Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 9, 2011 at 11:31 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I already answered you questions about finite vs infinite punishment scenario. Read again.
dammnit, I just deleted my whole damn response in the EDIT. SHIT, maybe a mod can get it back.
(May 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where did you define it? All I saw was your thesaurus thing, which of course didn't define it. So maybe we should try this instead.
In post #67 I gave my initial opinion on god's judgement.
In post #79 I told you that I use a standard definition for "just"
You on the other hand, want your god to have some kind of special definition for "just". I stated before, as I am AGAIN, that I define terms the same way everybody else does. Am I holding your god to the world's definition of "just"? You're goddamn right I am! You don't have the privilege of redefining words to suit your agenda. Your brothers in Christ say “our god is just” … I can only use the definition of justice that exists to interpret what that means. And that definition is found in any dictionary/thesaurus you can put your hands on.
What’s really stupid is that this whole dictionary vs. thesaurus thing would be a pointless stupid debate to anyone else. You HAD to make issue with it because you NEED to be able to redefine justice so that you can give your hateful god a leg to stand on.
This is what I meant when I wrote, "just like your god, you play by your own special rules."
Well forgive me for wanting you to use a dictionary to define words haha. I thought that was a pretty reasonable request I.
Let's look at how the dictionary defines just...
1. Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
So really all you did was state your opinion that an infinite punishment is unjust for a finite crime (This is stated nowhere in the definition of justice). I have already demonstrated how this is illogical, but I will just state my opinion back if that is what you want (an opinion for an opinion seems fair enough). An infinite punishment for a crime committed against an infinite being IS just. That was easy enough. I will even set it up in a syllogism.
1. The just wage for sin is death.
2. All have sinned.
3. All receive death.
4. Therefore all get what they deserve.
1. Justice is defined as getting what you deserve.
2. All get what they deserve.
3. Therefore all receive justice.
Now stop whining about it.
So really all you did was state your opinion that an infinite punishment is unjust for a finite crime (This is stated nowhere in the definition of justice). ….of course it’s not! What's wrong with you? Our argument is not going to be listed in a dictionary/thesaurus. However, like ANY term in a dictionary, we can conclude whether or not it is accurate to our query.
The very definition of justice does indeed prove my side, at the very least, BETTER than it does yours. See below for why.
1. The just wage for sin is death. FLAWED – that is an opinion. I do not sin if I do not recognize a fictional being who defines sin.
2. All have sinned. – FLAWED – that too is opinion. What you call sin, I call natural evolutionary actions
3. All receive death. – Well, yes, everyone does indeed die. That is not punishment, that too is natural.
4. Therefore all get what they deserve. – FLAWED – I do not deserve hell. Only death is naturally “deserved”
1. Justice is defined as getting what you deserve. – FLAWED – Biased, that is only a partial definition of justice.
2. All get what they deserve. – FLAWED – even in your Bible many persons did NOT get what they deserved. King David for example.
3. Therefore all receive justice. FLAWED – Finite “sins” do not deserve infinite punishment. Illogical conclusion. Justice must be fair and impartial. Finite punishment for finite crimes. Infinite for infinite … and since only Lucifer himself is capable of infinite crimes, that puts your god in a very unjust light.
WOW, you’ve got A LOT of nerve saying that I’ve been the one whining about definitions.
You’re the one who wouldn’t let it the fuck go from the first moment I posted!
That’s just an outright lie and I challenge anyone to go through the posts and see what I’m talking about.
Quote: So really all you did was state your opinion that an infinite punishment is unjust for a finite crime (This is stated nowhere in the definition of justice). ….of course it’s not! What's wrong with you? Our argument is not going to be listed in a dictionary/thesaurus. However, like ANY term in a dictionary, we can conclude whether or not it is accurate to our query.
The very definition of justice does indeed prove my side, at the very least, BETTER than it does yours. See below for why.
Not sure why you responded like this, makes it very confusing. I smell personal opinion coming later in your post.
