Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 1:35:24 GMT
I don't see any need for Christians to recoil from the idea that God sometimes suspends justice in favor of mercy, making God not always just. I'm not sure why myself, but they do seem to reject the notion. I can only guess that they like to make it one of god's "omni" characteristics. They like to consider god to be all knowing and all powerful and such, apparently they like to consider him perfectly just as well. Well unjustness often is bad. And I'd argue that the particular form of injustice that we're talking about actually does fall into that category. I mentioned a courtroom analogy earlier. Consider that there probably have been actual child murderers who repent on their deathbed and thus go straight to heaven. A christian would presumably think that such a thing would be a-okay, but I would not. Of course the system is bogus either way because hell cannot be a just punishment for anything. An infinite punishment for finite crimes. And I would argue that his alternative to justice is indeed unjust. And that's fine... if they could go on to explain that reasoning. Which they can't because they claim god is beyond understanding. It's just a way of saying "I can't explain why I'm right, but I will still assert that I am." But then if god is beyond human understanding, how can any human reasonably claim to know that he is either just or merciful? I put it to you that if that argument is acceptable, I can equally claim that god is utterly unjust, utterly unmerciful, and utterly evil. I have just as much evidence, and the argument makes exactly as much logical sense, as the christian claim for the opposite position. You can't even cite any of god's actions to argue against me because I can just say "Well that appeared just and merciful to you, but it was actually an act of evil - you just don't understand how it is evil because you aren't god." |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 20, 2018 1:51:37 GMT
I don't see any need for Christians to recoil from the idea that God sometimes suspends justice in favor of mercy, making God not always just. I'm not sure why myself, but they do seem to reject the notion. I can only guess that they like to make it one of god's "omni" characteristics. They like to consider god to be all knowing and all powerful and such, apparently they like to consider him perfectly just as well. Well unjustness often is bad. And I'd argue that the particular form of injustice that we're talking about actually does fall into that category. I mentioned a courtroom analogy earlier. Consider that there probably have been actual child murderers who repent on their deathbed and thus go straight to heaven. A christian would presumably think that such a thing would be a-okay, but I would not. Of course the system is bogus either way because hell cannot be a just punishment for anything. An infinite punishment for finite crimes. And I would argue that his alternative to justice is indeed unjust. And that's fine... if they could go on to explain that reasoning. Which they can't because they claim god is beyond understanding. It's just a way of saying "I can't explain why I'm right, but I will still assert that I am." But then if god is beyond human understanding, how can any human reasonably claim to know that he is either just or merciful? I put it to you that if that argument is acceptable, I can equally claim that god is utterly unjust, utterly unmerciful, and utterly evil. I have just as much evidence, and the argument makes exactly as much logical sense, as the christian claim for the opposite position. You can't even cite any of god's actions to argue against me because I can just say "Well that appeared just and merciful to you, but it was actually an act of evil - you just don't understand how it is evil because you aren't god." So, basically what you are saying is that Christians want God to be BOTH 1. subject to the human concept of justice and doling it out 2. for God to be beyond human understanding so inherently 'outside laws of human justice' so Christians have to put up with whatever their omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient power meets out! I don't see it as a logical stance and more of conundrum and it can't be both ways. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 4:00:02 GMT
So, basically what you are saying is that Christians want God to be BOTH 1. subject to the human concept of justice and doling it out 2. for God to be beyond human understanding so inherently 'outside laws of human justice' so Christians have to put up with whatever their omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient power meets out! Well I'd add "many christians" rather than just "christians" because they're a varied bunch. But of course they want it both ways. If god heals a sick person, nobody has any hesitation in making value judgments about how great he is and what a fantastic thing he's done. But if he murders the first born of Egypt, then those same people will tell you that god can't be judged by human standards, or his actions can't be understood by us. Those are two utterly contradictory positions, but you can see the same people saying both, often in the same conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 4:02:35 GMT
I don't see any need for Christians to recoil from the idea that God sometimes suspends justice in favor of mercy, making God not always just. If I were a Christian I would only object to calling it "unjust" because that word always connotes some sort of badness, while mercy can be good. (Maybe Christians need to coin a word, like "extrajust".) I think the OP's question was intended to mean, "Is God ever unjust?", rather than, "Does God ever exercise some alternative to justice?" As to why God isn't always merciful, I suppose the Christian response is to answer that God, being God, has perfect knowledge of when mercy should and should not be extended.
