God's Justice

[POI]

Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

For debate: If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

[bluegreenearth]

Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

For debate: If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

No. The punishment does not appropriately fit the crime and would necessarily function to compel the neighbour to commit separate crimes against the defendant's wives who were not found guilty of committing any crimes themselves to justifiably deserve such mistreatment. Accordingly, there should be an expectation of justice for the crimes committed against the defendant's wives.

Furthermore, in a just and moral penal system, the first and primary goal is always the rehabilitation of the convicted where possible. Retributive punishment never qualifies as justice while the possibility of rehabilitation remains available. If there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a convicted felon is incapable of being rehabilitated or otherwise too dangerous, then permanent incarceration may be justified as a matter of public safety, not as a form of retributive punishment.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

First, in the verse I did not see anything about rape. Maybe you can help me out? Next, who is it who decides what justice is? Can you tell us what justice would be? If you did tell us what justice would be, would this be an absolute justice which can be demonstrated? Or is this justice you would explain to us simply your opinion?

Because you see, there were folks who flew jet airplanes into buildings on 9-11-01 and these folks did not consider what they did to be evil, rather they believed what they did was justice. Not only did the folks flying the planes believe it to be justice, but there were also millions all over the world who believed it to be justice. Do you believe the actions on 9-11 was justice? If not, what makes your opinion of justice any better than the millions of folks who believed it to be justice?

I could continue on and on with this but let us look at another example which is occurring before our very eyes. There are Christian nationalists right now who intend to do away with our democracy. When or if they do (and I am mighty afraid it will be when) there will be the death penalty for those caught having an abortion, and the "alphabet folks" will be eliminated as well. Moreover, folks like you will not be able to voice your opinion, because I will assure you that there will indeed be blasphemy laws. I'm just telling you that I have been closely watching this Christian nationalist stuff, and they are very close to getting what they want.

I can tell you that I am completely opposed to Christian nationalism, and I am doing what I can to fight against it, but if we are successful, I will not insist justice has been served, but rather I will understand that we were able to impose our opinion of justice upon the Christian nationalists. The point is, in the end if there is no set standard of justice we can point to, then we are all left to our opinion of what justice would be, and one opinion would be just as good as another, unless of course, you can point to a standard outside of your opinion which would demonstrate what justice would be. On the other hand, if the justice you are referring to would be subjective, then we are all left to either attempting to persuade others toward the opinion we hold, or we will attempt to enforce our opinion of justice upon the rest of the world.

If you have not noticed, the Christian nationalists have already demonstrated they are willing to take up arms in order to force their opinion of justice upon you. Are you ready to take up arms in order to defend your opinion of justice? Or can you point to a justice outside your opinion which would be binding upon us all?

[POI]

It's a simply (yes or no) question, and you did not answer. Which tells me you likely think the answer to the simple question is (no). But you know you cannot say this, so you instead deflect.

First, in the verse I did not see anything about rape. Maybe you can help me out?

Hmm? Do you think these particular wife's consents were either necessary or required? I kind of doubt it?

Next, who is it who decides what justice is?

I doubt such a question would be asked if the one asking, (you), thought this action was 'just.'

Can you tell us what justice would be?

I'm willing to bet your own personal brand of 'justice' resembles most others, including mine.

If you did tell us what justice would be, would this be an absolute justice which can be demonstrated? Or is this justice you would explain to us simply your opinion?

Again, if you thought the passage was "just", I doubt you would be asking this question.

Because you see, there were folks who flew jet airplanes into buildings on 9-11-01 and these folks did not consider what they did to be evil, rather they believed what they did was justice. Not only did the folks flying the planes believe it to be justice, but there were also millions all over the world who believed it to be justice. Do you believe the actions on 9-11 was justice? If not, what makes your opinion of justice any better than the millions of folks who believed it to be justice?

