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?

[POI]

[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".

No sir. This is a yes or no question. And Christians no likey... Hence, they stay far far far away. BGE had no problem answering the yes/no question, because he is not bound to a god which orders such 'justice.'

I am the only one thus far who has actually answered your question,

I give you points for 'responding.' But you did not answer. However, at this point, it's just more of the same, in deflection and evasion.

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.

More deflection.

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.

Yes. "God's" brand of "justice" is punishing the innocent, by way of rape. Do you agree with "His" justice? Yes or no, and why?

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #10]

Then maybe you are not a "Christian", according to Google AI. However, being there exists a infinite number of splinter cells for Jesus, who knows anymore. (i.e.):

Christians generally believe in objective justice, grounding it in God's own just nature and law, which serves as a universal, unchanging standard for what is right and wrong. This view holds that justice is not a mere social construct or human opinion, but a moral principle directly from God, revealed in Scripture and demonstrated by Christ, that demands impartial and righteous treatment for all people under God's unchanging standard.

Which begs the question, yet again, why is God's justice ordering punishment for the adulterer's wives?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #11]

Yes. "God's" brand of "justice"

This is hilarious. My friend, you do not even believe in this God, and you are saying that this God's justice is objective and binding upon us all? Here again, this is to demonstrate cognitive dissonance. You cannot be convinced in that mind of yours that the God dishing out the justice in that passage does not exist, and then on the other believe that, that God's justice you do not even believe in, is objective, and binding upon us all.

Are you certain it was the thinking process that caused you to reject the God of the passage you are referring too? Because you see, you cannot even live in the world which your world view would require and are therefore having to borrow from the view you have rejected in order to actually exist in the world you have created in your mind. In the world you have created in your mind, there is no set standard of justice, and we are all left to our own subjective opinion of what justice would be.

Giving an opinion of what justice would be, would not be giving an answer as to what justice would actually be, but rather offering a personal view. This is what BGE did. He simply offered us his opinion and even he would have to agree with this. I on the other hand, did not share an opinion, but rather stated the fact that none of us can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and since this is the case, we cannot insist on what is just, and what is unjust.

You see, you have created a world view in your own mind you cannot even exist in. You cannot have it both ways even in that world you have created. You cannot insist on the one hand that there is no set standard of justice, and then on the other insist that someone has violated a set standard of justice.

Your "goose has been cooked" and I do not even need a meat thermometer to know this to be the case. You have answered "yes" to a question which your world view will not allow, and this would be to demonstrate what you refer to as cognitive dissonance.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #11]

Yes. "God's" brand of "justice"

This is hilarious. My friend, you do not even believe in this God, and you are saying that this God's justice is objective and binding upon us all? Here again, this is to demonstrate cognitive dissonance. You cannot be convinced in that mind of yours that the God dishing out the justice in that passage does not exist, and then on the other believe that, that God's justice you do not even believe in, is objective, and binding upon us all.

Are you certain it was the thinking process that caused you to reject the God of the passage you are referring too? Because you see, you cannot even live in the world which your world view would require and are therefore having to borrow from the view you have rejected in order to actually exist in the world you have created in your mind. In the world you have created in your mind, there is no set standard of justice, and we are all left to our own subjective opinion of what justice would be.

Giving an opinion of what justice would be, would not be giving an answer as to what justice would actually be, but rather offering a personal view. This is what BGE did. He simply offered us his opinion and even he would have to agree with this. I on the other hand, did not share an opinion, but rather stated the fact that none of us can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and since this is the case, we cannot insist on what is just, and what is unjust.

You see, you have created a world view in your own mind you cannot even exist in. You cannot have it both ways even in that world you have created. You cannot insist on the one hand that there is no set standard of justice, and then on the other insist that someone has violated a set standard of justice.

Your "goose has been cooked" and I do not even need a meat thermometer to know this to be the case. You have answered "yes" to a question which your world view will not allow, and this would be to demonstrate what you refer to as cognitive dissonance.

