Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by FMF
A couple of thoughts/questions... the first one:

So, [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] some ...[text shortened]... hey all share the same "damnation"... is that what your notion of [b]"real justice" entails?[/b]

Would you care to tell us about what your view of 'real justice' is. Do you believe that when all the above mention people share the common fate of death and nothing else (since you don't believe in an after life?) that that is 'real justice'?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you care to tell us about what your view of 'real justice' is. Do you believe that when all the above mention people share the common fate of death and nothing else (since you don't believe in an after life?) that that is 'real justice'?

Justice is a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society. It varies between cultures and changes as time passes. The word "real" is an intensifier that religionists and other people with passionate opinions about justice like to add to exhibit the strength of their convictions.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If I understand your argument, it basically goes like this:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

Is that a fair restatement?

That's a fair representation of what I have said. And premise (1) may need some refinement. But your syllogism (?) expresses what I have said.

[quote] Premise (2) may well be true. But Premise (1) is totally implausible, if not just self-contradictory. If justice is imperfectly realized, then justice exists but just in an imperfectly realized state. See, no problem.

Premise (1) I might think about phrasing differently. I don't know how at the moment. But I think you have been pretty fair.

I would be unhappy if the acceptance of less than perfect justice led me to read about Jesus of Nazareth and dismiss such a life as "a zombie who walked on water".

I would consider such a synopsis of that life to be far worse a damage to my humanity then just assuming I have to allow for the possibility that some injustice will never be rectified.

Maybe you never read of His deeds. For example how He touched the consciences of the mob ready to stone the woman for being caught in the act of adultery, and that in accordance with the law of Moses.

Whoever was without sin among them was to cast the first stone. They all went away convicted in the conscience, beginning with the older and ending with the younger impetuous.

And this wisdom you sum up as a zombie who walked on water. It make me think that is real the walking dead man here is not Jesus Christ but someone so unable to see the moral goodness in Christ's ability to touch the conscience of the self-righteous.

I expect a perfect moral arbitrator because I see one demonstrated in history in this One saying and acting like the Son of God.

My premise (1) is not in a vacuum. Demonstration of the ability to arrive at perfect equity has been manifested to me in the life of Christ. I think premise (2) and probably premise (1) have been convincingly demonstrated to me in history.

Had the mob been able to execute the guilty adulterer each being unqualified to possess the innocence to do so, that would not have been just. Jesus had a right to condemn her and He did not. He told her to go and sin no more.

He was also so confident that their own consciences would forbid them to kill her, even though they had legal ground from their law to do so, that He stooped down and was preoccupied with writing something in the sand.

It appears He knew the woman completely, He knew the people in the mob completely, He knew the power of the convicted conscience, and He knew the power of forgiveness to change a life.

Demonstration greatly influences me that God is real and that out of His being perfect goodness exposes eventually all deviation. At the end of that episode He spoke that He was "the light of the world."

What light is there in you describing Christ only as a zombie that walked on water ?

me;
am inviting you to describe a God-independent perfect moral balancer of the scales in the above situation. I am expecting you to propose one or opt that it is no big deal if the raping, murdering pedophile melts peacefully away never accounting for his crime.


Sorry, that is a false dichotomy. I can accept that there exists no cosmic moral balancer who ensures perfect justice and yet still hold that it is a big deal when instances of irrevocable injustice occur.

I believe One has been manifested in history. We have evidence that such a job this One is capable of doing.

There's nothing inconsistent about that. And, in fact, there's nothing inconsistent in holding that some injustices are big deals precisely because they are irrevocable by their nature. Have you ever considered the idea that some instances of injustice are like a bell that cannot be un-rung and that you may simply be confusing balancing retributive justice with petty vindictiveness?

To God who is so transcendent, I don't think some injustices will be as a bell that cannot be un-rung.

As for vindictiveness ? I God says each offense is actually against Him in the final analysis. Romans 12:19 informs me - we should not take revenge because the offense ultimately is against God.

" Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengence is Mine, I will replay."

I can grasp the concept that ultimately transgression is against the ultimate law giver. This revenge and "vindictiveness' may appear as petty to us. But what I see really going on is the buck stops at God. The real repayment is to the absolute authority of the moral universe.

You scornfully scoffed about a God sacrificing to Himself. But I am touched that God has a way that, if we choose, this perfect repayment for the sins of every human being in history fell on a Righteous and innocent Substitute so that we might be saved from ourselves.

I grant that it is mysterious. I don't grant that His plan of salvation is frivolous or a product of human imagination.

Isolating the matter of judgement from salvation skews the total picture of God's character in the Bible. It may serve the skeptic to achieve such a skewed view. I want a more holistic view of the perfect moral Authority of God.

The whole concept of a cosmic moral balancer relies on some underlying principle that instances of injustice are such that they can be righted or balanced sometime down the road. And that is really not obvious at all. That may simply be wishful thinking.

Maybe. But then we should ask why this thinking should be in us anyway.
Where did we get it ?

I think we are more prone to long for justice when WE are on the end of the wrong doing. We are less likely to hope things will be balanced out when WE are the wrong DOER. We tend to be easy on ourselves and strict and exacting with the other person.

When i was in a hiring and firing employment position it struck me how I did the very same things for which I had to scold others for.

Is there NO ONE Perfect ? Is there NO ONE qualified to arbitrate perfectly ?
I think history contains an example of One was and is perfect.
You distanced yourself from Him with the classification of Him being a zombie.

i think this may manifest your vested interest in being easy on yourself.
That is disqualifying the Christ Who both claims He died for us but will also be the final arbitrator concerning us.

