Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you can't know that your version of justice is the 'correct one', what basis are you going to use to evaluate 'divine justice'? A gut feeling perhaps?

If there is no God, then there is no 'correct version of justice'. All you have are subjective opinions of men about what constitutes 'justice'.

All you are offering are your subjective notions/hopes about a supernatural being. Not only are you asserting such "justice" exists, you are deeming it to be "the correct one". "Justice" and "injustice" are ideas conceived by humans to govern the interactions and deeds of humans.

Concrete examples of these concepts in action are virtually limitless and we can see how the idea and application of justice has evolved and been refined down through the centuries and all across the world.

A "gut feeling"? Nonsense. Billions of people, for millennia, have been involved in its conception, its dissemination, its administration and its consequences. Hard evidence of what constitutes "justice" ~ and why ~ is plentiful and detailed.

You, meanwhile, have no examples of anything, no demonstration, no substance whatsoever ~ aside from your assertions... oh yes and your little assortment of adjectives that you seem to think lend weight to the literal nothingness you 'propose' - like "real" and "just" and "perfect" and "divine".

Originally posted by FMF
All you are offering are your subjective notions/hopes about a supernatural being. Not only are you asserting such "justice" exists, you are deeming it to be "the correct one". "Justice" and "injustice" are ideas conceived by humans to govern the interactions and deeds of humans.

Concrete examples of these concepts in action are virtually limitless and we ca ...[text shortened]... ht to the literal nothingness you 'propose' - like "real" and "just" and "perfect" and "divine".

Your continual whining that 'divine justice' doesn't constitute what you perceive to be 'justice' would only make sense if:

1. There were to exist a universally 'correct' justice system.
2. What you perceive to be 'justice' were the universally correct justice system.

I doubt from your point of view you can supply any evidence to support either 1 or 2.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Your continual whining that 'divine justice' doesn't constitute what you perceive to be 'justice' would only make sense if:

1. There were a universally 'correct' justice system.
2. What you perceive to be 'justice' were the correct justice system.

I doubt from your point of view you can supply any evidence to support either 1 or 2.

You can't supply any evidence for your take on 1. or 2. other than your earnest assertions. You've even pointedly refused to offer any examples of anything.

1. I haven't claimed there is a "universally correct justice system". It varies from society to society and down through history although notions of justice have been converging over the last century.

2. The system of justice simply is what it is in any given culture. There are laws, examples, precedents, debates, concensus etc. You on the other hand offer no substance. No examples. No paradigm.

Originally posted by FMF
You can't supply any evidence for your take on 1. or 2. other than your earnest assertions. You've even pointedly refused to offer any examples of anything.

1. I haven't claimed there is a "universally correct justice system". It varies from society to society and down through history although notions of justice have been converging over the last century.

...[text shortened]... ts, debates, concensus etc. You on the other hand offer no substance. No examples. No paradigm.

So if according to you there is no universally correct justice system what are you harping on about? That your notion of 'justice' is relatively better than someone else's?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if according to you there is no universally correct justice system what are you harping on about? That your notion of 'justice' is relatively better than someone else's?

What I am harping on about is that you are not proposing any kind of credible system of justice at all. You are simply attatching virtues to a God figure you happen to worship and claiming that there is justice about which you can offer no substantial detail or example.

Originally posted by FMF
What I am harping on about is that you are not proposing any kind of credible system of justice at all. You are simply attatching virtues to a God figure you happen to worship and claiming that there is justice about which you can offer no substantial detail or example.

What you don't seem to realise is that if there is no 'universally correct justice system', then there is no actual objective criteria or reference point by which you can measure or compare other 'justice systems' apart from your own subjective opinions.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Sure. Why not?

Your view on this matter is embarrassingly schizophrenic. On one hand, you hold that it is of the utmost importance that "ultimate justice" exists. On the other hand, you claim that if it does not exist, then there is no injustice to begin with. Well, I'll ask you again: if there is no injustice to begin with, then why all the fuss?

Injustice does exists - temperarily. I think it is a self evident matter. Human beings know "unfair" when they encounter "unfair" or "unjust". We do not dismiss it as an illusion. We recognize it.

This state of injustice is not forever or from now on. My faith is that it is a temporary imbalance which is going inevitably be rectified.

Admittedly, how to logically prove this is a challenge. But as I said we both are reasoning from an accumulated build up of evidences. Jesus Christ demonstrates before His death uncanny moral perfection. And then He demonstrates His authority to raise people from the dead. Then He demonstrates power and authority to, Himself, return from the dead.

