Which would you choose?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:50 pm Since when are Christians interested in, "justice." Christians don't want justice, they want, "forgiveness."
Actually, Christians recognize both the necessity of justice and the necessity of forgiveness. In fact, the latter is necessary because the former is ultimately certain.
"Forgiveness," would contradict justice. Justice is just the real consequences of one's chosen actions. There is no way to evade them. The idea of, "forgiveness," is an attempt evade reality, but it cannot be done.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm Who would want a God who was permanently permissive of evil? And who would want a God who knew only judgment, but not mercy? In either case, mankind would be in serious trouble.
Only those who dislike reality and want to believe they can evade reality's intransigent ruthless consequences wants any kind of, "God." Those who love reality, love the fact it is perfectly, "just," allowing no one to get away with defying its requirements have no desire to be forgiven, because they are perfectly willing to suffer the consequences of all their wrong choices (by which they learn) and enjoy without limit the rewards of their right choices.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm
...there is no forgiveness for making the wrong choices...
Were that true, what a ghastly world it would make.
Do you have no knowledge of history? Do you not get the news where you live? It's not the world that is ghastly, but most of history and all of today's news is the record of human ignorance, atrocities, wars, and cruelty? Every day one is accosted with reports of the horrible things people are suffering around the world. Though all that suffering is blamed on everything except the true reason. It is reality's justice, the consequences of choices made by all those individuals.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm If anybody has a realistic assessment of all the choices they've ever made, then who really would want to reap what they have sown?
All those who have already reaped the consequences of their choices and are living their lives in conformance to the requirements of reality. It is infinitely better to have done wrong and suffered the consequences and to learn from that experience to do what is right and enjoy the rewards of that right behavior and know whatever good one enjoys in this world is the reward of their virtue. The alternative is blind faith is some kind of forgiveness and belief an some reward they can never know they deserve or depends on any virtue of their own.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm No wonder the Bible says, "If You, Lord, should count iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that you may be revered."
Yeah! No wonder. I agree. It's the ultimate con. Promise them anything, just make sure it's something that cannot be checked until after the scam is pulled off. Like, after they're dead.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:59 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:35 pm

Sorry, didn't know you were immortal and perfect. You must be God.
Nothing is immortal. That is hardly perfection. I have no idea what you think, "perfect," means, but it does not mean omniscient or infallible. However, "imperfect," you think human beings are, they certainly aren't frail. What's your standard of frailty?

I do not think you are going discover anything true about humanity when your premise is that they are defective to begin with.
Supposedly God is immortal and perfect. People aren't. That's all I'm saying.
Frankly, I don't care, but your language seemed to imply human beings were defective in some way.

I have no idea what you mean by, "perfect." It's like the word, "quite," or, "most." Nothing is just perfect, quite, or most--it must be a perfect something, or the most of something or quite something. I'm sure you're not saying God is a, "perfect idiot," or a, "perfect fool," or, "perfect deceiver," or, "perfect torturer," but you haven't said what God is the perfection of.

Don't feel that you have to. You don't have to satisfy or convince me. I'm not interested in changing what you believe and I've addressed the ideas, which is all I am interested in.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:50 pm Since when are Christians interested in, "justice." Christians don't want justice, they want, "forgiveness."
Actually, Christians recognize both the necessity of justice and the necessity of forgiveness. In fact, the latter is necessary because the former is ultimately certain.
"Forgiveness," would contradict justice.
That's very perceptive. If "forgiveness" means pretending that these "wrong choices" of which you speak have no implications or consequences. then you'd be spot on.

But that is not how forgiveness works in Christian thought. In order for forgiveness to happen, Christianity holds, the demands of justice must be met, not ignored. If they are just ignored, that's pretty much nothing but "injustice."
Justice is just the real consequences of one's chosen actions.
Yes, it is. The problem is, who can bear those consequences?
There is no way to evade them.
Plenty of people try. And one way they try is by underestimating the wickedness they do, overestimating the good they do, and imagining that they can balance off the latter against the former.

