gravity exists, not demonstrating the source of the gravity. If absolute morality exists the source of the absolute morality is a great topic for another debate but irrelevant in this debate.

I have provided the evidence of absolute morality in the form of actions like: rape, murder (and Zakath added kidnapping) as evidence that absolute morals exist. Rape, murder and kidnapping by their very definitions are always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong.

Zakath has not argued otherwise.

Zakath states...

Well, Knight. Now you can gain a bit of understanding about how I feel when I deal with your baseless assertions that a specific action is "absolutely" wrong merely because you say so.

Gee Zakath don't give me all the credit, you have been a wonderful assistant in demonstrating rape, murder and kidnapping are always wrong and never "right".

Zakath states...

Knight? Upon what do you base your claim to absolute morality?

Simple! Upon the fact that rape, murder and kidnapping are by definition always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong! Zakath has failed to demonstrate that these actions are somehow only wrong relative to the individual, society or government. In fact, Zakath has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the opposite. For Zakath to win the debate he would have to give compelling evidence as to why ANY imaginable (specific or non specific) case of kidnapping, rape or murder is just as right as it is wrong or at very least morally neutral.

Zakath states...

Your question is a rough moral equivalent of my asking you whether it is absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin.

That isn't a tough question for me to answer! I simply answer NO! It is NOT absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin. There is only one true God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ therefore the answer to your question was no dilemma at all!

You continue...

Likewise your question to me about whether or not something is "absolutely" wrong is nonsense to someone who does not believe in the existence of the concept you are proposing.

No, that is untrue! The answer you would provide if you REALLY believed in moral relativism would be "no - the actions are NOT absolutely wrong!" There is no trick to that!

But you have already admitted the actions were "wrong" - even "maybe absolutely wrong" so you have got yourself stuck in the corner and now have no idea on how to get out!

Zakath continues...

Well, it's good to see you got that much of my point. My egregious example does serve to demonstrate that the actions you cited were not absolutely wrong.

Huh? Your point showed nothing of the sort! Now your delusional! You didn't demonstrate that the crimes were not wrong you simply added that coercion is also wrong.

Zakath continues...

You can propose more and more hypothetical situations until you run out of posts

I think the one hypothetical I provided will be sufficient.

Zakath continues...

My use of the word "maybe" does not indicate that I have conceded any point

Actually it does. Words have meanings and "maybe" means "maybe no", "maybe yes", therefore you have conceded that unless there were extenuating circumstances in your opinion Ted was absolutely wrong. Game over, I win!

I asked.....
1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

And Zakath responds...

My previous answer stands. Wrong, yes. Absolute? I cannot speak to that since I personally do not believe in asolute morality

Then simply answer "NO"!!!!! If you really do not believe in absolute morality then Ted's actions cannot be absolutely wrong therefore you should answer "NO"!

Ask yourself.... why Zakath's unwillingness to simply answer "no"? I know why.

P.S. Did you notice this time Zakath left off the "Absolutely? Maybe not..."?

I then ask...
2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

And Zakath responds....

You must be more clear on your question, Knight. Which "actions of the terrorists"

Let's make it easy... let's just say.... was it absolutely wrong of the terrorists to coerce Ted into kidnapping raping, murdering the little girl? Assuming the motive for the terrorists was nothing more than retribution towards the little girls relatives.

So the question could be phrased like this....

Is coercing a man into kidnapping, raping and murdering a young girl in order to seek retribution upon the young girls relatives absolutely wrong? YES or NO?

[webby]

DING DING DING

End of round 9.

Each combatant gets one final post.

Zakath, is up first.

I want to thank BOTH Zakath and Knight for their efforts in this Battle!

[webby]

EXCUSED TIME DELAY

Before Battle Royale II began Zakath informed Knight and I that if the debate extended into Wednesday night July 31st he would need to get an exception to the 48 hour posting rule. The debate did indeed extend into Wednesday and Zakath will be away on business until Saturday afternoon or so.

Therefore we have decided to allow Zakath until midnight Sunday August 4th to make his final post in the Battle Royale II, hopefully this extended period will allow Zakath ample time to get back from his trip and compose his closing argument. I hope everyone is enjoying the battle!

[Zakath]

"Is there such a thing as absolute morality?"
Zakath's tenth post

During this debate, my opponent has been long on promises and short on substance. Knight took the affirmative side to answer the question "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" or, in Knight's own words,

This debate is to determine IF there is such a thing as absolute morality.

