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.
Okay. Then I don't understand your objection. You say that some people don't get what they deserve (death) because of God, how is this not unjust?
Then why is it just for God to prevent retributive justice? If retributive justice is good, then no retributive justice is bad.
You never stated what is wrong with how I described injustice. You talked about the subjectivity of words.You mean in-addition to the already extensive explanation I already provided? Nothing more than that.
That doesn't explain what is wrong with my description. Tell me the objective definition of the characters 'c' 'e' 'i' 'j' 'n' 's' 't' 'u' when arranged in this order "i-n-j-u-s-t-i-c-e" then.
Word definitions are a social creation, so I'm going to be one of those analytic voices who will say both yes and no in the same breath. I also mean, if we're going to discuss the extent of which, and the way in which, any one of us can handle some singular concept that isn't ours but is rather "based" on some other time and culture's use of some word, then we're going to get into a deep, deep rabbit hole of Analytic philosophy, none of which am I a master of (even with my degree in Philosophy) [E.G. as follows]
Not exactly. What I'm attempting to say is that if it's clear (objectively) to the rest of us that you couched your premises within your own explicit point of view (i.e. by qualifying them by saying "I would say..."), then when you finally get to your question, it can't just suddenly transform into an objective question, nor necessarily even a subjectively correctly referenced question ...
I'm sorry, but this isn't in your OP. If you want to interject it here as additional data to add to your OP, we can do so, but in doing so, that then slightly changes the hermeneutical and analytic access point into the matrix of meaning you're wanting to cull from and base your inquiry upon.
... well, I'd have you be straightforward all the way through, from your question to being at least partially transparent as to the nature of your "agenda." If I wanted to guess, I'd think your "agenda" is simply to make this thread interesting and bring us into proximity to new dimensions of understanding where our religious language either works... or doesn't ... where God's "justice" and "mercy" are concerned.
Sure it can. Consider the following equation:
I didn't think I needed it in the OP. But you thought I was conceiving of justice and mercy as a result of some postmodern source of philosophy, so I attempted to correct that.
I am being straightforward. I haven't said anything that I didn't mean exactly the way I said it. I'm not an open book, that isn't the same as being straightforward.
Is there something wrong with the way I described injustice or is there not?
Okay. By that level of general-esque inference, then by your OP title and prefacing question, none of us will be able to answer your question, nor should we think we have to since the contextual variant here "God" isn't designated subjectively or objectively by you.
Well, if you didn't think you needed it, and we're going to assume that the value of G = Biblical God prior to any consideration of our subsequent processes involving our synthetic act of analyzing X + Y = Z, then you don't have the subjective freedom to employ your own values into those variables. No, in my hermeneutical expectation, your assigned meaning to those variables should come in objective interpretation by working in tandem with the community of others (Christians?) in order to fill out that expression.
My apologies. Some of my SJW education will leak out here and into my expectancies in discussion with other people. It has something to do with ideas of how Transparency may be an inherent property of a more apropos interaction between us where justice among us human beings is concerned.