Of course, that's a complete delusion, on several fronts. One is that nobody asks a criminal whether or not he thinks he's deserving of punishment as a condition for him getting it. Justice is a much more honest standard than that: it can't be fudged. So if we think we acquit ourselves of our sin just because we've decided to stop taking it seriously, we are very much fooling ourselves.
The idea of, "forgiveness," is an attempt evade reality, but it cannot be done.
Again, it depends on what is meant by "forgiveness." You can't "forgive" yourself, that's for sure. The only one who can forgive somebody is the person against whom they've offended.
Those who love reality, love the fact it is perfectly, "just,"

Well, there are an awful lot of people who would say you're wrong about that. Hitler may have died; but did he pay concommitantly to all the misery he caused? Jeffrey Epstein died, but did he really pay for all the young women he assaulted? Bill Clinton made a career of assaulting women, and got to be President. Heck, Cosby got out of jail today: if he did what he confessed to doing, is he paying for what he did? And what about all those poor people who did nothing wrong, but ended up in a gas chamber, a sweat shop, or were lured by the Epsteins, Clintons and Cosby's of the world?

I think objectors have a serious case. I think one would be very hard pressed to find more than a few people who ever truly got "exactly what they deserved."
It's not the world that is ghastly, but most of history and all of today's news is the record of human ignorance, atrocities, wars, and cruelty? Every day one is accosted with reports of the horrible things people are suffering around the world.
Here, you're making the objector's case for them, for sure.
It is reality's justice, the consequences of choices made by all those individuals.
I wonder if the Jewish, or Armenian people, or now the victims of Cosby and Epstein share your impression of how reality delivers justice so easily.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm No wonder the Bible says, "If You, Lord, should count iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that you may be revered."
Yeah! No wonder. I agree. It's the ultimate con. Promise them anything, just make sure it's something that cannot be checked until after the scam is pulled off. Like, after their dead.
It depends who is promising. If i promise that, yeah, it's a con. But if God promises it...well, you and I will find out about that.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Dubious »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm
My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
The fallacy here is if there were a god you automatically attribute justice to an entity you have no conception of...unless you imagine Jesus as god. Even if your assumption is the OT god you certainly can claim IT as having any understanding of the term based in its behaviors or actions. Justice as applied then is very different from justice now. It's gradual evolution didn't come from any god.

If you want justice in the world then god would seem not to exist since there was never any forth coming except the defective human kind.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Walker »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:59 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:35 pm

Sorry, didn't know you were immortal and perfect. You must be God.
Nothing is immortal. That is hardly perfection. I have no idea what you think, "perfect," means, but it does not mean omniscient or infallible. Hoever, "imperfect," you think human beings are, they certainly aren't frail. What's your standard of frailty?

I do not think you are going discover anything true about humanity when your premise is that they are defective to begin with.
Supposedly God is immortal and perfect. People aren't. That's all I'm saying.
Losing changes choosing to, “Bad luck.”
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:48 am Those who love reality, love the fact it is perfectly, "just,"

Well, there are an awful lot of people who would say you're wrong about that. Hitler may have died; but did he pay concommitantly to all the misery he caused? Jeffrey Epstein died, but did he really pay for all the young women he assaulted? Bill Clinton made a career of assaulting women, and got to be President. Heck, Cosby got out of jail today: if he did what he confessed to doing, is he paying for what he did? And what about all those poor people who did nothing wrong, but ended up in a gas chamber, a sweat shop, or were lured by the Epsteins, Clintons and Cosby's of the world?

I think objectors have a serious case. I think one would be very hard pressed to find more than a few people who ever truly got "exactly what they deserved."
Everything about that view of justice is wrong: "Hitler may have died; but did he pay concommitantly to all the misery he caused?" It makes of, "justice," some kind of transaction, as though wrong choices and actions could be paid for, thus balancing some kind of account. Worse, is the idea that the payment for wrong choice must be some kind of suffering, as though suffering had some kind of positive value that could be exchanged for wrong acts. It is nothing more than hateful vindictiveness glorified as virtue.

No wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering, especially when it is heaped on those Christians regard as evil. Suffering can only be a positive value to a sadist. Suffering is always evil. The desire to see anyone else suffer because one judges them to have done something wrong is nothing more than vindictiveness. It cannot possibly make anything better, it only doubles the evil.

