Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[zippy2006]

Why do you think we need a new example before you address mine at all?

Because we need to determine what justice is before we can decide whether a controverted example is just. Therefore we need to build agreement around the idea of justice with common examples first. Only once we have a common understanding of justice can we return to your more complicated examples which include rehabilitation and deterrence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't see a real difference between a desire for justice and a desire for revenge.

True justice is Godly and Right.

Revenge is emotional, feelings, usually unrighteous anger, and unjust, perhaps immoral, and forbidden.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do you think we need a new example before you address mine at all?

Let's say I sock you in the nose. Why would it be good for me to get socked in the nose right back? Maybe it will keep me from doing it again, that would be rehabilitation which is good. Maybe it will show other people the negative consequences of socking people in the nose, that would be a deterrent which is also good. Neither of those things are for the sake of justice itself. We might accomplish the same things by pinching my arm or shooting me in the head, and neither of those responses would be justice.

Prmit this example :
A four year old son was at a day care facility with about 25 other small children.
One bully in their midst was pushing a little girl around. She did not like that.
The four year old son punched the bully in the nose, simply. Flat out. No discussion.
The bully stopped. The little girl and everyone else around was happy. It was good.
It was right and just.
(and likely at least a deterrent for a day or longer, so the bully did not do it again)....
Pinching the bullies arm would have resulted in more bullying(probably), not in stopping the bully.
Leaving the bully without doing anything may have led to harm to the little girl. Some injury perhaps, physical or mental or other.

So, what was actually done was right, was approved of by the adults present, was approved of and appreciated by the little children present , and good clean playtime without the stress of the bullying was accomplished simply with no injuries and no injustice being permitted.

 

[cloudyday2]

Prmit this example :
A four year old son was at a day care facility with about 25 other small children.
One bully in their midst was pushing a little girl around. She did not like that.
The four year old son punched the bully in the nose, simply. Flat out. No discussion.
The bully stopped. The little girl and everyone else around was happy. It was good.
It was right and just.
(and likely at least a deterrent for a day or longer, so the bully did not do it again)....
Pinching the bullies arm would have resulted in more bullying(probably), not in stopping the bully.
Leaving the bully without doing anything may have led to harm to the little girl. Some injury perhaps, physical or mental or other.

So, what was actually done was right, was approved of by the adults present, was approved of and appreciated by the little children present , and good clean playtime without the stress of the bullying was accomplished simply with no injuries and no injustice being permitted.

How about a change to that scenario: you find that within the population of 100,000 preschool children there are 1000 bullies who CANNOT be deterred by a simple punch in the nose but CAN be DETERRED by the threat of being burned at the stake. So the government decides to film a preschool age bully being burned at the stake, and the 999 other bullies are forced to watch the video and threatened with a similar punishment.

NOW, wouldn't it be nice if the government could fake the burning of that one preschool age bully using CGI and a lie.

Do you think one or both of those scenarios would be acceptable?
- actually burning one preschooler at the stake
- using lies to terrorize the preschool bullies without actually burning one of them

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How a change to that scenario: you find that within the population of 100,000 preschool children there are 1000 bullies who CANNOT be deterred by a simple punch in the nose but CAN be DETERRED by the threat of being burned at the stake. So the government decides to film a preschool age bully being burned at the stake, and the 999 other bullies are forced to watch the video and threatened with a similar punishment.

NOW, wouldn't it be nice if the government could fake the burning of that one preschool age bully using CGI and a lie.

Do you think one or both of those scenarios would be acceptable?
- actually or burning one preschooler at the stake
- using lies to terrorize the preschool bullies without actually burning one of them

Not even a little bit of any of that makes any sense.

 

[cloudyday2]

Not even a little bit of any of that makes any sense.

Made perfect sense to me - particularly the second option of using CGI to create terror among the preschool age bullies without actually burning any of them at the stake.

Any bullies who continue to misbehave would be taken away to be "burned at the stake" and the other children would be forced to watch the video. But actually the bully would be sent to a special institution called "Bully Town" - a top secret government boarding school where incorrigible bullies could live in isolation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Made perfect sense to me - particularly the second option of using CGI to create terror among the preschool age bullies without actually burning any of them at the stake.

