Justice

[POI]

“restoring right relationships and making wrong things right”

For Debate: What is god’s version of justice?

The quote above is what one person might think it is? Is he right? Is he wrong? Is he partially right, but maybe lacking or missing other key components? Other?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #84]

In my own spiritual path,

Which is code for 'cope.'

If I were to study Old Testament first in detail with all of its atrocities, some of which are attributed to the Lord, I would have had perhaps a great doubt as to the justice of the Lord or His nature.

Hence, you are required to find a coping mechanism to make it all jive somehow. This is called post hoc rationalization.

But I first read the Gospel, where a different picture of the Lord is present,

A post hoc rationalization is the cognitive process of constructing logical justifications for decisions, beliefs, or actions after they have already been made, often driven by initial, non-conscious, or emotional intuition. It functions as a defense mechanism to make behaviors appear rational, consistent, or morally justified to oneself and others.

and besides I came accross some deeper explanations of the letter of the Old Testament, for instance, claming:

"In many places in the Word, anger, wrath, and vengeance are attributed to the Lord, and it is also said that He punishes, that He casts into hell, that He tempts, and many other such things. He who believes all this in simplicity, and on that account fears God and takes care not to sin against Him, is not condemned for that simple belief. But the man who confirms himself in these ideas to such a degree as to believe that anger, wrath, revenge, thus things that are of evil, exist in the Lord, and that from anger, wrath, and revenge He punishes a man and casts him into hell, is condemned, because he has destroyed the genuine truth that the Lord is love itself, mercy itself, and good itself, and that one who is these cannot be angry, wrathful, and revengeful. These things are attributed to the Lord because such is the appearance. So with many other things."

So, for me the issue of the challenges of the letter of the Old Testament was almost non-existent, because that letter was explained in depth with regard to why such atrocities were ascribed in the letter to the Lord, and why some things were allowed, not commanded, though in the letter of the OT they are expressed as commanded.

Cut the nonsense... Your "play" here is irrelevant. If these things are merely allowed, it still does not make it any better for you. I trust I do not need to explain why, being I'm speaking to such an enlightened believer.

Yes or no....

1. Does justice ever include ordering punishment for individual(s) who did not commit that crime?
2. Does justice ever include ordering the slaughter of infants?
3. Does justice ever include ordering the stoning to death of perceived guilty individuals, based upon insufficient evidence gathering?
4. Is justice ever served for the female rape victim, if the male rapist is ordered to marry her?

So, in my understanding of Justice of the Lord, the appearances of the letter of the OT where hatred and revenge are ascribed to the Lord were never the part of faith, though I admit that once upon a time the Lord considered them to be useful, for a number of the pursposes, serving the uses of the church. But these are the particulars which is not of great use to discuss until the general ideas are known about the nature of the letter of the Old Testament, and how the appearances there are different from the genuine trues about the Lord.

More absolutely baseless cope....

[Consocius]

[Replying to POI in post #91]

You ask, on a certain level, valid question, but not knowing anything about the Divine Providence, about eternal considerations, about the series of permissions given to the Jewish Church, causes of those permissions, and with regard to whom they were given, the fate the innocent children, the reasons why the evil is permitted in general and particular, the hereditary evils, etc. - you think of a case in a very limited fashion. Consider, it is like in a court, the actions were heard of, but the circumstances were not known. And what is the judgment without the circumstances? So, outside of the circumstances, outside of anything spiritual and eternal, of course, there is not true justice in what you say. But thinking of God's Justice outside of all the truths about him, Divine Providence, etc etc, it is like thinking of the idea of God and denying that there is eternal life. What can be more insane?

I once saw a scene from a movie in which one man confessed that he had killed another man by shooting an arrow into his heart. Apart from the circumstances, that person was guilty of a crime. But the circumstances were that the man who was shot was at that very moment being burned at the stake. The arrow that killed him, though shot in defiance of the order according to which he was to be burned alive completely, ended his suffering at the very beginning of the burning.

Judges who are not interested in the circumstances of a case are either unjust or prejudiced, or they may have certain gaps in their rational judgment and other emotional dysfunctions that prevent them from investigating the matter in a spirit of calm consideration.

