Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk) › Reply To: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)
PAA – I think what I said makes sense, although I am not totally sure (dangerous…). Let me try bring out the point.
Imagine a murderer taken in for questioning, and is asked why he did it.
CONVICT: “Because I didn’t like his face.”
JUDGE: “Is that a justification to kill?”
CONVICT: “I didn’t say that, sir. I explained my motive. As far as justification is concerned, why shouldn’t I have killed him?”
JUDGE: “Because… because it’s just wrong!”
CONVICT: “So?”
JUDGE: “….”
How would you respond if you were the Judge?
JUDGE 1: “Well, you should want the good feeling of fulfilling your destiny and purpose in this world. Oh, you prefer to kill him? Oh well… I guess there’s nothing I can say about that…”
OR
JUDGE 2 {spluttering}: “What do you mean, ‘so’ – it’s wrong, perverse, disgusting… It’s IMMORAL!”
How would you react to such a guy?
I think it’s poshut that by definition, the very understanding that something is WRONG is a reason not to do it, and is an obligation to that effect.
Do you get me?