God's Justice

[POI]

Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

For debate: If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

[POI]

[Replying to Haven in post #49]

I'm challenging Jack's worldview. He's trying to squirm out of it. These apologists have no problem enforcing rules and laws, which means they adhere to a 'standard'. And their standard is the Christian god. Great. Jack is desperately trying to wiggle out of the corner for which he has been backed into. His believed upon god's opinion is to grant the allowance of raping innocent women. If you read through the exchange, this is why he had no choice, but to try and rationalize accordingly, by offering all sorts of mental gymnastics. Christians use this same tired old argument any time skeptics bring up any passage which looks 'immoral' or 'unjust' to them as well. This is exactly why they cry out, "according to what?" Well, they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Meaning, they OBVIOUSLY do not agree with the god they worship, regarding many commands for which their believed upon god has apparently laid out. Otherwise, they would happily just say that it is a great command and then explain why.

In this particular case, according to god himself, the allowance of the actual adulterer's wives are to be raped, as opposed to the actual adulterer. And Jack no likey.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #50]

I only have time to address this one thing and will address the rest upon my return. You quote me as saying,

Again, the definition has boundaries

You quote this in order to make it seem as if I am agreeing to justice having boundaries. This is mighty convenient because if you would have quoted the very next sentence we would all have seen that I am not agreeing to justice having any boundaries other than the subjective opinion of each individual. Here is that sentence.

However, unless you have a set standard which would apply to all of us as humans, then the boundaries would be the opinion of any, and every individual.

This is the very next sentence which would qualify the sentence before. Sort of dishonest on your part, don't you think?

[Haven]

[Replying to POI in post #46]


Nobody has admitted to any sort of boundaries as far as justice is concerned, and there are no boundaries unless there is some sort of set standard of justice which applies to us all. You are now on record insisting there is a set standard of authority but are refusing to tell us what that authority is.

I have done just that, and explained my meta-ethical position fully. Maybe you didn’t see it?

What is the set boundaries? Who determines what the boundaries are?

As I said earlier, the boundaries come from the nature of sentience (in general) and the preferences of all sentient beings to avoid gratuitous suffering and harm.

My friend, this exact scenario is playing out before our very eyes in real life right now. Because you see, there are many, many folks who believe that the shooter of Charlie Kirk was justified in his actions and believe the world to now be a better place because of his actions, while we have many, many others who believe justice will only be served by the shooter receiving the death penalty. You see, these folks are not disagreeing upon the meaning of the word justice, rather they disagree upon what justice would be in this situation.

This is true, and it’s why an objective standard of justice is so important. I’ve already explained why a god (including, but not limited to, the Christian god) cannot be this objective standard.

Btw I personally believe the shooting was an abomination and the killer should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and I’m as atheist as they come.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #52]

So 'justice' now has no boundaries? Please see the rest of the response, and also see the top of post 29.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

Would these affirmed boundaries <include or exclude> the (raping of the innocent)?

You can ask the same question over, and over, and you are going to get the same answer. The answer is, if there is a set standard of justice which can be demonstrated to apply to us all, and this standard demonstrates exactly who the innocent are along with rape being against this set standard, the answer would be yes. My friend, what you call innocent people pay the consequences for the behavior of others all the time. Wives many times pay the consequences for the behavior of their husbands. Husbands many times pay the consequences for the behavior of their wives. Children pay the consequences for the behavior of their parents. Parents often times pay the consequences for the behavior their children. Life is not set up in the way in which what you call justice is merited out in the way you believe justice to be and what you call the innocent avoid paying any consequences for things they never performed themselves. So then, even the nature of life itself seems to deny that there is a set standard of justice in which what you would call the guilty always pays, and what you call the innocent receive what you insist is justice.

And to be clear, this is an <either/or> question.

No! You want to insist that it is a "either or question" but I have demonstrated, and you already know yourself that not every question can be answered with a "yes" or "no" answer. Your question is one of them, because unless we have a set standard of authority, then a yes, or no answer would be by necessity an opinion as opposed to an answer.

Please select either <include or exclude>, and then explain why.

I have supplied you with the only correct answer to your question if there is no set standard of authority. However, you are insisting that there is indeed a set standard of authority, and if you would supply us with who or what this authority is, then we just may be able to establish that your question would be a yes, or no answer. But you are avoiding this question, and we all know why. It is because you have insisted upon something that you cannot back up. Again, if you can demonstrate this set standard which you have insisted upon, then we would be able to answer your question with a yes or a no. However, if there is no set standard, then a yes or a no would by necessity have to be an opinion, and an opinion cannot be insisted upon.

