Nonexistent Justice

Thank you for troubling to argue this point. I can't yet use bold to distinguish your statements from my replies but I hope it is clear.

"In your first post, you claim that eternal life somehow devalues life and lies about death. In what is presumed to be support for this, you cite anonymous narrative regarding jihad kamikazes and their ilk. While it may be assumed that you have some link between these two concepts, it's not immediately apparent what that link might be exactly."

A: The idea that we may freely sacrifice this life for reward in the next is so generally recognised that I decline to argue the point. I did not list Kamikaze which is not part of the monotheist tradition but Japanese. I did not separate Muslim from Christian however since they share the same source.

"In contrast to this, you claim that evolution gave us life and that life is to be affirmed. The basis of your directive seems to be nothing more than the fact that we have senses. Of course, such thinking fails to consider the fact that as part of our sensory make-up, we are also equipped to feel pain."

A: I do not recognise any denial that our senses include feeling pain; pain being a very important part of our sensory system with distinct pathways to the brain and other parts of the Central Nervous System. Having senses enable us to know that we are alive, something that is not so for many creatures.

"Your second post doesn't fare much better. You claim eternal life is not unconditional: certainly you cannot be referring to Christianity, where the basic understanding is that every one lives forever. Where each of us ends up is another story, and presumably the idea behind your second contention (itself a contradiction to your first, but no matter), that eternal life is not attractive."

A; Well I evidently need to clarify that what is conditional is not eternal life but, as you say, whether that is spent in heaven or hell. We were not all saved by Jesus death however if by that you mean that we all get into heaven.

"Again, the reader is left to wonder what Bible you may be privy to, as the Bible the rest of the world describes an eternal life for the children of God as surpassing the wildest pleasures imaginable. Of course, for those who refuse the gift of salvation from eternal separation, there is that eternal separation known as hell. You next bewilderingly describe hell as pornographic. The description--- intended to shock--- is inappropriate and ill-advised. There's nothing explicitly sexy or enjoyable or gratifying about hell."

A: I think my use of the term pornographic is one that most readers will accept as an alternative to spelling out in distasteful detail the types of torment envisaged. Anyway, you may find that there are areas of the pornography industry that deal very much with the inflicting of pain (though you and I would avoid such material as a matter of taste) and there plenty of psychiatrists who recognise the close link between sadism and sexual drives. If you demand an example take Freud and go away. This is not contentious. the idea that I am intending to shock is absurd - HELL is intended to shock and over many centuries it has done. That's why so many violent and evil men have left bequests to the Churches to pray for their shriveled souls, since they certainly did not do much of that on their own behalf while they lived.

"Have some become overly zealous in their depictions of hell for the express purpose of manipulating others' fear--- and thus control? No doubt. I've seen parents ill-equipped to lead their children do the same thing with the boogey man, police man or even the other parent head. All of them equally wrong."

A: Sadly the promotion of hell features very prominently in Christian and Muslim teaching. Your desire to sanitise and marginalise this is unhistorical and ignores evidence from the present day. It is not by accident that Christians chose burning alive as their preferred response to - well, to lots of things.

"Your last post touches on the question of what justice is, and you rightfully equate it with God. Why? Because justice is based upon His character, since He Himself is perfect justice."

A: OK so you clearly identify with one (and perhaps the most common) version of Justice which is that it is whatever God wants it to be. This is delightfully circular, since by that account God cannot be unjust. However, then you must account for the term "perfect justice" to describe his arbitrary whims.

"Had you stopped there, you'd been ahead of the game, but then you go and impugn Him with inconstancy... something clearly not described in the Bible. Blasphemy, basically."

A: Well of course I am blasphemous. I am in good company there. But the Bible describes God's inconstancy many times - he regrets his creation and destroys most of it in the Flood for example, then seems to regret having done that and promises not to do it again - well, not til the last day when he reserves the right to do it only worse. That's Just apparently because it gives the survivors (not many) a chance to try harder next time. However this is the worst level of casuistry.

"The remainder of the post, you bob around from rotten apple to putrid pear, all with the same result. The Bible was not meant to be taken in microscopically, but as a whole. What may be unclear or uncertain in one passage needs to be seen in the light of others--- in some cases, all others. Your fallacy is to think you have the whole iceberg when you first spot the tip breaking your horizon."

A: But this is your fallacy - you have your own very selective, idiosyncratic and unhistorical account of Christianity and it sounds like it may be a very nice and agreeable version indeed. I recall proposing a decision as a manager and being told by our solicitor that she completely agreed with my reasoning and thought that the law ought to be written to agree with me, but it was not and, in legal terms, I was wrong. The law is not what you would like it to be - it is what it is. Ditto for the history and teachings of Christianity.

Taken as a whole, the situation couldn't be more joyful.

