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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #37]

Yet again, yup.

Okay? So, the next question is, exactly what is this standard of authority which applies to us all?

Is allowance for the (rape of the innocent) just?

I know you get irritated when one does not give a yes, or no answer. The reason this irritates you is because you know that not all questions can be answered with a yes, or a no, and insisting upon a yes, or a no is a way in which you can avoid the only true answer to the question. There is so much involved in this one little question that we do not have time to explore it all. Just one of the questions would be, who is actually innocent? I know you want to pair it down to the lowest common denominator because you have already admitted being the type of person who can be convinced for decades of your life without the use of the mind. However, there is a whole lot more involved than you would like to admit concerning the above question.

With the above being pointed out, I am not the one who is insisting that there is a set standard of authority which applies to us all. That would be you. Therefore, I do not own the burden here. Again, that would be you. According to you, the rape of the innocent is unjust, and you now own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case, along with demonstrating this set standard of authority which applies to us all. Moreover, I am going to continue to point out to you that the innocent was not raped in the passage you are referring to. Again, there is a whole lot more involved in the passage than you would want to admit, and I am willing to get into it, but in the end it really does not matter. What really matters is the fact that you are now on record as saying there is indeed a set standard of authority which holds us all accountable to some sort of standard, and you now own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case.

[POI]

Please stop diverting. In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #38]

Please stop diverting. In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

You see, this is what is avoidance. You have no possible scenario, because there is no possible scenario, because if there was a possible scenario the scholars who dedicate their lives to such study, who are opposed to Christianity surely would have already offered up such a possible scenario. The fact of the matter is, we both know that it is not that all these critical scholars are intellectually honest, but rather the fact that they have no way to deny the fact that the evidence is overwhelming that the reports of the resurrection were not made-up stories. This leaves them to have to work with the fact that somehow, someway, these witnesses truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. I certainly do not expect you to be intellectually honest, but this fact alone demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed.

How is it avoidance when I dedicated an entire thread to your nonsense? Yet again, post 45 -> viewtopic.php?t=42567&start=40

The thing is this is exactly what I predicted you would have to do. In other words, I knew that once the facts and evidence became so overwhelming for you that the only choice you would have left is to question as to whether we could really know anything at all. This is exactly what you have done by creating an OP questioning whether Jesus ever existed. This my friend is to commit intellectual suicide, and you have not only jumped right off the bridge, but you are also doubling down. You see, it is not very difficult at all to know that this is what you would do, because it was your only option with the bankrupt worldview you have. This bankrupt worldview shows not only here, but also when you want to insist upon what justice would be which I will get to in my next post.

LOL! Yet again, I'm agnostic in this position. Yet again, I dedicated an entire thread to this topic. What is ironic, is that you completely dipped out from it. If you wish to pick up, where you left off, please rejoin. --> Maybe jump back in around post 115: viewtopic.php?t=42581&start=110

[POI]

Please stop diverting. In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

Okay? So, the next question is, exactly what is this standard of authority which applies to us all?

Please stop stalling/avoiding... Already addressed/answered at the top of post 29.

I know you get irritated when one does not give a yes, or no answer.

I'm not irritated. However, I'm asking a (yes/no) question, and you are doing everything you can to avoid giving a (yes/no) answer. This is part of your Christian apologetics playbook.

The rest of your response below is just more regurgitated filler, which has been exhaustively answered in prior posts, and is meant to further distract. You know... Because you feel you have to...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #43]

Please stop stalling/avoiding... Already addressed/answered at the top of post 29.

No, you did not answer this question in post 29. So then, you can answer the question here. You have stated that there is indeed a set standard of authority, and my question is, what is that standard you are referring to? This is the question you are avoiding.

However, I'm asking a (yes/no) question, and you are doing everything you can to avoid giving a (yes/no) answer.