I already have.

At this point, all you have done is to share an opinion which I am not insisting to be incorrect, unless you are insisting that your answer is more than simply an opinion at which point I will have to insist you demonstrate some sort of authority who determines what justice would be.

Regardless of one's personal definition for the term justice, the allowance for (raping the innocent) is incompatible regardless.

No one is allowed to have their own personal opinion of the definition of justice. However, unless there is a set standard of justice, then we are all allowed to have an opinion of what justice would be in each and every situation. I know you understand this very well. Because you fully understand that no one can have their own personal definition of beautiful, but you have no problem with allowing all to have their own personal opinion of what beautiful would be to them. Can you imagine why? That is because there is no set standard of beauty. There is a set definition, but no set standard.

In the same way, there is a set definition of justice, but there is no set standard that I am aware of which has been demonstrated. However, you are insisting there is a set standard but thus far have failed to supply said standard, and we all know why this is.

Unless it is 'National Opposite Day.

Well, no! At this point you want to insist your opinion is the standard. You also insist there is a set standard, but thus far all you have done is to offer an opinion, and then seem to want to insist your opinion is the standard. You can change all of this by revealing the set standard you insist exists.

So, commence with the apologetics to "spin" the terms <rape> and <innocent> accordingly.

You can continue to say the same things over, and over, even though there is no truth in what you say, but the fact remains you have no answers. The "spin" here is the fact that you want to insist upon a set standard, and then avoid revealing what that standard would be.

Oh wait, you already did. According to you, all married folks deserve to be raped.

The above is "spin" as well. Well, not exactly. Rather, it is what is called "fake news". If we were to go back, what we would find is that I was talking about that if Jesus was correct in that lust would constitute adultery, then I would be guilty. This says nothing as to what I would deserve but rather demonstrates that I am not innocent. You see, this whole thing is going to get complicated if we continue down this road. I understand that you more than likely do not understand this, because as you admit yourself, you are not used to doing a whole lot of thinking when it comes to things such as this and are under the impression that there are always easy answers. With this being the case, it may be best if we just stick to the question as to whether there is a set standard, because if we begin to talk about who all is innocent, and what the innocent deserves, it is going to get very complicated.

But guess what... It is all completely irrelevant anyways. Not only because it is definitionally absurd for the term 'justice' to <include> raping the innocent

You have to be intentionally confusing the definition of a word, with a set standard, and this has to be intentional because you have no problem understanding that we cannot have our own personal opinion of what beauty would mean by definition, but we can all have our own personal opinion of what beauty would be. It all comes back to that set standard you are insisting exists, and the set standard is not the definition of the word and insisting that your opinion is the standard.

but because I'm instead asking what is "god's justice"?

My friend, if there is a god which can be demonstrated then I think we have a standard, and I do not think any of our opinions would matter much at all. The problem is, we both agree that there is no standard which can be demonstrated. The difference between you and I is, I am willing to live accordingly by not insisting that my opinion is the standard, while you must agree there is no standard, and then want to go on to insist upon what the standard would be.

In your worldview, this god exists.

Correct! But also in my worldview, I understand that the end of that word would be "view" which happens to mean opinion, which goes on to mean that I cannot demonstrate my "worldview" to be the correct worldview and therefore, I do not insist that my worldview is the standard. This means I allow others to live according to their worldview, until or unless they want to insist that their opinion is the standard.

In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

My friend, in your worldview this god does not exist, and if he does not exist then none of this really matters much at all. However, if this god does exist, then I am not thinking that our opinions of his justice matter much at all.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #55]

Nothing you have stated above presses against posts 12, 29, 50, and 51. I will be happy to tell you why, if need-be. Let me know. Yet AGAIN:

In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

BTW, your last statement speaks volumes. I've asked this question countless times now. The fact that you do not agree with your believed 'god', as evidence by the fact that you instead deflect/divert the question, comports with post 51.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #55]

You can respond to the post prior, or just pass-go to this one.

a) If you admit that YOUR believed god IS "THE STANDARD", then please tell us if you agree with all of his commanded justice? If you do, then we can go from there. If you don't agree with all his given justice, then we can go from there as well.

b) If you instead admit that your believed upon god is NOT 'THE STANDARD', then NO ONE needs to care or follow what your believed upon god states -- (even you).

