Is God always "just"?

[Minimalist]

But their god is a murdering fuckhead, Frods. You can't order the death of everything in sight and be considered "just."

[reverendjeremiah]

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.

I gave you a reputation boost for this post. Take a bow, you deserved it.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

Want to know what is a bigger waste of everyone’s time? You using a thesaurus to define something rather than a dictionary like you were supposed to.

---

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.

---

That’s the point I am making, you didn’t define “Just”. You just gave me a bunch of synonyms, which does nothing to tell me how you determine what is and is not “just”. So you just shifted the question over to other words that are synonymous with justice. So how do you determine whether something is “fair”?

---

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.

---

Complete straw man argument, and an overused one at that. Please explain how the actions taken in the inquisition and crusades were in any way consistent with the Ten Commandments and the moral laws given to man in the New Testament (The golden rule etc)?

---

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.

---

Actually I did not just rearrange your argument, and the burden is actually on you to demonstrate how an argument is illogical, not just to say it is. Your opinion as to whether something is logical or illogical is irrelevant without giving proof. You claimed that an infinite punishment for a finite crime is a form of injustice. This is completely incorrect for two reasons.
1. A crime’s punishment is determined according to the degree of the crime, not the time it took to commit the crime. A criminal receiving a life sentence for a murder that only took 30 seconds is completely just.
2. A punishment may also be justly increased if the crime is committed against someone in an authoritative position. If I call a coworker an obscene name I will get punished. However, if I call my boss the same name my punishment will be more severe. Is this injustice? Of course not. My boss holds more authority over me than my coworker does. How much authority does God hold over man? Infinte. Therefore, an infinite punishment is completely just for any offense against God.

---

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.

---

It is a completely valid analogy, and you did nothing to demonstrate otherwise. You just conveniently ignored the point.

---

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”

---

You are getting really good at just making assertions and not actual arguments. God can justly punish his creation for original sin because Adam was humanity’s representative. When a representative does something it justly applies to whom he represents. This is why it is just to bomb a country whose leaders declared war on you. You seem to act as if before you bombed the country you’d have to ask each citizen if they agree with what their leaders did. This of course is as ridiculous as saying we didn’t all fall when Adam fell. Luckily, God gives everyone better than they actually deserve and even goes as far as to save His chosen people. The most absurd part of your position is that you seem to believe that God is somehow constrained by what the dictionary (or thesaurus in your case) says about justice. I think the infallible and omnipotent creator of all things is a better arbiter of justice than a 19th century book written by Noah Webster.

---

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.

---

You are suggesting it is logically possible to make a rock which by definition is material that is bigger than an infinite immaterial being? That’s absurd, so you are wrong. Your question is completely illogical and does nothing to disprove God’s omnipotence. God can do all that is logically possible. Fr0do did a nice job of refuting your position too I see.

---

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.

---

Ahh, so now it comes out! So you believe in a concept of justice that is somehow separate from the opinions of man. Where did this come from? How do you determine it? Is it absolute? You are a very typical atheist, good at pointing out what you perceive as rotten eggs but incapable of laying good ones. Defend the concept of justice you keep alluding to but failing to define please.
Where does God condone the raping of virgins? I condone that God’s will be done, and if part of His will is giving man what he deserves then the glory be to Him. Luckily the God of the Bible is also all gracious and loving.

---

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.

---

Your post assumes that all men do not deserve death. A concept that is completely foreign to Christianity, so you are really arguing against a straw man. Christians believe all men deserve death and eternal punishment, so the real question is not “Why does God give men death and eternal punishment?” But rather, “Why does God give His children eternal glorification despite what they really deserve?” You guys all seem to forget that this post was supposed to assume that the God of the Bible is real, so if we are going to do that then you also have to assume that all men are sinners and the just punishment for sin is death. If you do not assume this, then you are not arguing against the God of the Bible and really just wasting all of our time.

---

What is there to elaborate?

Your post made no sense whatsoever.

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

---

I think I made it pretty clear; I gave a basic run-down of how Christianity views man’s will. If you are having trouble keeping up then I am not sure what I can do for you, I am not going to hold your hand and dumb things down anymore than I already have.

---

But their god is a murdering fuckhead, Frods. You can't order the death of everything in sight and be considered "just."

---

Sure you can, if “everything in sight” deserves death. Giving someone what they deserve is the very definition of justice.

[Minimalist]

Sure you can, if “everything in sight” deserves death. Giving someone what they deserve is the very definition of justice.

You're still a fucking disgusting excuse for a human being, I see.

[Cinjin]

It took me over two days to come up with a reply that is only logical in my own mind.

It doesn't matter what we say does it. You're going to put your own brand of "logic" on it and your own definition of "justice" and you're going to defend that hateful god of yours to the very end.

You'll make it a point to bog down the debate with arguments about points that were never made and arguments that are of your own choosing, all the while side stepping the real argument and changing everyone's valid points to fit your invalid and flawed "logic". No wonder everyone seems to hate you. Just like your god, you play by a special set of rules that are just for you.
Just because you claim something is logical and just and fair, doesn't make it true ... however, it probably makes you a VERY good christian.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

It took me over two days to come up with a reply that is only logical in my own mind.

It doesn't matter what we say does it. You're going to put your own brand of "logic" on it and your own definition of "justice" and you're going to defend that hateful god of yours to the very end.

You'll make it a point to bog down the debate with arguments about points that were never made and arguments that are of your own choosing, all the while side stepping the real argument and changing everyone's valid points to fit your invalid and flawed "logic". No wonder everyone seems to hate you. Just like your god, you play by a special set of rules that are just for you.
Just because you claim something is logical and just and fair, doesn't make it true ... however, it probably makes you a VERY good christian.

---

[Cinjin]

Misusing the quote feature is against the forum rules, don't worry I will report it for you.

Just because you claim something is illogical and unjust and unfair, doesn't make it true. You have failed to even define justice and fairness, so to claim the God of the Bible is unjust is completely meaningless. I see my real world examples and logical reasoning were too much for you to even bother addressing. My argument stands un-refuted, that was easy enough.

Fuck off ... I've had people "misuse" the quote feature on me many times. Boo hoo!
I defined justice and fairness ... just because you didn't like the definition doesn't mean I didn't do it. I did refute your argument. I'm not going to keep refuting it as you beat it to death, trying to make it work for your delusional side of the argument.

[Statler Waldorf]

Misusing the quote feature is against the forum rules, don't worry I will report it for you.

Just because you claim something is illogical and unjust and unfair, doesn't make it true. You have failed to even define justice and fairness, so to claim the God of the Bible is unjust is completely meaningless. I see my real world examples and logical reasoning were too much for you to even bother addressing. My argument stands un-refuted, that was easy enough.

Fuck off ... I've had people "misuse" the quote feature on me many times. Boo hoo!
I defined justice and fairness ... just because you didn't like the definition doesn't mean I didn't do it. I did refute your argument. I'm not going to keep refuting it as you beat it to death, trying to make it work for your delusional side of the argument.

Pointing to bad behavior to justify your own bad behavior is fallacious; it is still against the forum rules.

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.

Is it just for me to get a more severe punishment for speaking to my boss inappropriately than speaking to a coworker inappropriately?

[Cinjin]

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.

---

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."

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

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.