You know very well that not every question can be answered with a simple yes, or no answer. The question above is one of them, and the reason it cannot be answered with a yes or a no, is because we would first have to establish whether there is a standard of authority which would determine what justice would be? If there is a set standard of authority which determines what justice would be, and we could demonstrate that the passage in question violates this standard, then the answer would be yes. On the other hand, if we insist there is no set authority which determines what justice would be, then we cannot insist that someone, or something else violates justice since we do not have an authority. This is why it is so important for you to share with us this authority you are talking about in order to end this part of the debate. You are on record as saying there is a set authority, and we all need to know what that authority is so we can determine if there is indeed a set authority in order to determine if the passage violates that authority.

This is part of your Christian apologetics playbook.

My friend, this is not a tactic, it is simply a fact. You are on record as telling us there is some sort of set authority, but you will not answer the question as to what this authority is. Unlike you I do not get my arguments from others, and I do not read apologetic books. I do not have to read apologetic books to know that one cannot insist there is no set standard of authority and then go on to insist what justice would be. However, and again, you are not making the argument that there is no set standard of authority, but are rather insisting that there is a set standard of authority, but you are avoiding answering the question as to what, or who that authority would be.

The rest of your response below is just more regurgitated filler, which has been exhaustively answered in prior posts, and is meant to further distract.

I am not distracting at all but am rather addressing the OP head on by insisting that you cannot insist there is no set authority and then go on to insist what justice would be. You are insisting there is a set standard of authority but are avoiding sharing with us what this authority would be that you speak of, which would allow us to determine if the passage you are referring to would violate this standard you are insisting exists.

Moreover, the point we are getting to is not "regurgitated filler" because we are on the cusp of getting to a set standard of authority which you insist exists but are not willing to share the information. Again, you are now on record as insisting that there is indeed a set standard of authority which would apply to us all, but you have as of yet told us what the authority is.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

How is it avoidance when I dedicated an entire thread to your nonsense?

It is clearly avoidance, because you continue to refer to other threads, when you could easily answer the question here. You can complain that we are off topic, but that is not the case at all since I am addressing the topic of the OP head on by demonstrating that the only way we can determine what justice would be, is by demonstrating a standard of justice which is the set standard for us all. You have insisted there is such a standard but continue to avoid telling us what, or who this standard would be. The point is, we do not need to go to another thread in order for you to tell us what this standard of authority would be.

LOL! Yet again, I'm agnostic in this position.

LOL! If you cannot give us a possible scenario in which the story of the resurrection could have been made up, then it is impossible for you to be "agnostic" toward whether Jesus may have never existed. Again, we have critical scholars of Christianity who would not dare to make the argument that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were made up, not because they are intellectually honest, but rather because they understand the evidence is overwhelming in that it would not be a possibility. So then, unless you can give us some sort of possible scenario in which the reports were made up, then there is no way you can possibly be agnostic toward whether Jesus ever existed. Again, you cannot know inside that head of yours (and you know this inside that head) that it is not possible for the reports of the resurrection to have been a made-up story, and then believe inside that same mind claim to be agnostic toward whether Jesus ever existed. I mean, this is too, too, funny!

Yet again, I dedicated an entire thread to this topic.

LOL! I know you have, and again, this is exactly what I predicted you would have to do, because you were going to have no other options. In other words, when you come to realize the facts and evidence are far too overwhelming to maintain that bankrupt worldview you have, you would eventually have to opt to question whether we can really know anything at all. In other words, the only option you would have left is to commit intellectual suicide.

What is ironic, is that you completely dipped out from it.

My friend, it really does not matter if I expose your bankrupt worldview here, or whether it be on another thread. Either thread, we come to the same result.

If you wish to pick up, where you left off, please rejoin.

That's okay! I'm doing the same thing here that I would do on the other thread.

[POI]

Please stop diverting. In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

[Replying to POI in post #43]

Please stop stalling/avoiding... Already addressed/answered at the top of post 29.

No, you did not answer this question in post 29. So then, you can answer the question here. You have stated that there is indeed a set standard of authority, and my question is, what is that standard you are referring to? This is the question you are avoiding.