My bets are on Paul's word to the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill being exactly true -

" Because He has set a day in which He is to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

God has furnished proof of a inevitable judgment of the living and the dead by resurrecting Jesus Christ from the tomb.

One would have thought that if "ultimate justice" is so important, it would be because the lack of it entails something bad like a lot of injustice, not because the lack of it entails no injustice, which doesn't sound bad at all.

We intuitively know that righteous justice is important. We don't have to argue about that. Part of our being human is caring about justice being done.

I grant that it is hard for me to logically prove Perfect Justice is expected by all people.
But this may be because we are imperfect. This imperfection is evidenced in that we are bias and partial and often have a vested interest. We often want the OTHER person to be dealt with justly. But we ourselves want lesser dealing.

So where I am is that:

1.) All people recognize justice and injustice.
2.) We are imperfect and partial in that recognition.

3.) Some of us recognize One in history who appears just, impartial, authoritative, and powerful and promising that injustice is temporary.

If there is a candidate for the judging of all men, no one better fits the bill then Jesus Christ.

In conjunction with He being so qualified, it is He who, at least in His mind, had to go to such lengths that we be SAVED from the inevitable divine appointment with God the perfect Judge.

He not only acted like He is the most qualified to judge, He also took the most seriously that an redemption and reconciliation to God for us all was necessary.

Could it be that you are just overthinking this?

It could be and most certainly is, that in the discipline of formal philosophical syllogistic arguments I am out of my league. But I am not intimidated because of this. I just haven't read enough on the skill of this kind of argumentation.

The common sense view would be that if there are injustices that never ultimately get righted, then there are injustices (that never ultimately get righted). It cannot be a good thing that your view appears to be at odds with this mere tautology.

I don't think it is that shut a case. The powerful sense of a transcendent goodness suggests that intuitively men think of a rightness far above themselves.

Let us say the rapist, murdering pedophile senses remorse. And after years in concealment actually turns himself in and confesses to his crime. Things like this have happened. Something in his conscience is so powerful that he, knowing that he may die, comes forward to clear up the hidden matter.

It doesn't do anything for the prolonging of his life. Why does he do it?
When self sacrificing rectification appears in men, I think it testifies to an innate sense of a rightness so transcendent that it approaches and possibly confirms an absolute morality must be met.

That is God awareness or very close to God awareness.

"Common sense" might lean towards keeping one's mouth shut and dying undetected. Many will take this way. But another "sense" causes some not to be able to live with themselves or even die without a righting of the wrong on their moral conscience, as best they can.

An absolute moral rightness in some must be satisfied even if it means it will cost them their life or liberty. Some cannot live with themselves or even die with themselves if the moral scale is not balanced and the iniquity at least confessed to men.

I think this is something put in man by his Creator.

me:
I am going to assume that you can measure "crooked" against something "less crooked". But at the same time you have no ideal of absolute "straightness".

Relatively so, then, there can be lesser levels of injustice. That is all ?
Am I getting your thought right ? There does not have to be any perfectly "straight" line against which "crooked" can be detected ?

No, I am not saying that. I was asking you if a relativism only ends the matter for you. I gather that it does.

I think I've already addressed this somewhat in my responses to KJ's claim that truth requires a standard. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, since we can do fine with just reference to facts.

skipping .. down

me:
Do you think a more acceptable reason for our sense of injustice is because of determined reactions of chemicals in the grey matter of our brains, over which we have no rights to boast of "choosing" one attitude over another ?

Do you believe what you believe because of choosing to follow a better argument or because the chemicals fissing around as they collide, combine, and interact cause you to believe what you do ?

Strange questions. First off, I don't really know what you are asking. "A more acceptable reason" than what?

Its not a strange question to ask one espousing as far as I can see Atheism.

Like Atheist Richard Dawkins, are you saying we are just dancing to our DNA ?
Is the sense of moral oughtness just a chemical matter in the body ?

Second, whatever implicit appeal you are making to libertarian freedom, I don't subscribe to it. I'm a compatibilist and therefore do not consider determinism to be irreconcilable with personal freedom.

Then it wasn't so strange a question. And I will go read up on a compatibalist viewpoint which apparently has considered the matter seriously, not dismissing the questions as frivolous or "strange".

Thirdly, what does freedom of choice have to do with anything here anyway?

