Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
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?

Why don't you just go ahead and lay out a proposal for a perfect, real, just, universal justice system and I will consider it?

Originally posted by DeepThought

I reserve the word "retribution" for something beyond man's improvement or correction. Retribution is the most serious dealing of God against sinners.

I know that in my life corrective discipline came from God. It was for correction, education, but not retribution. Retribution I regard as punishment to the rebel who will not ever be forgiven because he refuses it.

I did use the word "fair" I think. And I am not sure i should have. This is not easy to understand or express.

Some of your post I don't get too well.

When I was a younger Christian I think one of the first things I read outside of the New Testament was the book of Psalms. There are 150 of them. As I read through those Psalms something seemed to occur to me.

"This guy is in a lot of trouble, but for his own sake. His own bad acts have landed him in his troubles. And yet God is so willing to forgive and help him."

i didn't know very much. i still don't know very much. But two things impressed me -

1. Man's freedom and the consquences of this freedom.
2. God's perfection but eagerness to forgive, to rescue, to save, to help.

God wants to come to man's help needed because of the negative consequences of the abuse of his freedom.

Latter I think I saw something more. God is eager to forgive. But He will not forgive in the fashion that I conceive of it. He does not say " Let's just overlook what you did. " It is not a sentimental forgiveness of permissiveness.

Rather it is a forgiveness with a strong indication that what was done was judged. It cost terribly Someone what was done. God will forgive only if in conjunction with a clear understanding that it is not FREE forgiveness as far as He is concerned. It may seem free from my side. But from His side sin had to judged. A dept had to be payed.

With God there is eternal love and eternal righteousness. They work together. They work in coordination.

On the cross two great matters of God are at work simultaneously. The great love of God is as work. But the great righteous judgment of God is at work too. He wants us to understand this. He insists that we understand this.

He is eager to forgive. And His loving forgiveness is so powerful so extensive reaching into "forever" - eternally forgiven. But it is a forgiveness that demonstrates DEPT had to be paid and Justice had to come down.

I am sorry if my musing here does not exactly address your concern.
Its really late now.

Originally posted by sonship
I reserve the word "retribution" for something beyond man's improvement or correction. Retribution is the most serious dealing of God against sinners.

I know that in my life corrective discipline came from God. It was for correction, education, but not retribution. Retribution I regard as punishment to the rebel who will not ever be forgiven because he ...[text shortened]... .

I am sorry if my musing here does not exactly address your concern.
Its really late now.

This is an argument that God is necessary for forgiveness (at some cosmic level that goes beyond petty human forgiveness), it doesn't add any weight to your position that God is necessary for perfect justice.

Originally posted by sonship
I reserve the word "retribution" for something beyond man's improvement or correction. Retribution is the most serious dealing of God against sinners.

What do you imagine to be your God figure's "retribution" against 1.Adolf Eichmann, and 2.a non-believer? What different degrees of "damnation" do you envisage?

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 and not me" is merely an assertion. It's not a description of "justice".

According to your subjective opinion of what justice entails. Which is not 'universally correct' by your own admission. So why should I even consider your opinion if it cannot be universally 'correct'?

Originally posted by FMF
Why don't you just go ahead and lay out a proposal for a perfect, real, just, universal justice system and I will consider it?

Since you don't accept the Bible to be a revelation about the nature of God, then nothing I say will convince you since that is the starting point.

Originally posted by FMF
What do you imagine to be your God figure's "retribution" against 1.Adolf Eichmann, and 2.a non-believer? What different degrees of "damnation" do you envisage?

Both are non-believers so they get the same punishment. There are no different degrees of damnation. You are either saved or damned. That is what the Bible seems to say. I'm surprised you didn't know that being an ex-Christian and all...

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Since you don't accept the Bible to be a revelation about the nature of God, then nothing I say will convince you since that is the starting point.

I am not asking you to convince me. I am simply asking you to explain and demonstrate a form of justice that you say is "real" and "universal", but you seem absolutely determined not to do so... or, as may be the case, you don't actually have a form of justice to promote to argue the corner of, but only have some assertions you want to make.

