Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

Then make another analogy without "paying" someone to go to jail for you. Simple.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. It isn't my responsibility to prove you wrong. Make your case or I can dismiss your unsupported assertion.

Same dif.

False. "Justice" is a noun "just" is an adjective. The definition of "unjust" is "not just".

Except when you're equivocating it to push an agenda.

No. Whether or not I have an agenda, and no matter what that agenda might be, has no bearing on the definition of mercy. The definition does not change. Mercy is unjust by definition, like you said.

 

[Paulomycin]

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

No. It was simply a poor analogy on your part.

Make your case or I can dismiss your unsupported assertion.

It's your thread! You're not making your case at all. I'm not sure you even have one atm.

False. "Justice" is a noun "just" is an adjective. The definition of "unjust" is "not just".

The point is that not all forms of "non-justice" = injustice.

Mercy is unjust by definition, like you said.

But it's not a violation of justice either. That's the point.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. It was simply a poor analogy on your part.

That's your claim, now prove it.

It's your thread! You're not making your case at all. I'm not sure you even have one atm.

I made my case. You offered an unsupported assertion as a refutation. Support it, or there's no reason to dismiss your assertions.

The point is that not all forms of "non-justice" = injustice.

That's your claim, now prove it.

But it's not a violation of justice either. That's the point.

That's your claim, now prove it.

 

[Paulomycin]

That's your claim, now prove it.

I showed a clear and contradictory distinction between getting paid vs. volunteer.

I made my case.

You were clearly refuted. Volunteers typically don't get paid.

That's your claim, now prove it.

It's not my fault you can't recognize a reductio ad absurdum when you see one. You're literally arguing that all your posts are an injustice.

That's your claim, now prove it.

Because presidential pardons and clemency, for example, are classified as mercy. Presidential pardons and clemency are perfectly legal forms of mercy, and therefore not violations of justice.

 

[Moral Orel]

I showed a clear and contradictory distinction between getting paid vs. volunteer.

Yes, but your claim is that volunteer status must be part of my analogy. Prove that.

You were clearly refuted. Volunteers typically don't get paid.

They don't. Now prove that matters to my analogy. Prove that money can't be the motivator.

It's not my fault you can't recognize a reductio ad absurdum when you see one. You're literally arguing that all your posts are an injustice.

I've never claimed that my posts are unjust, so I am not "literally" arguing that all of my posts are an injustice.

Because presidential pardons and clemency, for example, are classified as mercy. Presidential pardons and clemency are perfectly legal forms of mercy, and therefore not violations of justice.

So if there is a law that says it is okay, then it is not an injustice. Are you sure?

 

[Moral Orel]

I can be a pretty funny guy, but I don't see the joke there. What's funny, @Mark Quayle ?

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, but your claim is that volunteer status must be part of my analogy. Prove that.

No, it doesn't have to be at all. That's why it benefits me. Volunteer status is not part of your analogy. That's entirely my argument.

I've never claimed that my posts are unjust, so I am not "literally" arguing that all of my posts are an injustice.

Your posts are not justice. Therefore, your posts are unjust.

So if there is a law that says it is okay, then it is not an injustice. Are you sure?

Since when did you ever object to say, a governor pardoning a death row inmate from the electric chair?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can be a pretty funny guy, but I don't see the joke there. What's funny, @Mark Quayle ?

Private joke between me and Paulo. Sorry. Anyhow, it was intended to be a commentary of what Paulo had said that you were now answering to. I will retract it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, it doesn't have to be at all.

Okay, good, then my analogy is fine.

Your posts are not justice. Therefore, your posts are unjust.

That's not my argument. You're equivocating a noun and an adjective.

Since when did you ever object to say, a governor pardoning a death row inmate from the electric chair?

I don't follow the news on executions. I object to the perfectly legal treatment of the citizens of North Korea though. But you've said that if it's legal, then it isn't an injustice, so you're fine with it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay, good, then my analogy is fine.

No, because being paid is not analogous with volunteering.

That's not my argument. You're equivocating a noun and an adjective.

Demonstrate the equivocation. Don't just assert it.

I don't follow the news on executions. I object to the perfectly legal treatment of the citizens of North Korea though. But you've said that if it's legal, then it isn't an injustice, so you're fine with it.

^ Words in my mouth. The point is that pardons and clemency are not violations of justice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point is that pardons and clemency are not violations of justice.

