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 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 5:48 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:
(May 6, 2011 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for actually adding something interesting to the discussion, though I am not sure if your argument really holds up, but maybe it just needs more clarification. First of all, you seem to assume that there is an objective unchanging justice apart from God that He somehow must adhere to. Did I understand this correctly?
I’m holding your god to one standard … a Thesaurus: Fair, well-founded; reasonable, unbiased, ethical, honorable, even-handed … in other words – JUST.
So you tell me -- Are you saying that your god doesn’t have to adhere to the standard definitions of justice and that he can consider any action of his to be just and fair simply because he’s god and doesn’t have to answer for his actions? How wonderful to be part of a religion that can bend rules and definitions whenever they see fit.
Quote:Secondly, a finite sin committed against a perfect being with infinite authority does justly warrant an infinite punishment. I would argue that a finite punishment for sins committed against an infinite authoritative being would be what is actually unjust.
I cannot argue a point of my own that is simply switched around to an illogical conclusion. Apparently you need to look up the term justice, because what you just described is the opposite. I hate offering rebuttals like these, but the only thing I can say here is that according to the definition of justice your rebuttal is completely wrong. I have no other argument. Your conclusion is false because it is illogical.
Quote:This is why Christ had to atone for the sins of those He would save. So I would argue the opposite of what you are arguing. If the Bible said that there was no atonement but man’s punishment for sin was only finite this would appear to me to make God unjust. Your thoughts?
Your god is unjust. There would be little different than if I picked up an ant and told it, “You were born with antennas – you need atonement for this. I could offer you a finite (and undeserved) punishment by ripping your antennas off and allowing you to live. However I’m going to kill you and your entire colony … because I am infinitely more powerful than you.” Neither punishment is warranted. The ant did nothing to be born with antennas and the infinitely harsher punishment could never be considered “just”.
Never mind the fact that if I were god, I would have been the one who actually made those antennas. Which is a point you did not even bother to address in my OP.
I don’t know how a Christian can keep a straight face when they tell people that god is just. There’s just no evidence of this. Please see my Thread called, “I Love You Enough To Burn You”
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. First of all, you should not use a thesaurus to obtain definitions, you should use a dictionary. Throwing out a bunch of synonyms does nothing to define a word. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
