| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/02/2010 07:08:10 PM · #776 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. |
We can just as easily put forward that it has survived because it is virus-like: it inoculates itself against facts via the invention of faith, it (historically) attacks other dogma as poisonous anathema, and it reproduces at an astonishing rate with the help of the first two conditions. The happiness or well-being of its adherents has little to do with its success. |
But if you want to take that view you would say that since the code still survives after 2000 years it has a level of evolutionary fitness to allow it to survive. We're going down the rabbit hole now though. I'm just pointing out to Matthew that it is unreasonable to not allow that religious codes affect the success of this life (and only affect the success of the next). All moral codes affect the quality of your life. A religious code, for all purposes, is exactly the same as an "atheist code" except it would be based on myths (according to the secularist). This doesn't somehow mean its not going to affect your life (for better or worse).
Message edited by author 2010-12-02 19:09:03. |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 08:24:48 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you want to take that view you would say that since the code still survives after 2000 years it has a level of evolutionary fitness to allow it to survive. |
Indeed -- religion can be described as a parasitic meme with the very same criteria used to describe it as some kind of happiness drug. |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 09:16:51 PM · #778 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We're probably starting to confuse the concept of legal justice and Justice (capitalized to denote a difference). Legal justice has checks and balances etc because humans are imperfect in their implementation, but if we assume God is in control of some universal Justice, then there is no need for that. Would we need some appeals process for divine judgement? To think so is to not understand moral concepts such as Justice within a deist system. First, we believe God is perfect so the idea that he may miscarry Justice is nonsensical. Second, Justice is not a concept separate and above God in which case God could act unjustly. Justice (and morality at large) emanate from God. He is their originator. I think this concept is foreign enough to the modern atheist thinker that they often forget it. When we say "God is good" we do not mean "God acts in a way consistent with good" we mean "God's actions are good by definition". When we say "God is Just" we are indicating that Justice comes from God. |
Well this is an interesting side-discussion.
The application of Divine Justice is horrifically unjust by human standards. How could a system ever be just where the rules are utterly opaque and uncertain? On the one had we are told we have free will and we're responsible for our own actions. Then we're told we'll be judged by our actions (or possibly our faith) according to a divine standard that is - as you say - unachievable. Not that we know what the precise rules are because - as you say - they are incredibly flexible (for which read unclear and uncertain).
This is equivalent to submission to the arbitrary and subjective determination of an emperor-god. Not something that we tolerate in modern society and we go to war to eradicate in other countries. I'm amazed that anyone thinks that it is a desirable state of affairs.
I am sure that God will be able to ascertain with perfect accuracy whether you have met his (unknowable) standards of justice, and his standard of justice will be perfect. But you will never be able to determine before you die whether you had the right interpretation, or whether you did enough, or whether specific texts are allegorical or a fundamental pre-condition - so the system is fundamentally flawed.
By contrast, human justice systems are reasonably predictable and clear, and strives towards objectivity and consistency.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On a more practical level, I would vigorously disagree with you that religious moral systems only affect the afterlife (dare I say, "vindictively" disagree with you? :)). The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. Even if I knew Jesus was a hoax, I would consider adhering to the lifestyle because I find it to be beneficial. |
Well I wasn't referencing moral systems - I said justice. Non-religious (atheistic) justice pervades and underpins the justice system in modern western societies. I have never seen a UK court refer to scripture in order to determine whether someone should be imprisoned or not.
BR does point out that self recrimination for failure to meet the impossibly high standards of a religious text is a very negative force - so I don't think that your claim for the Christian path to happiness is necessarily true.
On the subject of moral codes, I believe that life does not change in terms of moral codes in most countries around the world - so we can be pretty sure that the substantial proportion of morality has nothing to do with any specific religion. Like you say: there is a natural, mutually beneficial morality that most people adopt for that very reason.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2010 09:55:00 PM · #779 |
Well, I think you are using some pretty hyperbolic terms to describe Christian Justice that I would disagree with. "utterly opaque", "unknowable", "uncertain"? I think you are painting with a pretty negative brush in order to serve your point. I would say similar hyperbolic words to describe an atheist system would be "chaotic" "random", etc. Don't worry, I don't really think that about such a system, but you get my point. We can use words to make something seem worse than it is.
