Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because God doesn't need to use punishment for any of the other goals you listed. And because what is deserved is integral to justice.Why are you limiting the definition in that way? I'm a little puzzled.
If mercy is not just then mercy and justice are not compatible.Both. Because mercy, by definition, is not just. . .but mercy is not injustice either.
Mercy is also undeserved (by definition).
Therefore, mercy and justice are compatible.
How does it not?Shouldn't your [objectively stated] concluding question fit the form of your [subjective] premises?
These definitions are based on the Bible. We all deserve death because of sin and only by grace does God spare some.And there you have it. The "justice" that is expressed in the Bible isn't exactly that which floats around and conceptually morphs within today's Post-Enlightenment/Post-Revolutionary Age, is it?
So then your answer is that you have no idea whether God practices justice or practices mercy.So, who's to say (you say/I say?) that God's Justice (and Judgement) isn't fully compatible with the Mercy and Grace that He extends to humanity?
If practicing justice is good, then not practicing justice is bad. If practicing mercy is good, then not practicing mercy is bad. Are these things not good or bad at all?Which does God practise? Both. No one claims that God is always one or the other.
If mercy is not just then mercy and justice are not compatible.
Seriously? C'mon Nick! C'mon, bud!How does it not?
"Based"? I don't think so. You'll have to delineate the conceptual referent(s) which inform your denotations better than you have in your OP in order to say you've accurately represented the biblical sense of either "justice" or "mercy."These definitions are based on the Bible. We all deserve death because of sin and only by grace does God spare some.
There's nothing for me to answer until you've recognized what it is that you think you've asked. It's that simple. Let's not pretend here like you don't know what's going on. Let's also not pretend here like I don't know what's going on. I know you're far too intelligent and practiced in systems (and their inherent logic) to not know.So then your answer is that you have no idea whether God practices justice or practices mercy.
Both. Because mercy, by definition, is not just. . .but mercy is not injustice either.
Mercy is also undeserved (by definition).
Therefore, mercy and justice are compatible.
All word definitions are necessarily subjective. Are you saying no objective questions can be asked because the terms are subjective?Seriously? C'mon Nick! C'mon, bud!
Both of your premises are situated precisely within subjective terms. You're concluding question in the OP likewise should reflect the same subjectivity level as your premises. But as it stands now, it doesn't, and it seems like you're asking an objective question ...
Take a look at this statement again:"Based"? I don't think so. You'll have to delineate the conceptual referent(s) which inform your denotations better than you have in your OP in order to say you've accurately represented the biblical sense of either "justice" or "mercy."
I think what I've asked is extremely straightforward. You might know what's going on, but let's be honest, historically you've been not so great at speculating on my agenda. Pretty much everyone is bad at guessing my agenda (Christians and atheists alike) though, so that isn't a knock on you personally. I'm an odd duck.There's nothing for me to answer until you've recognized what it is that you think you've asked. It's that simple. Let's not pretend here like you don't know what's going on. Let's also not pretend here like I don't know what's going on. I know you're far too intelligent and practiced in systems (and their inherent logic) to not know.
I would say that a person not receiving a punishment they deserve is injustice. How am I wrong?Let's consider some possible (purely hypothetical) objections that pretty much anyone could make:
Q: What-if someone claims, "If mercy is not just, then mercy and justice are not compatible. Correct?"
A: It's obvious here that the question is simply confusing non-justice with injustice. "Injustice" is a violation of justice. Not all forms of non-justice equal an injustice. Mercy is not justice, but it is not a violation of justice. It's simply mercy, as opposed to justice.
How is it just to not give some folks justice?The problem is you have disconnected the Justice/Mercy from the object of God's intent - some get justice - some get mercy. All God's actions are Just - no one deserves salvation - Jesus paid the price for those who do.
I would say that a person not receiving a punishment they deserve is injustice. How am I wrong?
All word definitions are subjective. We have to start somewhere. Why do you disagree with what I stated injustice is?When someone is making up their own rules, of course they're never wrong.
How is it just to not give some folks justice?
I was just skimming the wikipedia page on "justice" ( Justice ), and there are lots of others ways of thinking about it. What you're describing is probably "retributive justice", and what I'm describing is probably "utilitarian justice".Because God doesn't need to use punishment for any of the other goals you listed. And because what is deserved is integral to justice.
I thought humans deserved death because of sin. Is that not a basic Christian theme?No one deserves anything...
If you start there it is easier to understand.
Okay. Why do you disagree with what I stated injustice is?Some people (honestly anyone, really) might believe that all word definitions are subjective. But they tend to behave inconsistently say, when someone insults them, when they receive a major diagnosis from an MD, or if someone straight-up lies to them.
It is this sort of inconsistent behavior that tends to contradict the belief that all word definitions are subjective. This contradiction becomes progressively clearer the more one interacts with such individuals. If someone insists on making up their own terms on the fly, then that individual simply cannot be trusted, and they're only tearing down their own reputation around themselves. See: Equivocation, doublespeak, and weasel-words.
Yep, retributive justice is the topic. Note that I'm not personally advocating for retributive justice, though. The thing is with death there isn't any major group of Christians talking about any kind of utilitarian justice, only retributive justice. I'm sure there are some, but I'm addressing the bulk of Christians.I was just skimming the wikipedia page on "justice" ( Justice ), and there are lots of others ways of thinking about it. What you're describing is probably "retributive justice", and what I'm describing is probably "utilitarian justice".
I thought humans deserved death because of sin. Is that not a basic Christian theme?
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?
Okay... So humans deserve death because of sin, but you also said that no one deserves anything.Sure is... but He has desired to have fellowship eternally with a family of humans (the church) for whom He sent Jesus to die for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?