Farrell Till wrote:
>
> Farrell Till wrote:
> >
> > McDDONALD
> >
> > Farrell, your argument does beg the question and you know it. You
> > have made up your mind that Rahab was rewarded for lying and so now
> > you have to find evidence to fit your conclusion. I have watched
> > this thread for sometime now and one thing is painfully evident:
> > that is you are going to contend that Rahab was rewarded for lying
> > regardless.
> >
> > Notice Farrells proof that Rahab was rewarded for lying.
> >
> > 1. Joshua told Israel to save Rahab because she hid the spies.
> > 2. Rahab lied to the soldiers about not having the spies.
> > 3. Therefore Joshua saved Rahab because she lied to the soldiers.
> >
> > This would not work in any class on logic in this country Farrell and
> > you know it, that is unless the professor was an atheist with an
> > agenda.
> >
> > TILL
> > Jerry is gone from the list, but since this was also posted on
Challenge,
> > perhaps he will allow my response there too. If Jerry says that my
argument
> > would not work in any logic class in the country unless the professor
was an
> > "atheist with an agenda," then of course that must be right.
However, let
> > me state the argument so that maybe he can see... uh, let me rephrase
that;
> > let me state the argument so that even a biblicist professor with an
agenda
> > will be able to see it. My argument is not that Joshua saved Rahab
because
> > she lied to the soldiers but that Rahab had hidden the messagers by
lying to
> > the soldiers, and it was by her lying that she was able to hide the
> > messagers and send them out another way, both of which were necessary
for
> > her to be justified (James 2:14). With that in mind, I think I can
prove to
> > the satisfaction of anyone who doesn't have an agenda that I am not
begging
> > any questions.
> >
> > First, I assume that Jerry and Lenny are willing to concede that
Yahweh, who
> > is allegedly omniscient and omnipresent, had to know that Rahab had
lied to
> > the king's men. That's a crucial point to keep in mind.
> >
> > My argument, then, is that when a person (p) performs a deed (d) for
which
> > he/she receives a reward (r), then (r) resulted from every act that
(p) put
> > into the accomplishment of (d). The inclusion of EVERY act entailed
in
> > performing (d) would most certainly be necessary if (1) any act
entailed in
> > performing (d) should happen to be a socially unacceptable or
socially
> > immoral act and (2) if the socially unacceptable or immoral acts
entailed in
> > the performance of (d) should be known to whoever is responsible for
> > administering the award.
> >
> > Now let's make (p) a student who wants to receive (r), which is the
title of
> > class valedictorian upon his/her graduation. (D), which (p) must
perform in
> > this case, is the achievement of the highest grade point average of
all the
> > students in his/her class. (P) knows, however, that he/she has
little
> > chance of achieving (d), because there are several more
intellectually
> > capable students in the class. Therefore, (p) decides in his/her
freshman
> > year to (1) bribe teachers to give him/her straight A grades, which
action
> > we will designate (d1), and to cheat on all tests of teachers who
refuse to
> > accept bribes, which we will designate as (d2). The fact that (p) is
doing
> > (d1) and (d2) throughout high school is known to the adminstrators,
but they
> > choose to do nothing about it. Hence, when graduation time comes,
(p) has
> > achieved (d) by means of (d1) and (d2), and (r) is awarded to (p) at
> > graduation time.
> >
> > Question: would it be correct to say that (p) received (r) because
he/she
> > had achieved (d) and for no other reason, or would it be correct to
say that
> > (p) received (r) because he had done (d1) and (d2), which resulted in
(d)?
> >
> > In other words, let's just put it into plain language. Was the
student
> > rewarded for bribing teachers and cheating on tests?
> >
> > The parallel here is so obvious that I see no need to identify it, so
If
> > this is begging the question, please explain why. Anyone can just
type
> > QUESTION BEGGING and click a "send" icon. Rebutting an argument,
however,
> > isn't nearly so easy.
> >
> > Farrell Till
> > Skepticism, Inc.
> > jftill@midwest.net
> McDonald
>
> Now let's see if Farrell will stay with his argument that if Rahab was
> rewarded that reward had to be for her lying as well as her hiding the
> spies because lying is how she protected them.
>
> Some of you may well remember the discussion that we had with Farrell
> and April over whether or not it was ever right to sexually molest
> children. Both Farrell and April said that they could think of
scenarios
> where it would be morally right to do this.
>
> Farrell brought up a scenario in which a mad bomber holds a city the
> size of New York City hostage and says that if someone doesn't rape a
> four year old child that he will detonate the bomb and kill millions of
> people. Farrell said that in this scenario it would be the morally
> right thing to do to rape a child. April put her two cents in and
spoke
> of a woman who said that she would volunteer her child. I then asked
> April if she would, in such a scenario, be the woman who would
volunteer
> her child and April's answer was: "Absolutely!". I changed the
> scenario and had it run like this. A mad bomber holds New York City
> hostage with a nuclear bomb and sends a message to the Mayor's office.
> I put Farrell Till in as the Mayor's right hand man. This note told
the
> Mayor to take a three or four year old little girl to a secluded
> location and if he even thought that there were any police anywhere
> around he would blow up the city. Farrell tells the Mayor that he
knows
> of a small child of that age and says that he will volunteer to have
> sexual intercourse with her. He and the Mayor go to April and April
> offers her daughter to be raped. The bomber, when they arrive on the
> scene, gives them a video camera and tells the Mayor to video tape
> Farrell raping this child and then he is to send it to the CBS newsroom
> in time for the six O'clock evening news and it had to be shown.