Maybe if you deflect from the OP question enough, people will not remember the OP question

The fact that you refuse to answer the basic question, speaks volumes. You believe in the Bible god. The Bible god ordered a brand of justice for which you cannot get on board with. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. The intellectual dishonesty has been demonstrated, from you, since you narrated/formulated your first intentionally deflective pseudo-response. You see, no theist agrees with God's justice here in this ordered command. Which is why there is 'crickets' in this thread; followed by your given 'responses.' What I find so comical is that you pat yourself on the back, for being 'original' and thinking on your own. And yet, you pull the most classic and basic apologetics 101 responses, when confronted with a passage you do not like. Which is to ask the interlocutor if they can absolutely ground the term(s) which positions their believed upon invisible sky god into a not-so-favorable corner.

It's quite elementary really. When a passage is brought forth which makes Christians uncomfortable, or a passage is brought forth for which they would rather skip and/or wish was never in there, they instead apply apologetic workarounds. News flash, no logical definition of the word 'justice' would include the attributes of either/or 1) punishing the innocent and/or 2) commanding the rape of the innocent. You know it, I know it, and all else know it. Unless words do not mean words at all?

Anywho, the more you reply, the more your intellectual dishonesty gets exposed. So, keep it coming. It's quite entertaining to witness.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Yeah! Maybe if you make the font even bigger you can convince yourself that I did not answer the question. Maybe you need to try that when you tell us your world view as well, and maybe you can convince yourself that your world view is not the trainwreck that it is. Again, it is by necessity, if we cannot demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding on us all, then when and if one gives you a "yes" or a "no" they are by necessity not giving you an answer but are rather sharing their opinion. If we agree that we cannot demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding on us all, then the only correct answer would be, since we have no standard of justice which would bind us all, then we can only share our opinion since justice is left up to the subjective opinion of each individual.

Again, if we cannot demonstrate a set standard of justice, the above would be the only correct answer, the rest would be an opinion. I would have thought by now, (because this would be the most obvious thing to do) is to ask for my opinion, instead of insisting the question be answered with a yes, or a no. In other words, the intelligent thing to do is to agree with what I am saying and go on to ask what my opinion would be. So, I guess I am gonna have to help you out by just giving to you what you should have already ask for. GOOD GRIEF! Do I have to do the debating on both sides?

First, the passage is a warning to David concerning his sin with Bathsheba. In other words, this was not an announcement to all of Israel. God was telling David, "since you (David) have done this thing in secret, I am going to do this in broad daylight for all of Israel to see". Of course, David repented and none of this occurred. In fact, if you start at the beginning of the passage, Samuel is giving David a scenario in which someone in his Kingdom had been wronged, and David burned with anger against the person who had committed such a heinous crime, until Samuel revealed to him that the offender was David himself. This is when the warning came from God to David, and only David and his wives. Again, the passage goes on to say, David repented and none of this happened to David or his wives.

So then, we have a king of a kingdom who takes the wife of one of his soldiers who is off in battle, and then has this husband murdered in order to keep his sin a secret and also keep the wife for himself. Now, is it just for God to have Samuel to give David a scenario which occurred in his Kingdom concerning someone who had done another in such a dreadful way and cause David to burn in anger against such a crime until David realized the criminal involved was himself? I cannot say it was just, but I am thinking it got the point across, in order for David to realize his guilt. In my opinion of justice, God was far too gracious with David, and it seems unjust to me that the child had to die in order to punish David.

The above is the full context of the passage, along with what my opinion would be as far as justice is concerned, and as you can see my opinion does not agree that it was justice. Okay? So, now what? I have shared with you my opinion, but my opinion is just that, an opinion. Moreover, (and I know this is going to make your skin crawl) my wagon is not hitched to the Old Testament. I know, I know, this is extremely hard to comprehend for one who was a convinced Christian for decades without the use of the mind, but for those of us who have actually used the mind we understand that Christianity was unhitched from the OT way back when Peter had the dream involving the sheets coming down from heaven with the unclean animals. Again, I know this is a lot to absorb for one who does not do a whole lot of thinking, but for those who think, it is elementary.