A: Absolutely - as in Candide, we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Originally posted by finnegan
Thank you for troubling to argue this point. I can't yet use bold to distinguish your statements from my replies but I hope it is clear.

"In your first post, you claim that eternal life somehow devalues life and lies about death. In what is presumed to be support for this, you cite anonymous narrative regarding jihad kamikazes and their ilk. While it may ...[text shortened]... lutely - as in Candide, we live in the best of all possible worlds.[/b]

The idea that we may freely sacrifice this life for reward in the next is so generally recognised that I decline to argue the point. I did not list Kamikaze which is not part of the monotheist tradition but Japanese. I did not separate Muslim from Christian however since they share the same source.
While there no doubt exists a small cadre of extremists who much prefer annihilation to proselytization, the overwhelming majority of believers of any faith see such manipulation as verboten. Certainly in mainstream, orthodox Christianity, suicide has always been regarded as a sin.

Having senses enable us to know that we are alive, something that is not so for many creatures.
To which of the senses are you referring--- which are not common to most creatures--- can we thank for allowing us to know of our own existence?

We were not all saved by Jesus death however if by that you mean that we all get into heaven.
Actually, we all are saved by His atoning work. Some of us simply refuse to accept the gift. No one goes to hell on account of personal sin.

This is delightfully circular, since by that account God cannot be unjust. However, then you must account for the term "perfect justice" to describe his arbitrary whims
I suppose it could be considered "delightfully circular" if there were some other standard to which we could refer. Perhaps we could refer to your standard of justice? If so, who besides you passes muster?

Well of course I am blasphemous. I am in good company there.
I suppose you'll need to redefine the term 'good' in order for your sentence to make sense.

But the Bible describes God's inconstancy many times...
To the one satisfied with the most superficial and immature renderings possible, you have a point. However, those more serious about finding what God has to say exhibit more patience, more humility... and walk away with the pearls of His wisdom. The rest are left standing at the gate, complaining they weren't allowed in.


... you have your own very selective, idiosyncratic and unhistorical account of Christianity and it sounds like it may be a very nice and agreeable version indeed.
Quite the contrary. I truly don't give a rat's ass about what Christian's have done in complete opposition of the truth right there in the Bible. Likewise, I give the same amount of concern to my failures toward the same. Christians are not the message: Christ is the message. He is the only reason I read the Bible, the only thing I look for in its pages. Anything else is superfluous, whether it calls itself Christian or not.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I truly don't give a rat's ass about what Christian's have done in complete opposition of the truth right there in the Bible. Likewise, I give t ok for in its pages. Anything else is superfluous, whether it calls itself Christian or not.[/b]

Do you remember this post of yours from the agnosticism thread not long ago?

"do you honestly think that Christianity would have survived--- let alone thrived--- for two millennium based solely on its adherents enthusiasm? Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position is one of contempt toward their intellect? If so, can you out-of-hand dismiss the plethora of examples of highly regarded Christian thinkers throughout history?"

When you say "Christians are not the message" I rather suspect you are guilty of that which you complain about. Because I and others are debating Christianity and you cannot reasonably hijack that long history and the considered opinions of all those people calling themselves Christian.

Originally posted by finnegan
Do you remember this post of yours from the agnosticism thread not long ago?

"do you honestly think that Christianity would have survived--- let alone thrived--- for two millennium based solely on its adherents enthusiasm? Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position is one of contempt tow ...[text shortened]... long history and the considered opinions of all those people calling themselves Christian.

When you say "Christians are not the message" I rather suspect you are guilty of that which you complain about. Because I and others are debating Christianity and you cannot reasonably hijack that long history and the considered opinions of all those people calling themselves Christian.
Um, huh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When you say "Christians are not the message" I rather suspect you are guilty of that which you complain about. Because I and others are debating Christianity and you cannot reasonably hijack that long history and the considered opinions of all those people calling themselves Christian.
Um, huh?[/b]

Try again. Many people who are seen to be Christians and who see themselves as Christians have held diverse opinions over the centuries. You appear to take the view that, where their interpretation of what it means to be Christian differs from yours then they are not, after all, what they claim and are seen to be. That is, to my mind, an attempt to hijack the name Christian and I submit that many other Christians are likely to contest this with you in so far as they also claim to be Christians.

However there is another strand to this. You could seem to take the view that many people who believed they were Christians got it all wrong and you are now seeking to put it right by reverting to some alternative, perhaps more fundamental expression of the faith. If so you will not be the first nor the last to try this approach and fail.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

This is delightfully circular, since by that account God cannot be unjust. However, then you must account for the term "perfect justice" to describe his arbitrary whims
I suppose it could be considered "delightfully circular" if there were some other standard to which we could refer. Perhaps we could refer to your standard of justice? If so, who besides you passes muster?