Again, since God is Just, I would leave it up to him in his perfection to work it out. If you deserve heaven, I'm confident you'll get it in the end. If not, I'm not going to question God about it. One point we haven't brought up at all is that our finding a system agreeable or abhorent has little to do with whether it exists or not. So BR is arguing he's not a Christian because he doesn't like the system, but on this point he isn't arguing because it's false.
Message edited by author 2010-12-02 21:55:32. |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 10:05:08 PM · #780 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So BR is arguing he's not a Christian because he doesn't like the system, but on this point he isn't arguing because it's false. |
... a system is never false to the believers, but could very well be to everyone else. The mere fact that you believe in something does not make it true.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 10:31:52 PM · #781 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So BR is arguing he's not a Christian because he doesn't like the system, but on this point he isn't arguing because it's false. |
... a system is never false to the believers, but could very well be to everyone else. The mere fact that you believe in something does not make it true.
Ray |
I quite agree. But the fact you don't believe in something doesn't make it false. :)
Message edited by author 2010-12-02 22:32:06. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 05:40:17 AM · #782 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I think you are using some pretty hyperbolic terms to describe Christian Justice that I would disagree with. "utterly opaque", "unknowable", "uncertain"? I think you are painting with a pretty negative brush in order to serve your point. |
You said yourself that the message is flexible. If it is flexible, then it cannot be certain. Indeed, the most basic of questions cannot be ascertained with certainty. You say that god’s concept of justice is perfect (regardless of human concepts of justice) –given that we don’t have access to it, it seems to be at the very least unknown if not unknowable.
This is really problematic. For example, what is the key to salvation - belief in Jesus or good deeds? Confession and repentence? Or maybe the purchase of indulgences and donations of cash to the church to fund prayers in your name? Wars have been fought for centuries over this most basic of stuff. How could anyone say that being left with inconclusive text upon which to base the most important decisions of your life (resulting eternal joy v eternal suffering) is a good or fair system?
I think we started with you saying that you could not contemplate an existence in which justice was not meted out at some level. I think that you have to reassess that - Divine Justice does not (certainly on the protestant tradition) reflect natural justice (Dahmer v Buddha). The proposition that we are judged according to an unknown standard (God's Divine Justice) is pretty abhorrent.
By contrast, atheistic concepts of justice are incorporated into corporeal law, which is detailed, consistent, and applied in a clear and open way. Society works on the back of them. Now maybe they don't prescribe aspirational concepts such as that everyone must give away all of their excess wealth like the bible does - but is it a bad thing for justice to be applied at a workable and realistic level?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One point we haven't brought up at all is that our finding a system agreeable or abhorent has little to do with whether it exists or not. So BR is arguing he's not a Christian because he doesn't like the system, but on this point he isn't arguing because it's false. |
Agreed - BR's point is not to disprove the system (the intangible elements of it cannot be disproved any more than BR's famous Mars-orbiting teapot or its modern incarnation the FSM can be disproved). BR's point is that it is a cruel system – and I’m not seeing an argument back from you to say that it is wondrous and fair. Instead you argue that the absence of a unified and perfect concept of justice would be worse in some general way.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 07:16:46 AM · #783 |
Yeah... I'm with  Matthew...
I don't quite see how an entirely incomprehensible system is rewarding.
I imagine it being tantamount to playing a game whose rules I can't understand and for which I don't know the score yet am still trying to win. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 10:32:29 AM · #784 |
This is a great discussion and I'm happy to sit back and watch. But, that's very hard to do.
I'd like to offer an idea. The terms atheistic justice and Divine justice are used. I think this is like comparing apples and oranges.
By Atheistic justice, it seems you mean laws of this world while Divine justice are laws not of this world.
By breaking laws of this world, you can go to prison. By breaking laws not of this world, you can also go to a prison (hell).
However, you can't go to the atheistic judge and say you're sorry and get out of jail. If you break a Divine law, you can go to the Divine judge and repent and be forgiven.
Apples and Oranges. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 11:36:12 AM · #785 |
Divine law assumes everyone is already guilty of a capital crime from birth, and forgiveness requires the correct interpretation of the correct laws of the correct faith generally "inherited" from family and geography... a completely arbitrary standard that stands any concept of justice on its head. On top of that, an omniscient and unchanging god by definition eliminates the possibility of forgiveness (or answered prayers)— all judgements would be known and permanent before you were even born.