FMF: What do you imagine to be your God figure's "retribution" against 1.Adolf Eichmann, and 2.a non-believer? What different degrees of "damnation" do you envisage?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Both are non-believers so they get the same punishment. There are no different degrees of damnation. You are either saved or damned.

Explain and justify how this can be described as "fair".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
According to your subjective opinion of what justice entails. Which is not 'universally correct' by your own admission. So why should I even consider your opinion if it cannot be universally 'correct'?

Well, because I'm offering to consider your opinion/belief ~ that'd be one reason why you should consider mine. This is a debate and discussion forum after all.

Originally posted by FMF
Explain and justify how this can be described as "fair".

So in your mind justice always has to be fair? But you said Adolf should only get a life sentence, how is that fair? Even if he got the death penalty how would that be fair? How can one life make up for a million lives?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So in your mind justice always has to be fair? But you said Adolf should only get a life sentence, how is that fair? Even if he got the death penalty how would that be fair? How can one life make up for a million lives?

Well I don't support capital punishment but I'd understand if his victims (and their supporters) wanted to see him executed. Taking away his liberty for the remainder of his life - the maximum penalty - seems to be called for given his crimes.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So in your mind justice always has to be fair?

Yes, of course. Don't you too? When I asked you 'What exactly is your definition of "justice"?' you said: "I would say justice is a theory by which fairness is administered, and whereby actions have consequences."

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is an argument that God is necessary for forgiveness (at some cosmic level that goes beyond petty human forgiveness), it doesn't add any weight to your position that God is necessary for perfect justice.

Is there a law without a law giver ?
Is there a prescription without a prescriber ?

You may imagine that are no universaly binding prescription for moral behavior.
I say the evidence is that there are.

Or you may agree that there are universally binding prescription for moral behavior without anyone to whom there is universal responsibility. i say there is and there is enforcement.

The argument is over whether there is God as the authority and enforcer or whether there is something else.

Something else, I would say as a force or vibration or principle or some non-living abstraction or an void or something is that - a THING. And a THING would be on a lower level of being to a human life.

The Law giver and Prescriber and Enforcer is a Moral Being - God, For Him a greater living one cannot exist. His reach is beyond the grave. His power to enforce is impossible to resist.

Fortunately, out of this One flows not only the attribute of perfect righteousness but also perfect love. He expressed Himself in history simultaneously as ultimate authority and ultimate submission to authority - the Father and the Son.

To know that this is a sound argument I do not need to know the right action for every conceivable situation. A representative list of important commands is sufficient to expose that something malignantly wrong has gone with mankind and he needs reconciliation with this God.

I would not say human forgiveness is necessarily "petty".
I would say human forgiveness is not omniscient,
Human forgiveness may be without all the facts.
God knows all the facts.

Some atheists realize that objective rightness as a universally binding moral prescription cannot exist without God. Rather than give up their Atheism they would rather give up that an objective universal rightness exists.

Appeals to ambiguity and difficult moral choices are used to argue for the illusion of universally binding moral prescriptions.

My choice is not to do this. There is no need to discard God as the ultimate enforcer and judge. For me the presence of love and eternal redemption in salvation in the Gospel is the other side of this problem. God Himself has provided a salvation from ourselves. Justice is maintained. But Love and Forgiveness is maintained as well simultaneously.

Objective moral values is, to me, more self evident than Atheism is.
That is without the Bible.

With the Bible as God speaking to man, a eternal source of objective moral standard and enforcer and judge of such is evidently manifested in history. And with the Bible as God communicating to mankind a manifestation of His love, forgiveness, eagerness to reconcile and redeem the fallen rebel of man is also evident.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I don't support capital punishment but I'd understand if his victims (and their supporters) wanted to see him executed. Taking away his liberty for the remainder of his life - the maximum penalty - seems to be called for given his crimes.

But still not fair. I think only an all powerful, omniscient God can judge him fairly.