I could continue on and on with this but let us look at another example which is occurring before our very eyes. There are Christian nationalists right now who intend to do away with our democracy. When or if they do (and I am mighty afraid it will be when) there will be the death penalty for those caught having an abortion, and the "alphabet folks" will be eliminated as well. Moreover, folks like you will not be able to voice your opinion, because I will assure you that there will indeed be blasphemy laws. I'm just telling you that I have been closely watching this Christian nationalist stuff, and they are very close to getting what they want.

I can tell you that I am completely opposed to Christian nationalism, and I am doing what I can to fight against it, but if we are successful, I will not insist justice has been served, but rather I will understand that we were able to impose our opinion of justice upon the Christian nationalists. The point is, in the end if there is no set standard of justice we can point to, then we are all left to our opinion of what justice would be, and one opinion would be just as good as another, unless of course, you can point to a standard outside of your opinion which would demonstrate what justice would be. On the other hand, if the justice you are referring to would be subjective, then we are all left to either attempting to persuade others toward the opinion we hold, or we will attempt to enforce our opinion of justice upon the rest of the world.

If you have not noticed, the Christian nationalists have already demonstrated they are willing to take up arms in order to force their opinion of justice upon you. Are you ready to take up arms in order to defend your opinion of justice? Or can you point to a justice outside your opinion which would be binding upon us all?

Not gonna bite at the red herring(s) here.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #4]

It's a simply (yes or no) question, and you did not answer.

It is a "yes or no" question only if you can point us to some sort of standard of justice outside our opinion. If not, then you cannot answer this question with a "yes or a no". My friend, this is an answer to your question.

Which tells me you likely think the answer to the simple question is (no).

I have given you an answer to this question, and you have no rebuttal as of yet. Telling us what you assume my answer would be, instead of addressing the answer I gave is clear avoidance.

But you know you cannot say this, so you instead deflect.

I gave a direct answer to the question which you cannot respond to and you create your own strawman, and I am the one deflecting?

Hmm? Do you think these particular wife's consents were either necessary or required? I kind of doubt it?

Yeah! We all know by now that you do a lot of assuming, while I only deal with what can be demonstrated.

I doubt such a question would be asked if the one asking, (you), thought this action was 'just.'

You are avoiding my answer, and it must be because you understand that you cannot point to a justice outside of our opinion.

I'm willing to bet your own personal brand of 'justice' resembles most others, including mine.

My friend, whether you realize it or not, you are making my point when you say, "your own PERSONAL brand". You can believe in your head that "most" others would share your idea of justice, but the facts demonstrate there are millions, upon millions who would not agree with your "personal brand of justice" depending on the situation.

Again, if you thought the passage was "just", I doubt you would be asking this question.

Please do demonstrate to us how the passage is unjust without referring to "your own personal brand of justice".

Not gonna bite at the red herring(s) here.

A "red herring" "is a misleading clue". Okay, how is it a "misleading clue" to demonstrate that justice would be left to "your own personal brand of justice"? It is not misleading to say that you cannot insist upon what justice would be unless you can point to a standard outside "your own personal brand." Rather, it is just a fact.

Moving on with the definition of "red herring it says, "or distraction that diverts attention from the main issue or argument". How is it a distraction for me to demonstrate that it is impossible for any of us to demand what justice would be unless we can point to a standard of justice outside our opinion? What is shocking is the fact that you are agreeing with me. Next, how is it a distraction to demonstrate by pointing to examples of where "your own personal brand of justice" does not agree with millions of others around the world when we look at particular situations?

So then, it is not misleading, nor is it a distraction for me to point out the fact that you cannot demand what justice would be in any given situation unless you can point to a standard of justice outside of your opinion. Again, it is a fact, and it is indeed relevant to the discussion. So then, it is clear that you are the one who is avoiding, and diverting.

[POI]

The title of the thread is named "God's Justice." Is his brand of justice truly "just"? Is the following passage 'just', (yes or no), and why? You see, BlueGreenEarth has no problem answering (yes or no) questions, followed by a rationale. You, instead, offer deflection to avoid the answer you do not want to give. Okay, now to the deflection(s) <until you actually answer>....