If morality and justice are a product of God, then there should be no such thing as justice in non-Christian societies, no moral atheists, no young children with a sense of fairness. The Greek goddess Themis (the blindfolded, scale wielding symbol of justice prominently represented in every legal system) could not have existed. These qualities are instead derived solely from a God that condemns millions for the actions of two people, from a jealous and vindictive entity that literally orders the slaughter of unborn children and wipes out billions of living plants and animals for the crimes of one species, a messiah that curses and kills a fig tree for failing to bear fruit out of season, a guidebook that has been interpreted to validate opposing points on virtually every topic. Never mind logical, the premise isn't even credible. I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior.
What the heck is an "atheistic code?" Is it similar to the "non-believer in fairies code" or the "no such thing as unicorns code"? A few of you guys seem to have the bizarre notion that disbelief in one thing must be replaced by belief in another. Nonsense. There is no common system of beliefs among atheists other than placing gods in the same category as dragons or Superman. Atheism is no more or less an indicator of a person's behavior than Christianity. It runs the gamut independent of belief in gods. Knowing a person's religious beliefs offers zero insight into whether that person is likely to steal your money or save you from a fire. About the only thing it CAN predict with a very high degree of accuracy is how insular they are. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 11:37:35 AM · #786 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
You said yourself that the message is flexible. If it is flexible, then it cannot be certain. Indeed, the most basic of questions cannot be ascertained with certainty. You say that god’s concept of justice is perfect (regardless of human concepts of justice) –given that we don’t have access to it, it seems to be at the very least unknown if not unknowable. |
Christian morality and Christian salvation are uniquely divorced. Think of it as a two-track system to heaven. You can do it on your own (through works) or you can do it through faith. The point, for your comment above, is that the moral system is flexible. It has few black-and-white precepts. The motive and substance are far more important than the action and form. While such a system would drive you lawyers crazy because you love to nitpick (no offense meant there), it's a system that is robust and designed (I believe on purpose) to be applicable to a vastly wide range of cultures and times (ie. everybody and for all time). So if we have God as the perfect judge we can rely on his Justice and Omniscience to carry the day. How nice would it be in your courtroom (assuming you do work that brings you to a court) with a judge who could look at the defendant and immediately ascertain his motive for doing what he did?
Originally posted by matthew:
This is really problematic. For example, what is the key to salvation - belief in Jesus or good deeds? Confession and repentence? Or maybe the purchase of indulgences and donations of cash to the church to fund prayers in your name? Wars have been fought for centuries over this most basic of stuff. How could anyone say that being left with inconclusive text upon which to base the most important decisions of your life (resulting eternal joy v eternal suffering) is a good or fair system? |
I understand your point and I think it can't be ignored that man has muddied the message. However, the message remains. When I moved back from the east coast I drove across the country on the I-90 which took me through Montana. I earnestly believed that Montana had a loose speed limit where you could pay a fine on the spot if you were pulled over and that the "speed limit 75" signs were recommendations. I hit the Montana border at about 6AM and so there was nobody at all on the road. I probably drove two hours averaging 85-90 MPH. When I pulled over for gas I asked the attendant about the signs and he said the loose speed limit had been repealed and replaced with a real speed limit. Had I been pulled over by a police officer, would you, as a lawyer, tell me the fault was with the system or with me?
Originally posted by matthew:
I think we started with you saying that you could not contemplate an existence in which justice was not meted out at some level. I think that you have to reassess that - Divine Justice does not (certainly on the protestant tradition) reflect natural justice (Dahmer v Buddha). The proposition that we are judged according to an unknown standard (God's Divine Justice) is pretty abhorrent. |
My personal views about Dahmer and Buddha may differ slightly from others. Again, God knows Dahmer's heart. If he was truly repentant of his sins, who am I to question God's mercy? If he wasn't and it was just the bargaining of someone about to die, do you think God won't know that? As far as Buddha goes, I still hold onto Luke 12 as an indication he may be treated differently from someone who "knows the Master's will and does not do it". I do not have to understand the nuanced application of the Justice to take solace in it, especially when I understand that someone much wiser than myself will be doling it out.