Okay, with all of that out of the way, we are now back to the trainwreck which is your world view. I countered your question with a question of my own which was, "is there a set standard of justice which can be demonstrated to be binding upon us all"? I'm just telling you that I would have lost every dollar I own because I would have surely bet that you would not even attempt to give an answer to this question. In other words, I would have bet my last dollar that you would have ducked, dodged, and avoided this question understanding that either answer you give was going to do you in. But, to my shock and surprise (I should know better by now) you actually commit intellectual suicide by giving the answer, "YES". You actually answered "YES" as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and what is even more shocking is the fact that you insist that this standard would be what you refer to as the God of Christianity who you do not even believe exist.

My friend, this is the biggest trainwreck I have ever witnessed on this site. Not only is this cognitive dissonance, but it is also straight out irrational with no cure. I as a Christian not only agree but also know it is a fact that none of us can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would binding upon all of us. I am fine with this being the case, and do not insist that everyone else must agree with my opinion of justice. I would have thought that you would agree that there is no set standard of justice, but I was surely wrong because you seem to be arguing that the Christian God whom you have insisted does not exist, is this standard of justice.

So, let us go through this. I as a Christian am not insisting that there is a standard of justice which can be demonstrated to be binding upon us all and am willing to live accordingly by not insisting that my opinion of justice is binding upon us all. There are those who reject Christianity who seem to insist that there is no set standard of justice which would bind us all, who then want to insist what justice would be. This surely demonstrates cognitive dissonance. You on the other hand, do not want to insist that there is no standard of justice which would bind us all, but rather tell us that there is such a standard and it is coming from a God in whom you do not believe in.

My friend, the best option you had was to duck, dodge, and avoid the question as I had predicted. I can only imagine that you refused to allow me to be correct, and instead you chose the option of, cognitive dissonance, irrationality, and intellectual suicide.

Again, I will end with the fact that we have a Christian who is willing to acknowledge that there is no set standard of justice which can be demonstrated to be binding upon us all, and I am willing to live under that world view, while we have others who want to insist there is no demonstratable set standard who want to insist upon what justice would be, which would be cognitive dissonance at best, while we have one who decides to commit intellectual suicide who seems to be insisting that the set standard is determined by a God he does not believe exist, although he believed in this same God for decades of his life. Oh yeah, I forgot to say he did not use the mind in order to be convinced of this God.

[POI]

demonstrate a set standard of justice which would be binding on us all,

Any given logical definition of 'justice' would not include or involve 1) punishing the innocent and/or 2) the ordering of the rape of the innocent. Unless you want to argue that any word can mean anything. At which point, what is the point of using any specific words to describe anything at all.... You can dance around this all you like, but we all see your games. And your game here is very simple. When your invisible sky fairy places an order, for which you find logically unjust, spin the crap out of it, apologetic's-style. Gaslight your interlocutor accordingly. I ask YET again:

Is 1) punishing the innocent, and 2) ordering the rape of the innocent, considered justice? (yes or no, and why?)

The rest of your response is just white noise.

[POI]

While we await the next exciting (response/non-response) to the debate question from RealJack, allow us to watch a 10-minute video -- highlighting just some of the reasons why pledging allegiance to such an imaginary sky god is completely illogical:

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #16]

Any given logical definition of 'justice' would not include or involve 1) punishing the innocent and/or 2) the ordering of the rape of the innocent.

Says exactly who? What set, demonstrated standard are you going by? I can tell you this, there are Christian nationalists right now who are aiming to take away the right of women to vote. Can you imagine why? Well, that is because they believe women should be subordinate to men, and that women should submit to their husbands in all things including, and even especially sex. Who are you to tell them they are not being just? I mean, you cannot even live inside this world view you have dreamed up in that head of yours. The funny thing is, I as a Christian acknowledge the fact that we cannot demonstrate a standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, and I am willing to live accordingly, while we have an unbeliever who wants to insist that there is no set standard of justice outside of our own opinion, and then wants to go on to insist what justice would be. Again, and again, and again, you cannot make this stuff up.