Kind of an argument of semantics though. I agree with graham that mercy is by definition "unjust". And the bible contradicts itself many times with respect to whether God is a just god or a merciful god. Proverbs 21:3To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. (kind of destroys the entire narrative of Christianity.) James 2:13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Contradicts Proverbs 21:3, and shows that Jesus's sacrifice is more important than justice) |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 20, 2018 4:28:10 GMT
..before committing to the Bible and certain positions, they should have got in a huddle and sorted all this logical shit out first! I don't see any need for Christians to recoil from the idea that God sometimes suspends justice in favor of mercy, making God not always just. If I were a Christian I would only object to calling it "unjust" because that word always connotes some sort of badness, while mercy can be good. (Maybe Christians need to coin a word, like "extrajust".) I think the OP's question was intended to mean, "Is God ever unjust?", rather than, "Does God ever exercise some alternative to justice?" As to why God isn't always merciful, I suppose the Christian response is to answer that God, being God, has perfect knowledge of when mercy should and should not be extended.
Kind of an argument of semantics though. I agree with graham that mercy is by definition "unjust". And the bible contradicts itself many times with respect to whether God is a just god or a merciful god. Proverbs 21:3To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. (kind of destroys the entire narrative of Christianity.) James 2:13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Contradicts Proverbs 21:3, and shows that Jesus's sacrifice is more important than justice) As someone said on this Board recently ( it might have been you or Graham or Isopop etc) the Christians should have got in a huddle and sorted the logical shit out first before writing the Bible and creating a religion around it! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 13:59:08 GMT
..before committing to the Bible and certain positions, they should have got in a huddle and sorted all this logical shit out first! Kind of an argument of semantics though. I agree with graham that mercy is by definition "unjust". And the bible contradicts itself many times with respect to whether God is a just god or a merciful god. Proverbs 21:3To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. (kind of destroys the entire narrative of Christianity.) James 2:13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Contradicts Proverbs 21:3, and shows that Jesus's sacrifice is more important than justice) As someone said on this Board recently ( it might have been you or Graham or Isopop etc) the Christians should have got in a huddle and sorted the logical shit out first before writing the Bible and creating a religion around it! In fairness, Christians didn't write "Proverbs" (or anything in the Old Testament for that matter). So the fact that the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament isn't necessarily a problem for Christian theology (at least not in all cases). The major problem they have is the changing nature of God. Both testaments agree that God does not change. And yet, in the Old Testament, justice triumphs over mercy, while in the NT mercy triumphs over justice. What happened, and why? Man didn't change! Which means God must have! And this is clearly demonstrable just by looking at his behavior and how and when he choose to act to address mankind. It can also be demonstrated in how the weight and morality of his commandments completely change from one testament to the other. The issue I have with Christians is when they try to have it both ways! The NT is allegedly based on prophecies of the OT being fulfilled, so it is absolutely essential to the foundation of Christianity in terms of history and in demonstrating the nature of the God that they worship. Unfortunately, Christianity completely "changes" the nature of God entirely in the NT from immoral, unmerciful, and just according to his own definition of justice - to immoral, merciful, and unjust according to all rules of logic. What they need to have a huddle about is in how to reconcile the fact that God cannot be a just god and a merciful god at the same time. And that's an area where they either don't agree, or they can't agree on how best to present a case to the contrary. And to me, this demonstrates the futility of any argument to the contrary. If there was a valid one, most of them would be in agreement! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2018 14:08:46 GMT
The NT doesn’t contradict the OT anyway so it’s all good.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 14:13:45 GMT
The NT doesn’t contradict the OT anyway so it’s all good. Do you really want to play that ridiculous game?  Somehow I doubt you're up for the task (as you have a tendency to ignore scripture altogether when it's inconvenient). |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2018 14:21:11 GMT
The NT doesn’t contradict the OT anyway so it’s all good. Do you really want to play that ridiculous game? Somehow I doubt you're up for the task (as you have a tendency to ignore scripture altogether when it's inconvenient). Of course I want to play that game. That’s why I’m here Can I assume you are going to simply post verses- one from OT and one from NT as your proof? If so then Bwahahahahaha!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 14:26:56 GMT
Do you really want to play that ridiculous game? Somehow I doubt you're up for the task (as you have a tendency to ignore scripture altogether when it's inconvenient). Of course I want to play that game. That’s why I’m here Can I assume you are going to simply post verses- one from OT and one from NT as your proof? If so then Bwahahahahaha!!!! Not exactly. You can assume that I'm going to post verses - one from OT and one from NT that contradicts the one from the OT as my proof. But you can start simply by addressing the one OT verse I just posted earlier (Proverbs 21:3) and explaining how this doesn't completely invalidate Christianity as a concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 20, 2018 14:54:08 GMT