It is a "yes or no" question only if you can point us to some sort of standard of justice outside our opinion. If not, then you cannot answer this question with a "yes or a no". My friend, this is an answer to your question.

Again, deflection. You would not be so concerned with the term 'justice' if we were not speaking directly about your believed upon sky god, and the uncomfortable presented passage(s) for which you are forced to offer deflection.

I have given you an answer to this question,

You've given deflection, and I'm not biting. Do you agree with God's brand of "justice" here? If so, why?

I gave a direct answer to the question which you cannot respond to and you create your own strawman, and I am the one deflecting?

Since you did not give a (yes or no) answer, you are still deflecting.

Yeah! We all know by now that you do a lot of assuming, while I only deal with what can be demonstrated.

LOL! Is your "assumption" that these women consented? Is your "assumption" also that a woman's consent is always required? Let the apologetics roll! Thanks for yet another deflection.

You are avoiding my answer, and it must be because you understand that you cannot point to a justice outside of our opinion.

The only viable answer is (yes or no), followed by your rationale. What is it? So far, all deflection from you. Which further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty BTW. But hey, lying for "god" is all in a day's work.

My friend, whether you realize it or not, you are making my point when you say, "your own PERSONAL brand". You can believe in your head that "most" others would share your idea of justice, but the facts demonstrate there are millions, upon millions who would not agree with your "personal brand of justice" depending on the situation.

Not going to take the bait, on how these topics are subjective. Especially coming from a fella who believes some magic invisible sky god gives us our 'morals', 'logic', etc.... Again, is it "just" to "rape" the wives of the adulterer to punish the adulterer? (Yes or no), and why?

Please do demonstrate to us how the passage is unjust without referring to "your own personal brand of justice".

Yet another omission by silence -- in that you do not think such a command is 'just'. Bravo!

A "red herring" "is a misleading clue".

Yup. You offered another deflection. I asked a very specific question. You instead want me to chase rabbit trails.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

I wanted to respond to your whole post here, and I look forward to doing just that, but at this point I am going to force your hand. You continue to accuse me of deflection, and I am not deflecting at all. Rather, I am demonstrating that it is you who is doing the deflecting. Allow me to demonstrate this again.

BGE did not give an answer to your question. Rather, (and BGE would have to agree with this) BGE simply shared with us his opinion. I am the only one thus far who actually gave you the answer, and my answer was not an opinion, but rather was a fact. Allow me to explain it to you again.

If we agree there is no set standard of justice outside our opinion, which would be binding upon us all, then justice would be subjective, and would be left up to the opinion of each individual, and therefore the answer to your question would be NO, we cannot insist the passage violates justice. Rather, the most we could say is, "it violates my opinion of what justice would be." On the other hand, if you can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and this passage violated that set standard of justice, then the answer would be, YES. In other words, we could point to the passage, and point to the set standard of justice, and demonstrate how this passage violates the set standard of justice.

Again, we are back to the point that, you cannot agree that there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all on the one hand, and then on the other insist that someone or something violates justice. This would necessitate that you have two different contradictory beliefs in that mind of yours. Do you know what it means to believe two different contradictory beliefs in your mind? That's right, cognitive dissonance.

You see, just like in the other thread, you have "painted yourself in a corner" with no way out. In that thread, we demonstrated that you cannot know in that mind of yours that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly been made up, and then in that same mind claim to be agnostic toward the existence of Jesus. My friend, the fact that you cannot make the argument that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were made up, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus most certainly existed. In the same way, if you believe in that mind of yours that there is no demonstratable set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and that justice would be subjective, then you cannot possibly believe in that same mind that you can insist that someone or something violates justice. The best you could do is to say that it violates your opinion of justice.

