Is God always "just"?

[Interzone]

Let me assume that you're actually being serious, and not deliberately parading your ignorance all over our faces.

Canard #1: God is perfectly just. Man made morality is arbitrary. Those are standard definitions. So people basing moral standards on a fixed perfection are moral relativists??? Wow!

If God is perfectly "just," you ARE accepting my first definition. Your concept of "Perfect" isn't grounded in anything except God, and just reiterates my point. His own hypocrisy (as I clearly demonstrated) does away with any meaningful definition of "fixed perfection." Nonetheless, let us accept your definition of God. I will REPEAT my question.

Was it perfectly just for God to order the killing all Amalekites except for their virgins?

Answer this, if you're going to bother replying.

Canard #2: If God is just and cannot be unjust, this is not a contradiction of omnipotence. It's a contradiction of logic.

Your God IS a contradiction of logic hock: Hehehe, not my problem. I don't go parade around claiming that God is both all-powerful and all-good. Both are utterly meaningless terms. The old omnipotence paradox: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

---

There is no issue with God determining what is and is not just. Justice being arbitrary would only be a problem if the arbiter was fallible; of course God is infallible so there really is no logical issue here. I’d rather have the perfect Creator of all things determining Justice for me than a bunch of fallible men whose hearts are dead in sin.

You didn't say anything that I didn't say. God is infallible, so whatever he says must be just! Guess what, as I said in my original post, I'll ACCEPT that definition.

So... logically following, IF god orders you to rape little children, would you say that raping little children is JUST?

Simple yes or no question.

[Statler Waldorf]

Was it perfectly just for God to order the killing all Amalekites except for their virgins?

Absolutely.

Your God IS a contradiction of logic Hehehe, not my problem. I don't go parade around claiming that God is both all-powerful and all-good. Both are utterly meaningless terms. The old omnipotence paradox: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

I am a bit shocked you even went this direction, this only displays a fundamental ignorance of what omnipotence means. It means that God can do all that is consistent with His nature. Logic is based off of God’s nature and thoughts. It is not logically possible to make a stone so big you can’t pick it up, so your silly little question proves nothing.

So... logically following, IF god orders you to rape little children, would you say that raping little children is JUST?

Simple yes or no question.

Where did God order this? I know He didn’t, but if He did then yes of course it would be just because that is how we determine justice. He never ordered that, so it really doesn’t prove a thing. Since we are playing this little game though, you need to answer this, “If every person on Earth thought that raping children was just, would you also think this?”

[reverendjeremiah]

Waldork the sociopath..what a shit head

[Minimalist]

I've been considering the OP.

God just isn't. Always.

[Interzone]

I am a bit shocked you even went this direction, this only displays a fundamental ignorance of what omnipotence means. It means that God can do all that is consistent with His nature. Logic is based off of God’s nature and thoughts. It is not logically possible to make a stone so big you can’t pick it up, so your silly little question proves nothing.

Heh, you're confusing "logically possible" with "logically sound." I'm perfectly well versed in what "omnipotence" means. Logically speaking, unless you can define "God's nature and thoughts," you cannot even begin to define God. I think Thomas Paine said it best.

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”

"Logic is based off of God's nature and thoughts," lol, nice babble.

Where did God order this? I know He didn’t, but if He did then yes of course it would be just because that is how we determine justice. He never ordered that, so it really doesn’t prove a thing.

Well, killing little children would be more accurate, but good to know.

Since we are playing this little game though, you need to answer this, “If every person on Earth thought that raping children was just, would you also think this?”

Difference here is that I don't claim that "every person on Earth" is just. It's entirely possible that everyone is unjust. You, on the other hand, claim that God IS just. Big difference.

So, I think we wrapped it up nicely. You condone genocide, the killing of children, and the rape of virgins. The very least I can say is that you are a true Christian. What's more, I cannot possibly refute your definition of just. Pat yourself on the back.

[Cinjin]

Oh man, and to think I was actually trying to be courteous in my refutation of your points. I thought you were one of the more fair minded atheists on here, but maybe I am getting you mixed up with someone else.

I’m not an atheist, I’m a Deist. Secondly your contrite reaction is unwarranted. You act as if I insulted your mother or something. Come-on, I insulted your argument - not you, so calm down.

Throwing out a bunch of synonyms does nothing to define a word.

Yeah, that’s a weak argument at best. A definition in a dictionary nearly always makes use of synonyms in said definition. Seriously, debating thesaurus vs. dictionary is just a stupid waste of time.

Secondly, you are holding the all powerful creator of the universe to standards that Noah Webster developed? That's nothing short of absurd, trying to hold an infallible being to the standards adopted by a fallible man (Webster) is illogical.

Defining my use of “just” in my OP was all I was doing. Christians call their god “just” and you asked me to define what I consider “just” as it applied to my post. You than implied that god’s version of “just” and humans version of “just” are not the same – thus the question I posed to you. Which of course you ignored. I was making the point that I am using the exact same principles of being “just” that a Christian uses when he tells me that his god is just. I answered your question as fairly as I could.

Rather, men should define what is and is not fair by God's nature and His law. This is the only appeal to authority that is not fallacious.

Sadly, men do define what is just and fair by your god’s version of justice and that is the biggest reason why the world is so full of hatred. It also explains the Spanish inquisition, the “holy” crusades, the myriad of religious massacres that have taken place in gods holy name, and don’t forget those wonderful times … the Dark Ages.

As to my second point, you just said my conclusion was illogical, but you did nothing to demonstrate how or why this is true. So you conveniently gave me nothing to work with, so I guess I will just stand by my point since you did nothing to refute it.

