| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2010 01:23:33 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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..... |
Yes, I was being taken down the rabbit hole. I should have initially pointed out my disagreement with the comparison rather than trying to have the conversation Matthew wanted.
Hmmm, I continue to love the words people use to describe the divine system. Mysterious. Arbitrary. Why can't I choose to use those words for our own system (and thus we see it IS based on the divine system)? The human justice system is so mysterious we need to have lawyers to decipher it for us. (The first ABA link on Google says there are 1.1 million lawyers in the US.) It's so arbitrary that blacks are condemned to death at a far higher rate than whites.
This is a sarcastic argument, BTW, so nobody should feel the need to continue it. I think the points of disagreement are clear and are twofold.
1) The basic view of divine justice is completely different between the two sides. One side sees nothing but evil, the other sees only good. Your preconceived notions coming into the conversation obviously will direct which side you fall on. (Like that's news to anybody.)
2) If one chooses between a system of punishment and nothing, the natural choice is nothing. Bertrand makes this choice and I can understand it in the context of how he views divine justice. If one chooses between a system of reward and nothing, the natural choice is reward. The more nuanced choice is between a system of both reward and punishment and nothing. |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 02:26:34 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hmmm, I continue to love the words people use to describe the divine system. Mysterious. Arbitrary. Why can't I choose to use those words for our own system (and thus we see it IS based on the divine system)? |
Because it's not. The laws are clearly spelled out and apply equally to all people regardless of personal belief as well as the lawmakers themselves. The number of lawyers does not make the profession mysterious or arbitrary any more than the number of doctors or tax accountants makes their practices unknown or random. We have these professionals for their knowledge of the guidelines, how they apply and precedent cases. If any of them fail to abide by those standards they won't BE lawyers or doctors or tax accountants, yet new churches are formed all the time with different or even completely opposing views.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The basic view of divine justice is completely different between the two sides. One side sees nothing but evil, the other sees only good. |
One side views divine justice as perfect and the source of our own rules for society. Nobody on the other side has stated that there are only evil aspects, but pointing out glaring imperfections in divine justice disproves the former's view whether or not there are also good points.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If one chooses between a system of punishment and nothing, the natural choice is nothing. Bertrand makes this choice... |
No, he doesn't. The argument is not against punishment, but damnation for the vague crime of "sin" and then declaring everyone a sinner. The very nature of justice is that punishment should fair and proportionate to the crime. Declaring all people guilty of the capital crime of sin right from birth fails on both counts. Holding someone responsible for the actions of his ancestors is not justice in any way. Neither is absolving a felon of guilt merely for professing belief in the judge, yet these are foundational principles of the system you call perfect. On what grounds could anyone possibly consider something like cursing a fig tree to death for failing to bear fruit out of season an example of morality or justice? |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 02:31:49 PM · #803 |
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
If one were to summarize the moral code to live by it is "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you honestly do this, you will receive reward. If you do not, you will receive punishment. At the same time, one has the opportunity to plead for clemency because of known transgressions. If your petition is heartfelt (and the judge, recall, is perfectly able to probe your motive and intent), your failures will be pardoned.
That is simple, clear, and concise. Now, there is the question of people who do not know about the opportunity for clemency or truly do not know or understand the Golden Rule. I agree this category is unclear, but I trust the Judge in his wisdom to render a just decision. I will point out again that nobody in this conversation falls into that category.
When people mention the "glaring imperfections" of the system, the classic quetion comes up. What is the "perfect standard" to which the system is being compared? and why is it the standard? If one doesn't have good answers to those questions, then the criticism crumbles to mere opinion (and should be stated as such).
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D
Message edited by author 2010-12-04 15:21:40. |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 03:44:29 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
If one were to summarize the moral code to live by it is "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you honestly do this, you will receive reward. If you do not, you will receive punishment. At the same time, one has the opportunity to plead for clemency because of known transgressions. If your petition is heartfelt (and the judge, recall, is perfectly able to probe your motive and intent), your failures will be pardoned.
That is simple, clear, and concise. Now, there is the question of people who do not know about the opportunity for clemency or truly do not know or understand the Golden Rule. I agree this category is unclear, but I trust the Judge in his wisdom to render a just decision. I will point out again that nobody in this conversation falls into that category.