1. Knight proceeded to define "absolute morality":

"...absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong..."

2. Knight then states his strategy:

If there exists just ONE item, (behavior or action) that is absolutely wrong (or right) then absolute morality exists

3. Finally Knight reminds us that

Now keep in mind this debate is not to determine what specific morals are absolute.

Totally ignoring his own point, Knight then proceeds to spend the rest of the debate attempting to prove specific morals (proscriptions against murder, rape, and kidnapping) are absolute!

I submit that Knight's preoccupation with his example of deviant behavior is a blatant attempt to divert our attention from his lack of proof of his point. In this final post, I will provide examples of instances where each of Knight's three suggested "absolutely wrong" actions (murder, rape, and kidnapping) can be considered right.

If any action that can be shown to be the right thing to do, even once, that action cannot be absolutely wrong.

In the following examples, I will demonstrate that murder and kidnapping are wrong, except when done by the order of the deity. Rape is wrong, except when suggested by a "just" and "righteous" man.

We will demonstrate that Knight has failed to show any act that is absolutely wrong according to a standard that "is greater than man's standard of right and wrong" (his own definition).

We will then provide examples where each act is performed at the order of divinely appointed leadership or by the deity himself, and thus cannot be considered "absolutely wrong".

Murder
Murder, is defined by Knight as "wrong" killing. Unfortunately the word "wrong" is not a word with a single absolute meaning, but a very subjective one.

wrong - adjective - Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. Unfair; unjust.
Source: (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Not a single one of these definitions is absolute.

• Conscience is relative, it is purely human and subjective. (For a Jew or Muslim to eat pork is against their conscience, while Christians flock pork barbeques in the southern U.S.)
• Morality and immorality are relative, they vary from culture to culture and age to age. What is wrong in one age may not be so in another. (While animal sacrifice in the Old Testament dispensation was pleasing to the deity, Christians assure me that in the current dispensation it is no longer so. Remember, the entire theory of biblical dispensationism hinges on relativism!)
• Law changes from year to year, and generation to generation.(Abortion was illegal thirty years ago and is now legal.)
• Fairness and justice are both subjective since the first is dependent upon one's point of view and the second is dependent, for humans, on human law. (Do you suppose the Amelekites believed it was fair and just for their pregnant women and children to be slaughtered by Jewish soldiers at the order of YHWH in I Samuel 15?)

When Knight calls some killings "wrong", this does not automatically define them as "absolutely wrong". To do that he must demonstrate by what standard he considers murder to be absolutely wrong. Since he has not done so, he has failed to demonstrate that "murder" is absolutely wrong.
When was murder not absolutely wrong? When Knight's deity orders it. Abraham was ordered by YHWH to murder his own son (Gen. 22). YHWH himself murders the firstborn children in the nation of Egypt (Ex. 11 and 12). Knight's deity also orders the killing of anyone who does not worship him (Ex. 22), etc.

Rape
Knight never offers a definition of "rape" at all, a common tactic for Christians arguing our topic. Why is it so common? Because this tactic allows Knight to appeal to human emotion instead of forcing him to prove his point. Rape is considered a crime by most people and most governments. That's human beings and [/b]human governments[/b]. But recall that Knight is agruing that his absolute moral standard is greater than that supported by human beings. Knight cannot prove that rape is absolutely wrong since his "proof" must depend on mere fallible human insight and human law to prove his point.

There certainly is no biblical proscription against rape. Nowhere in the bible, the great moral standard for the Judeo-Christian faith, is rape ever condemned. In two separate (but similiar) incidents in Judges 19 and Genesis 19, householders offer young girls in their care to be gang raped by a mob to protect their guests. One of these householders is praised by the apostle Peter as a "just" and "righteous" man (2 Peter 2). It seems the definitions of "just" and "righteous" back in the old days weren't quite absolute either...

Kidnapping
Kidnapping, while not one of Knight's intitial points of concern, is actually condemned both legally and scripturally. But, as with many proscripted activities in the bible, when the leaders of "God's chosen people" order the kidnapping, it's accepted as morally correct. When an act is morally correct under one set of circumstances and morally incorrect under others, it is not absolutely wrong.

