Just or Merciful

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you actually agree with that definition. You've already said that things like mercy are outside and "above" justice. Giving gifts is a good thing to do, and we ought to do good things, but you've said that gifts are neither just nor unjust, ergo not justice.

A long time ago you and I had a discussion on retributive justice that went nowhere. But here when you say justice isn't "a procedural balancing for the sake of balancing" that's exactly what retributive justice is. Justice for the sake of justice. Delivering suffering in response to suffering is intrinsically good, no? I dunno, maybe you've changed your stance on retributive justice in that time, maybe my point from back then will be clearer now in light of exploring what it means to balance scales for the sake of balance.

I dunno what word I'd like to use to describe "promoting good" but it ain't "justice". It's better to do more good than it is to blindly balance scales and you can't have justice without that balance.

Maybe it'd be more beneficial altogether for a discussion that is to take place on a Christian Apologetics forum to deliberate over what the ancient Hebrews/Israelites likely conceptualized as "justice," rather than for us all to go on a wild goose chase where we question whether we think ancient Hebrew ethical and legal thought measures up to Modern notions of justice that many of us currently entertain and which ebb and flow within our brain chemistry.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Justice without mercy is unloving; mercy without justice is degrading.
FRIEDRICH VON BODELSCHWINGH (1831-1910 Lutheran theologian and founder of the Bethel Hospitals)

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe it'd be more beneficial altogether for a discussion that is to take place on a Christian Apologetics forum to deliberate over what the ancient Hebrews/Israelites likely conceptualized as "justice," rather than for us all to go on a wild goose chase where we question whether we think ancient Hebrew ethical and legal thought measures up to Modern notions of justice that many of us currently entertain and which ebb and flow within our brain chemistry.

If you've got some reason to think they conceived of justice as something other than the general principle that "people ought to get what they deserve" let's hear it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you've got some reason to think they conceived of justice as something other than the general principle that "people ought to get what they deserve" let's hear it.

As I mentioned earlier, if I'm going to discuss justice and mercy in relation to the God of the Bible, then I'm going to put front and center the notion (or notions) of "justice" that we find in Scripture and not on the local law books ...

Again, in drawing upon the Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (ed. Joel B. Green) [2011], we find the following lead into the entry for "justice":

The Hebrew noun mishpâṭ [ מִשְׁפָּט] often is translated as "justice" in the OT. Its semantic range, however, is quote broad. It may be translated as "judgement," "verdice," "law or statute," and in the plural it can refer to a code or body of law. Its translated nuance can be determined only in context. Somewhat oddly, there is no real equivalent to this Hebrew term in the Greek of the NT. (p. 434)​

So, basically, the entry here goes on to indicate that the verbal root of מִשְׁפָּט [mishpâṭ] has more to do with excercising powers of governance in order to restore relationships than it does to imply the application of "payment due" upon a perpetrator for evil (although it can include that), with God being the Supreme Arbitrator of the order (and the Covenants) that He intends for His creation to live within.

God's Mercy, then, can als be an aspect of His Justice; and if justice and mercy within God's order are not conceptual antitheses of each other, then there is much less ideolgical conflict for us to muddle through in our understanding. Rather, we might not 'like' how God does things, but He isn't contradictory in all He either is or does.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I mentioned earlier, if I'm going to discuss justice and mercy in relation to the God of the Bible, then I'm going to put front and center the notion (or notions) of "justice" that we find in Scripture and not on the local law books ...

For the record, I'm talking about justice with Zippy right now, and you know he's all about Aquinas, so we aren't working from some modern law book.

Again, in drawing upon the Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (ed. Joel B. Green) [2011], we find the following lead into the entry for "justice":

The Hebrew noun mishpâṭ [ מִשְׁפָּט] often is translated as "justice" in the OT. Its semantic range, however, is quote broad. It may be translated as "judgement," "verdice," "law or statute," and in the plural it can refer to a code or body of law. Its translated nuance can be determined only in context. Somewhat oddly, there is no real equivalent to this Hebrew term in the Greek of the NT. (p. 434)
So, basically, the entry here goes on to indicate that the verbal root of מִשְׁפָּט [mishpâṭ] has more to do with excercising powers of governance in order to restore relationships than it does to imply the application of "payment due" upon a perpetrator for evil (although it can include that), with God being the Supreme Arbitrator of the order (and the Covenants) that He intends for His creation to live within.

So sometimes it means what I'm saying justice means, and sometimes it means other stuff? It sounds like the Israelites held to the concept that "folks ought to get what they deserve" but their language is a little muddy since they used the same words to convey a lot of different meanings.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For the record, I'm talking about justice with Zippy right now, and you know he's all about Aquinas, so we aren't working from some modern law book.

So sometimes it means what I'm saying justice means, and sometimes it means other stuff? It sounds like the Israelites held to the concept that "folks ought to get what they deserve" but their language is a little muddy since they used the same words to convey a lot of different meanings.

No, that's not what I said. It sounds to me like you don't want to have to view this outside of your own conceptual 'box.'

Alright then. Enjoy your day, Nick!

 

[Moral Orel]

No, that's not what I said.

Isn't it this right here:

the application of "payment due" upon a perpetrator for evil (although it can include that)

Isn't this "folks ought to get what they deserve"? How am I mischaracterizing this?

I get that you want to point out that they used "mishpat" to mean other things too. And that's fine, but my question in this thread is, "Should people get what they deserve?" and the answer appears to be "sometimes" even for the Israelites.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

It is possible to do both, He shows mercy to those who repent and justice to those who don’t.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is possible to do both, He shows mercy to those who repent and justice to those who don’t.

