Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm going to wait a while to see how many additional posts you add on. Then I'll respond to your salient points in one post again, like last time.

I don't think we will always agree on just what is a "salient" point.
I'll take this to mean you'll respond to the points you wish to.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Again, you cannot justify your belief in God's existence or necessity because you are bothered by stuff.

Vica versa. You cannot prove God does not exist because you are bothered by stuff.

That's just not an appropriate inferential pattern. How many times does it need to pointed out here that the following type of argument has no merit:

I don't think you need to point out when I already said maybe I cannot prove the existence of God.

To prove anything absolutely (maybe short of a mathematical problem ) would require that you and I be omniscient. We aren't. I am satisfied to show reasonable thoughts about God, in conjunction with my belief that He has revealed something of Himself in history.

And I am examining your atheistic alternatives - Such as Evolution caused material to emerge into a thinking mind. (I haven't seen you deny you believe that YET).

(i) The thought of X is bothersome.
(ii) Supposing God exists, He could rectify (i).
(iii) So, God exists.

The first syllogistic formula you used to portray my argument was I think fair.
I don't think variations are needed. And they might be strawmen.
So I am going to not go beyond your first proposal to adopt additional ones.

Admittedly, these replies of mine are not systematic.

You said that you were a Combatabalist. I am not yet an expert on what that is. But I would ask you this:

Do you think that God is not compatible [edited] with human freedom ?

Do you think human freedom and God could be compatible ?

A loving Creator Who has endowed men with freedom, would be thought to place in man some kind of conscience informing him of the good and right way to go. This sense would not coerce man against his will. But it could inform man as a yellow and red traffic light acting to inform man of the dangers of proceeding.

And of course a green light too encouraging man to proceed. That may explain the bothering in the conscience. It might also explain use of human freedom to perform a self sacrificing good act, like the teacher shielding against incoming bullets.

Christian theism would have an answer for the turning of such freedom into self sacrificing EVIL acts as well. There is an opposition party to this good and loving God - hating both God and his creature man, intent to dethrone one and damage to the uttermost the other.

If God and human freedom are compatible it stands to reason that a good God would impart into the free man indicators of what was pleasing to Him as opposed to displeasing.

You don't have to tell me that that is not proof of God's existence.

You propose that such a breaking mechanism exists in man but was arrived at by Evolution.

In this case is there an ultimate standard of justice beyond this world ?
Or is the Blind Watchmaker Evolution making it up as it gropes randomly along ?

The self sacrificing of the teacher using her body as a shield is certainly an act of love. At the stage of primordial goo level of life in Evolution, did Love exist ?
Or did Love only come into existence when material emerged intricate enough to think of such self sacrificing acts of love?

It makes a difference to me. If Evolution is creating these values I cannot see why it should arrive at eternal values. IE. Evolution might improvise in the future that the teacher, instead of shield the threatened children, grab them one by one, placing them before the terrorist's gun for execution. Then insisting that she be the last to die.

Then there might be no lasting standard of morality but an ever shifting one.

And as I write this I still hope to find out ( if you haven't already answered) if you are a Physicalist or not. (Nothing in the world except material things).

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

If you believe in God (as revealed in the Bible) you automatically believe in a universally perfect justice system since a just God who is omniscient can see every intent of the heart and he is the only one that will judge people. There are many examples of this in the Bible and I am surprised that as an ex-Christian you don't already know of all the examples in the Bible and continually persist on me giving you my own examples (as if I am the omniscient God who can see all the motives and intents of the heart).

So what about the pedophile, Adolf Eichmann, the Muslim and the atheist?

Unknowable "justice", carried out in secret, much of it for 'thoughtcrimes', rooted in pure "wrath" and "vengeance", with zero deterrence effect, and offering no protection to society, sprinkled arbitrarily with the "undeserved mercy" you mention, all rolled into one, is just about the biggest, ugliest, ideological nightmare and dystopia imaginable.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You on the other hand choose to believe in your own version of variable human justice where only the 'caught' are prosecuted, where judges and juries can be bribed, where the guilty can walk free and the innocent can receive the death sentence. How exactly is your idea of 'justice' even remotely close to 'fair'?

So, what is your idea of justice? For pages and pages you have been declining to say, or saying you don't know. The only specific thing you mentioned was "undeserved mercy" for a pedophile, which of course - by definition - is unfair.

Let's try again. So, take [1] the pedophile who sexual exploits a child and then murders it, [2] Adolf Eichmann who was responsible for the industrial style extermination of millions of people, [3] my Muslim neighbour who thinks the Christian version of the Jesus story is a mistake and a corruption of the 'Word of God', and [4] someone who simply does not believe in supernatural explanations for the human condition. What do you believe would be "real" or "perfect" justice for them? Let us know what you believe is appropriate justice for each one so we can see whether what you believe is sounds fair, proportionate, moral, rational.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]If you believe in God (as revealed in the Bible) you automatically believe in a universally perfect justice system since a just God who is omniscient can see every intent of the heart and he is the only one that will judge people. There are many examples of this in the Bible and I am surprised that as an ex-Christian you don't already know of all the examples ...[text shortened]... led into one, is just about the biggest, ugliest, ideological nightmare and dystopia imaginable.