Quote: 1. The just wage for sin is death. FLAWED – that is an opinion. I do not sin if I do not recognize a fictional being who defines sin.
Illogical argument. That's like saying you cannot commit murder in the US if you do not recognize the US as a country. Just see how far you get in the courts with that argument. If God does exist, and if the wage for sin really is death, then He is acting completely just, regardless what you think.
Quote: 2. All have sinned. – FLAWED – that too is opinion. What you call sin, I call natural evolutionary actions.
Again, see how far this gets you in court. "Your honor I was just acting out my natural evolutionary actions when I raped that little girl." It will get you about as far with a judge as it will with God.
Quote: 3. All receive death. – Well, yes, everyone does indeed die. That is not punishment, that too is natural.
Nope, it's a punishment for sin.
Quote: 4. Therefore all get what they deserve. – FLAWED – I do not deserve hell. Only death is naturally “deserved”
Again, begging the question. We are trying to discuss whether you and I do deserve hell or not. Merely stating you do not is assuming the proof.
Quote: 1. Justice is defined as getting what you deserve. – FLAWED – Biased, that is only a partial definition of justice.
Since you never bothered to define it with an actual dictionary, we will just go with my definition until you can prove otherwise. Justice is getting what you deserve.
Quote: 2. All get what they deserve. – FLAWED – even in your Bible many persons did NOT get what they deserved. King David for example.
Well since this is a discussion about justice, I kind of assumed that getting far better than you deserve would be ok in your book. Grace is not injustice; it's a form of non-justice, which is completely consistent with God's perfection because of Christ's atonement.
Quote:3. Therefore all receive justice. FLAWED – Finite “sins” do not deserve infinite punishment. Illogical conclusion. Justice must be fair and impartial. Finite punishment for finite crimes. Infinite for infinite … and since only Lucifer himself is capable of infinite crimes, that puts your god in a very unjust light.
Where do you get this B.S.? This is all just your personal opinion. Any crime against an infinite perfect being logically deserves an infinite punishment.
Quote: WOW, you’ve got A LOT of nerve saying that I’ve been the one whining about definitions.
You’re the one who wouldn’t let it the fuck go from the first moment I posted!
That’s just an outright lie and I challenge anyone to go through the posts and see what I’m talking about.
I was actually referring to you whining about God not being fair.
May 10, 2011 at 2:25 am (This post was last modified: May 10, 2011 at 2:40 am by Cinjin.)
(May 10, 2011 at 1:52 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Quote: So really all you did was state your opinion that an infinite punishment is unjust for a finite crime (This is stated nowhere in the definition of justice). ….of course it’s not! What's wrong with you? Our argument is not going to be listed in a dictionary/thesaurus. However, like ANY term in a dictionary, we can conclude whether or not it is accurate to our query.
The very definition of justice does indeed prove my side, at the very least, BETTER than it does yours. See below for why.
Not sure why you responded like this, makes it very confusing. I smell personal opinion coming later in your post.
Quote: 1. The just wage for sin is death. FLAWED – that is an opinion. I do not sin if I do not recognize a fictional being who defines sin.
Illogical argument. That's like saying you cannot commit murder in the US if you do not recognize the US as a country. Just see how far you get in the courts with that argument. If God does exist, and if the wage for sin really is death, then He is acting completely just, regardless what you think.
Read what I wrote! I said FICTIONAL being. The US is not fictional; therefore I accept their definition of right and wrong and thus their laws. This makes your entire argument from here on out completely FLAWED. My argument was sound and logical, once again it is you who can’t seem to read. Also, it is YOUR opinion not mine that keeps coming into play here.
Quote: 2. All have sinned. – FLAWED – that too is opinion. What you call sin, I call natural evolutionary actions.
Again, see how far this gets you in court. "Your honor I was just acting out my natural evolutionary actions when I raped that little girl." It will get you about as far with a judge as it will with God.
