tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114304508455437730..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Mercy vs. JusticeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143487448622947152006-03-27T14:24:00.000-05:002006-03-27T14:24:00.000-05:00Xian idiots here are laughable. There is no object...Xian idiots here are laughable. There is no objective morality regardless of "god"'s existence. If there is a "god", then his opinion on morality is just that - an opinion. If "god" declared lutefisk to be objectively tasty, it would not become objectively tasty. Same with "objective" morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143248826230153412006-03-24T20:07:00.000-05:002006-03-24T20:07:00.000-05:00Nihlo, it is true there are volumes on the concept...Nihlo, it is true there are volumes on the concept of Justice. I tend to be more pragmatic than philosophic in my arguments and definitions.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if any Christian disagrees with my definition of “justice” they are free to provide their own. And apply it to King David’s Baby. And become tied in knots trying to explain which actions (under their definition) are just and which are not.<BR/><BR/><BR/>CalvinDude – interest rekindled, eh? Now how can I seriously commit to your questions when you can’t commit to mine? What law do you propose God is following?<BR/><BR/>But, in event a lurker is interested, may I emphasize again, it is the Christian that is making this statement as if it has validity? If you are agreeing with me that it is impossible to verify, doesn’t that take all the teeth out of any claim of God being just or merciful at any time?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143244176294455392006-03-24T18:49:00.000-05:002006-03-24T18:49:00.000-05:00dagoods,If something is impossible to verify, shou...dagoods,<BR/><BR/>If something is impossible to verify, should you reject it as being true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143233294107197852006-03-24T15:48:00.000-05:002006-03-24T15:48:00.000-05:00This is a very interesting article. However, I wo...This is a very interesting article. However, I would note that your assessment of the concept of justice as easy to define is contrary to the voluminous literature on the subject. Also, the notion that justice is not fair is also contentious.Nihlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10212972916007086778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143231054937692832006-03-24T15:10:00.000-05:002006-03-24T15:10:00.000-05:00Calvindude keeps asking the same questions over an...Calvindude keeps asking the same questions over and over, as if he doesn't have anything else to say.<BR/><BR/>He was effectively dealt with <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/whats-likelihood-that-calvinists-are.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and he finally quit after I linked to some further arguments.<BR/><BR/>No wonder Van Tillian Presuppositionalists aren't given the time of day in academic circles. Their whole argument is one and the same monotone note.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143230057856758802006-03-24T14:54:00.000-05:002006-03-24T14:54:00.000-05:00O.K. CalvinDude, if you don’t want to have this co...O.K. CalvinDude, if you don’t want to have this conversation—then don’t!<BR/><BR/>I never made any claim that God can or cannot lie. I have consistently maintained the position that <B>it is impossible to verify!</B> Again, if the theist readily agrees with me that they, too, cannot tell whether God is lying or not, I have no qualms with this.<BR/><BR/>Your argument went a bit back and forth. My original statement is that we cannot say whether God is just or not, due to lack of the verification problem. You now question, if there is a law that says God can lie, how I could say “God is unjust by lying.” But I never said that. Can you demonstrate such a law? Can you answer the very question you pose?<BR/><BR/>If there is a law that says God can do whatever He wants, when he wants, and How he wants, then it is true, God can never be unjust. He will always follow such a law. Of Course, it ALSO means he could never be merciful,either.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143224197795724852006-03-24T13:16:00.000-05:002006-03-24T13:16:00.000-05:00dagoods,Firstly, I have to say that the length of ...dagoods,<BR/><BR/>Firstly, I have to say that the length of this conversation already far exceeds my desire in having it. Furthermore, your basic argument boils down to one of pure skepticism, which is just as easy for me to "play" as for you.<BR/><BR/>If I say that God says He is just, and God would know what Law He would be under so He would know if He was just, then you've already shown your response will be: "God could be lying." But of course, that "argument" is easily defused: "Unless God is under a law that says He cannot lie, then how would it be unjust of Him to lie?" Your "argument" assumes that lying is a universal, transcendent moral standard that even God would have to be under--yet you do not demonstrate how this is the case. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you could try to implicate God by His own words. You might even say, "God said it is impossible for God to lie"--but there's that pesky matter that if God <I>can</I> lie then God could certainly say it's not possible for Him to lie and still not be unjust for He is still not breaking the law above Him.<BR/><BR/>If the Law God is under allows Him to lie, then He is not unjust in claiming to be just for He has not broken the Law <I>no matter how you look at it</I>. If, however, you want to say lying is a universal, transcendent reality that even God has to obey, then <I>you</I> have to prove this standard. <BR/><BR/>Finally, there is no reason for you to assume that God lies just because <I>people</I> do. Is God a man? No. Why treat Him as if He were one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143163971493023872006-03-23T20:32:00.000-05:002006-03-23T20:32:00.000-05:00CalvinDude, you ask a very good question in “What ...CalvinDude, you ask a very good question in “What Law is above God?” It is one I would ask of any Christian, and, by implication, asked in this blog.