Of course I want to play that game. That’s why I’m here Can I assume you are going to simply post verses- one from OT and one from NT as your proof? If so then Bwahahahahaha!!!! Not exactly. You can assume that I'm going to post verses - one from OT and one from NT that contradicts the one from the OT as my proof. But you can start simply by addressing the one OT verse I just posted earlier (Proverbs 21:3) and explaining how this doesn't completely invalidate Christianity as a concept. I assume atheists are allowed to play too, so I'm gonna take a stab at that one. Proverbs 21:3 - "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." I'll say it doesn't invalidate Christianity because it's telling the average person that sacrifices to the Lord that THEY make don't mean as much to him as when they do right. The sacrifice that really counts big time with the Lord is the one that will be made by the Messiah.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2018 15:21:25 GMT
Of course I want to play that game. That’s why I’m here Can I assume you are going to simply post verses- one from OT and one from NT as your proof? If so then Bwahahahahaha!!!! Not exactly. You can assume that I'm going to post verses - one from OT and one from NT that contradicts the one from the OT as my proof. But you can start simply by addressing the one OT verse I just posted earlier (Proverbs 21:3) and explaining how this doesn't completely invalidate Christianity as a concept. I’m on my phone so I’m no going to search for it but there’s no reason to think there is a contradiction. The verse isn’t saying either or and is proper sacrifice includes those aspects anyway. It is better to be a good person than to kill your best goat at the temple and not be a good person which actually preps them for times they would not have the employees such as when they are defeated by Babylon or when Christianity does away with the need for it. Hosea and Micah allude to this principle as well as Jesus But maybe you said something so profound and eye opening that it smashes the verse to pieces. Quote your statement, assuming it’s brief, and I’ll adjust accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 16:18:21 GMT
Not exactly. You can assume that I'm going to post verses - one from OT and one from NT that contradicts the one from the OT as my proof. But you can start simply by addressing the one OT verse I just posted earlier (Proverbs 21:3) and explaining how this doesn't completely invalidate Christianity as a concept. I assume atheists are allowed to play too, so I'm gonna take a stab at that one. Proverbs 21:3 - "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." I'll say it doesn't invalidate Christianity because it's telling the average person that sacrifices to the Lord that THEY make don't mean as much to him as when they do right. The sacrifice that really counts big time with the Lord is the one that will be made by the Messiah.
With the right amount of mental gymnastics, anything can be twisted hard enough to mean anything else. The problem is, the passage requires you to ADD all of that into it yourself in order to try to "make it work". It's just special pleading on behalf of Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus be DIFFERENT, and somehow doesn't apply due solely to the fact that God later sends Jesus as a sacrifice. But there is nothing in scripture that establishes an actual difference. On its own, scripture does not distinguish between specific types of sacrifices, or imply that one type sacrifice from one party would be more acceptable than another type. It simply says "sacrifice". The NT also seems to imply that "doing right" is not even a viable option that can save someone. In the addition to the aforementioned passage in Ephesians about salvation being a free gift from God so that no one can boast, both Jesus and Paul plainly state that "no one is good", and Paul says "all have fallen short of the glory of God". If no one is good, and all have fallen short, then how can doing right ever be a viable option for anyone to be saved? The two things can't both be true. And yet, that's exactly what seemed to happen in Moses case. So I still see a glaring hole in the theology. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 16:21:55 GMT
Not exactly. You can assume that I'm going to post verses - one from OT and one from NT that contradicts the one from the OT as my proof. But you can start simply by addressing the one OT verse I just posted earlier (Proverbs 21:3) and explaining how this doesn't completely invalidate Christianity as a concept. I’m on my phone so I’m no going to search for it but there’s no reason to think there is a contradiction. The verse isn’t saying either or and is proper sacrifice includes those aspects anyway. It is better to be a good person than to kill your best goat at the temple and not be a good person which actually preps them for times they would not have the employees such as when they are defeated by Babylon or when Christianity does away with the need for it. Hosea and Micah allude to this principle as well as Jesus But maybe you said something so profound and eye opening that it smashes the verse to pieces. Quote your statement, assuming it’s brief, and I’ll adjust accordingly. already made your argument way better than you are. So just see my response to him where I address why this logic fails. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2018 16:39:53 GMT
I assume atheists are allowed to play too, so I'm gonna take a stab at that one. Proverbs 21:3 - "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." I'll say it doesn't invalidate Christianity because it's telling the average person that sacrifices to the Lord that THEY make don't mean as much to him as when they do right. The sacrifice that really counts big time with the Lord is the one that will be made by the Messiah.
