Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by FMF
You are unable to tell me what the substance of this "real justice" you keep mentioning is. You won't even say what "real justice" you think awaits a pedophile who never gets caught. The notion of justice as a deserved consequence for immoral or criminal acts is something that applies to all perpetrators whether they are caught or not. The fact that some people ...[text shortened]... ot mean that the notion of justice is "is only a concept that applies to people who are caught".

Actually I do believe that Justice awaits the pedophile. You believe that the pedophile can escape justice.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Either total justice exists or something less which is not really justice.

I refer you to Lemonjello's addressing of this point on page 7:

"You place high importance on there being retributive justice in order to balance these "moral scales of the universe". But, if what you are trying to imply here is true (that lack of retributive justices means no injustice in the first place), then what exactly is the big deal? If the murderer or rapist gets away scot-free, then there was no injustice in the first place. If there was no injustice in the first place, then what exactly is the problem? Obviously, there's some major confusion within your lines of reasoning here.

There's also a conceptual difference between justice and the ability to police justice, just like there is a difference between laws and the ability to police those laws. If we do not have perfect ability to police them, that doesn't somehow mean they don't exist. In fact, just the contrary, the state of affairs in which we have imperfect ability to police them already basically presupposes that they exist. Hence why your above hypothetical seems so bizarre: the existence of them is conceptually prior to our inability to perfectly police them."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Actually I do believe that Justice awaits the pedophile. You believe that the pedophile can escape justice.

What justice awaits him according to your belief?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If justice is not absolute (i.e based on an unchanging truth), it is simply a matter of personal opinion.

You seem to think that a series of assertions by - without any substance or examples - you can conjure up "unchanging truth", and simply slapping on the label "real" to this "justice" you are unable to describe or illustrate doesn't achieve anything in your efforts to convince that you have some knowledge of a "unchanging truth", nor does it feel like what you are telling me is divinely inspired.

Originally posted by FMF
I refer you to Lemonjello's addressing of this point on page 7:

"You place high importance on there being retributive justice in order to balance these "moral scales of the universe". But, if what you are trying to imply here is true (that lack of retributive justices means no injustice in the first place), then what exactly is the big deal? If the murderer o ...[text shortened]... bizarre: the existence of them is conceptually prior to our inability to perfectly police them."

Maybe your definition of "Justice" needs to spelled out precisely. How exactly do you define "Justice"? Is it merely a synonym for that which is "fair" or is there more to it?

Originally posted by FMF
What justice awaits him according to your belief?

Which part of they will be judged by a 'just God' do you not understand?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Which part of they will be judged by a 'just God' do you not understand?

What I understand very clearly is that you are trying very hard not to answer the question 'What justice awaits the pedophile according to your belief?'

Originally posted by sonship

Regarding (1), consider a geometrical figure like a circle. That no perfect circle is realized in nature does not seem to negate the concept of a circle. That there's an abstract unreachable standard doesn't cause us to claim that geometry is flawed in some way - so why do you apply this to morality?

Its a point about what we can find in ...[text shortened]... ware of our spiritual and psychological welfare also ?

Jesus Christ is not the enemy.

But I guess I use the logic because we are all so very unhappy to hear about that murdering raping pedophile getting away.

This is an argument to adverse consequences. That injustices occur which aren't righted or rightable in this world does not imply that there is some sort of cosmic balancer to even things up in the next world, there's no indication that there even is a next world.

And if it should be our OWN child, the feeling is very intense. It is less intense, yet still there, when it was someone else's child.

Maybe you could explain why we don't just shrug it off completely.

Because there is no reason I should explain. That we respond emotionally to events is not an indication that justice is a natural force.

Reincarnation

Regarding reincarnation, the self is not the accumulation of memories. The evidence for this is that people with severe amnesia do not become different people (e.g. [1][2]). Further, suppose someone committed a murder but during a subsequent struggle received neurological damage so that they forgot everything connected with their crime. I do not think that failing to remember their crime would constitute a defence, but just in case, suppose further that our criminal amnesiac had Dr Black, the evil neuroscientist, administer the neurological damage specifically to help cover up the crime. Extending your reincarnation argument to this case I think there is a problem, because your argument seems to link memory with liability.

Further, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The brain is responsible for storing memories. When we die these memories are destroyed. If the soul does not retain them, especially in the case of amnesiacs, then you are faced with a cosmology where countless lost souls are being punished in Hell for things they do not remember doing. This seems contrary to notions of justice. If on the other hand the soul retains memories of one's current life then one might think that an amnesiacs soul retains memories that are not available to the organic person. So that we do not have access to previous lives does not imply that reincarnation is false or meaningless. Either there is a soul that can retain memories, in which case my reincarnation argument stands, or your cosmology inevitably has this problem that the souls being punished in Hell or rewarded in Heaven don't have the faintest idea what they are being punished or rewarded for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bolzan

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Maybe your definition of "Justice" needs to spelled out precisely. How exactly do you define "Justice"? Is it merely a synonym for that which is "fair" or is there more to it?