<BR/><BR/>See, I am not the one making the claim that something is special by calling God “just” as in following a law. It is the Christian. That was the point of my third paragraph, if they want to use the term “just” and have any meaning; they have some explaining to do. One item being your question—what law is God conforming to (above, self-imposed or below.)?<BR/><BR/>Take a side trip with me for a moment. A theist will often make the claim “God is Love.” There is a reason for it. It is to have meaning. As in God is NOT hate. Often it is attached to a certain act. The Crucifixion comes to mind. You don’t often see Christians arguing vehemently about how loving it was for God to create some galaxy on the other side of the universe, that we never see. The idea of “God is love” is to delineate out a positive attribute of God in a certain action.<BR/><BR/>It is the same with “God is Just.” In order for it to have meaning, the Christian is pointing out a positive action of God (following justice) in light of a certain action.<BR/><BR/>If there is no law by which God is bound, then saying “God is Just” is really saying “ God is God” which does not advance our knowledge of Him, nor a definition, nor even an attribute. Further, it removes the concept of “mercy” because if Justice is God simply being God, then mercy, the opposite of Justice, would be God NOT being God. <BR/><BR/>CalvinDude, if you, as a Christian, have no interest in stating that God is Just, or that God is merciful, then this blog would not have any impact on you, I would agree. If, however, you have those concepts in the attributes of God, it is up to you to explain the law He is following. <BR/><BR/>You are correct, in that God violating a law that he puts in place for humans does not necessarily mean God’s action was unjust. However, this opens an extremely dangerous door in terms of any claim of any absolute morality vested in God. If we have an obligation to follow God’s commands, and following God’s commands invokes punishment for being immoral, then we are doomed in any attempt of determining what is moral or not. If not following God’s commands invokes non-punishment (sorry for the double negative) then we are left in a moral position of following/not following God’s commands and receiving/not receiving punishment at his whim. <BR/><BR/>Here’s another. If a person confesses with their mouth Jesus is Lord and believes in their hear that God raised them from the dead, they will be saved. (Rom.10:9) Is that a law God is bound by? If God can be God, and is under NO law, then he is not bound by this precept, and a person could perform these actions and not be saved. Or, can God exercise mercy, and not be bound by this precept?<BR/><BR/>More interestingly, from what I have read of the contributors on this blog (and I don’t mean to speak for everyone) but most of us DID confess with our mouth and DID believe in our heart. (poetically, of course.) Is God bound to save us? Or can God revoke this law? Or is it mercy?<BR/><BR/>You are quite correct that if I cannot determine the law God is under (and I can’t) then I am in no position to call God unjust. This cuts both ways. If YOU cannot determine what law God is under, then YOU cannot call God just or merciful. (Kinda the point of my blog.)<BR/><BR/>If Christians would take the words “God is just” and “God is merciful” out of their vocabulary, I would not claim God is unjust. But, as long as they make these claims, I will continue to ask these questions.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143158165858459392006-03-23T18:56:00.000-05:002006-03-23T18:56:00.000-05:00dagoods,The problem with your position stems from ...dagoods,<BR/><BR/>The problem with your position stems from the fact that you are not being consistent in your use of the term "Justice." You defined it as:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>“Justice” is not that complicated of a word. It means conforming to or consonant with what is legal or lawful; legally right; lawful. It is equally easy to apply—read the law, review the situation, and determine a yes/no answer—does it conform to the law?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>The question that you, being the legal expert that you are, should have kept from begging is simple: <I>What law is in view?</I><BR/><BR/>Let us take a simple example. If France passes a law saying that littering in a public park is punishable by a 10 franc fine, and I throw my garbage out in a park in San Francisco, am I obliged to pay the 10 franc fine? Obviously not, because that law only applies <I>to those who are under the law</I> (in this case, Frenchmen).<BR/><BR/>Thus, when you ask questions about what God does in determining the morality of the situation, you cannot take a law that is given to <I>people</I> and then extrapolate back that <I>non-people</I> are bound by the same law. The Law God gave to man was <I>for man</I>, not for God.<BR/><BR/>This alone demonstrates that even if God "violates" His commandments given to people, it in no way means He has violated any law that He Himself would be under. In point of fact, the only way you could say that God is unjust is if you could <I>demonstrate</I> what Law it is that God is under.<BR/><BR/>I merely ask you, then: What Law is above God?<BR/><BR/>If you cannot answer that question, then you have no basis for saying anything God does is unjust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143149428128714512006-03-23T16:30:00.000-05:002006-03-23T16:30:00.000-05:00For those interested, a response was posted on tr...For those interested, <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/meaningful-justice.html" REL="nofollow">a response </A> was posted on triablogue.<BR/><BR/>I would strongly encourage anyone to read it. After doing so, I confess I was left with a number of questions. Not the least of which was “What law is God following?” Although a number of assertions were made, and some very complimentary adjectives were put forth, the only morsel I could derive was God follows His nature.<BR/><BR/>Evan May concedes that “mercy” in the normative sense is unjust. But immediately follows that with the statement that God’s mercy is not unjust. There is no explanation for this incongruity. It was interesting, though, to read that God acts in mercy toward the elect. Which (following the determination as to what law God follows) means God is acting against His own nature to the elect. There is no explanation as to how God can act against his own Nature, nor the full implications of that. Again, I would encourage anyone reading it to ascertain Evan May’s definition of mercy, if it is NOT “acting unjustly.” That, too, was unclear.