We’re not in court and this rebuttal doesn’t hold up for shit. The natural actions that I’m referring to which is the sin that you are referring to is what we are debating god sends us to hell for… the sin of disbelief. The sin of disbelief in an entity that can’t be proven to exist would never be judged in a court of law and THAT is the only sin that god sends us to hell for. I’m not debating you on whether or not rape and murder are wrong because I don’t believe their wrong. That’s just a stupid invalid point. Stop twisting the argument and playing by your own special rules again.
Quote: 3. All receive death. – Well, yes, everyone does indeed die. That is not punishment, that too is natural.
Nope, it's a punishment for sin. Talk about opinion … here you go again.
Quote: 4. Therefore all get what they deserve. – FLAWED – I do not deserve hell. Only death is naturally “deserved”
Again, begging the question. We are trying to discuss whether you and I do deserve hell or not. Merely stating you do not is assuming the proof.
That is NOT what we’re debating. We are debating whether finite sins deserve infinite punishment. There’s a BIG difference.
Quote: 1. Justice is defined as getting what you deserve. – FLAWED – Biased, that is only a partial definition of justice.
Since you never bothered to define it with an actual dictionary, we will just go with my definition until you can prove otherwise. Justice is getting what you deserve.
I don’t need to PROVE a definition. Scroll up. Impartial and FAIR are a part of that definition.
Quote: 2. All get what they deserve. – FLAWED – even in your Bible many persons did NOT get what they deserved. King David for example.
Well since this is a discussion about justice, I kind of assumed that getting far better than you deserve would be ok in your book. Grace is not injustice; it's a form of non-justice, which is completely consistent with God's perfection because of Christ's atonement.
FLAWED again … TRUE justice does not have the option to choose when to be just and who to be just to. (However, this is getting way off topic and this is already convoluted as hell, shall we leave this one be for now?)
Quote:3. Therefore all receive justice. FLAWED – Finite “sins” do not deserve infinite punishment. Illogical conclusion. Justice must be fair and impartial. Finite punishment for finite crimes. Infinite for infinite … and since only Lucifer himself is capable of infinite crimes, that puts your god in a very unjust light.
Where do you get this B.S.? This is all just your personal opinion. Any crime against an infinite perfect being logically deserves an infinite punishment.
“Hey Kettle, you black bastard!” Sincerely, Pot
Where do you get YOUR B.S.? You easily double my ratio of opinions in your arguments. That very last sentence is your own opinion and it is STILL illogical because it has no balance and it is not remotely fair for an infinite being to bring an infinite punishment to a finite human being.
Quote: WOW, you’ve got A LOT of nerve saying that I’ve been the one whining about definitions.
You’re the one who wouldn’t let it the fuck go from the first moment I posted!
That’s just an outright lie and I challenge anyone to go through the posts and see what I’m talking about.
I was actually referring to you whining about God not being fair.
Look, neither of us is going to let the other one win this debate.
Can you give me a rough guess on how much longer you want to keep this back-&-forth going?
It seems rather pointless now. ....
(May 10, 2011 at 1:52 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Illogical argument. That's like saying you cannot commit murder in the US if you do not recognize the US as a country. Just see how far you get in the courts with that argument. If God does exist, and if the wage for sin really is death, then He is acting completely just, regardless what you think.
Except there is lots of evidence for the existence of the U.S.
You have yet to produce any for your god.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Quote: Read what I wrote! I said FICTIONAL being. The US is not fictional; therefore I accept their definition of right and wrong and thus their laws. This makes your entire argument from here on out completely FLAWED. My argument was sound and logical, once again it is you who can’t seem to read. Also, it is YOUR opinion not mine that keeps coming into play here.
Apparently it is you who can’t read. This thread was supposed to assume that God is real for the purpose of the discussion. I am doing that, if you can’t handle that maybe you should start a new thread that assumes He does not exist. The fact of the matter is that if He does exist then what He does in the Bible is completely just. So you have to just say He doesn’t exist because you have no other way of arguing your position. Of course you could not possibly know whether God exists or not, so your claim even if it did follow the rules of this discussion would still be illogical.