Wow I can't believe after all I have said you are asking the same question over and over. Do you read even attempt to read what I say?

Originally posted by FMF
So, what is your idea of justice? For pages and pages you have been declining to say, or saying you don't know. The only specific thing you mentioned was "undeserved mercy" for a pedophile, which of course - by definition - is unfair.

Let's try again. So, take [1] the pedophile who sexual exploits a child and then murders it, [2] Adolf Eichmann who was respon ...[text shortened]... each one so we can see whether what you believe is sounds fair, proportionate, moral, rational.

Unbelievable. Seriously, which part of "God judges people and not me", do you not understand or feel is not supported by scripture?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Unbelievable. Seriously, which part of "God judges people and not me", do you not understand or feel is not supported by scripture?

"God judges people and not me" is merely an assertion. It's not a description of "justice". You are refusing to talk about "justice". You keep making assertions based on absolutely nothing except your superstitions and you seem to think having those superstitions absolves you from having to demonstrate what "justice" is.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Wow I can't believe after all I have said you are asking the same question over and over. Do you read even attempt to read what I say?

I'm trying to get you to explain and illustrate what you think "real" justice is. If it's secret and unknowable, then how is anyone to evaluate whether its "perfect" or "just", as you assert. Never mind what you imagine (or are unable to imagine) will actually happen to the pedophile, Eichmann, the Muslim and the atheist. Just tell us what you believe would be "real" or "perfect" justice for them.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you read even attempt to read what I say?

Yes. I'm reading exactly what you are saying (and not saying) and responding. In our discussion I have answered every single question you've asked me about "justice" and described it. Meanwhile, you have dodged all attempts to get you to substantiate why you think your notion of "justice" (which you can't even describe) is "real" or "universal", and instead you seem to be trying to pass off your sincerity and certainty as some kind of evidence of something related to "justice", which of course they are not.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm trying to get you to explain and illustrate what you think "real" justice is. If it's secret and unknowable, then how is anyone to evaluate whether its "perfect" or "just", as you assert. Never mind what you imagine (or are unable to imagine) will actually happen to the pedophile, Eichmann, the Muslim and the atheist. Just tell us what you believe would be "real" or "perfect" justice for them.

So by your reckoning, "God judges people" is a secret and unknowable? What makes you think you are able to judge whether or not God's judgements are perfect and just if you are not omniscient? Can you see the motives and intents of the heart?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So by your reckoning, "God judges people" is a secret and unknowable? What makes you think you are able to judge whether or not God's judgements are perfect and just if you are not omniscient? Can you see the motives and intents of the heart?

I'm not asking you about "motives" and "intents". I am asking you about the substance of the particular "justice" you tout as being "perfect". You are refusing to open up your ideology to any scrutiny. You are acting as if the consequences of this "justice" you prefer are secret and unknowable. If they are not secret and unknowable, why not just tell me what they are?

Originally posted by FMF
"God judges people and not me" is merely an assertion. It's not a description of "justice". You are refusing to talk about "justice". You keep making assertions based on absolutely nothing except your superstitions and you seem to think having those superstitions absolves you from having to demonstrate what "justice" is.

"God judges people" is a notion that is clearly supported by scripture, why do you want me to reject what the scriptures say and play God and pronounce judgement over people like you are doing? I believe in a universally correct judgement system that logically flows from my belief in the existence of God as depicted in the Bible. You on the other hand do not believe a universally correct judgment system exists, so logically from your point of view your idea of justice cannot even be more correct than someone else's to start off with. How you cannot even seem to fathom that is beyond me.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm not asking you about "motives" and "intents". I am asking you about the substance of the particular "justice" you tout as being "perfect". You are refusing to open up your ideology to any scrutiny. You are acting as if the consequences of this "justice" you prefer are secret and unknowable. If they are not secret and unknowable, why not just tell me what they are?

From your point of view no perfect justice system can exist, is that correct? So that means you have absolutely no criteria by which to measure a perfect justice system do you? So why do you pretend that your view of justice is more correct than mine if that doesn't even logically follow from the position you are taking?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

I am saying slavery is not conducive to a perfect justice system that you claim the bible supports.

And to your second point, in Genesis 24 God blesses Abraham by giving him lots of slaves. Is that not condoning slavery as acceptable? - . (Indeed, I don't believe there is a single biblical example of God disapproving of slavery And according to Exodus 21 it's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating).

'if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.'

You realize that on this Forum we tend to go around in circles. About 10 to 15 months (maybe less) certain cycles are repeated.

Some of us are debating the what is the source of moral sense in man - God or something else ? Predictably someone interjects "Well, God in the Bible is not that moral anyway - slavery, rape, genocide, all ordained by God."