> Farrell complained about not being able to do this in front of a
camera,
> but if he doesn't the bomb will go off.
>
> So let's continue the scenario. Farrell is talked into it and he takes
> off his clothes and makes himself get sexually aroused (I don't think I
> have to get any plainer than that do I Farrell?) and he rapes this
> little girl of April's as April watches and the Mayor video tapes.
> After Farrell rapes this child, April takes her daughter and sends her
> to the best psychiatrists money can buy (at the expense of the city of
> New York). About a week after the incident the Mayor of New York gives
> Farrell an award of $50,000.00 for saving the city.
>
> Tell me Farrell, did the Mayor reward you for raping a child and saving
> the city, or just for saving the city? Now, if your argument is
correct
> "that when a person (p) performs a deed (d) for which he/she receives a
> reward (r), then (r) resulted from every act that (p) put into the
> accomplishment of (d)" or put in more simple terms that when a person
> performs a deed, and is rewarded for the deed, that reward must of
> necessity be given for every act of that deed, then the Mayor would
> (necessarily) be rewarding Farrell for raping April's daughter because
> that was the way that the bomber decided that it had to be done. So it
> is the case that Farrell was rewarded for raping a child. Farrell was
> given a reward of $50,000.00 for rape.
>
> You know, we put people in prison for raping children. Maybe we are
> wrong. Maybe we ought to find some situation to justify what they do
> and give them all $50,000.00 and let them go home.
>
> If Farrell says that his reward would not be raping April's daughter
> then he will destroy his argument that Rahab was rewarded for lying.
If
> he stays consistent with his position everyone will see why. It won't
> be because he thinks he is right, but it will be because he is
unwilling
> to admit that he was in error on this point.
>
> TILL
> Sorry that I couldn't snip something, but everyone needs to have my
argument
> and McDonald's response in front of him/her in order to follow my
reply.
>
> Let's see, (p), who would be me, performed (d), the saving of the city
from
> a terrorist nuclear blast, and later received (r), which was $50,000.
In
> order to perform (d), I had to do detail (d1), which was the "raping"
of the
> young girl. So, yes, according to my argument, which you did not even
> touch, (d1) was a part of (d) for which I received (r). If I had not
done
> (d1), I couldn't have performed (d), so my argument holds. If not,
why
> not? You're going to have to address the argument by taking its parts
and
> showing where it errs from sound logic.
>
> Here is a side observation. Your analogy is not perfect, because in my
> argument, the student did things that were clearly considered wrong by
the
> administrators of (r), and their wrongness was never questioned; they
were
> just ignored. There was never any compelling circumstance in my
argument
> that would have made the cheating justified. The student just wanted
the
> title of valedictorian. No one was going to die, if he/she didn't get
it;
> no city was going to be blown up and millions killed. In your
modification
> of my original scenario, you use the word "rape" for a situation that
would
> not be considered rape, because the circumstances would have justified
the
> performance of (d1). Let's make the situation killing instead of
sexual
> relations with a minor child. If the terrorist demand should be that I
kill
> a person within 30 minutes or else the bomb would be detonated, then
when I
> complied and killed someone, it would not be a "murder," because the
> situation was such that the killing was necessary or justified. It is
just
> the same as what you have recognized yourself all along. Killing
someone
> isn't necessarily murder; it is the circumstance that makes it murder.
In
> the same way, my scenario, which you have borrowed and revised, would
not
> make sexual relations with the child "rape," which is a forcible act
under
> circumstances that do not warrant it.
>
> At any rate, my argument is before you, and I have adapted it to your
> scenario. Now you need to show where the argument errs. Will you at
least
> admit, that I am not begging the question?
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net
McDonald
Oh...I see. As long as the circumstances warrant Mr. Till forcing
himself on April's child, it really wasn't rape because rape (according
to Mr. Till) "is a forcible act under circumstances that do not warrant
it." Given that definition of rape there isn't a rapist could ever
justifiably be convicted of rape. Everyone one of them will contend
that the circumstances warranted their actions. And given Mr. Till idea
of ethics every person is to make up his/her own mind about when an
action is right and when it is wrong. The law can't do it, each person
must be the judge of when an action is right and when an action is
wrong.
Okay, we'll play his little game for a while. Since rape "is a forcible
act under circumstances that do not warrant it" then will Mr. Till also
say that lying "is a forcible act under circumstances that do not
warrant it"? So Rahab didn't lie to the soldiers after all. Why
because, according to Till's definition of rape (and the same would also
apply to lying -- if not why not?) it is not rape (lying) if the
circumstances warrant the action. Rahab knew that if she told where the
spies were they would be (at the very least) taken captive, so she
weighed the circumstances and decided to tell the soldiers something
other than where the spies were. So because the circumstances warranted
her action, it wasn't really lying. Was it? So mine and Lenny's
original contention is true, Rahab was not rewarded for lying and all of
the mail that has been generated by Mr. Till's side was worthless,
meaningless and in error.
Was Mr. Till begging the question? Yes he was. He contended that Rahab
was justified for lying and now we see that she didn't even lie.
In Christ's Service,
Jerry D. McDonald
--------- End forwarded message ----------