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in this blog I assume the existence of a God. I find most arguments against Christianity become boring if all I say is, “There is no God.” Christianity proposes it has a cohesive worldview; I like to inspect it. To get this discussion off the ground, there is no sense but to allow the Christian their God. Then we see if it fits. It doesn’t.<BR/><BR/>The writer puts forth a contention that God is Just. I was looking for some type of backing, some proofs beyond definitions, and didn’t find much. For example:<BR/><BR/><I> They, should, then, assume that God is a Just God.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? What is the reasoning behind this claim that I have to assume this?<BR/><BR/><I>If God exists then he is Just </I> <BR/><BR/>That’s it. Blind assertion. Oh, there is a list of “If…then’s…” after that, all of which are unproven or have nothing to do with justice. It caps off with:<BR/><BR/><I> …then He possesses <B>all qualities</B> intrinsically and eternally in infinite measure.</I> (emphasis in the original) <BR/><BR/>The writer fails to define which qualities (would it include the quality of injustice, for example?) and even later on contradicts this statement by indicating God has mercy, but not all the time. Apparently he doesn’t have ALL qualities eternally in infinite measure. There would appear to be a limit to His mercy!<BR/><BR/>I chuckled when I read, “..the fact that we are discussing a concept called ‘justice’ tells us that we have a just God…” Makes me regret not writing about injustice. Then we could say the fact we are discussing injustice tells us that we have an unjust God. (If anyone thinks I am taking these quotes out of context, because I do not provide the entire sentence, please go and read it yourself.)<BR/><BR/>Evan May did not like my definition of Justice. I laughed out loud. Right out of Black’s Law Dictionary, it was! Fine enough, it was indicated the “correct” definition is “Giving every man his due.”<BR/><BR/>I wished the writer would have applied this definition to the two stories I listed. In fact, both were completely ignored. Why would a Christian, arguing over the justice of God, shy away from these “wonderful” examples of what God did in the name of justice and mercy? If there is any hope left that even Christians do not really hold to the idea that the God of the Tanakh was just is that they constantly avoid these stories. Even they see the horrid nature of the God therein.<BR/><BR/>I would have been intrigued to hear how David’s baby was “getting his due” by being slowly killed for seven days because of a sin that God had absolved from his father. Or how the wives would be “getting their due” by being raped. Or how David was “getting his due” by God <B>not</B> imposing the mandatory judgment. Or how Joab’s cousin was “getting his due” by being sick for Joab’s act of murder.<BR/><BR/>I didn’t bring up those examples for laughs and giggles. I wanted to see how a Christian would apply their particular concept of justice (if different than what I stated) or mercy to the situation. I was disappointed it was not defended at all.<BR/><BR/>The reason I stated the word “just” loses its value is amply demonstrated in this response. Although it is talked about and alluded to and placed in numerous assertions, it never quite gets defined in a way that we can actually use. Oh, we learn that God can do what God wants to do, I never argued against that. The question is, though, “is it just?” Part of the reason I use examples, is so that the reader can envision, and see exactly what I am talking about. It would have been helpful to see a few of those. Particularly, if God was to perform an unjust action, what it would look like.<BR/><BR/>See, by saying “God is just” the only way that has its meaning, is for us to view the possibility that God could, somehow, be unjust, and what that would look like. “God is just because he did NOT do Action A, which would have been unjust.” With the definition of God is just because he is who he is, provides us with no new information, nor any delineation.<BR/><BR/>What I saw was a bunch of circling statements, with no sustenance. The same thing stated in my initial blog. If one says enough about God, in enough assertions, <I>something</I> must strike true. I never quite got an ebb or flow as to where the writer was heading.<BR/><BR/>This is an excellent example. The writer states: <I> Because Scripture has told us that God does not lie, and if Scripture is true, then the proposition is true. </I><BR/><BR/>Notice the word substitution, in an attempt to make this profound. As the only validity of authority of Scripture is that it came from God, by simple word substitution, we have:<BR/><BR/>“Because God told us that God does not lie, and if God is not lying, then God does not lie.”<BR/><BR/>That is exactly what I said. Doesn’t really help us much.<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed the critique, but bottom line, I wished Evan May would have provided a succinct definition of Justice and Mercy, demonstrated what types of actions would be unjust, using these definitions, and then applying them to the two events of the Bible. As it was, I was left feeling like I was told a lot, but not really informed of anything.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1143090159840198992006-03-23T00:02:00.000-05:002006-03-23T00:02:00.000-05:00Salutations. . . I'm really likin' this site, and ...Salutations. . . <BR/><BR/>I'm really likin' this site, and though I'm a Christian, I like to think that I'm not a hateful and vengeful lunatic like the majority. . . but onto my question. . .<BR/><BR/>What do you mean when you say, "Why is it influential, or even credible, to assign these terms, when further reflection reveals the person making the claim has no ability to substantiate it?" I wanted to comment but I got a lil' confused at that part. . .P. Maestrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09203244492252909627noreply@blogger.com