When people mention the "glaring imperfections" of the system, the classic quetion comes up. What is the "perfect standard" to which the system is being compared? and why is it the standard? If one doesn't have good answers to those questions, then the criticism crumbles to mere opinion (and should be stated as such).
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D |
Huh? I thought all you had to do was believe in him and you're in heaven, don't and you go to hell. What other reward/punishment are on the table for following the golden rule?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2010 03:56:05 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D |
Do onto others...
Ray |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 06:13:00 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If one were to summarize the moral code to live by it is "Love your neighbor as yourself." |
That's the summary of human decency. Christianity (as with most organized religion) defines the term "neighbor" so exclusively as to ignore the principle.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you honestly do this, you will receive reward. If you do not, you will receive punishment. |
Congratulations... you just made your own religion irrelevant. Decent behavior and loving thy neighbor does not require knowledge or belief in any sort of god as amply evidenced by people of other faiths (or none at all) doing just that. Can you even say that BR was immoral or didn't love others as he did himself? Moreover, you're completely trashing your own argument regarding morality. An act in favor of others for the promise of reward is actually selfishness, and an act to avoid punishment is actually obedience to authority. Neither is really a moral decision.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the same time, one has the opportunity to plead for clemency because of known transgressions. If your petition is heartfelt (and the judge, recall, is perfectly able to probe your motive and intent), your failures will be pardoned. |
And now you've waived any possibility of an omniscient and unchanging god. If you can plead your case, then God would have to change his mindâ a concept incompatible with omniscience. All those who would be "saved" must have been known before birth (obviating the purpose of later judgement), and all those would would be damned must also be known before their creation, thus placing responsibility squarely on the creator for going ahead with the project anyway.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That is simple, clear, and concise. |
If it's that clear and concise, then why do so many argue from the Bible itself that faith alone is enough for salvation?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, there is the question of people who do not know about the opportunity for clemency or truly do not know or understand the Golden Rule... I trust the Judge in his wisdom to render a just decision. |
There are enough examples of undeniably INjust decisions found in the Bible to dispel any prospect of objective trust. As noted above, an omniscient creator bears sole responsibility for the known consequences of its own actions. If you program a computer to make its own decisions, whose fault is it if you knew before you even started that the thing would definitely run amok and send a naked cyborg bodybuilder back in time to kill your mother? You cannot curse the computer under the banner of justice for doing exactly what you programmed it to do with perfect foreknowledge of the result!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When people mention the "glaring imperfections" of the system, the classic question comes up. What is the "perfect standard" to which the system is being compared? and why is it the standard? |
The Golden Rule. It's not necessarily perfect, but it's the standard because treating others as you would want to be treated requires fairness and empathy. This "ethic of reciprocity" forms the basis for the modern concept of human rights. It's a universal idea found in most cultures regardless of religion and dates back to at least the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040â1650 BC).
Message edited by author 2010-12-04 18:15:43. |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 06:18:24 PM · #807 |
| BTW- I assume you didn't even attempt to address Bertrand Russell without resorting to fallacy. I was sort of hoping you'd try. |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 07:18:08 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D |
Do onto others...
Ray |
I couldn't tell if this was a joke Ray, with the "onto" bit. :) |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 07:26:01 PM · #809 |
The parable of the good Samaritan is one of the most powerful passages in the New Testament. In it, Jesus expands the definition of "neighbor" to include everybody. The Jews and Samaritans had bitter emnity toward each other.
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. âTeacher,â he asked, âwhat must I do to inherit eternal life?â
âWhat is written in the Law?â he replied. âHow do you read it?â
He answered, ââLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mindâ; and, âLove your neighbor as yourself.ââ
âYou have answered correctly,â Jesus replied. âDo this and you will live.â
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, âAnd who is my neighbor?â
In reply Jesus said: âA man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. âLook after him,â he said, âand when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.â
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?â
The expert in the law replied, âThe one who had mercy on him.â
Jesus told him, âGo and do likewise.â
Message edited by author 2010-12-04 19:26:45. |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 08:38:03 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D |
Do onto others...