The belief in vindictive justice is the belief that one evil cancels or pays for another. Evil can never be undone. No amount of suffering by Hitler will make anything suffered by others not have happened. Hanging a murderer does not bring his victims back to life, it's just another murder, and an excuse for cruelty.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:31 am
It's not the world that is ghastly, but most of history and all of today's news is the record of human ignorance, atrocities, wars, and cruelty? Every day one is accosted with reports of the horrible things people are suffering around the world.
Here, you're making the objector's case for them, for sure.
Absolutely not! With rare exception (if any), all that suffering is the consequence of individual's own choices, their ignorant and superstitious beliefs and chosen governments. As I said:
It is reality's justice, the consequences of choices made by all those individuals.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:31 am I wonder if the Jewish, or Armenian people, or now the victims of Cosby and Epstein share your impression of how reality delivers justice so easily.
I doesn't matter what they think. Reality's justice is not based on how anyone might like things to be or on their desire for vengeance. What kind of values does someone have that believes someone else's suffering could make up for anything they suffered? Can someone else's pain or loss really fix past evil? It's an idiotic idea. Exactly how does anyone gain anything from anyone else's suffering or loss. No one else's suffering can possibly be of value to anyone except to satisfy some perverse and hateful sadistic desire.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm No wonder the Bible says, "If You, Lord, should count iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that you may be revered."
Yeah! No wonder. I agree. It's the ultimate con. Promise them anything, just make sure it's something that cannot be checked until after the scam is pulled off. Like, after they're dead.
It depends who is promising. If I promise that, yeah, it's a con. But if God promises it...well, you and I will find out about that.
I won't. I already know. And you won't either, because there's nothing to find out. But at least you won't be disappointed--because you won't be anything.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:28 pm It makes of, "justice," some kind of transaction, as though wrong choices and actions could be paid for, thus balancing some kind of account.
Then you leave human beings with only two options: be perfect, or be forever guilty of being injust, on account of the first mistake you ever make. There's no recovery from such a mistake, no atonement that can ever be made, and no way to unstain yourself once you've been stained...
No wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering
We don't, of course. We don't for even a second imagine that suffering balances some imaginary scale. Rather, we know that sin damages beyond all human repair. And justice, when it comes, will require an absolute answer: this, too, we know. "For the wages of sin is death," says the Bible. But then it finishes, "but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It's the gift or the grave, to put it neatly. But no, we can do nothing to "cancel out" evil ourselves.
No amount of suffering by Hitler will make anything suffered by others not have happened.
This is true, but also begs the whole question. The point is that you say justice happens automatically, as a result of reality; but can you explain to the satisfaction of the sufferers in the Holocaust, how Hitler was properly paid by reality itself, so justice was arrived at?
...all that suffering is the consequence of individual's own choices, their ignorant and superstitious beliefs and chosen governments. As I said:
It is reality's justice, the consequences of choices made by all those individuals.
You'll have to forgive me...do you mean to say that the Jews who suffered did so for "picking" Hitler? Or was it because of their "supersititious beliefs"? What, in your view, precipitated them into the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:31 am I wonder if the Jewish, or Armenian people, or now the victims of Cosby and Epstein share your impression of how reality delivers justice so easily.
I doesn't matter what they think.
Well, I think it does: I don't think our intuition that the world is unjust is entirely wrong. I think it's sort of obvious, in fact.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:22 pm No wonder the Bible says, "If You, Lord, should count iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that you may be revered."
Yeah! No wonder. I agree. It's the ultimate con. Promise them anything, just make sure it's something that cannot be checked until after the scam is pulled off. Like, after they're dead.
It depends who is promising. If I promise that, yeah, it's a con. But if God promises it...well, you and I will find out about that.
I won't. I already know. And you won't either, because there's nothing to find out. But at least you won't be disappointed--because you won't be anything.
Yes, that would be true if I were wrong. You and I would both wink into oblivion, and none of what we were, or of this conversation, would matter at all; and one day, the universe itself would likewise wink out, some time long after the Earth had itself become a desolate rock, and all of us would be gone.

In fact, the truth would be that you and I are "nothing" now. We just don't happen to know it. Just two unfortunate lumps in an indifferent universe spinning itself into oblivion...