Again, BGE did not give an answer to your question, but rather offered an opinion. I actually gave an answer to your question, and the answer I gave was not an opinion but was rather a fact. This means I am not deflecting anything at all. On the other hand, you have not answered the question as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, or whether justice would be left to the opinion of each individual? It is going to be tough for you to answer this question, because if you insist there is indeed a set standard, then you will be forced to demonstrate this standard. If you agree that there is no set standard of justice, then you are forced to agree that we cannot insist that anyone has actually violated justice.

The main point here is you are the one who is deflecting by simply accusing me of deflecting, when I am the only one thus far who has actually given you an answer to your question, and my answer was not in any way an opinion, but rather a demonstratable fact. What I have done is to demonstrate that you are the one who is deflecting, because you have not answered the question as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, or whether justice would be subjective meaning that justice is left up to the opinion of each individual.

So then, you are deflecting by accusing me of deflecting, while I am demonstrating beyond any doubt that your accusation of me deflecting is a deflection on your part from having to answer as to whether justice would be a set standard which would apply to us all, or whether it is left up to the opinion of us all?

Looks like you need to get to demonstrating a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and how this passage violates this standard, or you need to concede the fact that there is no set standard of justice, which means that justice is left up to the opinion of each individual, which means you would have to agree that none of us could insist that another violates actual justice.

I as a Christian understand that I cannot demonstrate a standard of justice, and I am fine with justice being left up to the opinion of each individual, which means I will not, and do not insist that anyone else has violated justice. You on the other hand, understand very well that you cannot in any way demonstrate a standard of justice outside of our own opinion, and then want to seem to insist that someone has violated justice.

[POI]

I wanted to respond to your whole post here, and I look forward to doing just that, but at this point I am going to force your hand.

I have asked for a (yes or no) answer, followed by your rationale. And you still refuse. Interesting...

You continue to accuse me of deflection, and I am not deflecting at all. Rather, I am demonstrating that it is you who is doing the deflecting. Allow me to demonstrate this again.

Since you have not given a (yes or no), followed by a rationale, even after I have repeatedly asked, you most certainly are deflecting.

BGE did not give an answer to your question.

Negative. Giving a (yes or no) answer to a (yes or no) question, followed by a rationale, is giving an answer.

Rather, (and BGE would have to agree with this) BGE simply shared with us his opinion. I am the only one thus far who actually gave you the answer, and my answer was not an opinion, but rather was a fact. Allow me to explain it to you again.

Negative. Since you did not answer the question, you failed to give an answer. You instead gave even more deflection.

If we agree there is no set standard of justice outside our opinion, which would be binding upon us all, then justice would be subjective, and would be left up to the opinion of each individual, and therefore the answer to your question would be NO, we cannot insist the passage violates justice. Rather, the most we could say is, "it violates my opinion of what justice would be." On the other hand, if you can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and this passage violated that set standard of justice, then the answer would be, YES. In other words, we could point to the passage, and point to the set standard of justice, and demonstrate how this passage violates the set standard of justice.

Please spare me of the beginner's guide lecture.

I know this question is torture for you, as you are beholden to a 'god' which issues such punishment, for which you do not agree. Which is the reason you offer so much deflection. But I'm going to keep asking until you answer.

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped? (Yes or no, and why?)

Again, we are back to the point that, you cannot agree that there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all on the one hand, and then on the other insist that someone or something violates justice. This would necessitate that you have two different contradictory beliefs in that mind of yours. Do you know what it means to believe two different contradictory beliefs in your mind? That's right, cognitive dissonance.

The only cognitive dissonance on display here is by you.

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped? (Yes or no, and why?)

You see, just like in the other thread, you have "painted yourself in a corner" with no way out. In that thread, we demonstrated that you cannot know in that mind of yours that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly been made up, and then in that same mind claim to be agnostic toward the existence of Jesus. My friend, the fact that you cannot make the argument that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were made up, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus most certainly existed. In the same way, if you believe in that mind of yours that there is no demonstratable set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and that justice would be subjective, then you cannot possibly believe in that same mind that you can insist that someone or something violates justice. The best you could do is to say that it violates your opinion of justice.