It is you who gave me nothing to work with. I even wrote how much I hated giving rebuttals like that. However, I clearly demonstrated why ---- You took my argument and simply reversed it around to an illogical conclusion and now you are acting with incredulity when it is you who cannot justify your argument. Sorry, the burden lies on you since you simply stole my argument and reversed it around to fit an illogical definition of justice. I stand where I was before. You’re wrong because your conclusion is illogical.

I guess according to you a person who punches the President of the US should get the same punishment as someone who punches a drunk on the street? Since you claim authority plays no role in the equation.

LMAO … and you made fun of my analogy. Come on Stat, if you’re going to hit me with nonsense like that, I’m just not even going to bother.

As to your ant analogy, it is just a straw man argument. If I had infinite authority over the ants, and they had rebelled against me, and I had still given them better than they deserved, you nor anyone else could say I was unjust. It would be better to point out how the ants had no room to whine because I had given them better than they actually deserved. You are like the guy who whines about having to pay up 3 dollars to someone whom he really owed a thousand. Pretty irrational.

This last point of yours is the real crux of the debate isn’t it.
You feel that we owe your god something for being born – thus the 3 for $1000 analogy, and I feel that we owe nothing for being born and living a life that we were meant to live.
You have proven that you feel that your god can pick and choose what it means to be just and fair because he is god. That’s fine. You certainly are allowed to believe that. It’s completely ridiculous, but you are allowed to be wrong. You demonstrated your utter lack of understanding for the word “just” when you said, quote, “If I had infinite authority over the ants, and they had rebelled against me, and I had still given them better than they deserved, you nor anyone else could say I was unjust”

Yes, I can say it would be unjust. Punishing your own creation for doing something you gave it the power to do is not just … and believing that an infinite punishment is fair and just for a finite mortal being is aquaint to lunacy.

[FadingW]

Religious people are married to the idea of a just god, even if it means defending genocide as justice.

That is because the alternative would be to admit to worshiping an immoral entity, not realizing that the act of defense condemns.

[Cinjin]

Religious people are married to the idea of a just god, even if it means defending genocide as justice.

That is because the alternative would be to admit to worshiping an immoral entity, not realizing that the act of defense condemns.

Once again FW, I do like the simple eloquence you use in your posts.

[fr0d0]

His (God's) own hypocrisy (as I clearly demonstrated) does away with any meaningful definition of "fixed perfection." Nonetheless, let us accept your definition of God.

You demonstrated that you are capable of stating the logically impossible.

The Jews collated the mass of information they had gathered about God and compiled it into a collection of books referred to as the Old Testament. They conclude attributes of God that he is just. And also that he is good. From human understanding of goodness and justice.. not something we don't understand or have no concept of.

"All good and all powerful" are your own mistaken creations, and not Judaic or Christian. So... you have made up something about a subject you obviously misunderstand, and level that mistaken interpretation for serious consideration at Christians who understand it correctly. Your interpretation might be interesting, and even indicative of your personal state, but they do nothing at all to address Christianity or Judaism.

Was it perfectly just for God to order the killing all Amalekites except for their virgins?

Yes

The old omnipotence paradox: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Sorry we have no respect for that fallacy around here.

How does it contain multiple questions? And how is the fallacy committed? Consider two illustrative examples first. There is the familiar and classic example, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?” As the student of philosophy is typically shown, there are actually two questions being asked here. The first is, “Have you beaten your spouse?” The second is, “If so, have you stopped?” As we can see, the latter is the obvious question being asked while the former is the hidden question not being asked. It qualifies as a Loaded Question because it involves (i.e., is 'loaded' with) two or more questions, and it commits the question-begging fallacy by assuming the truth of spousal abuse in a question about spousal abuse.

Another example question would be, “Where did you put the cookies you stole?” Here there are actually three questions being asked: (i) “Did you steal the cookies?” (ii) “If so, did you put them somewhere?” and (iii) “If not, did you eat them?” The second is the obvious question being asked, while the first is the hidden question not being asked and producing the fallacy by assuming the truth of cookie theft in a question about cookie theft. (The third question exists tacitly if the answer is “nowhere” to the loaded question or “no” to the obvious question).

Understanding this, now consider the question, “Can God create a rock he cannot lift?” Within this single question about omnipotence there are actually two questions being asked: (i) “Can God create some rock?” (ii) “Can God fail to lift some rock?” On the one hand, that is how it is a Loaded Question; it involves or is 'loaded' with more than one question. The former question is the obvious one being asked, while the latter question is the hidden one not being asked. On the other hand, that is how it is fallacious; by virtue of assuming that God is not omnipotent within a question about whether or not God is omnipotent, which it does by assuming that an Immovable Object is logically possible (“a rock he cannot lift”) when the question itself is about whether or not an Irresistible Force is logically possible. As I said in my Opening Statements, “by presupposing as possible the existence of the former one has necessarily denied as impossible the existence of the latter” and thereby “commits the question-begging fallacy.”

[Zen Badger]

I think we are confusing terms here. When I say "Free Will" I mean an actual free libertarian will where man is just as likely to sin as not sin and he can freely choose to accept God's grace. Man does not have that. Rather man has a will, but it is a will that has been clouded by sin, he is actually described as being dead in sin. So he chooses to sin because he wants to sin, and he is unable to choose God without a renewing of his heart. In fact, even when he does good deeds it is not because of himself but rather because God has granted him common grace allowing him to overcome his sinful nature in order to do good deeds. So man is still responsible for his sin. Is that a bit clearer?

No....

Hahahaha, I am sorry Zen but this really made my day. I would ask you to elaborate on your point but I know you can’t.

What is there to elaborate?

Your post made no sense whatsoever.

I answered "no" to your question as to whether it made things clearer.

So, again, what is there to elaborate?