But what then is this concept "justice"? What does such a universe owe us to deliver? What does "fair" even mean, and what meaning is there even to things like "evil," "suffering" or life itself? For all would be gone altogether, and gone forever, then. It would be as if none of it ever existed at all...and everything would rest forever in the soup of Heat Death.

But if I'm right, then all this will not happen. One day, and long before the Earth ends, the Righteous Judge will call this world to court. And we will answer the call of justice. And we will see what was evil and what was good, and what suffering meant, whenever it meant anything. And there will be an answer. One of those answers will have to come from my lips, and one will have to come from yours.

So if I'm right, it would be best we both have answers.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:28 pmNo wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering
We don't, of course. We don't for even a second imagine that suffering balances some imaginary scale.
Are we talking about the same christianity, Mr Can? The one which has as its totem a crucifix? The one that preaches the passion of Jesus? The one that teaches that his sacrifice atones for all our sins? Are you sure you're a christian, Mr Can? You are clearly oblivious to its most fundamental tenets.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by attofishpi »

uwot wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:28 pmNo wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering
We don't, of course. We don't for even a second imagine that suffering balances some imaginary scale.
Are we talking about the same christianity, Mr Can? The one which has as its totem a crucifix? The one that preaches the passion of Jesus? The one that teaches that his sacrifice atones for all our sins? Are you sure you're a christian, Mr Can? You are clearly oblivious to its most fundamental tenets.
Nah, he most certainly isn't.
If the reason for the opposite to FAITH is DOUBT - then there is a reason, and that reason could possibly be that thing - entropy - that, to at least be worthy of what Christ did to instill the concept of love and passion for fellow man, it ultimately comes down to the judgement as to whether, at the outset, is one worthy of what Christ did to inspire such faith and compassion? - and then, are you worthy of being wo/man?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Lacewing »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm Which truth would be more appealing to you: the truth that there is a God or the truth that there is not a God?
That is a good question, Gary, and I like the way you presented it.

I would prefer that there was a truly present and loving god who enabled all beings to experience and share our best with ease and joy.

In other words, not the god fabricated by stupid, fearful, self-righteous, power-hungry men: a god who commands and threatens through ongoing absurd stories with obvious and lame contradictions and claims, and who allows suffering in silence along with absolute horrors to innocents day-in and day-out (also committed by theists, themselves, who claim they're forgiven of it), while this god supposedly promises justice some day, as well as damnation for those who don't follow and believe all of that bullshit. A god should be capable of much more than all of that stupidity and cruelty and limitation.

In the absence of a much better god, it's more appealing to me that there isn't one. :)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:28 pm It makes of, "justice," some kind of transaction, as though wrong choices and actions could be paid for, thus balancing some kind of account.
Then you leave human beings with only two options: be perfect, or be forever guilty ...
Guilty of what? "Guilty," is a judgement, not a state or a fact. You use the word, "guilty," as though it were some kind debt one incurs which is why you think of justice as a transaction, but no one has to answer to anyone else for what they do except reality. Justice is the actual "real" consequences of one's choices and actions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
No wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering
We don't, of course. We don't for even a second imagine that suffering balances some imaginary scale.
Then what is the point of suffering? The Bible calls it, "punishment," as though it were some kind of just desert or payment. You don't agree with that?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm Rather, we know that sin damages beyond all human repair. And justice, when it comes, will require an absolute answer: this, too, we know. "For the wages of sin is death," says the Bible. But then it finishes, "but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It's the gift or the grave, to put it neatly. But no, we can do nothing to "cancel out" evil ourselves.
I didn't say you did it. You believe your God does it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
No amount of suffering by Hitler will make anything suffered by others not have happened.
This is true, but also begs the whole question. The point is that you say justice happens automatically, as a result of reality; but can you explain to the satisfaction of the sufferers in the Holocaust, how Hitler was properly paid by reality itself, so justice was arrived at?
Of course not in terms of your preconceived meaning of justice. I do not have some notion of what I would like justice to be, whatever the actual consequences of one's choices and actions are is justice, like it or not. Reality does not answer to anyone to satisfy what they would like justice to be true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
...all that suffering is the consequence of individual's own choices, their ignorant and superstitious beliefs and chosen governments. As I said:
It is reality's justice, the consequences of choices made by all those individuals.
You'll have to forgive me...do you mean to say that the Jews who suffered did so for "picking" Hitler? Or was it because of their "supersititious beliefs"? What, in your view, precipitated them into the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz?
You tell me. I have no idea why so many of those Jews refused to see what was so obvious to the many others who did see and left before those horrible things occurred. [Perhaps they believed God would not abandon his chosen people.] I have no idea how many were complicit in the policies that brought Hitler to power. [I know many were.] I know they could only be identified as Jews because they identified themselves as Jews, but we all know what it cost them to hold on to their racism. (Yes it's just as racist to identify oneself, as it is others, with some category, because it always implies one believes they have some special value others do not have because they are a member of that class). If they had simply been individuals, they would not have been singled out. I don't know why people choose the things they do that result in their own tragedies but I do know, so long as individuals continue to blame everything in the world for their problems except their own choices, they will only have problems, and they will only get worse.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm But what then is this concept "justice"? What does such a universe owe us to deliver?
Nobody is born owing anything or owed anything. The universe is the infinite resource available to every individual human being to achieve and have all he can achieve and produce in this world, (and nothing more), but every individual must achieve their own life and success.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm What does "fair" even mean, ...?
Outside of man-made games it means nothing at all. Life is not, "fair." Everyone is different and must make the most of what he or she can with whatever reality makes available to them. Reality is ruthless and life is tough, but that same reality is the source of all possibility and a life worth living to anyone willing to do the work of living it.