Seriously! I as a Christian am not insisting on what justice would be. I also understand that if we could demonstrate such a standard that I would not be able to live up to such a standard, and therefore I have given up on the chase after things such as justice, and morality and instead attempt to love my neighbor not out of any sort of obligation to justice, or morality, but rather out of gratitude. In other words, I am not attempting to justify my actions as I go out and find those who may be in need. I am also not concerned that I may break some sort of justice, or moral code when I find someone who may be in need. On the other hand, you cannot in any way demonstrate any sort of justice which would be binding upon us all, and yet you want to insist upon what justice would be in certain situations.

My friend, this clearly, and beyond doubt demonstrates cognitive dissonance on your part, because you cannot insist there is no set standard of justice which would bind us all, and then go on to insist what would be justice. Over, and over, and over again, we demonstrate that your arguments are not your own, and you cannot even live inside the world of the arguments you regurgitate.

Unless you want to argue that any word can mean anything.

What does the above even mean? I understand what justice means, and you understand what it means, and we both agree that there is no set standard of justice outside the opinion of each and every individual. I understand this and live accordingly, while you understand this as well, and then want to insist what justice would and would not be.

Let's look at it this way. I do not like what the Christian nationalists are attempting to do, and what they are attempting to do is to force their opinion of justice upon us all. I am not insisting that my actions against to CN are just. Rather, I understand that I am attempting to force my opinion upon the CN. I will assume that you hold the same opinion with me concerning the treatment of women by the CN, but I am thinking that you will then want to go on to insist that your opinion is the just, while also insisting that there is no set standard of justice. Can you spell, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

At which point, what is the point of using any specific words to describe anything at all....

Do you mean kinda like when you say, "Jesus is a Myth"? You know like, when you know for a fact that it is impossible to make the argument that the reports of the resurrection were made up, which causes you to know beyond any doubt that Jesus did exist, otherwise you would be able to make the argument? I mean, think about what I am saying. If Jesus was a myth, this would necessitate the reports of the resurrection were made up. Since you know this is an impossible argument to make, then this demonstrates beyond any doubt in any sane person's mind that Jesus did in fact exist. There is no other way around it. Again, can you spell COGNITIVE DISSONANCE? Do you really want to talk about the meaningless of words when you can acknowledge that the reports of the resurrections were not made up, and then go on to say you "are agnostic as to whether Jesus existed"? GOOD GRIEF!

We both acknowledge that there is no set standard of justice which can be demonstrated, and I am living according to this being the case, while you acknowledge this and then go on to insist what justice would be. We both acknowledge that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up, and I go on to acknowledge that this demonstrates beyond doubt that Jesus existed, while you hope, against all hope in the face of the impossible that Jesus was a myth.

You can dance around this all you like, but we all see your games.

I am not the one dancing, and I am not playing games. That would be you! I am acknowledging that there is no set standard of justice, and I am living accordingly, while you cannot demonstrate a set standard of justice, and want to go on to insist what justice would be. You do dance, and you do play games, but what you are demonstrating here is not dancing or games. Rather, it is what is called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. You cannot acknowledge on the one hand that there is not a set standard of justice, and then on the other insist that the actions of another violates such a standard. You know what that is called? You guessed it! COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

When your invisible sky fairy

No! The above would be what you believed in for decades of your life, with no reason whatsoever to believe such a thing, and now you have convinced yourself that anyone else at all who is convinced is believing in the same "invisible sky fairy" you used to believe. Again, there are folks far more intelligent than you, with far more education than you, who were completely opposed to Christianity who converted while attempting to discredit it. This certainly does not demonstrate Christianity is true, but it does in fact demonstrate that reason can be used to come to the conclusion, while you insist this would be impossible.

places an order, for which you find logically unjust

Do you really want to talk about "logic"? My friend, you cannot "logically" insist there is no set standard for justice, and then go on to insist that someone, or something is unjust. This defies logic, and yet that is exactly what you are doing. You have allowed others to create a world view inside that head of yours, and when you are painted into a corner and do not like the world view which you hold in your head, you are willing to commit intellectual suicide. You either believe there is a set standard of justice which is binding upon us all and can demonstrate how the passage you are referring to violates that set standard, or you acknowledge that you cannot demonstrate any set standard of justice and live accordingly by not insisting that the actions of another would violate justice. If you do not believe there is a set standard of justice, the most you could possibly say is, you do not agree with the actions of another, but you cannot "logically" insist that their actions violate justice as if you know what justice would be. This would be to commit intellectual suicide. In other words, the world view you adhere to is a "trainwreck".