OK let us imagine that you were invited to participate in a discussion by which to establish a form of justice that was acceptable to Muslims, Hindus, Animists and diverse Christians and to include several overtly atheist communist states. Imagine the alternative was persistent warfare, persecution and violence without boundaries.

Call it something like a Convention on Human Rights, or a Convention on Torture, or even a convention on the use of the open seas by ships of every nation. Does that sound terribly unlikely?

Now maybe you would remind us all that God is perfectly just, that on the last day we will see perfect justice and all that. And we would listen with tolerance. And you would by the same token appreciate that we do not share your view for many reasons.

But we are not God, not gods and we want to establish a form of justice that works between us. So the answer is not to tell us - this is God - He is just. The answer has to be a debate in which we discuss what we, as humans, can decide for ourselves.

Would you recommend that we should act exactly as God acts? If so, then justice would be whatever we decided it was. But we are fed up with this because at present we all approach the matter according to our own interests and our own perceptions and that leads (historically) to appalling conflict. We want something that we can agree upon.

I suggest the answer is likely to incorporate concepts such as proportionality and fair process for example. In other words it is going to drive us towards agreement on some objective, observable standards (not arbitrary ones, but certainly ones that require wide agreement). And then we will each be judged with regard to those standards.

I am suggesting that, if there are to be any standards other than God is good by definition, then the account of God in the bible (before people introduce weird and incredibly extraneous new interpretations) would struggle to gain approval. And I suggest also that people of such unshakable conviction as yourself (though maybe not exactly you the person) are all too likely to be found on the side of oppression and injustice, to perpetuate sectarian strife.

That is because you cannot bear to hear anything that cuts across your own beliefs, you cannot hear any version of the Truth that does not support your convictions, you would prefer to alter your very perceptions of reality, to invent complex and tortured alternative scenarios, rather than confront any failure in your own line of thinking.

Originally posted by finnegan
Try again. Many people who are seen to be Christians and who see themselves as Christians have held diverse opinions over the centuries. You appear to take the view that, where their interpretation of what it means to be Christian differs from yours then they are not, after all, what they claim and are seen to be. That is, to my mind, an attempt to hijack ...[text shortened]... ssion of the faith. If so you will not be the first nor the last to try this approach and fail.

I guess I could say 'huh,' again but I don't know the point would be received. I truly have no idea what you are on about. Somehow you took what I've said herein to mean that I call into question other Christian's faith? Really? Where did you get such a convoluted notion? I've said nothing remotely close to the charge.

What I did say is that Christians (what they do, who they are) are not the point of Christianity, whereas Christ is. Many people try to make an issue of the people when the issue is the Person.

As far as putting everything right, your analysis again fails. Wheat among the tares, my friend.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I guess I could say 'huh,' again but I don't know the point would be received. I truly have no idea what you are on about. Somehow you took what I've said herein to mean that I call into question other Christian's faith? Really? Where did you get such a convoluted notion? I've said nothing remotely close to the charge.

What I did say is that ...[text shortened]... as putting everything right, your analysis again fails. Wheat among the tares, my friend.

Ah but I think that Christians, what they say and what they do is very much to the point.

When you say all that matters is what Christ says, I have to remind you that what he says was recorded 50 to 80 years after his death by people with a vested interest. We do not have his words directly. We do not have the quiet authority of an independent source. So for example, when they record how Jesus fulfills a prophecy, it is conceivable to a suspicious mind that the evidence for this is planted by people who know the prophecy. It does even have to take much tinkering - a subtle adjustment to a phrase makes a huge difference as you know all too well with your biblical scholarship and incessant close readings.

Look even the Koran, written down under far more controlled conditions and making far more rigid claims to exact Truth, is riddled with problems that have provided employment for generations of commentators.

But on some level you could rightly suggest that these academic concerns are less important - what matters is -- well, what matters is what difference does it make? How does it affect the behaviour of believers. And we are driven to look at Christians, what they say and what they do. Or for that matter, Muslims: does their faith enhance their lives in a discernible way that might attract a non believer?

The Buddha is reported to have given advice on these lines, when he was asked to advise representatives sent from a certain tribe in a different area how they could select from the variety of religions proposed to them. In effect he advised them to use their own judgment and ask of each - does it make sense, does it work for us? If it helps them to live virtuous lives and it appears to them to promote wisdom then that is what ought to matter. He did not push a solution on them, did not threaten them with ill consequences of getting it wrong and he did not demand that they adopt his teachings. It could be an apocryphal story - it is just a legend - but it is interesting to compare the approach.

I am not sure that Jesus did promote wisdom. I suspect he promoted belief and compliance. I suspect that wisdom, in Christianity, comes rather close to acceptance and submission.