Most people hate reality (and the truth that describes it) just because it is intransigent and ruthless and difficult. They want a world that is forgiving and not so demanding, requiring one to work so hard and learn so much. They want a world that is, "nice," a world where they can always be comfortable, without any risk or danger, and nothing bad can ever happen and they don't have to work so hard all the time. So, they look for short-cuts to success and happiness and are willing to believe anything that promises them what they want without having to earn it--usually religion, or government, or both--and never figure out that the reason they are never happy and suffer all the time is because they have chosen to live in defiance of reality.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by henry quirk »

Gary,

Which truth would be more appealing to you...

I prefer God as He is: perhaps interested; definitely distant and uninvolved.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:28 pm It makes of, "justice," some kind of transaction, as though wrong choices and actions could be paid for, thus balancing some kind of account.
Then you leave human beings with only two options: be perfect, or be forever guilty ...
Guilty of what?
Take your pick: guilty of failure. Guilty of violence. Guilty of theft, of selfishness, of slander, of folly...Guilty of anything that is unworthy of respect and emulation -- anyone else's and your own.

Unless a person is perfect himself, and lives in a perfect world, and never makes any mistakes or does anything he wishes he hadn't, guilt is going to be a reality. And people who lack any sense of it is pretty much limited to narcissists, psychopaths or sociopaths.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
No wonder Christians relish the idea of suffering
We don't, of course. We don't for even a second imagine that suffering balances some imaginary scale.
Then what is the point of suffering? The Bible calls it, "punishment," as though it were some kind of just desert or payment. You don't agree with that?
Not at all, of course. One only has to read the oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, to know that such simplistic accounts of suffering are anything but Biblical. There is no tidy link between being good and getting good things, or between doing evil and being punished...at least, not on this Earth.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm Rather, we know that sin damages beyond all human repair. And justice, when it comes, will require an absolute answer: this, too, we know. "For the wages of sin is death," says the Bible. But then it finishes, "but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It's the gift or the grave, to put it neatly. But no, we can do nothing to "cancel out" evil ourselves.
I didn't say you did it. You believe your God does it.
Actually, I never said that. And neither will you find that the Bible does.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
No amount of suffering by Hitler will make anything suffered by others not have happened.
This is true, but also begs the whole question. The point is that you say justice happens automatically, as a result of reality; but can you explain to the satisfaction of the sufferers in the Holocaust, how Hitler was properly paid by reality itself, so justice was arrived at?
Of course not in terms of your preconceived meaning of justice.
No, I mean in yours; that is, in any sort of account that you think a Holocaust survivor should believe.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm
...all that suffering is the consequence of individual's own choices, their ignorant and superstitious beliefs and chosen governments. As I said:
You'll have to forgive me...do you mean to say that the Jews who suffered did so for "picking" Hitler? Or was it because of their "supersititious beliefs"? What, in your view, precipitated them into the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz?
You tell me.
Well, I'm afraid I just can't justify your view for you. You're going to have to manage that yourself. To me, your view seems (if you'll forgive me for saying so, and please read this as descriptive not insulting) rather simplistic (a predictable consequence for every action), unsophisticated (it takes for granted the existence of values your worldview renders impossible) and self-satisfied (it seems you feel you've managed very well yourself).