If the thought of injustice grieves you and produces moral outrage in you, then I can understand that.

I am more outraged when I am the victim.
I am less outraged when I have victimized the other person.
There is something not in balance here.
And I think perfect justice with no respect of persons exists in God.

I am bothered by the rapist pedophile who got away.
But had it been me, I might have a vested interest in escape.
There is something out of balance in this picture.
I think perfect and impartial justice exists.

I think Christ demonstrated that it does.
You would not regard His resurrection that way.
But I do. And I take it as a forewarning of what is to come.

Great love is here for great forgiveness and salvation. And great final accounting is also here for vindication and perfect setting things right before the ultimate moral Authority of all existence.

That may be just part of what it means to be a compassionate and morally integrated person.

That is flattering. But like I said, i notice that I am easy on myself and strict with the other person. I suspect that Someone is perfect in judging with impartiality.

If God is not able to judge perfectly then His creatures have a greater sense of what should be. How could we have that sense if God did not have it in Himself to give. The effect should not be greater than the cause. The cause should be greater than the effect.

But I cannot understand the inference from there to the idea that God must exist. That's just sloppy reasoning that sounds a lot like a fallacy in the vein of appeal to consequences.

Maybe it is. But a logical fallacy is just a weak formal argument. The logical argument may be weak but the truth it represents still be valid.

And every argument which is merely consistent may not represent truth, just because it is strongly consistent reasoning.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]Why God would be involved basically boils down to who else could put within mankind
our common knowledge of right and wrong? It has to come from a higher power or we
would be in a broken hodgepodge of various views instead of our common themes.
Different starting points would mean that our root causes would begin with someone
completely differe ...[text shortened]... regarding shared moral intuitions. See, for example, The Evolution of Morality by Joyce.

You assume we have been here along time which seems to be the great defender of so
many human assumptions about everything. As I pointed out if it were common what is it
about us you find common when we are scattered around the planet in so many different
types of terrain? If it were just through accumulation and dissemination wouldn't that mean
we would need to come from a common line and share the same history? Do you see that
occurring without a common birth place or beginning, and then we would have to continue
this accumulation and dissemination in a shared history. We are everywhere on the planet
how did that happen? A common source seems much more likely to me, since as you
are putting it together when the human race split up and went its different ways they kept
in agreement even though they were not sharing the same history, they were not sharing
the same environment, they were not sharing the same schools of thought on what was
and was not important.

I'll give evolution of morality a read if you read Willard's book.

Originally posted by sonship
Isolating the matter of judgement from salvation skews the total picture of God's character in the Bible. It may serve the skeptic to achieve such a skewed view. I want a more holistic view of the perfect moral Authority of God.

Adolf Eichmann on one hand, a non-criminal non-believer on the other ~ both getting the same punishment ~ is that an outcome of what you think of as "the perfect moral Authority of God"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you believe that when all the above mention people share the common fate of death and nothing else that that is 'real justice'?

My notion of justice for the following:

[1] the pedophile: custodial sentence, restricted actions, treatment/counselling.

[2] Adolf Eichmann: life imprisonment.

[3] my Muslim neighbour: they haven't done anything immoral by being non-Christians; appropriate punishment for any crimes committed.

[4] the atheist: same as for the Muslim.

What about you? What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Originally posted by FMF
Justice is a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society. It varies between cultures and changes as time passes. The word "real" is an intensifier that religionists and other people with passionate opinions about justice like to add to exhibit the strength of their convictions.

If Justice is a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society, does that not mean than an individual is entitled to their opinion about what 'real justice' is? Or can someones's opinion be wrong?

Originally posted by FMF
My notion of justice for the following:

[1] the pedophile: custodial sentence, restricted actions, treatment/counselling.

[2] Adolf Eichmann: life imprisonment.

[3] my Muslim neighbour: they haven't done anything immoral by being non-Christians; appropriate punishment for any crimes committed.

[4] the atheist: same as for the Muslim.

What about y ...[text shortened]... following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Justice according to whose moral code? Your own?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If Justice is a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society, does that not mean than an individual is entitled to their opinion about what 'real justice' is? Or can someones's opinion be wrong?

Of course someone is entitled to their opinion about justice and injustice. But crimes are defined by society as a whole or by those in power; what constitutes justice is defined in the same way too.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Justice according to whose moral code? Your own?

My moral code about what? My opposition to capital punishment, for example, stems from my sense of morality. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by FMF
Of course someone is entitled to their opinion about justice and injustice. But crimes are defined by society as a whole or by those in power; what constitutes justice is defined in the same way too.

So since you have a gut feeling that a God exists, who you say is ultimately in power, society or God?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So since you have a gut feeling that a God exists, who you say is ultimately in power, society or God?

Do you just not read the content of my posts? I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to anyone so how would I attribute any instructions or imperatives or any other arrangements for society or justice or the exercise of power to God?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you just not read the content of my posts? I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to anyone so how would I attribute any instructions or imperatives or any other arrangements for society or justice or the exercise of power to God?

My bad, I thought the gut feeling counted for something. Surely if you believe there is a God then he has revealed himself to you, be it though through the gut feeling?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My bad, I thought the gut feeling counted for something. Surely if you believe there is a God then he has revealed himself to you, be it though through the gut feeling?

It would seem you simply do not read the content of my posts.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you care to tell us about what your view of 'real justice' is. Do you believe that when all the above mention people share the common fate of death and nothing else (since you don't believe in an after life?) that that is 'real justice'?

OK, so I answered your question. What about the question you didn't answer because you asked me one instead? Here it is:

What about you? What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.