From the original post…
“So the question I'm asking is, if we assume first God is real, then what reason do you have to believe that God is always "just", when he himself seems to deny that.”
How about you address that issue rather than moving the goalposts half way through the discussion?
Quote: We’re not in court and this rebuttal doesn’t hold up for shit. The natural actions that I’m referring to which is the sin that you are referring to is what we are debating god sends us to hell for… the sin of disbelief. The sin of disbelief in an entity that can’t be proven to exist would never be judged in a court of law and THAT is the only sin that god sends us to hell for. I’m not debating you on whether or not rape and murder are wrong because I don’t believe their wrong. That’s just a stupid invalid point. Stop twisting the argument and playing by your own special rules again.
Where in scripture does it say that God sends us to hell only for the sin of disbelief?
Secondly, you don’t believe raping little girls and boys is wrong but you think it is wrong for God to send sinners to hell? That’s interesting to say the least.
Quote: Talk about opinion … here you go again.
Not my opinion at all. Did you even read the first post in this thread? We are supposed to be discussing whether or not the God of the Bible is just. I cannot do that unless I actually read what it says in the Bible. It says in the Bible the punishment for sin is death. I suggest you either follow this discussion or go start your own thread because you are wasting our time.
Quote: That is NOT what we’re debating. We are debating whether finite sins deserve infinite punishment. There’s a BIG difference.
Huh? Hell is that infinite punishment you are talking about. So that is what we are talking about.
Quote: I don’t need to PROVE a definition. Scroll up. Impartial and FAIR are a part of that definition.
Getting what you deserve IS fair. How do you define fairness?
Quote: FLAWED again … TRUE justice does not have the option to choose when to be just and who to be just to.
According to whom? You?
Quote: it is not remotely fair for an infinite being to bring an infinite punishment to a finite human being.
According to whom? You? According to logic, it is completely fair.
Quote: Except there is lots of evidence for the existence of the U.S.
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. This thread is supposed to assume God’s existence so you couldn’t even use that argument even if it actually were a good one.
I'm tired of defending my valid arguments to you. This is pointless.
You make up the rules (and the topic) as you go and than say it's my doing.
You make claims that I said things I never said by twisting words around.
You redefine justice to suit your agenda.
Your "logic" is completely illogical.
And to top it off you finished with "There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God." - That last one ALONE makes you delusional.
It's no wonder everybody despises you on these forums. It's not because you're a christian pal (because there are a couple here who are reasonable intelligent people) ... it's because you are an arrogant blowhard who sees what he wants to see and plays by his own special set of rules, just like your god does.
We're talking in circles now and I have no further use for you. You haven't made a single valid point and now you're just wasting my time.
(May 11, 2011 at 1:34 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I'm tired of defending my valid arguments to you. This is pointless.
You make up the rules (and the topic) as you go and than say it's my doing.
You make claims that I said things I never said by twisting words around.
You redefine justice to suit your agenda.
Your "logic" is completely illogical.
And to top it off you finished with "There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God." - That last one ALONE makes you delusional.
It's no wonder everybody despises you on these forums. It's not because you're a christian pal (because there are a couple here who are reasonable intelligent people) ... it's because you are an arrogant blowhard who sees what he wants to see and plays by his own special set of rules, just like your god does.
We're talking in circles now and I have no further use for you. You haven't made a single valid point and now you're just wasting my time.
Jesus would be sooo proud of you.
Uh oh, should I call the "whhhaaabulance" for you?
I did not make the rules up; they have been in play this whole thread. You are the one who didn't follow what the original thread was about, not me. Someone who resorts to personal attacks and has to move the goalposts in the middle of a discussion like you did several pages into this discussion is most certainly not on logical ground. Like you calling me delusional because I see the evidence for God's existence rather than asking what the evidence was. That right there says it all. I am glad you are done wasting my time, you really are small time.
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
![[Image: bitchslap.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2Fbitchslap.gif)
