Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

So, when you place your initial question by asking "Does God practice justice, or does God practice mercy?," we don't know if you're referring to Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Huitzilopochtli, or any other deity from any other religious tradition.

Sure you do. I'm talking about the Christian God and you can tell me whether He does the things I described or does not or you don't know whether or not He does the things I described.

Well, if you didn't think you needed it, and we're going to assume that the value of G = God prior to any consideration of our subsequent processes involving our synthetic act of analyzing X + Y = Z, then you don't have the subjective freedom to employ your own values into those variables. No, in my hermeneutical expectation, you assigned meaning to those variables should come in objective tandem in working in community with others (Christians?) in order to fill out that expression.

Feel free to rewrite the definitions to express what you think practicing justice is and practicing mercy is. If your new definitions don't involve deserved punishment then I'd ask you to tell me what words my definitions do describe.

My apologies. Some of my SJW education will leak out here and into my expectancies in discussion with other people. It has something to do with ideas of how Transparency may be an inherent property of a more apropos interaction between us where justice among us human beings is concerned.

There are a lot of problems with the topics I brought up. If I detail them in the beginning none of us will have any common ground to begin a discussion on because anything that might lead to my conclusions that folk disagree with must be fought against tooth and nail to avoid that conclusion.

 

[Moral Orel]

I generally define "all words" more objectively than that, but you obviously disagree.

Okay, then what is the objective definition of the characters 'c' 'e' 'i' 'j' 'n' 's' 't' 'u' when arranged in this order "i-n-j-u-s-t-i-c-e"?

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay, then what is the objective definition of the characters 'c' 'e' 'i' 'j' 'n' 's' 't' 'u' when arranged in this order "i-n-j-u-s-t-i-c-e"?

First, how do I know for certain that you won't subjectively interpret my intentionally objective reply?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure you do. I'm talking about the Christian God and you can tell me whether He does the things I described or does not or you don't know whether or not He does the things I described.

See. We just have widely differing approaches here. You may assume the Christian God, but if you do that, then I'm going to expect that you're going to cull your definitions of Justice and Mercy from sources on Christian Ethics, along with specific examples from the Bible, in order to contextualize and anchor the referents of targeted definitions.

I'm thinking we won't even agree with which method and mode of approach is to take arbitrate and shape the inquiry here. And if not, we're going to enjoy talking past each other OR feeling flustered with each other because we'll be playing a Wittgensteinian tug-of-war.

Feel free to rewrite the definitions to express what you think practicing justice is and practicing mercy is. If your new definitions don't involve deserved punishment then I'd ask you to tell me what words my definitions do describe.

Maybe tomorrow. I'm running out of time tonight.

There are a lot of problems with the topics I brought up. If I detail them in the beginning none of us will have any common ground to begin a discussion on because anything that might lead to my conclusions that folk disagree with must be fought against tooth and nail to avoid that conclusion.

... that's kind of my point.

We'll catch up later.

 

[Moral Orel]

First, how do I know for certain that you won't subjectively interpret my intentionally objective reply?

If you don't have an answer, don't post one. As it stands now you've not refuted my description, and we can leave it that way if you like.

 

[Moral Orel]

See. We just have widely differing approaches here. You may assume the Christian God, but if you do that, then I'm going to expect that you're going to cull your definitions of Justice and Mercy from sources on Christian Ethics, along with specific examples from the Bible, in order to contextualize and anchor the referents of targeted definitions.

My descriptions are very basic and are inline with my statement that all humans deserve death because of sin but only by grace does God spare some. Which is also a very basic description of these concepts in the Bible which I don't believe are controversial nor do I believe you personally disagree with it being the Biblical stance.

 

[Paulomycin]

If you don't have an answer, don't post one.

You mean a subjective answer, right?

As it stands now you've not refuted my description, and we can leave it that way if you like.

^ According to your rules, can't I just subjectively interpret this as a subjective assertion, and by that, I actually 100% refuted your (subjective) description?

 

[Moral Orel]

You mean a subjective answer, right?

No.

^ According to your rules, can't I just subjectively interpret this as a subjective assertion, and by that, I actually 100% refuted your (subjective) description?

No.

 

[Paulomycin]

No.

But you clearly said:

All word definitions are necessarily subjective.

So you can't mean an objective answer.

No.

Why can't I?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm content with your lack of a refutation. Carry on.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm content with your lack of a refutation.

Don't you mean, "subjective refutation?"

And by "lack," don't you mean, "textbook example," here? Because by your rules. . .

All word definitions are necessarily subjective.

. . .I can totally define the word that way.

 

[Moral Orel]

. . .I can totally define the word that way.

What you're doing is known as a "red herring". It's all a distraction from your inability to refute.

 

[Paulomycin]

What you're doing is known as a "red herring". It's all a distraction from your inability to refute.

Don't you mean subjectively refute?

 

[Paulomycin]

It's all a distraction from your inability to refute.

The actual reasoning behind the inability to communicate at all was made very clear back at post #32.

 

[Moral Orel]

The actual reasoning behind the inability to communicate at all was made very clear back at post #32.

Yes, that was the original red herring.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, that was the original red herring.

Which objectively came after post #31, unless you subjectively insist that the number 32 comes before 31.

Or, by your own standards, I can subjectively define "red herring" as "moral lesson in logic and honest communication."

 

[Moral Orel]

Which objectively came after post #31, unless you subjectively insist that the number 32 comes before 31.

Correct. 32 > 31

 

[Paulomycin]

Correct.

^ Thanks for this admission, and I'm flattered, but we're steering off-topic. In the end, all that really matters is which post came first, and who brought up the subject to begin with.

All word definitions are subjective.

^ You still believe that?

 

[Moral Orel]

we're steering off-topic.

Yes, you've been off topic for a while. When you want to discuss justice and mercy I'll be around.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, you've been off topic for a while. When you want to discuss justice and mercy I'll be around.

I'd love to, but you can't make up your own definition of words, okay?