With the right amount of mental gymnastics, anything can be twisted hard enough to mean anything else. The problem is, the passage requires you to ADD all of that into it yourself in order to try to "make it work". It's just special pleading on behalf of Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus be DIFFERENT, and somehow doesn't apply due solely to the fact that God later sends Jesus as a sacrifice. But there is nothing in scripture that establishes an actual difference. On its own, scripture does not distinguish between specific types of sacrifices, or imply that one type sacrifice from one party would be more acceptable than another type. It simply says "sacrifice". The NT also seems to imply that "doing right" is not even a viable option that can save someone. In the addition to the aforementioned passage in Ephesians about salvation being a free gift from God so that no one can boast, both Jesus and Paul plainly state that "no one is good", and Paul says "all have fallen short of the glory of God". If no one is good, and all have fallen short, then how can doing right ever be a viable option for anyone to be saved? The two things can't both be true. And yet, that's exactly what seemed to happen in Moses case. So I still see a glaring hole in the theology. So basically you can imply things without allowing others to directly tie into the intent. Your lame argument only works on the basis of the assumptions you put into it and then you whine about others literally showing you how they are ties together. You suck at this arguing stuff. Please keep it up!😊 |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 17:52:32 GMT
With the right amount of mental gymnastics, anything can be twisted hard enough to mean anything else. The problem is, the passage requires you to ADD all of that into it yourself in order to try to "make it work". It's just special pleading on behalf of Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus be DIFFERENT, and somehow doesn't apply due solely to the fact that God later sends Jesus as a sacrifice. But there is nothing in scripture that establishes an actual difference. On its own, scripture does not distinguish between specific types of sacrifices, or imply that one type sacrifice from one party would be more acceptable than another type. It simply says "sacrifice". The NT also seems to imply that "doing right" is not even a viable option that can save someone. In the addition to the aforementioned passage in Ephesians about salvation being a free gift from God so that no one can boast, both Jesus and Paul plainly state that "no one is good", and Paul says "all have fallen short of the glory of God". If no one is good, and all have fallen short, then how can doing right ever be a viable option for anyone to be saved? The two things can't both be true. And yet, that's exactly what seemed to happen in Moses case. So I still see a glaring hole in the theology. So basically you can imply things without allowing others to directly tie into the intent. Your lame argument only works on the basis of the assumptions you put into it and then you whine about others literally showing you how they are ties together. What exactly do you claim that I am implying and/or assuming? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2018 18:09:27 GMT
So basically you can imply things without allowing others to directly tie into the intent. Your lame argument only works on the basis of the assumptions you put into it and then you whine about others literally showing you how they are ties together. What exactly do you claim that I am implying and/or assuming? you said the NT said no one can be good. What that has to do with Proverbs is anyone’s guess but you can’t comprehend context so you don’t understand why you’re wrong. You are literally pulling your arguments from other people who don’t know what they’re talking about but can’t be bothered with looking at it yourself because you like the way you talk too much. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 18:48:49 GMT
What exactly do you claim that I am implying and/or assuming? you said the NT said no one can be good. That's not an implication; it's a quote!  What that has to do with Proverbs is anyone’s guess but you can’t comprehend context so you don’t understand why you’re wrong. Actually, you are admitting here that YOU cannot comprehend context (because I actually explained why in context the passage contradicts the Proverbs verse concerning sacrifice in general). Either way, nothing was "implied" on my end. You are literally pulling your arguments from other people who don’t know what they’re talking about but can’t be bothered with looking at it yourself because you like the way you talk too much. I'm not sure who you think I'm pulling arguments from (also don't care), or how that is in any way an implication. Do you even know what the word "imply" means? [it's rhetorical, you don't] |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 20, 2018 19:39:36 GMT
I assume atheists are allowed to play too, so I'm gonna take a stab at that one. Proverbs 21:3 - "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." I'll say it doesn't invalidate Christianity because it's telling the average person that sacrifices to the Lord that THEY make don't mean as much to him as when they do right. The sacrifice that really counts big time with the Lord is the one that will be made by the Messiah.