I would say that justice (in the context of what we are talking about) is the administering of what is broadly perceived to be a fair and fitting punishment - by way of retribution rather than revenge - one that is commensurate with the severity of the immoral or criminal action, and which might credibly be expected to act as a deterrence, or might contribute to the rehabilitation of the 'offender', or, where necessary, might credibly offer an appropriate degree of security or protection to those persons who might otherwise be threatened by the repetition of the immoral or criminal actions or similar behaviour. That's mine. So, now. How exactly would you define "justice"?

Originally posted by FMF
What I understand very clearly is that you are trying very hard not to answer the question 'What justice awaits the pedophile according to your belief?'

Devine justice administered by a just God. Do you even read my posts?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Devine justice administered by a just God. Do you even read my posts?

Yes, I am reading your posts - that is why you're getting into so much trouble with your claims and your 'arguments'. Attaching the label "just" to God - as in "a just God' - does not make the the decisions/actions of that God "just" - nor can you label decisions/actions as being "just" because you have labelled the God figure you're referring to as being "just". That's circular logic.

Whether or not the decisions/actions are "just" depends on what the decisions/actions actually are, and whether they measure up to any simple test of justice or morality ~ and yet you seem to be unable to furnish even one example. What is the substance of this "real justice" you are touting?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Maybe your definition of "Justice" needs to spelled out precisely. How exactly do you define "Justice"? Is it merely a synonym for that which is "fair" or is there more to it?

I've given you mine, as requested. So, now ~ what exactly is your definition of "justice"?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, I am reading your posts - that is why you're getting into so much trouble with your claims and your 'arguments'. Attaching the label "just" to God - as in "a just God' - does not make the the decisions/actions of that God "just" - nor can you label decisions/actions as being "just" because you have labelled the God figure you're referring to as being "just" ...[text shortened]... nable to furnish even one example. What is the substance of this "real justice" you are touting?

If we read Isaiah 1 we clearly see how the justice of God differs from the justice of man.
God says the Israelites have blood on their hands. But he doesn’t accuse them of killing anybody or even violating any of the Ten Commandments. Israel’s sin is never named; it is implied in how God tells themto correct their behavior: “seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Their sin is the neglect of the orphans and widows, the two words used by Old Testament writers to represent the poor in a world where a man’s untimely death put his family out in the streets. Here is where the huge gap emerges between God’s notion of justice and our human understanding of it.

Human justice is founded upon the idea that people should get what they deserve. If someone violates the boundaries set by a society’s laws, that person pays a corresponding debt to society. As long as people stay within their boundaries and out of each other’s way, they’re behaving justly inhuman terms. Under human justice, God’s accusation against Israel makes no sense. Nobody owes anything to the widows and the orphans; it may be cruel towatch them starve, but it’s not unjust.

Under God’s justice, the question is not whether people get what they deserve. God doesn’t just want for bad people to get punished and good people to get rewarded. God wants for everyone on this planet to realize how much He loves us and to discover the unique role for which He created each of us. It is unacceptable to God for anyone to be thrown away, no matter what they have done, because He wants each of us to become who He made us to be. Neglecting the widows and the orphans of our world is unjust to God because it disrespects the purpose that He has for their lives. This is why Isaiah was so angry with his fellow Israelites. How could they sing about how pretty God was while ignoring the ugliness that hurt God’s heart?

Seeking God’s justice rather than human justice requires a major paradigm shift. Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful servant that we read earlier illustrates how this paradigm shift can fail to occur in Christianity. We often assume that Jesus died for our sins because God wants or needs to give people the hell that they deserve. But God is not the one who needs for unsaved sinners to fry so that human justice may prevail.

We ourselves are the merciless tyrants who demand that people get what they deserve. Jesus didn’t die to appease an angry God; the cross was God’s self-sacrifice through Jesus to appease an angry crowd of humans. It is our own prison of self-righteousness that keeps us out of communion with God. We make our own hell to spend eternity in and God spends our whole lives trying to rescue us from it.

Jesus paid for our sins in order to invite us into a new world of God’s mercy which leaves behind the world of human justice where people get what they deserve. The cross fulfills the requirements of our human justice in order that we may cast this way of thinking aside forever. We have received a mercy that we do not deserve so that we will stop checking to make sure others get what they deserve and instead start asking how we might share God’s mercy with them. The cross is the key to unlock the handcuffs of ourself-righteousness so we can throw them away.

