Hypothetical dialogue

[Tree of Life]

One possible factor in the death of the infant is that God could not allow the future king of Israel to be born under such unlawful circumstances(?)

Another way of looking at this story is that the health of the infant to adulthood would have required God's blessings. If God had blessed the infant in that way, He would have been giving His seal of approval to David's actions. God was forced to withhold His blessings, and the result was illness and death (as happened to most infants in those days).

Good conclusions. What's amazing to me in the story is that after David's repentance and after the death of his son God eventually blesses his union with Bathsheba. The next son he has by her is Solomon - of all his sons the heir to the throne. Furthermore God sends a message via Nathan that God loves Solomon. I think the message is that God can redeem even the worst situations.

From a Christian standpoint the death of the baby son is a foreshadowing of Christ:

2 Samuel 12:13-14
David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”

Ultimately Jesus was the distant son born of David who would die for his sin and ours.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So then you disavow the claim of omnibenevolence?

Oh,...I guess I could disavow it since it's just a concept some of us like to wag around.

Yes, I suppose I could disavow this notion, just as long as we can realize two things implied by this disavowal: 1) that we ourselves have only a mediated understanding of what a god is or could be, and 2) that since we have only a mediated understanding of what a god is or could be, and if one does show up, then that God's taking of a darling little infant's life can't decisively count (to the human mind) as either an act of benevolence or malevolence, "omni-" or otherwise. It's a rather morally complex, but still sovereign, act. So much for God being a decisively clear or even an epitomic model for late-term abortionists ...

I further suppose that if a god did this, we'd have to look for additional contexts to see if we could cull some meaning out of such an event ...

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ophiolite]

Saying that I am incorrect without offering a correction is a waste of time. If God inflicted prolonged suffering, then what word may I use? If God put someone to death as a form of arcane justice, what word may I use for that?

There is no obligation upon me to advise you as to how correct your improper use of the English language. I am simply pointing out that you are in error. Aware of that, you can find an improved means of conveying your idea and justifying your argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is nothing unjust about God taking life. God created and sustains life as a free grace. No one is entitled to life. To suggest that God is unjust in taking life would be to suggest that God owes our lives to us, which he does not. The same is true with pain and comfort. There's nothing unjust about God inflicting pain. He does not owe us the blessing of comfort. Any comfort or health that we have is a free gift from his hand.

In that case, the word "just" in the sentence "god is just" becomes entirely and utterly meaningless.

If this god can "do as he pleases" with no strings attached and with no responsability whatsoever and no need to explain himself to anyone, then "just" is completely irrelevant. And the same goes for "morality" and "ethics" as they pertain to god.

It means that god couldn't do anything unjust (or just) by definition, even if he wanted to.

So the OP is correct. God is not just. God rather is a loose canon without any moral or ethical responsability or justification.

Sounds quite psychopathic to me.
Not exactly the kind of entity I would hold up as being "the" example of love, compassion and empathy.

On top of this David grievously sinned against God. David murdered Bathsheba's former husband, stole his wife, and sought to cover it up. God owed to David only wrath.

This only makes matters even worse.

It employs logic that states that if YOU do something wrong, it is perfectly fine and justified to punish your children for YOUR wrongdoings.

I can see the headlines before me now:
"Judge rules Charles Manson guilty of murder. Allows Manson to go free and puts his children on death row. That'll teach him!"

Just because God is justified in a certain action does not mean that we, his creatures, are justified in the same action. God is justified in ending life that he created.

Then again, the words "just", "moral" and "ethical" as they pertain to this god are completely and utterly useless.

It does not, therefore, follow that we are justified in ending life that God created.

Unless this god orders us to, I bet?

 

[Tree of Life]

In that case, the word "just" in the sentence "god is just" becomes entirely and utterly meaningless.

If this god can "do as he pleases" with no strings attached and with no responsability whatsoever and no need to explain himself to anyone, then "just" is completely irrelevant. And the same goes for "morality" and "ethics" as they pertain to god.

Please explain why God is unjustified in taking human life that he created and sustains.

Then again, the words "just", "moral" and "ethical" as they pertain to this god are completely and utterly useless.