With the right amount of mental gymnastics, anything can be twisted hard enough to mean anything else. The problem is, the passage requires you to ADD all of that into it yourself in order to try to "make it work". It's just special pleading on behalf of Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus be DIFFERENT, and somehow doesn't apply due solely to the fact that God later sends Jesus as a sacrifice. But there is nothing in scripture that establishes an actual difference. On its own, scripture does not distinguish between specific types of sacrifices, or imply that one type sacrifice from one party would be more acceptable than another type. It simply says "sacrifice". The NT also seems to imply that "doing right" is not even a viable option that can save someone. In the addition to the aforementioned passage in Ephesians about salvation being a free gift from God so that no one can boast, both Jesus and Paul plainly state that "no one is good", and Paul says "all have fallen short of the glory of God". If no one is good, and all have fallen short, then how can doing right ever be a viable option for anyone to be saved? The two things can't both be true. And yet, that's exactly what seemed to happen in Moses case. So I still see a glaring hole in the theology. I don't think I exerted too much in the way of mental gymnastics here, and I don't think I added anything. The proverb is saying God likes your good works better than your ritual sacrifices. Christianity is saying that, though they're commendable, it's not your good works that will SAVE you, but Jesus' sacrifice. I don't see a problem on this one. But maybe a real Christian has a stronger argument to make than mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2018 13:32:19 GMT
With the right amount of mental gymnastics, anything can be twisted hard enough to mean anything else. The problem is, the passage requires you to ADD all of that into it yourself in order to try to "make it work". It's just special pleading on behalf of Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus be DIFFERENT, and somehow doesn't apply due solely to the fact that God later sends Jesus as a sacrifice. But there is nothing in scripture that establishes an actual difference. On its own, scripture does not distinguish between specific types of sacrifices, or imply that one type sacrifice from one party would be more acceptable than another type. It simply says "sacrifice". The NT also seems to imply that "doing right" is not even a viable option that can save someone. In the addition to the aforementioned passage in Ephesians about salvation being a free gift from God so that no one can boast, both Jesus and Paul plainly state that "no one is good", and Paul says "all have fallen short of the glory of God". If no one is good, and all have fallen short, then how can doing right ever be a viable option for anyone to be saved? The two things can't both be true. And yet, that's exactly what seemed to happen in Moses case. So I still see a glaring hole in the theology. I don't think I exerted too much in the way of mental gymnastics here, and I don't think I added anything. The proverb is saying God likes your good works better than your ritual sacrifices. Christianity is saying that, though they're commendable, it's not your good works that will SAVE you, but Jesus' sacrifice. I don't see a problem on this one. But maybe a real Christian has a stronger argument to make than mine.
Does that not in itself seem antithetical to the point established originally? If God values good works over sacrifice then WHY would salvation be based on sacrifice instead of good works? It’s a contradiction in principle; God is basically talking out of both sides of his mouth. If good works was really better, then logically we shouldn’t need a sacrifice. And by the way, the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t really a sacrifice at all since he was resurrected. Nothing was lost! If the wages of sin is death, then Christ only paid our ransom so long as he is dead. But if he was just going to be alive again 3 days later and live forever, then what the hell was the point? At least when Elvis died for my sins he stayed dead! And this whole notion of sacrificial atonement is completely immoral and unjust to its core. The idea that someone else should pay for your sins is immoral. People should pay for their own sins, and an infinite punishment for finite crimes is also completely immoral. It is not “justice” that a murderer and a rapist get to be “saved” just because they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, but an atheist, or a Buddhist, or a homosexual have to burn in hell for all eternity despite never harming anyone else. Christianity is a completely immoral system. |
|