Originally posted by matthew:
By contrast, atheistic concepts of justice are incorporated into corporeal law, which is detailed, consistent, and applied in a clear and open way. Society works on the back of them. Now maybe they don't prescribe aspirational concepts such as that everyone must give away all of their excess wealth like the bible does - but is it a bad thing for justice to be applied at a workable and realistic level? |
Lest it seem like I am conceding the argument, I must point out that all Western systems of justice are heavily infused with Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts. While the laws themselves may be devoid of religious intention, the precepts are not. But you are guilty of seeing this system in its best light while looking at the other in its worst. Are you honestly telling me that in your profession you would consider the law to be "consistent, and applied in a clear and open way"? We certainly know it isn't consistent. If it's so clear and open, why do we need lawyers? Now, I don't need to rip down the human justice system (a job that would be far too easy), but you need to see that you are giving your own system every benefit of the doubt while not giving mine any.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 03:46:17 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by matthew:
By contrast, atheistic concepts of justice are incorporated into corporeal law, which is detailed, consistent, and applied in a clear and open way. Society works on the back of them. Now maybe they don't prescribe aspirational concepts such as that everyone must give away all of their excess wealth like the bible does - but is it a bad thing for justice to be applied at a workable and realistic level? |
Lest it seem like I am conceding the argument, I must point out that all Western systems of justice are heavily infused with Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts. While the laws themselves may be devoid of religious intention, the precepts are not. But you are guilty of seeing this system in its best light while looking at the other in its worst. Are you honestly telling me that in your profession you would consider the law to be "consistent, and applied in a clear and open way"? We certainly know it isn't consistent. If it's so clear and open, why do we need lawyers? Now, I don't need to rip down the human justice system (a job that would be far too easy), but you need to see that you are giving your own system every benefit of the doubt while not giving mine any. |
It's amazing to me that you're even arguing this point. I suspect that if the human justice system also allowed people like Jeffrey Dahmer to be acquitted just by confessing and saying he's a changed man on the stand you would be listing that feature of our judicial system as one of its biggest flaws but because it's a feature of your god's system it's held at high praise. This is what happens when you allow faith in an invisible being to become so strong that you can't even see the light of reason from the rabbit hole you find yourself in. An imperfect system that is transparent and open to improvement is infinitely better than one conducted in complete secrecy by an entity who's existence is unknown.
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 15:47:01.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 04:04:45 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by matthew:
By contrast, atheistic concepts of justice are incorporated into corporeal law, which is detailed, consistent, and applied in a clear and open way. Society works on the back of them. Now maybe they don't prescribe aspirational concepts such as that everyone must give away all of their excess wealth like the bible does - but is it a bad thing for justice to be applied at a workable and realistic level? |
Lest it seem like I am conceding the argument, I must point out that all Western systems of justice are heavily infused with Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts. While the laws themselves may be devoid of religious intention, the precepts are not. But you are guilty of seeing this system in its best light while looking at the other in its worst. Are you honestly telling me that in your profession you would consider the law to be "consistent, and applied in a clear and open way"? We certainly know it isn't consistent. If it's so clear and open, why do we need lawyers? Now, I don't need to rip down the human justice system (a job that would be far too easy), but you need to see that you are giving your own system every benefit of the doubt while not giving mine any. |
It's amazing to me that you're even arguing this point. I suspect that if the human justice system also allowed people like Jeffrey Dahmer to be acquitted just by confessing and saying he's a changed man on the stand you would be listing that feature of our judicial system as one of its biggest flaws but because it's a feature of your god's system it's held at high praise. This is what happens when you allow faith in an invisible being to become so strong that you can't even see the light of reason from the rabbit hole you find yourself in. An imperfect system that is transparent and open to improvement is infinitely better than one conducted in complete secrecy by an entity who's existence is unknown. |
I guess you are guilty like Matthew. Look at your hyperbolic words..."infinitely better"..."complete secrecy". Need I go on? It doesn't seem like you are taking the concepts and discussion seriously.