So some folks get justice and some folks don't. Why not justice for all? Or if you prefer, why not mercy for all?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Isn't it this right here:

Isn't this "folks ought to get what they deserve"? How am I mischaracterizing this?

I get that you want to point out that they used "mishpat" to mean other things too. And that's fine, but my question in this thread is, "Should people get what they deserve?" and the answer appears to be "sometimes" even for the Israelites.

You're mischaracterizing the essence of biblical (even O.T.) justice. And I'm thinking you do so because you think you have some kind of epistemic and axiological spatula which none of the rest of have ...

 

[Moral Orel]

You're mischaracterizing the essence of biblical (even O.T.) justice. And I'm thinking you do so because you think you have some kind of epistemic and axiological spatula which none of the rest of have ...

Watch what happens when I rephrase the OP and your objections disappear:

Does God do X, or does God do Y?

I would say that doing X is to ensure that people get punishments they deserve.

And I would say that doing Y is to spare people from punishments they deserve.

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

But I haven't really changed anything, have I? Just the labels I put on the concepts I described.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Watch what happens when I rephrase the OP and your objections disappear:

Does God do X, or does God do Y?

I would say that doing X is to ensure that people get punishments they deserve.

And I would say that doing Y is to spare people from punishments they deserve.

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

But I haven't really changed anything, have I? Just the labels I put on the concepts I described.

You're still taking liberties with some epistemic spatula that isn't really in your posession. My view on Subjectivity ("I would say") is more in line with that of Pascal or Kierkegaard or the Philosophical Hermeneuticists, not with that of the general moral relativists ...

... so, forgive me if I just brush aside your alternative phrasing of the OP.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're still taking liberties with some epistemic spatula that isn't really in your posession. My view on Subjectivity ("I would say") is more in line with that of Pascal or Kierkegaard or the Philosophical Hermeneuticists, not with that of the general moral relativists ...

... so, forgive me if I just brush aside your alternative phrasing of the OP.

So you're saying I can't define variables as I please?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you're saying I can't define variables as I please?

No, I'm saying you "may not" define variables as you please where the Bible is concerned. At most, like me, all you can do is begin your biblical inquiry agnositically since we're [objectively] dealing with an ancient, foreign text in which you and I have no direct cultural or contemporary experience.

On top of this, our respective and relative preferences for what we each would like "justice" to be won't be easily applied in any really relevant way to an old text like the Bible, especially when our own ontological notions about justice today are ... kind of slushy.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I'm saying you "may not" define variables as you please where the Bible is concerned.

I don't think you understand how variables work. I, just like anyone else, am free to define any variable as anything I please. You can tell me how the Bible answers my question. But the Bible doesn't say how to define 'X' and 'Y'.

On top of this, our respective and relative preferences for what we each would like "justice" to be won't be easily applied in any really relevant way to an old text like the Bible, especially when our own ontological notions about justice today are ... kind of slushy.

We aren't talking about "justice". We're talking about the concepts I've described and designated 'X' and 'Y'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you understand how variables work. I, just like anyone else, am free to define any variable as anything I please. You can tell me how the Bible answers my question.

Surely you jest.

But the Bible doesn't say how to define 'X' and 'Y'.

Not in the way that we'd like today. No.

We aren't talking about "justice". We're talking about the concepts I've described and designated 'X' and 'Y'.

Ok. We're done here. You know my position from all we've already gone over these past several years, in quite some detail even. There's no need to go over our philosophical differences yet again. So, excuse me while I go debate with some of my fellow Christians instead ...

 

[Moral Orel]

Surely you jest.

No, I'm not jesting. You don't understand how variables work and you demonstrate it with the next line of your post:

Not in the way that we'd like today. No.

No, not in any way about any thing. They're variables, they vary by definition of the term "variable".

I wish I could have taken Algebra with you.

Teacher: "...And so if Y=4 then X=3".
Philo: "I think we need to really study how the ancient Israelites defined 'X'. We can't really conclusively just decide by our modern standards that X=3".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I'm not jesting. You don't understand how variables work and you demonstrate it with the next line of your post:

I think at one time I have understood how variables work, Orel, although lately my memory of all of the pertinent details may be rusty.

No, not in any way about any thing. They're variables, they vary by definition of the term "variable".

Well, here's the thing. It sounds like we're talking past each other here. As a Christian, it isn't my responsibility to overly concern myself with 'how' any other person wants to define the world, or by which system they wish to do so. ... except when they use it to curtail my own freedom.

I wish I could have taken Algebra with you.

Teacher: "...And so if Y=4 then X=3".
Philo: "I think we need to really study how the ancient Israelites defined 'X'. We can't really conclusively just decide by our modern standards that X=3".

ah. Very funny, Nick! (ba-dum-tss!!!)

Actually, I was one of the few who managed to pull an A- out of my College Alegebra class.
--- I know, I know. Like a lot things, it's really hard to believe.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, here's the thing. It sounds like we're talking past each other here. As a Christian, it isn't my responsibility to overly concern myself with 'how' any other person wants to define the world, or by which system they wish to do so. ... except when they use it to curtail my own freedom.

I'm not defining the world. I defined two concepts and I asked you to tell me which one God does. That's you "defining the world". You're free to answer any way you like, or not answer, whatever.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not defining the world. I defined two concepts and I asked you to tell me which one God does. That's you "defining the world". You're free to answer any way you like, or not answer, whatever.

Ok. Here we go. Tell Moral Orel which of the two concepts that he's inserted into an epistemic and metaphysical framework not his own...are things God does.

God does neither of your concepts.