You want a scriptural example? Well, it seems in Judges 21 that after a horrendous war (ordered by YHWH) in which eleven tribes ganged up on the tribe of Benjamin (killing 25,000 of its men, destroying its cities and their inhabitants), in addition the other tribes of Israel had sworn an oath that none of them would allow their women to marry a Benjamite. When the elders of Israel is realized that such mass slaughter of women and childern would potentially destroy the tribe, the leaders from the other tribes decided to help out by ordering an attack on nearby Jabeshgilead, slaughtering all the men and married women, then kidnapping the virgins and delivering them to the Benjamites. Unfortunately, it was discovered that this did not provide enough women for the entire tribe. So the Benjamites were instructed to kidnap women from the town of Shiloh and carry them off.
Both instances provide examples that kidnapping is not absolutely wrong.

Thus we have examined Knight's three actions (murder, rape, and kidnapping) and found that not one of them is "absolutely" wrong since his own Bible demonstrates his deity's hand in examples of all three actions. I think that even Knight would find it difficult to convict his deity of performing or ordering an action that is "absolutely" wrong.

[Knight]

Knight's 10th and final post!

A hill too big to climb!

So we have reached the end of Battle Royale II. I want to start by thanking Zakath for all his efforts in this debate. These debates take a good deal of time and a lot of work! Zakath has spent much time and effort in crafting his replies and that effort does not go unappreciated.

Zakath didn't struggle in this debate because he is not a good debater, and Zakath didn't struggle in this debate because he is not intelligent. Zakath is both, a good debater AND intelligent. Zakath struggled in this debate because his side of the debate is a losing argument!

After all, how do you try to convince the world that 6 million Jews being slaughtered is not absolutely wrong?

How do you try and convince the world that the racially motivated brutal murder of James Byrd was not absolutely wrong?

And how do you try to convince the world that the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 9 year old girl is not absolutely wrong?

You can't!

In fact Zakath himself couldn't even bring himself to admit these things!

ITS ACTUALLY PRETTY SIMPLE
Ultimately, if only one specific or non-specific action or behavior exists that is wrong under ANY circumstance, then absolute morality exists.

In the first round of this debate I asked Zakath....

Zakath, in your heart of hearts, deep in your gut and entrenched in your brain, do you honestly believe that there is NO action or behavior (none whatsoever!!!) that is wrong, EVEN if that action or behavior happens to be accepted by any given society, government or individual?

And he answered....

I'd like to answer his final question first with a simple *no; and further clarify it by saying that if I did not believe that some actions were wrong, I wouldn't be wasting my time debating this topic with him.

[* he actually answered "yes" but later admitted he meant "no".] Like it or not Zakath's answer undercut the very foundation of his argument. Zakath's answer was appealing to a standard that was certainly NOT relative to the individual, society or government.

DO ALL TRIANGLES HAVE 3 ANGLES AND 3 SIDES?
If a shape has only 3 angles and only 3 sides, that shape is by definition a triangle. If a shape does not have 3 angles or does not have 3 sides by definition that shape IS NOT a triangle.

Murder is like a triangle! By definition murder is the taking of life in an unlawful, wrongful, malicious way. If the taking of life does not have this element of "wrongness" it is NOT murder.

Therefore if such a thing as murder exists, it must always be wrong.

The relativists only logically consistent argument is to argue that there is no such thing as murder.

As it turns out... it might be easier for the relativist to argue there is no such thing as a triangle.







I will close on a slightly different note....

I STAND ON THE ROCK
It pretty clear that dragging a man behind a truck until his body is torn apart for no other reason than the perpetrators disliked the color of his skin is murder! It's wrong! Nothing could make those actions tied with that motivation right! Thankfully our reality, emotions, rationality were created by a righteous, just, loving and merciful God who in turn created us with the ability to determine that some things are right and some things are wrong! God, was also loving enough to allow us the TRUE ability to love one another and love Him. But with this ability comes ultimate responsibility. Sadly some use this ability to choose to ignore Him, His mercy, His righteousness and His love. Sadly some will use this ability to sear their conscience and deny what is so clearly true.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20

Woe to Zakath!
Ultimately it is God's truth that flattens the relativist's non-compelling argument. But it is also God's truth that tells us that it is never too late for the unbeliever to turn from his wicked ways and choose God. I pray that Zakath softens his heart and sees the failure of the argument he has been fooled into accepting. I pray that Zakath turns to God, admits his sinful nature and asks God to forgive him. I pray that Zakath accepts what Christ did for Zakath and accepts Jesus into his heart. I also pray for Zakath's wife and children and I pray that someday they will spend eternity in heaven fellowshipping with one another in love. I pray this in Jesus name - Amen.

[webby]

DING DING DING

That’s it! Battle Royale II is OVER!

I want to personally thank both Knight and Zakath for all their effort and time in this battle. It was a good one!