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 16:04:58. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 04:42:36 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by matthew:
By contrast, atheistic concepts of justice are incorporated into corporeal law, which is detailed, consistent, and applied in a clear and open way. Society works on the back of them. Now maybe they don't prescribe aspirational concepts such as that everyone must give away all of their excess wealth like the bible does - but is it a bad thing for justice to be applied at a workable and realistic level? |
Lest it seem like I am conceding the argument, I must point out that all Western systems of justice are heavily infused with Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts. While the laws themselves may be devoid of religious intention, the precepts are not. But you are guilty of seeing this system in its best light while looking at the other in its worst. Are you honestly telling me that in your profession you would consider the law to be "consistent, and applied in a clear and open way"? We certainly know it isn't consistent. If it's so clear and open, why do we need lawyers? Now, I don't need to rip down the human justice system (a job that would be far too easy), but you need to see that you are giving your own system every benefit of the doubt while not giving mine any. |
It's amazing to me that you're even arguing this point. I suspect that if the human justice system also allowed people like Jeffrey Dahmer to be acquitted just by confessing and saying he's a changed man on the stand you would be listing that feature of our judicial system as one of its biggest flaws but because it's a feature of your god's system it's held at high praise. This is what happens when you allow faith in an invisible being to become so strong that you can't even see the light of reason from the rabbit hole you find yourself in. An imperfect system that is transparent and open to improvement is infinitely better than one conducted in complete secrecy by an entity who's existence is unknown. |
I guess you are guilty like Matthew. Look at your hyperbolic words..."infinitely better"..."complete secrecy". Need I go on? It doesn't seem like you are taking the concepts and discussion seriously. |
But I could levy the same charge unto you. You're latching on to two words rather than addressing the point. Since I don't believe in the existence of your god doesn't it make sense for me to use the phrase "infinitely better" when comparing a system that does exist to one that doesn't? And is it not true that in your god's system the trials and their verdicts are unknown? Isn't that complete secrecy?
The point however were not those two words. It was your line of reasoning in defending a supernatural system over one that is known. Here you are arguing with great clarity about a system you have no clue about except for some vague descriptions of its existence from a 2,000 year old book. If that's not intellectual dishonesty then I don't know what is. However, I can understand you defending it but it seems to me that it would make more sense to simply say I put my stock in him and leave it at that. Trying to prove it's better is impossible. The fact of the matter is even if your god does exist we don't truly know what his purpose is, not to mention if he's doing any of the things we say he's doing (ex. justice). Now we were told he would return. That hasn't happened yet. Although several people seem to be making the claim they are Jesus. I wonder if he's already here what would be your criteria for validating him? Serious question.
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 16:48:21.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 05:41:31 PM · #790 |
Richard, look at it from my point. If I'm having a conversation with you, is it even helpful for you to propose the argument, "since I don't believe in your system, mine is better"? Frankly, that's dumb and leads to much of the frustration in having conversations like this. How can I know what you seriously mean and what is merely sarcasm?
Instead of letting the conversation get out of control and into tit-for-tat posts, I'll narrow it back down to the dialog I'm currently having.
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 17:41:52. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 05:49:23 PM · #791 |
| But that's not what he's arguing. Demonstrate how divine justice has been proven to be better for human affairs. Demonstrate how God's punishment/reward system has bettered society up to the present day in a way that is superior to a secular justice system. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 06:31:27 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by Louis:
But that's not what he's arguing. Demonstrate how divine justice has been proven to be better for human affairs. Demonstrate how God's punishment/reward system has bettered society up to the present day in a way that is superior to a secular justice system. |
I was just about to come back to point out that the conversation has warped in this direction. I'm not trying to replace legal justice with divine justice. They are different from each other. The larger point is that divine justice provides hope and solace for many people better than legal justice. We see miscarriages of legal justice all the time. BR, in his essay, is essentially saying that's all there is. If the legal system screws you over, well, thems the breaks. In my essay I said that I don't find this state of affairs to be superior on a gut-feeling level. (Remember, BR is arguing this point from feeling. He doesn't like how the idea of divine punishment makes him feel.)
So let's take a step back. I'm not trying to replace one system with another. I'm saying that the idea there is ONLY human justice doesn't make me feel better than knowing there is divine justice (even including divine punishment). This is my opinion. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 06:52:57 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The larger point is that divine justice provides hope and solace for many people better than legal justice. We see miscarriages of legal justice all the time. BR, in his essay, is essentially saying that's all there is. If the legal system screws you over, well, thems the breaks. In my essay I said that I don't find this state of affairs to be superior on a gut-feeling level. (Remember, BR is arguing this point from feeling. He doesn't like how the idea of divine punishment makes him feel.) |
Well we could always just make the secular system secret too. That would make it just like the divine system in that we wouldn't know about any miscarriages of justice. Would that strengthen your hope in the secular system? I should hope not. Transparency is a good thing. It means we get to know what goes on in the system, which in turn makes it accountable. How is that not better?