Please logically demonstrate how God being justified in action X automatically means that human beings are justified in action X.

God has different rights and permissions because he is God and the creator. By way of analogy, the POTUS is justified in declaring war on behalf of our country because he has the permission to do so. Private citizens, however, are not justified in this action because we do not have these same permissions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is no obligation upon me to advise you as to how correct your improper use of the English language. I am simply pointing out that you are in error. Aware of that, you can find an improved means of conveying your idea and justifying your argument.

In mathematics, if I made a conjecture then it would be my burden to prove it. You could reject my conjecture without adding anything further and you'd be within your rights. This is because there is a lot unknown about the field of mathematics.

However, there is nothing unknown about the English language. If you aren't familiar with a word, there is no intellectual barrier preventing your acquisition of the knowledge. You have no reason to refuse to offer the correct word.

Your contributions to this thread have been nothing but counterproductive. I see no reason to continue with you or lend any thought to anything you have said.

 

[Ophiolite]

However, there is nothing unknown about the English language. If you aren't familiar with a word, there is no intellectual barrier preventing your acquisition of the knowledge. You have no reason to refuse to offer the correct word.

To say there is nothing unknown about the English language is debatable. However, I'll provisionally accept it in this context.

You say there is nothing to prevent one acquiring knowledge about a word. That is precisely my point. With a little effort on your part you can find words that are better suited to what you wish to convey. It is not my job to argue your case for you. I am not your editor. I offered you guidance. You are completely free to ignore that guidance.

Your contributions to this thread have been nothing but counterproductive. I see no reason to continue with you or lend any thought to anything you have said.

That has all the appearance of some one unwilling to admit they are wrong. Duly noted.

Since you seem unable to find the correct words, here are some options:

Executed = = > "allowed to die", "permitted to die", "withheld his blessing from".
Tortured = Frankly, no word is appropriate here, since you are introducing an imaginary aspect to the death of the child. I call it imaginary since you have failed to offer any meaningful evidence to support its existence.

Overall, NV, you have chosen a couple of emotionally loaded, subjective terms and tried to pass them off as objective. You have been called out on it and are now scurrying away from the scene of the battle with your argument between your legs. It's a pity, because the overall thrust of your argument had some merit. You've devalued it by holding on to indefensible rhetoric.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain why God is unjustified in taking human life that he created and sustains.

Again, if this question needs to be asked, then the word "just" means nothing when used in the phrase "god is just".

As Nihilist explained, the word "just"/"justice" has a specific definition. If that definition doesn't apply to this god, then neither do those words.

Please logically demonstrate how God being justified in action X automatically means that human beings are justified in action X.

Simply by means of the words "just", "ethical" and "moral".

Again, fine by me if you want to state that "special rules", or rather "no rules at all", apply to this god.

But then be consistent and also don't say that "god is moral" or "god is good" or "god is just". Because neither of those words in those phrases then mean what they actually mean in english.

When you say "X is just/ethical/moral/good", then that phrase only is meaningfull if it can be contrasted with something that is NOT just/ethical/moral/good.

Then you need a standard against which the action can be evaluated.
You seem to be saying that none of these rules/standards apply to your god.
That means that there is nothing to contrast those actions to.
That in turn means that the words, when applied to this god, don't mean anything.

God has different rights and permissions because he is God and the creator.

It seems to me though that what you are saying is not just that he has different permissions/rights. It rather is that he has none and all of them simultanously.

Which again results in the phrase "god is good" to be utterly meaningless.
"X is nice" only makes sense if you can contrast it with something that would result in "X is not nice".

By way of analogy, the POTUS is justified in declaring war on behalf of our country because he has the permission to do so.

Please don't confuse legality with ethics. They are not the same thing.
Bush, for example, might have had the legal right to declare war on Iraq. But history most surely has shown that he was ethically NOT justified in doing so.

And also, being a democracy, don't forget that this "permission" is not an inherent, default "right" of a president. A president is granted that right, by the citizens who vote him into office and by the constitution which was drafted by politicians who were also voted into office, which is sanctioned by the citizens.

Legal rights are NOT just claimed by people. They are granted by people.