Thank you. Exactly!

 

[Moral Orel]

No, because being paid is not analogous with volunteering.

But you already agreed that volunteering doesn't need to be part of my analogy, so this doesn't matter.

Demonstrate the equivocation. Don't just assert it.

I already cited the definitions for unjust and justice. They are not the same thing.

The point is that pardons and clemency are not violations of justice.

Yes, that is what you need to prove. You said it wasn't injustice because it's legal, so I pointed out legal things that you would call injustice.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thank you. Exactly!

Why not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point is that pardons and clemency are not violations of justice.

Why not?

Why so? If you say they are, prove it. It is a bit more difficult to prove a negative. So far, Paulomycin has been incredibly patient with you, steering you around the false obstructions you think you can't get through, page after page of posts to no avail, and finally here we are back where we started. Can you PLEASE show how pardons and clemency, (and PARTICULARLY, substitution) are violations of justice?

Please do so without merely saying that justice and mercy are two different things. We all agree they are two different things. And don't say they oppose --even when we accept that for the sake of argument, it proves nothing. And don't say they are contradictory, been there, done that, it goes nowhere.

And don't say God can't do both. All you will say is that he doesn't do both simultaneously to same person at the same time. It says nothing to say that. Round and round we go.

 

[Paulomycin]

But you already agreed that volunteering doesn't need to be part of my analogy, so this doesn't matter.

Quote me. "Paying" doesn't need to be part of your analogy. That's why it needs to be fixed.

I already cited the definitions for unjust and justice. They are not the same thing.

I'm not exploiting any ambiguity there.

Yes, that is what you need to prove.

Because pardons and clemency fall under the categories of mercy, and not justice. Are you calling all pardons and clemency unjust?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quote me. "Paying" doesn't need to be part of your analogy. That's why it needs to be fixed.



I'm not exploiting any ambiguity there.



Because pardons and clemency fall under the categories of mercy, and not justice. Are you calling all pardons and clemency unjust?

Does God practice justice, or does God practice mercy?

I would say that practicing justice is to ensure that people get punishments they deserve.

And I would say that practicing mercy is to spare people from punishments they deserve.

Clearly, it isn't possible to do both, so which does God practice?

Here's part of a post from another thread, please read.

Judgment is more than simply a kind of innocent/guilty verdict; it's about the scrutiny of our lives--to face and confront ourselves. The language of Judgment isn't the language of a cold distant judge weighing scales. Judgement is the language of justice and truth--and also of mercy.

God does both justice and mercy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God does both justice and mercy.

And they are frequently the same thing. It is by the merciful justice of God that we are justified. That is why St. Paul says that the justice of God is revealed by the Gospel--the justice by which he makes us just by His grace.

Justice and mercy are not dichotomous. It is by God's grace that He is setting the world to rights--that is His justice for the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

And they are frequently the same thing. It is by the merciful justice of God that we are justified. That is why St. Paul says that the justice of God is revealed by the Gospel--the justice by which he makes us just by His grace.

Justice and mercy are not dichotomous. It is by God's grace that He is setting the world to rights--that is His justice for the world.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the post.

Concerning, "It is by God's grace that He is setting the world to rights--that is His justice for the world.", I'd say that therein also lies his LOVE for the world. This does not say that all are recipients of his particular mercy and particular love, but still are recipients of his love.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for the post.

Concerning, "It is by God's grace that He is setting the world to rights--that is His justice for the world.", I'd say that therein also lies his LOVE for the world. This does not say that all are recipients of his particular mercy and particular love, but still are recipients of his love.

It's His universal love and grace which is, in and through Christ, for all. For in Christ God has justified all (Romans 5:18); our individual or subjective justification is God appropriating these things to us personally, which is through faith.

But all are recipients of His particular mercy and love. There is not a human being who has, is, or ever will exist for whom Christ did not die. Christ's atonement is universal, for all.

The objective and universal work of Christ is made ours personally and subjectively through faith, given to us by the Means of His Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

But all are recipients of His particular mercy and love. There is not a human being who has, is, or ever will exist for whom Christ did not die. Christ's atonement is universal, for all.

The objective and universal work of Christ is made ours personally and subjectively through faith, given to us by the Means of His Word and Sacrament.

There. Thanks, I wanted to bring that distinction out between us, lest you think we believe the same about his love and grace, and lest the readers think we agreed on that.