Even more deflection....

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped? (Yes or no, and why?)

Again, BGE did not give an answer to your question, but rather offered an opinion. I actually gave an answer to your question, and the answer I gave was not an opinion but was rather a fact. This means I am not deflecting anything at all. On the other hand, you have not answered the question as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, or whether justice would be left to the opinion of each individual? It is going to be tough for you to answer this question, because if you insist there is indeed a set standard, then you will be forced to demonstrate this standard. If you agree that there is no set standard of justice, then you are forced to agree that we cannot insist that anyone has actually violated justice.

Since you are a Christian, you believe justice is objective. Hence, please give us an actual (yes or no) answer to the question, and then state why?

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

The main point here is you are the one who is deflecting by simply accusing me of deflecting, when I am the only one thus far who has actually given you an answer to your question, and my answer was not in any way an opinion, but rather a demonstratable fact. What I have done is to demonstrate that you are the one who is deflecting, because you have not answered the question as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, or whether justice would be subjective meaning that justice is left up to the opinion of each individual.

I've asked many times to answer a very direct question. You have not answered the straightforward question because you know it does not paint your believed upon invisible sky god in a very 'loving' or 'just' light. Hence, more deflection.

Looks like you need to get to demonstrating a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and how this passage violates this standard, or you need to concede the fact that there is no set standard of justice, which means that justice is left up to the opinion of each individual, which means you would have to agree that none of us could insist that another violates actual justice.

How about this....

Yes, it is perfectly "just" to have the adulterer's wives raped as long as the invisible sky god "orders" it. Yea?

I as a Christian understand that I cannot demonstrate a standard of justice, and I am fine with justice being left up to the opinion of each individual, which means I will not, and do not insist that anyone else has violated justice. You on the other hand, understand very well that you cannot in any way demonstrate a standard of justice outside of our own opinion, and then want to seem to insist that someone has violated justice.

It is not logical for a Christian to accept that the definition of justice is merely an opinion. Christian thought holds that justice is an objective, universal standard grounded in the very nature and character of God, not a relative human construct.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #8]

You know, I know, and everyone else knows that not all questions can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Your question would be one of them. I am the only one thus far who has actually answered your question, and the answer I gave is the only correct answer. Folks can give an opinion on what justice would be, but they cannot insist their opinion would be correct. I on the other hand can indeed insist that the answer I gave was the only correct answer.

Folks who insist on a "yes" or "no" answer, more times than not are attempting to avoid something they do not want to hear. This is exactly why you continue to insist on a "yes" or "no" answer. So then, allow me to ask you a question. Is there a set standard of justice which can be demonstrated to be binding upon us all? I will accept a yes, a no, or any other answer you would like to give, because I am not avoiding anything.

My guess is you will not answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no". In fact, my guess is going to be that you are not going to answer this question at all. My guess is you are going to do whatever you can to avoid giving us an answer. In other words, my guess is you are going to do whatever you can to deflect.

So then, let the "deflection" begin. You know, this is kind of like when I was certain you would not attempt to make the argument that the reports of the resurrection could have been made up? You never made the argument. Can you imagine why? I can. In the same way, I am predicting that you will not even attempt to answer my question.

Again, let the deflection begin.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #8]

Since you are a Christian, you believe justice is objective.

NO! NO! NO! NO! I understand this is what you believed when you were a Christian, and you believed it without the use of the mind. However, there are those of us as Christians, who have actually used the mind, and we understand that we cannot in any way demonstrate an objective justice, or morality. We go on to understand that even if there was some sort of objective standard of justice, or morality that we could never live up to it. This means, the Christians who actually think for themselves, have given up on the chase after things like justice, and morality, and we are now free to love, and serve our neighbor, not out of obligation to justice, or morality, but rather out of gratitude. We Christians who think for ourselves, will leave the chase after justice, and morality to folks such as you and BGE which seem to believe you can demonstrate what justice, and morality would be, while at the same time insisting there is no objective standard for either.