So let me put the question again: how can you explain the Holocaust in terms of your system: how did they "deserve" what they got?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm But what then is this concept "justice"? What does such a universe owe us to deliver?
Nobody is born owing anything or owed anything.
I recognize that that is what your belief system requires. But then, I'm puzzled by your sense of self-congratulation over achievement...since that system also renders anything like "right" and "wrong" choices illusory.
The universe is the infinite resource...
Apparently, not.
...available to every individual human being...
Manifestly not.
... to achievel...
What does it mean to "achieve" in your kind of world? If it's just an internal feeling, then even a criminal, a narcissist or a psychopath meets that bar.
...and have all he can achieve and produce in this world, (and nothing more)
Wow, that's vague stuff.
...but every individual must achieve their own life and success...
Well, nobody "achieves" life...they are either brought into it by others or, as "thrown into" it. And as for "success," unless you mean that term to collapse into nothing more than an unanchored inner feeling of smugness, you are going to have to say what "success" for a human being actuall looks like in concrete terms. Or you're saying nothing at all there.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:23 pm What does "fair" even mean, ...?
Outside of man-made games it means nothing at all.[/quote]
It would be like "success" then? Just something one feels or does not, but has no criteria beyond emotional self-satisfaction?

Then "justice" wouldn't be merely a problem. It would be just an illusion.
Most people hate reality...
Well, they hate some things about it, sure. But I don't think that's really true. What they want is for reality to yield to them the goods they feel they "deserve," and they are upset when it doesn't; especially when they've tried hard and failed.

But justice is a different issue. You say that reality is "demanding," "not nice," "dangrous," "full of risk," "ruthless" and "pitiless." You say it has consequences people don't like. You use the value judgment "bad," and speak of "suffering." But this is the same as to say that reality is "unjust," since otherwise you would not use those pejoratives to describe it. You'd just say, "Reality is whatever."

But this sense we all have that things ought to be better...what does it mean? How should the indifferent universe have infused us somehow with a longing for a thing called "justice," since you must say it's a totally delusory idea? Does it not seem an odd thing for "survival of the fittest" or some other such indifferent agency to have forced into human beings, instead of, say, a stoical indifference to everything that is not real?
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by AlexW »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Your idea of "divine justice" might not at all be what you are expecting... what if your wish backfires and divine justice is simply based on how nature works: the strong survive, the weak perish (doesn't the history of mankind provide abundant proof for this most likely being the case?) - or do you think God would treat us humans differently to the rest of creation? Why would he/she/it? Are we so special?

I, for my part, don't believe in God - at least not as an entity separate from what is here/now (which is: reality itself).
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Which would you choose?

Post by Gary Childress »

AlexW wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:51 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Your idea of "divine justice" might not at all be what you are expecting... what if your wish backfires and divine justice is simply based on how nature works: the strong survive, the weak perish - or do you think God would treat us humans differently to the rest of creation? Why would he/she/it? Are we so special?

I, for my part, don't believe in God - at least not as an entity separate from what is here/now (which is: reality itself).
That's a good question. How do we know God is the God of the Deists or Bible or Koran or any of that stuff? Maybe God's justice isn't what we think it is. And maybe it's not something we would want. I think if God is the master or supreme ruler of everything that is, then I would think whatever God determines is Justice I should accept. I mean, I would have no choice but to accept it if there is a God. But I've lived a good life and some haven't so I hope those who haven't get a chance to live good lives too or at least get some reward or reciprocity in an afterlife or whatever.

I'll have to give it some more thought.
Post Reply