The unmerciful servant is the Christian who receives God’s mercy through Christ but wants to keep on living as though everything else is supposed to follow the logic of people getting what they deserve. Christians who lack mercy insist upon walking around in handcuffs they’ve been given the key to open. To truly accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior means letting go of our right to judge others, but we often want to have it both ways, particularly in this toxic age when everyone loves to mouth off on the Internet. If our understanding of justice really were shaped by God’s mercy, which was the whole point of Jesus’ act of mercy on the cross, how different would our world be?
Do not misunderstand me. Choosing God’s justice over human justice does not mean that our society should stop locking up people that hurt other people. It does mean that correctional facilities should serve the purpose of correction and rehabilitation rather than satisfying our need for criminals to suffer. One way we can submit ourselves more deeply to God’s mercy is to follow Jesus’ command to visit people in prison.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2011/05/16/gods-justice-vs-human-justice/

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

If we read Isaiah 1 we clearly see how the justice of God differs from the justice of man. God says the Israelites have blood on their hands. But he doesn’t accuse them of killing anybody or even violating any of the Ten Commandments. Israel’s sin is never named; it is implied in how God tells themto correct their behavior: “seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Their sin is the neglect of the orphans and widows, the two words used by Old Testament writers to represent the poor in a world where a man’s untimely death put his family out in the streets. Here is where the huge gap emerges between God’s notion of justice and our human understanding of it. Human justice is founded upon the idea that people should get what they deserve. If someone violates the boundaries set by a society’s laws, that person pays a corresponding debt to society. As long as people stay within their boundaries and out of each other’s way, they’re behaving justly inhuman terms. Under human justice, God’s accusation against Israel makes no sense. Nobody owes anything to the widows and the orphans; it may be cruel towatch them starve, but it’s not unjust. Under God’s justice, the question is not whether people get what they deserve. God doesn’t just want for bad people to get punished and good people to get rewarded. God wants for everyone on this planet to realize how much He loves us and to discover the unique role for which He created each of us. It is unacceptable to God for anyone to be thrown away, no matter what they have done, because He wants each of us to become who He made us to be. Neglecting the widows and the orphans of our world is unjust to God because it disrespects the purpose that He has for their lives. This is why Isaiah was so angry with his fellow Israelites. How could they sing about how pretty God was while ignoring the ugliness that hurt God’s heart? Seeking God’s justice rather than human justice requires a major paradigm shift. Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful servant that we read earlier illustrates how this paradigm shift can fail to occur in Christianity. We often assume that Jesus died for our sins because God wants or needs to give people the hell that they deserve. But God is not the one who needs for unsaved sinners to fry so that human justice may prevail. We ourselves are the merciless tyrants who demand that people get what they deserve. Jesus didn’t die to appease an angry God; the cross was God’s self-sacrifice through Jesus to appease an angry crowd of humans. It is our own prison of self-righteousness that keeps us out of communion with God. We make our own hell to spend eternity in and God spends our whole lives trying to rescue us from it. Jesus paid for our sins in order to invite us into a new world of God’s mercy which leaves behind the world of human justice where people get what they deserve. The cross fulfills the requirements of our human justice in order that we may cast this way of thinking aside forever. We have received a mercy that we do not deserve so that we will stop checking to make sure others get what they deserve and instead start asking how we might share God’s mercy with them. The cross is the key to unlock the handcuffs of ourself-righteousness so we can throw them away. The unmerciful servant is the Christian who receives God’s mercy through Christ but wants to keep on living as though everything else is supposed to follow the logic of people getting what they deserve. Christians who lack mercy insist upon walking around in handcuffs they’ve been given the key to open. To truly accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior means letting go of our right to judge others, but we often want to have it both ways, particularly in this toxic age when everyone loves to mouth off on the Internet. If our understanding of justice really were shaped by God’s mercy, which was the whole point of Jesus’ act of mercy on the cross, how different would our world be? Do not misunderstand me. Choosing God’s justice over human justice does not mean that our society should stop locking up people that hurt other people. It does mean that correctional facilities should serve the purpose of correction and rehabilitation rather than satisfying our need for criminals to suffer. One way we can submit ourselves more deeply to God’s mercy is to follow Jesus’ command to visit people in prison. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2011/05/16/gods-justice-vs-human-justice/

What's your definition of "justice"? Perhaps offer a few examples.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Grace is underserved mercy. No one deserves God's mercy. But it is sufficient for the 'biggest' sinner on the planet.

I don't understand how there is "justice" in a pedophile getting "undeserved mercy", please explain. If the pedophile were to taken to court and was then let off as a result of "undeserved mercy", where is the justice in that?