A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario
Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:45:37 -0500 (00874028737, 19970911144537.11808@inetnebr.com)
On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 08:56:19AM -0400, Lenny Santee wrote:
> Before Farrell and April got themselves kicked off Jerry's list they said
> that under some circumstances this would be the morally right thing to do.
> In fact April was going to offer her daughter and Till was going to rape
> her. Maybe they do believe in the Bible?
Now will you let us in on what this has to do with the meaningfulness
of Jesus' supposed suffering? Some dirty and suspicious part of me
will wonder if you're just trying to avoid an unpleasant topic, one
that makes discussing rape enjoyable by comparison. The only possible
explanation I can think of is some version of Godly situational ethics
(but I can't see you embracing this position) where it was okay for God
to kill so that many could be saved. But for this to make any sense,
you must explain why God's infinite nature didn't permit him to see
4000 years earlier that he would be stuck in a position where his
omnipotence would be able to accomplish a goal only by murder. A good
chess player can see traps laid for him a dozen moves later, why was
God so shortsighted that he doesn't see these things in advance? If 12
moves take 12 minutes to play, then god is less than 180 million times
as smart as a good chess player, a far cry from omnicience. Even
worse, God doesn't really have an opponent besides a creature that must
have been, by definition, one of his creations. I don't know about
you, but when I play myself at chess I'm never particularly surprised
by the traps my opponent tries to lay.
Jeff
--
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.python.org/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+
It is against the grain of modern education to teach children to program.
What fun is there in making plans, acquiring discipline in organizing
thoughts, devoting attention to detail, and learning to be self-critical?
-- Alan Perlis