spin the crap out of it

You need to explain how I am "spinning" by pointing out that one cannot insist there is no set standard of justice, while going on to insist that an action violates justice. It is not that I am spinning anything, but rather the fact that you cannot live inside the world view you have allowed to be planted in that mind of yours by others, and when you come to realize that you are painted into a corner by that world view of yours you have no other choice but to commit intellectual suicide by knowingly allowing two complete and opposite beliefs to reside in that mind.

Is 1) punishing the innocent, and 2) ordering the rape of the innocent, considered justice? (yes or no, and why?)

Tell you what. I will give you a yes, or no answer when you answer the question as to whether there is a set standard of justice. It you answer yes to this question and can demonstrate how this passage violates such a standard, then my answer will be yes. If you say that there is no set standard of justice, then the obvious answer would have to be, no.

The rest of your response is just white noise.

Of course it is "white noise" to you, just like when you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life without the use of the mind, and simply chose to believe what you would have rather believed, and all the arguments against was simply "white noise" and it did not matter if you actually knew what it was you believed, nor why you believed it. As you continue to demonstrate, nothing much has changed accept the mind.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #18]

Thanks for quite a bit more filibustering.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that any logical definition of <justice> would include (raping the innocent). Please present your case. Otherwise, no one is chasing your excessive given rabbit trails, in an attempt to perpetually detour the topic.

Conclusion: God's justice = raping the innocent

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

Thanks for quite a bit more filibustering.

I am not "filibustering". Rather, as usual, you are ducking, dodging, and avoiding at all costs. I answered your question the only factual way it could be answered. A yes, or no answer would by necessity have to be an opinion, unless of course, you would like to share with us a set standard of justice which would apply to us all. You have not answered the question as to whether there would be a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, which is not an opinion, and the reason you are avoiding the question at all costs is because with that train wrecked worldview you have you cannot afford to answer the question. If you answer yes, then you would be obligated to demonstrate such a standard, and this you cannot do. If you answer no to this question, then you are forced to admit that you cannot insist on something, or someone as being unjust. You are in quite a pickle, aren't you? You want desperately to be able to insist on something being unjust, but you cannot unless you can demonstrate a set standard of justice, and not only can you not demonstrate a set standard, but you also actually want to insist there is no set standard, all the while insisting on what would be unjust. My friend, you are the "poster boy" for cognitive dissonance. But it is really not just cognitive dissonance, because the only way to really describe it is, "trainwreck".

The onus is on you to demonstrate that any logical definition of <justice> would include (raping the innocent).

Do you see what I mean by "trainwreck"? I am not the one who is insisting what justice would be. In fact, I have acknowledged that we cannot demonstrate a set standard of justice. With this being the case, it is not possible the "onus is on me" to demonstrate any sort of defined justice. My friend, that "onus" is around your neck, since you are the one who wants to insist what justice would be, while at the same time insisting there is no set standard of justice.

Please present your case.

I just did. I am not the one who is insisting upon what justice would be, while at the same time insisting there is no set standard of justice.

Otherwise, no one is chasing your excessive given rabbit trails, in an attempt to perpetually detour the topic.

It is not a "rabbit trail". Either there is a set standard of justice which binds us all, and therefore we can insist on what justice would be, or there is no such standard of justice and all we can do is to offer an opinion. You are calling it a "rabbit trail" because you understand you cannot afford to answer the question.

Conclusion: God's justice = raping the innocent

Now we have gone from you not being able to afford to answer the question as to whether there is a set standard of justice, to now you want to tell us who is innocent. Innocent of exactly what? Why don't you explain to us what "innocent wives" were raped in this passage? My guess is you will avoid this question as well.