So, would you like to be a just judge, judging the case fairly, or a biased one?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #91]

You ask, on a certain level, valid question, but not knowing anything about the Divine Providence, about eternal considerations, about the series of permissions given to the Jewish Church, causes of those permissions, and with regard to whom they were given, the fate the innocent children, the reasons why the evil is permitted in general and particular, the hereditary evils, etc. - you think of a case in a very limited fashion. Consider, it is like in a court, the actions were heard of, but the circumstances were not known. And what is the judgment without the circumstances? So, outside of the circumstances, outside of anything spiritual and eternal, of course, there is not true justice in what you say. But thinking of God's Justice outside of all the truths about him, Divine Providence, etc etc, it is like thinking of the idea of God and denying that there is eternal life. What can be more insane?

I'm not going to address any of your avoidance topics until you answer my repeated questions. I asked (yes or no) questions, and twice, you avoided answering them. Third request:

1. Does justice ever include ordering punishment for individual(s) who did not commit that crime?
2. Does justice ever include ordering the slaughter of infants?
3. Does justice ever include ordering the stoning to death of perceived guilty individuals, based upon insufficient evidence gathering?
4. Is justice ever served for the female rape victim, if the male rapist is ordered to marry her?

I once saw a scene from a movie in which one man confessed that he had killed another man by shooting an arrow into his heart. Apart from the circumstances, that person was guilty of a crime. But the circumstances were that the man who was shot was at that very moment being burned at the stake. The arrow that killed him, though shot in defiance of the order according to which he was to be burned alive completely, ended his suffering at the very beginning of the burning.

Judges who are not interested in the circumstances of a case are either unjust or prejudiced, or they may have certain gaps in their rational judgment and other emotional dysfunctions that prevent them from investigating the matter in a spirit of calm consideration.

Your given movie scene scenario is irrelevant, as from your worldview, god's commands/orders/conditions/other supersedes any human choices. Hence, if god ordered the burning of a human, and a human sought mercy to finish them early to avoid continued suffering of the ordered burning, this would mean this human is defying god's justice, which is a NO NO from your worldview.

So, would you like to be a just judge, judging the case fairly, or a biased one?

Why can't you answer very simple questions, in which have been repeatedly asked?

[Consocius]

Why can't you answer very simple questions, in which have been repeatedly asked?

I answered, though perhaps it was not clear to you: "outside of anything spiritual and eternal, of course, there is not true justice in what you say", that is, answer to your question - it is not just, that is, in the way that you present it. And I also described the way that you presented it. Another illustration: that is like passing the judgment on the state of the mind of man, who was never known as to his qualities and is dead.

The whole problem of your attitude, that as it appears you are taking that whole thing as the merely natural matter, outside of its any spiritual context. Again, that is similar to when one talking with another man to believe that another is merely an animal, and his whole difference from an animal, is only that he can talk.

It is hard to admit anything spiritual, when it is not seen. But without the latter the attempts to undestand the Sacred Scripture is quite futile, for a person has no glue whatsover, why the Scripture is called Holy, and what is exactly HOLY there.

Not sure why bother oneself with such issues, for, again, seen in the limited scope outisde of all the ideas about God, other life, etc etc, even a child understands that those listed things are not just. But a sound thinking child can also understand the limits of his or her understanding, if he is sound, not traumatized, not prejudiced, and so is open to learning.

[POI]

Why can't you answer very simple questions, in which have been repeatedly asked?

I answered, though perhaps it was not clear to you:

I asked a (yes or no) question. And (3) times now, I do not see a (yes or no) answer. Please stop preloading your case. I've heard it all. I'm not new here. I've been debating apologists for years and years and I doubt there is anything you could bring forth in which will catch me "off guard" or make me second-guess my current stance. But there's always a first for everything. Maybe you are different? But I haven't seen you mention anything yet, which may 'stump' me.

"outside of anything spiritual and eternal, of course, there is not true justice in what you say", that is, answer to your question - it is not just, that is, in the way that you present it.

Hmm, so does god's justice include a) one getting what they deserve <and/or> b) being in one's rightful place?

4th request now... (Yes or no) -- Please answer the question(s):

1. Does justice ever include ordering punishment for individual(s) who did not commit that crime?
2. Does justice ever include ordering the slaughter of infants?
3. Does justice ever include ordering the stoning to death of perceived guilty individuals, based upon insufficient evidence gathering?
4. Is justice ever served for the female rape victim, if the male rapist is ordered to marry her?