So we're back (briefly for me) at showing weaknesses with this logic. It is essentially saying "I don't like the way God runs the universe in the Bible. i could probably do better."

Briefly then -

Indeed, I don't believe there is a single biblical example of God disapproving of slavery

Let me suggest you factor in a verse from the oldest book in the Bible canon - Job.

Job 31:13-15

" If I have despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, What then will I do when God rises up? And when He visits me, what will I answer Him ? (v.13)

Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb? (v.14)

If I have withheld the poor from their desire, Or have let the eyes of the widow fail, ..." (v.15)

1.) The servant (slave) and the widow are not revealed here as God's perfect will. Rather they are seen as a fact of life which will occur. You cannot say God "ordained" widowhood from this text. Nor can you say God "ordained" servitude (slavery) here.

2.) Job realizes that HOW he treats his slave and his maid will be accountable for injustice by God "when God rises up" sometime or other in their defense. He is afraid that he will have no excuse to rationalize treating either unjustly.

3.) His basis for fear of God is that he knows equal human dignity has been ordained by God from birth, to both the master and the slave (or maid).

There is no God ordained inferiority of one human being to another. Master / servant relationships were no excuse to view the master as intrinsically or more value than the servant or maid.

4.) I would like you to produce an older writing than this indicating a divine equal respect for the dignity of master and his slaves and maids.

The treatment of slaves in Exodus 21:26,27 -

The master here is an employer. If he gouges out the eye or tooth of the slave, the slave is to go free. Do you think slavery in the US could have been practiced if such a law had been instituted? I don't think so.

Typically in other ancient Near Eastern cultures it was the master who was recompensed for slave injuries, not the slave. The law of Moses was comparatively human.

The law of Moses hold here holds the master accountable not just for another's slave but for his own. Typically other ANE cultures only concerned themselves with the loss of function of another's slave because of injury.

To be fair the code of Hammurabi called for the release of a slave woman and her children ( if fathered by the master) if the master decided not to adopt them. Comparable to the law of Moses release of slaves every seven years was more human.

The slave who wanted to remain with the master had that choice.

Many slaves in the Israelite society were young people parceled out by destitute parents, More prosperous families would take these young people as servants, house, feed, and cloth them. Other adults then supervised them. When discipline fell on these slaves over doing of discipline occurred sometime. The law of Moses here accounts for that sinful over bearing treatment of the slave.

Kidnapping for slavery was a capital offense punishable by death. Could slavery exist as we knew it in the US with such a law as this?

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." ( Exodus 21:16)

Harriet Beecher Stowe would perhaps have never had to write Uncle Tom's Cabin had the South had such a law as this. Don't overplay the "God condones slavery" card.

'If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that THIEF shall DIE; so you shall purge evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7)

So we hear protest at this point. "But the Israelites could have slaves of conquered foreign enemies." The law of Moses concerning foreign slaves was more heavily designed to keep the property of the Good Land of their conquest in the ownership of the Israelites who worshipped Yahweh who gave it to them.

In the New Testament Paul refers to the Deuteronomy statue in a list of sins unrighteous, unruly, ungodly and profane.

"And know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners,

For those who strike their mothers,
for murderers,
for fornicators,
homosexuals,
KIDNAPPERS,
liars,
perjurers,
and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Timothy 1:9-11)

The phrase "whatever other thing" indicates that his list is only representative rather than exhaustive. .

Exodus 21 does not say "It is alright to beat our slaves". It makes provision for overkill taking for a fact of life that mistreatment of slaves will occur. Overdo of punishment, in particular with youngsters, was preemptively accounted for in the law of Moses.

If the employer master's treatment resulted in the death of his servant, the employer / master himself was to be put to death (Exodus 21:20). The word "punished" is strong and connotes the death penalty.

You should take this as indications of God's heart when you read about Abraham acquiring many slaves in Genesis 24. Though this was before the giving of the law it should reveal something of God's attitude about slavery. That He knew it would occur is not indication that He ordained it anymore than He ordained widowhood or orphanhood.

Though Genesis 24:35 does have Eleazar tell Rebecca that God blessed his master Abraham with "flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and male servants and female servants, and camels and donkeys." Job is written roughly around this time too. And Job shows that the godly patriarch regarded equal human dignity of the slave and the master from birth.

Man, in general (whether he be free of indentured or captive in war) is created in the image of God and in according to the likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26,27) This gives equal value and honor to all created men and women.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So why do you pretend that your view of justice is more correct than mine if that doesn't even logically follow from the position you are taking?

But you haven't offered any "view of justice" other than a bunch of assertions about a supernatural being that you just so happen to believe in. I'm not claiming that my view of justice is "more correct" than yours because you have yet to give any substance to your assertions. The justice I have described exists ~ the reality of it is there for all to see ~ while there is no reason to believe that the secret and unknowable "justice" you keep referring to even exists.