Ray |
I couldn't tell if this was a joke Ray, with the "onto" bit. :) |
There is NO sneaking one by you Doc :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 09:48:41 PM · #811 |
| I am nothing if not master of the obvious! :) |
|
|
|
12/04/2010 10:15:45 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The parable of the good Samaritan is one of the most powerful passages in the New Testament. In it, Jesus expands the definition of "neighbor" to include everybody. The Jews and Samaritans had bitter emnity toward each other. |
Oh, those pesky Samaritans. Not to worry... he continues that great tradition of bitter enmity. Jesus has this to say in John "No one comes to the Father except through me." Therefore, there is no possibility of salvation for those without faith in Jesus. He then proceeds to instruct his disciples in Matthew, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: âThe kingdom of heaven has come near.â Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give." So Jesus himself limits salvation to Jews alone... about as far from expanding 'the definition of "neighbor" to include everybody' as you can get!
Message edited by author 2010-12-04 22:16:47. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 12:16:13 AM · #813 |
Must have been a timing issue, because, of course, he later says...
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.â
But I know you knew that.
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 00:16:25. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 02:32:46 AM · #814 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Must have been a timing issue, because, of course, he later says...
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.â
But I know you knew that. |
Isn't it just lovely how people who don't read the Bible pick out verses here and there to prove a point without even thinking about how that one verse fits into the rest of the Bible? I find it hysterical... always comes back to bite 'em. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 08:54:40 AM · #815 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Must have been a timing issue, because, of course, he later says...
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.â |
Yep, probably a timing issue since that's the very same section that Jesus commands his disciples to wait for his return in Jerusalem "not many days hence," at which time he would "restore again the kingdom to Israel"â a recurring prophecy throughout the Bible that not only failed to happen but also emphasizes vindication of the true people of God (exclusively Israelites) over their oppressors (everybody else). You're bolstering my point at the expense of your own, oh Master of the Obvious. Note also that Mark, generally regarded as the inspiration for Matthew and Luke, contains no mention whatsoever of Samaritans: another example of elaboration from ancient myths and folktales.
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 09:28:24. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 12:58:05 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Must have been a timing issue, because, of course, he later says...
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.â
But I know you knew that. |
Isn't it just lovely how people who don't read the Bible pick out verses here and there to prove a point without even thinking about how that one verse fits into the rest of the Bible? I find it hysterical... always comes back to bite 'em. |
I don't think Shannon hasn't read the Bible (although maybe not for a while). He knows his stuff, but he chooses to obfuscate the issue on purpose. Take his latest example where he implies the quote of Jesus that he would restore again the kingdom of Israel in a few days. Look at the actual passage...
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: âDo not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.â
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, âLord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?â
7 He said to them: âIt is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.â
It looks like the disciples were possibly eager for the vindication Shannon was speaking about, but, of course, Jesus had larger things on his mind. He certainly doesn't say that in a few days he'll restore the kingdom of Israel because they are the only people that matter. That is a complete and purposeful distortion of the scripture to try to regain his point (which he has obviously lost).
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 13:30:46. |
|
|
|
12/06/2010 12:31:18 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Divine Justice in a nutshell:
If one were to summarize the moral code to live by it is "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you honestly do this, you will receive reward. If you do not, you will receive punishment. At the same time, one has the opportunity to plead for clemency because of known transgressions. If your petition is heartfelt (and the judge, recall, is perfectly able to probe your motive and intent), your failures will be pardoned.
That is simple, clear, and concise. Now, there is the question of people who do not know about the opportunity for clemency or truly do not know or understand the Golden Rule. I agree this category is unclear, but I trust the Judge in his wisdom to render a just decision. I will point out again that nobody in this conversation falls into that category.
When people mention the "glaring imperfections" of the system, the classic quetion comes up. What is the "perfect standard" to which the system is being compared? and why is it the standard? If one doesn't have good answers to those questions, then the criticism crumbles to mere opinion (and should be stated as such).
Can anybody summarize human justice for me? :D |
I think that the real summary is that human justice is "complicated". That's why we have large, complicated statute books.
The bible massively oversimplifies matters. It sets out some rules, and then some general principles, and asks you to figure out the detail yourself.