Private citizens, however, are not justified in this action because we do not have these same permissions.

Again confusing legality with ethics. And nicely illustrating again how warped this logic is.

Yes, your god might be permitted to do as he pleases. But who gives this permission? Being defined as the "ultimate" authority, he gives himself that permission. Much like how the dictator of North Korea gives himself the permission of executing whoever he pleases.

But, newsflash: might does not make right!

What is questioned in this thread is NOT the idea that this god can get away with anything, by the sheer fact that he has nobody to explain himself to, due to being the "ultimate might". What is questioned is the idea that he is ethically and morally justified in doing however he pleases. Which is not the same thing.

The North Korean dictator has the might and the legal authority to execute wichever North Korean citizen he wishes. But that has no relevance to those actions being morally and ethically justified.

 

[cloudyday2]

False. Counter example: innocent hostages can be executed if demands aren't met. Perhaps that is roughly analogous to our situation here.

Your mention of hostages reminded me of something I read regarding "taking Lord's name in vain". There is a quote in this wikipedia article from historian Winwood Reade explaining that originally the only way to enforce a treaty was for each party to hold a hostage who could be executed. Later this was simplified so that each party could swear an oath to a god who would punish oath-breakers. Maybe the death of the infant was understood this way?
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - Wikipedia

I agree that the text seems to describe a more active role by God in causing the death of the infant. Maybe this was the result of later editing and the actual words of Nathan were more open to alternative understandings? Or maybe the historical facts that inspired this story are even more remote.

Definitely taking the story at face value makes God seem indifferent to the rights of the infant as an individual (as opposed to merely being the property of King David - much like Job's family, herds, etc.).

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Nihilist Virus , here is another thing that might help explain why the infant son was apparently punished for David's sin.

Remember in Genesis 9:20-27 that Ham perpetrated some shameful act against his drunken father Noah. Noah's response was not to curse Ham but to curse the son of Ham. The reason was that the son was the property of the father. If Noah would have cursed Ham, then he would have cursed his own property. Instead Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan.

The king of Israel was considered the son of God. If God punished David, then He would have punished His own son and His own property. Therefore God punished David's infant son instead.

That consideration doesn't make God's behavior acceptable to modern readers, but it might explain why the ancient authors and readers thought it was acceptable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That consideration doesn't make God's behavior acceptable to modern readers, but it might explain why the ancient authors and readers thought it was acceptable.

Yes, it comes as no surprise that the "morals" of this "timeless god" actually reflect the (barbaric/primitive) morals of the culture that that god was born in.

That is consistent with the idea that the bible, just like every other religion, was the work of common people who invented their religion out of thin air.

It's not at all consistent with the idea that this religion is "true".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Again, if this question needs to be asked, then the word "just" means nothing when used in the phrase "god is just".

As Nihilist explained, the word "just"/"justice" has a specific definition. If that definition doesn't apply to this god, then neither do those words.



Simply by means of the words "just", "ethical" and "moral".

Again, fine by me if you want to state that "special rules", or rather "no rules at all", apply to this god.

But then be consistent and also don't say that "god is moral" or "god is good" or "god is just". Because neither of those words in those phrases then mean what they actually mean in english.

When you say "X is just/ethical/moral/good", then that phrase only is meaningfull if it can be contrasted with something that is NOT just/ethical/moral/good.

Then you need a standard against which the action can be evaluated.
You seem to be saying that none of these rules/standards apply to your god.
That means that there is nothing to contrast those actions to.
That in turn means that the words, when applied to this god, don't mean anything.



It seems to me though that what you are saying is not just that he has different permissions/rights. It rather is that he has none and all of them simultanously.

Which again results in the phrase "god is good" to be utterly meaningless.
"X is nice" only makes sense if you can contrast it with something that would result in "X is not nice".



Please don't confuse legality with ethics. They are not the same thing.
Bush, for example, might have had the legal right to declare war on Iraq. But history most surely has shown that he was ethically NOT justified in doing so.

And also, being a democracy, don't forget that this "permission" is not an inherent, default "right" of a president. A president is granted that right, by the citizens who vote him into office and by the constitution which was drafted by politicians who were also voted into office, which is sanctioned by the citizens.