And I also described the way that you presented it. Another illustration: that is like passing the judgment on the state of the mind of man, who was never known as to his qualities and is dead.

All I read here, are continued excuses as to why you cannot answer with a (yes or no). Does God's just include the (4) topics above, or not? Once you issue your answer, then we can go from there.

The whole problem of your attitude, that as it appears you are taking that whole thing as the merely natural matter, outside of its any spiritual context. Again, that is similar to when one talking with another man to believe that another is merely an animal, and his whole difference from an animal, is only that he can talk.

More avoidance.

It is hard to admit anything spiritual, when it is not seen. But without the latter the attempts to undestand the Sacred Scripture is quite futile, for a person has no glue whatsover, why the Scripture is called Holy, and what is exactly HOLY there.

Is it or isn't it holy to issue these (4) questioned topics, (yes or no)?

Not sure why bother oneself with such issues, for, again, seen in the limited scope outisde of all the ideas about God, other life, etc etc, even a child understands that those listed things are not just. But a sound thinking child can also understand the limits of his or her understanding, if he is sound, not traumatized, not prejudiced, and so is open to learning.

Is the answer to the questions(s) actually yes or no?

[Consocius]

[Replying to POI in post #95]

Sorry, mate. I cannot be of more help. I replied to you you twice, with simple yes answers, outlining, however, the contingencies of those "yes" and the profound limitations of your attitude, and so resulting in the limitations in the whole questions in the first place, and if you choose to ignore that and the answers, it's your choice.

It is not enough to ask a question, but it is also needed to understand the answer. Repeating the questions is not helpful to your cause.

To be able to understand the answer means that one becomes open to the arguments. Apart from being open to those, there is no true understanding. The ability to enter the arguments, which relate not only to the technical natural issues, but also to the spiritual, belongs to the intelligence.

I am ending this discussion with you for now, at least on my end.

[POI]

with simple yes answers

If you review your last response, you will see that you certainly did not answer with simple yes answers. Great, you have now. Now we can get to your apologetics. Why is it actually just to...

1. order punishment for individual(s) who did not commit that particular crime?
2. order the slaughter of infants?
3. order a death stoning, based upon insufficient evidence?
4. order a female rape victim to marry her rapist?

[William]

POI is not letting Consocius exit cleanly. He claims Consocius did not give simple yes answers — which is true — but then says “Great, you have now,” as if Consocius finally conceded. He then demands that Consocius explain why the four actions are actually just.

But Consocius has already withdrawn. He said he is ending the discussion on his end. POI is now speaking to an empty chair. He is performing for the audience, declaring that he has extracted the answers he wanted.

Consocius, if he holds to his word, will not respond. POI will then declare victory over another opponent who “could not defend his position.”

The thread will now naturally sink again - only to perhaps be resurfaced (again) in some future moment as POI senses there may be other unwary Christians willing to be baited.

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #77]

A new topic has now been created, from the running list.

viewtopic.php?p=1186925#p1186925

[POI]

Now that you have finally answered with a simple 'yes', we can now examine your given pre-qualifiers for the following:

Why is it actually just to...

1. order punishment for individual(s) who did not commit that particular crime?
2. order the slaughter of infants?
3. order a death stoning, based upon insufficient evidence?
4. order a female rape victim to marry her rapist?

Please do not tuck and run now........

that is like passing the judgment on the state of the mind of man, who was never known as to his qualities and is dead.

I do not see where this addresses the (4) specific questions.

The whole problem of your attitude, that as it appears you are taking that whole thing as the merely natural matter, outside of its any spiritual context. Again, that is similar to when one talking with another man to believe that another is merely an animal, and his whole difference from an animal, is only that he can talk.

I do not see where this addresses the (4) specific questions.

It is hard to admit anything spiritual, when it is not seen. But without the latter the attempts to undestand the Sacred Scripture is quite futile, for a person has no glue whatsover, why the Scripture is called Holy, and what is exactly HOLY there.

I do not see where this address the (4) specific questions.

Not sure why bother oneself with such issues, for, again, seen in the limited scope outisde of all the ideas about God, other life, etc etc, even a child understands that those listed things are not just. But a sound thinking child can also understand the limits of his or her understanding, if he is sound, not traumatized, not prejudiced, and so is open to learning.

I do not see where this addresses the (4) specific questions.

I'll stop here, as I already answered one or some of your responses prior to awaiting a simple (yes or no) answer.