Interestingly, as society develops, we don't get slimmer statute books as we gradually get closer to the "perfect standard" - we have more and more complicated rules to try and deal with the huge number of sophistications as to when certain behaviours are acceptable and when they are not.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2010 12:44:22 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I think that the real summary is that human justice is "complicated". That's why we have large, complicated statute books.
The bible massively oversimplifies matters. It sets out some rules, and then some general principles, and asks you to figure out the detail yourself.
Interestingly, as society develops, we don't get slimmer statute books as we gradually get closer to the "perfect standard" - we have more and more complicated rules to try and deal with the huge number of sophistications as to when certain behaviours are acceptable and when they are not. |
I don't think that the human institution of "law" has anything much to do with "justice". Or, to whatever extent it does, that's incidental alignment. The statute books you're referring to represent vested interests codifying what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to them. The books get more complex (rather than less) because different vested interests want their own particular exclusions, basically. That's my cynical view of it, anyway.
That's not to say ALL laws are arbitrary or ridiculous, by the way, because they are not, and we need laws, but "justice" is a moral concept and the laws (in their entirety, if not in individual particular instances) are an amoral codex.
R. |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 06:33:58 AM · #819 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think that the human institution of "law" has anything much to do with "justice". Or, to whatever extent it does, that's incidental alignment. The statute books you're referring to represent vested interests codifying what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to them. The books get more complex (rather than less) because different vested interests want their own particular exclusions, basically. That's my cynical view of it, anyway.
That's not to say ALL laws are arbitrary or ridiculous, by the way, because they are not, and we need laws, but "justice" is a moral concept and the laws (in their entirety, if not in individual particular instances) are an amoral codex.
R. |
I don't agree with this. If a law says that action A is okay in Settings A and B, and then setting C is created, it is outside the purview of law, and thus alterations (in the form of additional complexity) are necessary. How are laws not a codification and manifestation of morals? They, in and of themselves, are not moral, but they bolster and enforce what is deemed moral. Note I say deemed, not is. Laws are as moral as the society that forges them. |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 02:53:55 PM · #820 |
I agree with both Robert and SS. Laws can reflect morality, but are not the basis for it. I think we can all see this because we know of laws we deem to be immoral. I think laws become more and more complicated both for what Robert said and because humans are not perfect and cannot perfectly judge motives and intents. Therefore the laws try to adjudicate complex situtations without being privy to important information.
Message edited by author 2010-12-07 14:55:19. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 07:10:32 PM · #821 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Isn't it just lovely how people who don't read the Bible pick out verses here and there to prove a point without even thinking about how that one verse fits into the rest of the Bible? I find it hysterical... always comes back to bite 'em. |
I don't think Shannon hasn't read the Bible (although maybe not for a while). He knows his stuff, but he chooses to obfuscate the issue on purpose. |
Isn't it lovely how you guys ALWAYS know what everyone else is thinking, as well as their motivations?
There's no possible way we could actually believe the stuff we're saying, right?
It's always such an exercise in disappointment peeking into these threads.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2010 07:19:22 PM · #822 |
| I know exactly why you wrote that Mousie... |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 08:34:16 PM · #823 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know exactly why you wrote that Mousie... |
LOL |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 01:24:41 AM · #824 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think Shannon hasn't read the Bible (although maybe not for a while). He knows his stuff, but he chooses to obfuscate the issue on purpose. |
I'm sure he has read it, or at least part of it. I said that he "doesn't read" the Bible (i.e. not regularly), which is an assumption but based on how he uses it in his arguments I'd say it's an accurate one. He's a smart guy and I'm not trying to bash his intelligence. I'm just saying that it's a little funny sometimes to see how people here (not just scalvert) quote scripture as if they've spent their whole lives reading/studying it. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 01:36:25 AM · #825 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sure he has read it, or at least part of it. I said that he "doesn't read" the Bible (i.e. not regularly), which is an assumption but based on how he uses it in his arguments I'd say it's an accurate one. He's a smart guy and I'm not trying to bash his intelligence. I'm just saying that it's a little funny sometimes to see how people here (not just scalvert) quote scripture as if they've spent their whole lives reading/studying it. |
It's also a little funny when adherents confuse themselves with scholars, or when they make quirky assertions of how much deeper they can and do read into things.
;) Really, any assertion that one reading of The Bible is correct is laughable. |
|