Post 29 -> You admit the answer has boundaries. (Raping the innocent) would not fall within these set boundaries for justice. They instead fall outside those boundaries. Yet again, unless any word can mean anything at all, then no one gets carte blanche, in a free-for-all manner. And yet, the Bible allows such actions, which fall outside these set boundaries for "justice". Therefore, your question is 1) not only a deliberate deterrence -- (because this is exactly what apologists do when they are confronted with uncomfortable questions), but the question is also 2) completely irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because regardless of one's personal definition for the term justice, the allowance for (raping the innocent) is incompatible regardless. Unless it is 'National Opposite Day.' So, commence with the apologetics to "spin" the terms <innocent> and <rape> as well.

Now please address the question you avoid, asked many times now in red.

However, I'm asking a (yes/no) question, and you are doing everything you can to avoid giving a (yes/no) answer.

You know very well that not every question can be answered with a simple yes, or no answer.

The repeated question in red, clearly is. So please answer it. Yes or no, and why?

[POI]

Please stop diverting. In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?

[Replying to POI in post #0]

How is it avoidance when I dedicated an entire thread to your nonsense?

It is clearly avoidance, because you continue to refer to other threads,

This thread is questioning god's justice. According to 'god's justice', is the allowance of raping the innocent considered justice? Yes or no, and why? You are bringing in other topics, which were created in other topics. Keeping those topics, in their respective topics, is being consistent and organized.

LOL! Yet again, I'm agnostic in this position.

LOL! If you cannot give us a possible scenario in which the story of the resurrection could have been made up, then it is impossible for you to be "agnostic" toward whether Jesus may have never existed. Again, we have critical scholars of Christianity who would not dare to make the argument that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were made up, not because they are intellectually honest, but rather because they understand the evidence is overwhelming in that it would not be a possibility. So then, unless you can give us some sort of possible scenario in which the reports were made up, then there is no way you can possibly be agnostic toward whether Jesus ever existed. Again, you cannot know inside that head of yours (and you know this inside that head) that it is not possible for the reports of the resurrection to have been a made-up story, and then believe inside that same mind claim to be agnostic toward whether Jesus ever existed. I mean, this is too, too, funny!

Same response as above.

Yet again, I dedicated an entire thread to this topic.

LOL! I know you have, and again, this is exactly what I predicted you would have to do, because you were going to have no other options. In other words, when you come to realize the facts and evidence are far too overwhelming to maintain that bankrupt worldview you have, you would eventually have to opt to question whether we can really know anything at all. In other words, the only option you would have left is to commit intellectual suicide.

Same response as above.

What is ironic, is that you completely dipped out from it.

My friend, it really does not matter if I expose your bankrupt worldview here, or whether it be on another thread. Either thread, we come to the same result.

Same response as above.

If you wish to pick up, where you left off, please rejoin.

That's okay! I'm doing the same thing here that I would do on the other thread.

Yes, diverting.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #46]


Nobody has admitted to any sort of boundaries as far as justice is concerned, and there are no boundaries unless there is some sort of set standard of justice which applies to us all. You are now on record insisting there is a set standard of authority but are refusing to tell us what that authority is.

(Raping the innocent) would not fall within these set boundaries for justice.

What is the set boundaries? Who determines what the boundaries are? You continue to complain about the meaning of words, but we are not in disagreement concerning the meaning of the word justice. Rather, the division seems to be that you are insisting that there is a set standard of authority, while I am acknowledging that there is no demonstratable set standard of authority. If we can agree that there is no demonstratable set standard of authority, then we can agree upon the meaning of the word and come to a different opinion of what justice would be. You know, like we can both absolutely agree to what the word beautiful means and have completely different opinions of what beautiful would be and we could not insist the other was in error since this would be left to the subjective opinion of each individual.