It has to do with moral decisions of right or wrong behavior.
You don't daily LIVE as if freedom has nothing to do with anything.

Do you carry on you a set of keys ? I bet you do.
And the reason is that you are concerned what some people will do with their freedom.
Because they CAN do something, will they choose to DO that something?

So you lock up your things. You do not trust that everyone will use their freedom justly.

Are you honestly trying to imply that your moral sensibilities are a matter of choice?

Actions are a matter of choice.
And I think it is apparently that you are choosing to align your view with one attitude about moral matters over another to some degree.

You do not choose to be a Compatiblist ?

Are you telling me that when you find something to be unjust or morally outrageous, it is the result of your choosing to find it that way?

We can choose to suppress our feelings.
We can choose to hold down our moral sense (shut it up) as best we can..
We can choose to bribe our conscience by doing something else nice instead of righting a moral wrong we have done.

We can choose to rationalize away some error with our ability to reason.
We can choose to argue to intensify the dislike when someone ELSE has done the wrong. And we can choose to be easier on ourselves when we do the very same wrong.

Yes, to some degree we can regulate our moral attitudes.
We can display hypocrisy.
We can choose vested interest with a bias when it comes to reward or punishment.

Officials can choose to take a bribe.
A contract murderer can choose to kill someone merely for cash.

Our will can have powerful effect on our moral sensibilities.

And we can choose to repent to God or choose to ignore repentance.
We can choose to accept a offer of reconciliation and salvation.
And we can choose to not accept the offer but trust that relativism will allow us, like Adolf Eichmann, if not to laugh when jumping into the grave, maybe just smile a bit.

I believe everyone reading this discussion will be have their moral wrongs judged ultimately at one of two places.

1.) On Calvary in Christ's death on His cross as a Redeemer.
2.) Or before God on some day of final judgment in the presence of Absolute righteousness. .

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What you don't seem to realise is that if there is no 'universally correct justice system', then there is no actual objective criteria or reference point by which you can measure or compare other 'justice systems' apart from your own subjective opinions.

But I am not claiming there is "one universally correct justice system". You are claiming there is one but you cannot decribe it or demonstrate it credibly. You offer absolutely no evidence or reasons to concur with you other than your sincerity and certainty (about supernatural things) which are, of course, not evidence of anything at all other than an insight into what makes you tick.

All you've mentioned is "undeserved mercy" for a pedophile which of course makes a mockery of any rational concept of justice which even you suggested needs to incorporate "fairness". An "underserved" outcome?? Even this one thing you mentioned is steeped in capriciousness and arbitrariness. These are not characteristics to exalt.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get you quote Jesus in some scriptures and ignore Him and the rest of the Word of God
in other passages. You only quote what suits you, and when you are confronted with
scripture that does not back up your points you run off in a puff. You have done that with
me and others so do not say you pay attention to Jesus, because you do not. If you did
you follow all of the Word of God not just those things you use to justify your views.

I still cannot get over this piece of garbage:

within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God

LOL 😀

Originally posted by FMF
But I am not claiming there is "one universally correct justice system". You are claiming there is one but you cannot decribe it or demonstrate it credibly. You offer absolutely no evidence or reasons to concur with you other than your sincerity and certainty (about supernatural things) which are, of course, not evidence of anything at all other than an insight ...[text shortened]... entioned is steeped in capriciousness and arbitrariness. These are not characteristics to exalt.

If you are the one assuming that there is 'no universally correct justice system', what basis do you intend to use to evaluate whether or not I have credibly demonstrated it's existence?

If in your mind say an elephant did not exist, how would you even know if I were describing one?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I still cannot get over this piece of garbage:

within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God

LOL 😀

Not surprising since in your mind 99% of the Bible is garbage.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you are the one assuming that there is 'no universally correct justice system', what basis do you intend to use to evaluate whether or not I have credibly demonstrated it's existence?

Because you have demonstrated absolutely nothing regarding "justice".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If in your mind say an elephant did not exist, how would you even know if I were describing one?

But elephants do exist. Their existence is not in dispute. If i was unaware of their existence, you could simply show me one. Try another analogy.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Not surprising since in your mind 99% of the Bible is garbage.

Can you provide some Biblical support for that statement made by KJ?

Originally posted by FMF
Because you have demonstrated absolutely nothing regarding "justice".

Actually I have, but it obviously does not fit into your subjective 'relative opinion' of what justice is, since if there is no 'correct universal justice system' all you have is your subjective relative opinion of what constitutes justice.