Legal rights are NOT just claimed by people. They are granted by people.



Again confusing legality with ethics. And nicely illustrating again how warped this logic is.

Yes, your god might be permitted to do as he pleases. But who gives this permission? Being defined as the "ultimate" authority, he gives himself that permission. Much like how the dictator of North Korea gives himself the permission of executing whoever he pleases.

But, newsflash: might does not make right!

What is questioned in this thread is NOT the idea that this god can get away with anything, by the sheer fact that he has nobody to explain himself to, due to being the "ultimate might". What is questioned is the idea that he is ethically and morally justified in doing however he pleases. Which is not the same thing.

The North Korean dictator has the might and the legal authority to execute wichever North Korean citizen he wishes. But that has no relevance to those actions being morally and ethically justified.

Well said. Sadly I can only give one like.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

^ @Nihilist Virus , here is another thing that might help explain why the infant son was apparently punished for David's sin.

Remember in Genesis 9:20-27 that Ham perpetrated some shameful act against his drunken father Noah. Noah's response was not to curse Ham but to curse the son of Ham. The reason was that the son was the property of the father. If Noah would have cursed Ham, then he would have cursed his own property. Instead Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan.

Except Ham's son was not put to death. God takes it further and violates Deuteronomy 24:16.

The king of Israel was considered the son of God. If God punished David, then He would have punished His own son and His own property. Therefore God punished David's infant son instead.

That consideration doesn't make God's behavior acceptable to modern readers, but it might explain why the ancient authors and readers thought it was acceptable.

Here I just defer to TagliatelliMonster's response.

Your mention of hostages reminded me of something I read regarding "taking Lord's name in vain". There is a quote in this wikipedia article from historian Winwood Reade explaining that originally the only way to enforce a treaty was for each party to hold a hostage who could be executed. Later this was simplified so that each party could swear an oath to a god who would punish oath-breakers. Maybe the death of the infant was understood this way?
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - Wikipedia

I agree that the text seems to describe a more active role by God in causing the death of the infant. Maybe this was the result of later editing and the actual words of Nathan were more open to alternative understandings? Or maybe the historical facts that inspired this story are even more remote.

Definitely taking the story at face value makes God seem indifferent to the rights of the infant as an individual (as opposed to merely being the property of King David - much like Job's family, herds, etc.).

If you allow for the possibility of the Bible being edited, we no longer find ourselves asking if the Bible is true but rather we start asking how false it is.

 

[John 1720]

In logic, we we never reject a conclusion when the reasoning is sound and the premises are true. Theology should operate in the same manner, since, as the root words suggest, it is the logic of theism. However, theists are known to reject conclusions of arguments with sound reasoning and true premises. That will probably happen here.

Allow me to build upon a basic Christian axiom: God is just.

A quick Google search shows that the definition of "just" is as follows:

based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

I'm not sure your google search really encompasses the entire meaning of the word, "just". After all the human context of "justice; and 'Divine justice' are not necessarily the same thing. For the Theist, who believes that God created all things and has set the boundaries and the purpose for their time here on earth, they would believe God is benevolent to give life in the first place. The fact that death comes to all men is not causal to God but causal to man who entered into the corruption of sin and mutated the image of God from the nature God had endowed him with. It also follows that a theist would believe that God can call everyone into account for the life which He gave to them, especially since each life has its true eternal potential in Him. God then is the depositor and can justly call the loan anytime He wants to; especially since all life comes from God and is entirely "on loan" to us. Man has no life without God and ceases to exist without Him.

the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood [fn3] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;28 for in Him we live and move and have our being.

God also sees our life from an eternal perspective and not merely a temporal one as unbelieving men do. God is therefore just to both give us life and to take it back at any time, since it was His from the beginning. So divine justice really has a completely different perspective than human temporal justice. A human normally does not have the moral right to take a life since that life is sourced in God and fully belongs to God and not to the perp. In a way the perp is not only taking away the temporal life of the individual that God has ordained but he is enacting a robbery of what God has given. Of course there will be instances where there may be defensible reasons or just reasons for such taking of a life from the human perspective but those exceptions can be debated separately. It's a grave error, however, to make human justice derived from a temporal worldview to be on the same plane as God's eternal worldview. It would be akin to making finite numbers to describe infinity.
Regards, Pat

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In logic, we we never reject a conclusion when the reasoning is sound and the premises are true. Theology should operate in the same manner, since, as the root words suggest, it is the logic of theism. However, theists are known to reject conclusions of arguments with sound reasoning and true premises. That will probably happen here.