My friend, this exact scenario is playing out before our very eyes in real life right now. Because you see, there are many, many folks who believe that the shooter of Charlie Kirk was justified in his actions and believe the world to now be a better place because of his actions, while we have many, many others who believe justice will only be served by the shooter receiving the death penalty. You see, these folks are not disagreeing upon the meaning of the word justice, rather they disagree upon what justice would be in this situation. However, you can end all of this disagreement, because you are insisting that there is a set standard of authority, and if you would simply demonstrate this to be the case, then we can determine what justice would be in the Charlie Kirk situation. So then, does justice indeed have boundaries? If so, who is it that determines these boundaries. Once you explain this to us, we should be able to determine justice in the Kirk matter.

Again, this is not an apologetic tactic, but simply a fact. If there is no set standard of justice, then each individual is free to hold whatever opinion they have concerning the Kirk shooting. However, if you know of a set standard of authority on the matter then we can settle the matter for all to see. The "deterrence" is coming in when you insist upon a set standard of authority but refuse to reveal what this set standard would be.

I can assure you that I am not the one uncomfortable here. That would be you. I have answered your question head on in the only way it can correctly be answered, while you insist on a set standard of authority while refusing to reveal what it would be. My answer again is, if there is a set standard of authority which can be demonstrated, and the passage you are referring to can be demonstrated to violate this standard, then the answer would be yes. You are now on record as saying there is a set authority, and if you would reveal what, or who this authority is, then we could settle the matter, not only as far as the passage is concerned, but we could also save a tremendous amount of disagreement which is going on right now in the Kirk situation.

Please stop talking about the meaning of words, because I have already demonstrated this is not where the problem is. The problem is, if there is no set standard of authority then we can agree to what a word means, and have a different opinion of what it would be. You are insisting you can settle the matter for us by insisting there is a set standard of authority but are refusing to reveal this standard. I can assure you that the set standard of authority does not lie in the meaning of the word justice, and as I have said this matter is playing out right now in real time before our very eyes. I am not condemning, nor defending any actions as just, or unjust, because I acknowledge that there is no demonstratable set standard of authority. You on the other hand are indeed condemning actions as being unjust and insisting there is a set standard of justice, and the only thing you have offered thus far is the meaning of words, and I have demonstrated that this is not the problem.

[Haven]

[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?

To be fair to Jack and other Christians, it’s impossible to ground objective morality in their god’s nature even assuming it does exist. According to Christianity, God is a mind and a personal being, which implies that he is a subject. Objective means mind-independent. It would be incoherent for a mind-independent reality to be grounded in the nature of a subjective being.

In fact, ‘objective’ morality can only be grounded in observable facts about the physical world (such as sentient beings’ near-universal desire to avoid suffering, and their potential for action, which bridges the is-ought gap. Both of these things reduce to the fundamental constituents of matter, which are not subjects; both would re-emerge in any system that produces sentient beings. Even then this wouldn’t truly be objective, but it would be intersubjective enough to act like an objective standard to us. Either way, it isn’t dependent on the precepts and decrees of a single mind like the Christian view.

And let’s be clear, this ‘objective’ moral standard clearly condemns rape-as-punishment and many other barbaric things the Bible calls moral. Christians must reject this because of their prior commitments to their god’s subjective moral standards as described in the Bible and church tradition.

[POI]

Nobody has admitted to any sort of boundaries as far as justice is concerned,

Hmm?

Again, the definition has boundaries

*********************************************

Would these affirmed boundaries <include or exclude> the (raping of the innocent)? And to be clear, this is an <either/or> question. Please select either <include or exclude>, and then explain why. I already have. Regardless of one's personal definition for the term justice, the allowance for (raping the innocent) is incompatible regardless. --> Unless it is 'National Opposite Day.' So, commence with the apologetics to "spin" the terms <rape> and <innocent> accordingly. Oh wait, you already did. According to you, all married folks deserve to be raped.

But guess what... It is all completely irrelevant anyways. Not only because it is definitionally absurd for the term 'justice' to <include> raping the innocent, but because I'm instead asking what is "god's justice"? In your worldview, this god exists. Welp, I'll ask YET again:

In THIS thread, I'm holding your face to the fire, regarding "god's justice." According to him, allowing the (rape of the innocent) is just. So, is it just? If yes, why?