[Haven]

[Replying to POI in post #56]

You know he’s not going to answer. He can’t accept what that would imply. This is the problem with fundamentalism, you have to terminate your reasoning to make it work.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

It seems as though you do not get it, but I am pretty certain you do. One of the problems is what I have been saying for a number of years to you now, and that is the fact that you freely admit to being a convinced Christian for decades, without the use of the mind. Since you did not use the mind, you had an extremely faulty view of Christianity, and you are now insisting (btw you do a whole lot of insisting) that all Christians must adhere to the faulty understanding that you once held to. You see, you were under the impression that you needed to defend God, and so when anyone would bring up these sorts of things, you would feel obligated to make a defense for God. However, one who truly understands Christianity understands that there are no demonstratable rules, standards, or authority, and even if there was, we understand that we could never live up to the rules, standard, or authority. Therefore, we have given up on the rules, standards, and authority and are now free to serve others not out of any obligation to the rules, standards, or authority, but rather out of gratitude. The point is, I am not insisting upon what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust. Rather, I am leaving that up to those such as yourself who are somehow convinced, they know what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust.

Again, and again, and again, you cannot make this stuff up! We have a Christian who is not insisting upon what would be right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust, while we have an atheist, or agnostic which either way demonstrates one who cannot insist upon any sort of authority, who then wants to insist on what would be justice. It is like the gift that keeps on giving.

One who does not believe in a god, or even one who claims to be agnostic toward the existence of a god, cannot insist upon any sort of authority concerning right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust, and yet this is exactly what you do. When you are called out concerning this you go on to insist there is an authority concerning such things, and thus far the only authority you have seemed to have supplied is the definition of words, and your insistence on what these words would have to mean. Well, we can all look up the meaning of the word "justice" and we will all agree to the meaning of the word, but we need an authority to demonstrate what justice would be, and if we cannot demonstrate what justice would be, then we are all left to our own subjective opinion. It is like you are insisting upon what justice means and then going on to insist that your opinion of justice is the standard.

Is there a standard of justice? If so, who, are what is this standard? If you cannot demonstrate a standard of justice, then is any opinion as good as the other? If not, who is it that determines this? We can go all the way back to 9-11-01 where we have millions upon millions of folks who believe justice was served on that day, while we have millions upon millions who are convinced the actions were unjust, or we can go back just a couple of days ago with the shooting of Charlie Kirk where we have a whole lot of folks who are convinced the shooting was justified, while we have many, many others that believe justice will only be served by the death of the shooter. My guess is, you will not want to insist of which is correct in either of these cases, but in certain other cases you seem to want to insist your opinion is the standard.

[POI]

You still evade/avoid/dodge/pivot/divert --> In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

[Replying to POI in post #57]

It seems as though you do not get it, but I am pretty certain you do. One of the problems is what I have been saying for a number of years to you now, and that is the fact that you freely admit to being a convinced Christian for decades, without the use of the mind. Since you did not use the mind, you had an extremely faulty view of Christianity, and you are now insisting (btw you do a whole lot of insisting) that all Christians must adhere to the faulty understanding that you once held to. You see, you were under the impression that you needed to defend God, and so when anyone would bring up these sorts of things, you would feel obligated to make a defense for God.

Even though I've responded here multiple times, this is irrelevant, again.

However, one who truly understands Christianity understands that there are no demonstratable rules, standards, or authority,

Your standard is the Christian god, is it not?

and even if there was, we understand that we could never live up to the rules, standard, or authority.

Irrelevant again.

Therefore, we have given up on the rules, standards, and authority and are now free to serve others not out of any obligation to the rules, standards, or authority, but rather out of gratitude. The point is, I am not insisting upon what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust. Rather, I am leaving that up to those such as yourself who are somehow convinced, they know what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust.

Please pick a lane:

a) If you admit that YOUR believed god IS "THE STANDARD", then please tell us if you agree with all of his commanded justice? If you do, then we can go from there. If you don't agree with all his given justice, then we can go from there as well.

b) If you instead admit that your believed upon god is NOT 'THE STANDARD', then NO ONE needs to care or follow what your believed upon god states -- (even you).

Again, and again, and again, you cannot make this stuff up! We have a Christian who is not insisting upon what would be right, wrong, moral, immoral, just, or unjust, while we have an atheist, or agnostic which either way demonstrates one who cannot insist upon any sort of authority, who then wants to insist on what would be justice. It is like the gift that keeps on giving.

Interlocutors see that you have completely avoided the OP question, and the question in bold red. That's all. And I explained in post 51.

So far, what has been halarious, is reading as you offer apologetics for how we are all 'adulterers' and all deserve rape. And also how the ascribed verse, which was said to have come from god, really didn't come from god at all.

Is there a standard of justice?

According to your worldview, YES. Now please address the question in bold red.

According to my worldview, the question is irrelevant, as I explained in post 29.