Allow me to build upon a basic Christian axiom: God is just.

A quick Google search shows that the definition of "just" is as follows:

based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

The problem, of course, is that when we ask certain questions, either the burden of being just is removed from God or else the definition of "just" becomes warped.

The following dialogue is, in my view, a fair representation of what might happen between an apologist and a skeptic. The end is where I feel the skeptic finally manages to wrestle the apologist off his script and so at that point I feel there are many possible paths the conversation can take. You can rescue the apologist by starting where I've ended, or, if you feel I've misrepresented the apologist, you can alter the conversation before that point.

Skeptic: Was it morally right and fair for God to torture and execute David's infant son?

Apologist: Yes.

Skeptic: Why?

Apologist: God is sovereign and can do as he pleases.

Skeptic: Then he is not just because respecting justice limits one's potential actions.

Apologist: False. God is just.

Skeptic: Then we can only conclude that the execution of infants is morally right and fair at least under certain circumstances.

Apologist: The only such circumstances is when it is God acting.

Skeptic: Special pleading fallacy. Unless specified, definitions make no exceptions. There is no exception to the definition of "just." You can define a new word which is a variant of "just" and say that God satisfies the definition of the new word, but you may not say that God is just unless you allow for humans to torture and execute infants as well. As I understand it, you are against late-term abortion.

Apologist: ...

The same argument can be made about atheists as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure your google search really encompasses the entire meaning of the word, "just". After all the human context of "justice; and 'Divine justice' are not necessarily the same thing. For the Theist, who believes that God created all things and has set the boundaries and the purpose for their time here on earth, they would believe God is benevolent to give life in the first place. The fact that death comes to all men is not causal to God but causal to man who entered into the corruption of sin and mutated the image of God from the nature God had endowed him with. It also follows that a theist would believe that God can call everyone into account for the life which He gave to them, especially since each life has its true eternal potential in Him. God then is the depositor and can justly call the loan anytime He wants to; especially since all life comes from God and is entirely "on loan" to us. Man has no life without God and ceases to exist without Him.

What does the phrase "god is just" mean, if the "just" part can't be contrasted to some kind of standard? Is there anything this god could wich would be branded "unjust", for example?

God also sees our life from an eternal perspective and not merely a temporal one as unbelieving men do. God is therefore just to both give us life and to take it back at any time, since it was His from the beginning.

Once again... if it is "just" for god to do that... then what would be an example of "unjust"?

So divine justice really has a completely different perspective than human temporal justice.

So far, the difference seems to be "divine justice" meaning the same thing as "gobllywobblydock".

A human normally does not have the moral right to take a life since that life is sourced in God and fully belongs to God and not to the perp. In a way the perp is not only taking away the temporal life of the individual that God has ordained but he is enacting a robbery of what God has given. Of course there will be instances where there may be defensible reasons or just reasons for such taking of a life from the human perspective but those exceptions can be debated separately. It's a grave error, however, to make human justice derived from a temporal worldview to be on the same plane as God's eternal worldview. It would be akin to making finite numbers to describe infinity.
Regards, Pat

From that also follows that human moral standards aren't derived from this god. Since, as you say, this god standard is different from the human standard.

In fact, it seems to be the case that this god has NO standard.
It's not that he is "permitted" (by whom??) to do things humans aren't permitted to do... it's more like this god is permitted to do whatever he wants.

It seems that you people are saying that god can do what he wants simply because he gets away with everything. I've also heared in terms of "divine morality", that god himself is the standard of morality. In other words, then god is good because...... god says so.

I know a guy on this world who thinks like that...
It's the dictator of North Korea. He also believes that might makes right.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same argument can be made about atheists as well.