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 18:58:28.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 07:09:25 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So let's take a step back. I'm not trying to replace one system with another. I'm saying that the idea there is ONLY human justice doesn't make me feel better than knowing there is divine justice (even including divine punishment). This is my opinion. |
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but this is like those political polls where you're asked who would you vote for and they list a particular candidate matched up against a generic foe (ex democrat x or republican x). Many choose the generic candidate because they can envision whatever they want in the candidate. It's unfair to compare a system we know integrally well with one that is nebulous at best and subject to the whims of the believer. You choose to believe the divine system is perfect and that is your right, but the fact of the matter is nobody knows if that's true so shouldn't the scientist in you be reserving judgement on which is better?
Message edited by author 2010-12-03 19:24:08.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2010 08:17:13 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So let's take a step back. I'm not trying to replace one system with another. I'm saying that the idea there is ONLY human justice doesn't make me feel better than knowing there is divine justice (even including divine punishment). This is my opinion. |
... so shouldn't the scientist in you be reserving judgement on which is better? |
Didn't you hear... Faith is blind. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 08:25:55 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So let's take a step back. I'm not trying to replace one system with another. I'm saying that the idea there is ONLY human justice doesn't make me feel better than knowing there is divine justice (even including divine punishment). This is my opinion. |
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but this is like those political polls where you're asked who would you vote for and they list a particular candidate matched up against a generic foe (ex democrat x or republican x). Many choose the generic candidate because they can envision whatever they want in the candidate. It's unfair to compare a system we know integrally well with one that is nebulous at best and subject to the whims of the believer. You choose to believe the divine system is perfect and that is your right, but the fact of the matter is nobody knows if that's true so shouldn't the scientist in you be reserving judgement on which is better? |
I think you are still missing the point. I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying that divine justice is better than NO justice. Matthew replied by saying, we don't have NO justice, we have human justice, but I think these are apples and oranges. I probably should have pointed that out in the very beginning because now we're all down a path that doesn't make sense in the larger context.
Bertrand Russell wrote that he does not like the idea of divine punishment and, one assumes, he is more comfortable with the idea there is no ultimate justice. What you get on earth is what you get. Good or bad. Deserved or not. My opinion is this idea does not, to me, give me any more solace so I have a disconnect with BR. I don't see eye to eye with him on this issue. I disagree with him. |
|
|
|
12/03/2010 11:30:08 PM · #797 |
| I understand your separation of divine vs worldly, but how do you find justice in the Dahmer example? Beyond saying that it is impossible for you to understand the justice that God invokes, you are left with the same empty feeling you hold against a secular worldly system. Would the victims of Dahmer, having had holes drilled in their heads and filled with acid not get an empty feeling at Dahmer sitting in Heaven simply because he eventually admonished his actions? His victims were robbed of things they will never experience. All his victims were still robbed of their corporeal life, an experience and portion of life they will never reclaim. Gut feeling wise, this disturbs me. And yet, while we're on the issue of theodicy, how exactly would God's divine justice have stopped Dahmer in the first place? Or does that simply not matter because it's in the corporeal world? |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 01:31:41 AM · #798 |
| Decent questions SS. I don't have all the answers, but after watching a rousing edition of Hot Tub Time Machine, things are a lot clearer to me. ;) |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 07:48:54 AM · #799 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[ The larger point is that divine justice provides hope and solace for many people better than legal justice. We see miscarriages of legal justice all the time. |
After talking about comparing apples and oranges being inaccurate, you do that here. Problem is, you have no proof that this divine justice even exists, much less is better on any level. Yet legal justice, despite its flaws and peccadillos, seems to help society as a whole, not just select members who agree unconditionally to an unknown code. And over time, legal justice has grown and evolved such that it is certainly better than it was 2000 years ago. Your divine justice seems to hold to premises that are rigid and have NOT evolved in the past 2000 years, despite the fact that society certainly has.....
|
|
|
|
12/04/2010 08:00:30 AM · #800 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I understand your separation of divine vs worldly... |
I don't. Achoo has contended all along that worldly morality and justice are divinely inspired, but the divine versions bear little resemblance to anything we would consider acceptable. As Matthew has repeatedly pointed out, the morality of the bible and justice often the antithesis of our own: mysterious, arbitrary, etc. Declaring the perfect ideals to be known only to God necessarily invalidates them as the source of our own. The foundations of our legal system predate the New Testament by at least 700 years in the policies of the Greek Solon.
Message edited by author 2010-12-04 08:02:51. |
|