Any bullies who continue to misbehave would be taken away to be "burned at the stake" and the other children would be forced to watch the video. But actually the bully would be sent to a special institution called "Bully Town" - a top secret government boarding school where incorrigible bullies could live in isolation.

That is never the way in Scripture, nor from the Father --- the deception you describe "makes sense" to those corrupted by the world, in line with the world, the pernicious world.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because we need to determine what justice is before we can decide whether a controverted example is just. Therefore we need to build agreement around the idea of justice with common examples first. Only once we have a common understanding of justice can we return to your more complicated examples which include rehabilitation and deterrence.

My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?

I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice.

If the worker agrees to it, it is good, right and just.

 

[Moral Orel]

If the worker agrees to it, it is good, right and just.

If I am a rich land owner, and you are a poor serf, and I offer you a tiny pittance to perform a great deal of work that you only agree to because you are desperate to feed your family, that is not good, right, and just.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If I am a rich land owner, and you are a poor serf, and I offer you a tiny pittance to perform a great deal of work that you only agree to because you are desperate to feed your family, that is not good, right, and just.

If that's the best offer you get, take it ,

or if you don't like it, don't take it.

If agreed upon, it is still good, right, and just.

 

[Moral Orel]

Prmit this example :
A four year old son was at a day care facility with about 25 other small children.
One bully in their midst was pushing a little girl around. She did not like that.
The four year old son punched the bully in the nose, simply. Flat out. No discussion.
The bully stopped. The little girl and everyone else around was happy. It was good.
It was right and just.
(and likely at least a deterrent for a day or longer, so the bully did not do it again)....
Pinching the bullies arm would have resulted in more bullying(probably), not in stopping the bully.
Leaving the bully without doing anything may have led to harm to the little girl. Some injury perhaps, physical or mental or other.

So, what was actually done was right, was approved of by the adults present, was approved of and appreciated by the little children present , and good clean playtime without the stress of the bullying was accomplished simply with no injuries and no injustice being permitted.

• A punch to the nose is much more violent than a shoving, so the response wasn't equitable, and therefore not just.
• You caused the bully to stop shoving, so you rehabilitated him, that is the good that came from punching him.

If he shoved that girl a few times and then stopped for the rest of the day on his own, but the boy came up to him at the end of the day after he wouldn't have any more opportunities to bully, and punched him in the nose just because he deserved a punishment, that would be for the sake of justice, and it wouldn't serve any good.

 

[Moral Orel]

If that's the best offer you get, take it ,

or if you don't like it, don't take it.

If agreed upon, it is still good, right, and just.

It's not good, right, and just of me to make such a small offer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

A punch to the nose is much more violent than a shoving, so the response wasn't equitable, and therefore not just.

Yet it was just, right, and good. (as everyone agreed)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You caused the bully to stop shoving, so you rehabilitated him, that is the good that came from punching him.

I did nothing, and the bully might not have been rehabilitated. That doesn't matter. What was needed to be done at the moment, was good, and right, and was done.


"punishment" no, that would have been something all together different, like his parents taking care of his discipline when he got home, or the day care workers punishing him if in their agreement with the parents (but the day care workers did not have to even get involved in this - they were happy with the quick justice, and did not see a need to administer any punishment at all to anyone).

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet it was just, right, and good. (as everyone agreed)

So if a bunch of people agree on something, that's how we know what is true? You sure about that?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's not good, right, and just of me to make such a small offer.

Making the offer was perfectly legitimate. You can accept it, counteroffer, or not take it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So if a bunch of people agree on something, that's how we know what is true? You sure about that?

It happened, so it is true even if no one agreed.

 

[Moral Orel]

I did nothing, and the bully might not have been rehabilitated. That doesn't matter. What was needed to be done at the moment, was good, and right, and was done.

You said the bully stopped, so he was rehabilitated. What was done was for the good of getting the bully to stop, not for the good of giving the bully what he deserved, so it wasn't for the sake of justice.

 

[Moral Orel]

It happened, so it is true even if no one agreed.

No, you gave "everyone agreed" as the reason that it was right and good.