How so?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not sure your google search really encompasses the entire meaning of the word, "just". After all the human context of "justice; and 'Divine justice' are not necessarily the same thing. For the Theist, who believes that God created all things and has set the boundaries and the purpose for their time here on earth, they would believe God is benevolent to give life in the first place. The fact that death comes to all men is not causal to God but causal to man who entered into the corruption of sin and mutated the image of God from the nature God had endowed him with. It also follows that a theist would believe that God can call everyone into account for the life which He gave to them, especially since each life has its true eternal potential in Him. God then is the depositor and can justly call the loan anytime He wants to; especially since all life comes from God and is entirely "on loan" to us. Man has no life without God and ceases to exist without Him.


God also sees our life from an eternal perspective and not merely a temporal one as unbelieving men do. God is therefore just to both give us life and to take it back at any time, since it was His from the beginning. So divine justice really has a completely different perspective than human temporal justice. A human normally does not have the moral right to take a life since that life is sourced in God and fully belongs to God and not to the perp. In a way the perp is not only taking away the temporal life of the individual that God has ordained but he is enacting a robbery of what God has given. Of course there will be instances where there may be defensible reasons or just reasons for such taking of a life from the human perspective but those exceptions can be debated separately. It's a grave error, however, to make human justice derived from a temporal worldview to be on the same plane as God's eternal worldview. It would be akin to making finite numbers to describe infinity.
Regards, Pat

You re-assert an idea which has been called into question in this thread. Once again,

Why is God free to take life from us? If I give you something, it's no longer mine so I have no right to take it back. If God has the right to take our lives, it's only because he's given us nothing to begin with. In that case, why would he be my god?

 

[John 1720]

What does the phrase "god is just" mean, if the "just" part can't be contrasted to some kind of standard? Is there anything this god could wich would be branded "unjust", for example?

I think your hypothesis is small because your conception of "god" is small. Why would anyone believe in a "god" that is corruptible? Entrophy is a result of corruption and as a result all things in the physical universe break down. But the physical universe and time itself was born out of eternity by the Eternal GOD who made it in the first place. And He made it in stages, Day by Day, to reflect His Glory and perfection. "Thy Will be done on earth as it is in eternal Heaven." We're simply just waiting for time to catch up with the perfect reflection of eternity for the perfect shall arrive as just as it was promised.
So what does the phrase "GOD is just" mean? It means GOD is eternal, without entrophy, and therefore without corruption. Injustice is corruption therefore God's Justice must also be Perfect, while our sense of justice is necessarily imperfect. Let's take man's perception and critique of God's fairness and justice and contrast it to God's answer to that hypothesis:
Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair?
..... “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin

Again God says to the prophet:
Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die,

And the prophet and theist concludes:
The LORD is righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, But the unjust knows no shame.
- Zephaniah 3:5
And the Psalmist sings:
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face. - Psalm 89:14

GOD, out of His BIG heart, did give us a standard - that standard is Christ in whom no iniquity or sin was found but lived a perfect life, a life of love for all mankind, dying for all of us sinner and saint alike and taking upon Himself our sins. He sent His beloved from His eternal domain to the earth to suffer and die in our place that we would be perfected in Him.
God has said: Why die in your sins O' man when your sins can be cast from you, as far as the east is from the west?
Still God does not coerce mankind but calls us in love to Himself, reasoning with us all.

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; - Isaiah 1:18-19

He (the Christ) has come to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace.”
John 1:9-14
....the true Light which gives light to every man came into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, but the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
The justice of God is that, despite our sins against a Holy God and against our fellow man, God in His mercy never gave up on us, impoverished as we are by our sins, but made a way through the cross to be perfected by His free grace. That my friend is justice. And as James says in James 2:12-13
"So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. "

Standing as a one whom God has had mercy upon and experienced His justice and goodness, Pat

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In logic, we we never reject a conclusion when the reasoning is sound and the premises are true.

How so?

Believe it or not, there are valid, logical, and reasonable arguments that support God. However, it has been in my experience that atheists seem to reject them on emotional grounds. The arguments just simply don't agree with things that the atheists have already believed to be true (that God doesn't exist).