Jobar

This thread is an offshoot of the 'Is God Love?' thread.

I know many of the believers here say that God's love is tempered by his justice, and his justice is tempered by his love. I think that we have here a self-contradiction and the attempt to hide it.

Love and justice are mutually exclusive. If we love someone, we do not want justice for them; it is impossible to love someone who we think requires justice.

Justice is always involved with crime and suffering- sin and evil in the theistic parlance. Justice may inspire good feelings- we all say we want justice done. But if it is done *to* us, we do not feel it as just (and certainly not good) unless we are convinced of the wrongness of our own actions; that is, unless we truly repent. Repentance is supposedly the goal of human justice, but in fact the punishment aspect predominates; prisons, police, courts, all see 'justice' as the incarceration or execution of criminals, not heart-felt repentance by criminals.

If God is loving, as a being of ultimate power he does not need to be just. And if he is just, then he cannot always love the creatures upon whom he visits justice. It's another aspect of the PoE, I think.

Bill Snedden

Hmmm. I don't know that I'd agree. I can imagine, for instance, a mother grieving for her beloved son who'd been executed for murder. She doesn't love him any less because she believes him guilty. She might wish the punishment hadn't been so severe, but I don't think that believing that a loved one is subject to the meting out of justice automatically means that one cannot love that person.

There are also documented examples of parents & children going to the law to turn in their children or parents for crimes they've committed. I don't think it necessarily means they love them any less. So, I don't see any necessary reason why the love of justice must exclude the love for those who deserve justice.

However, I do think there is another issue with "love" and "justice" as they are often used in these sorts of arguments. The so-called "unknown purpose" defense, in its many guises, seems to me an ineluctable retreat into moral skepticism. Such a retreat necessarily means that we cannot evaluate the moral qualities of God's alleged actions. This would include "justice."

In other words, if we cannot evaluate God's actions as "good" or "evil" because we cannot know his ultimate purpose, then necessarily we cannot evaluate his actions as "just" or "unjust". Therefore, any theist who uses UP in an attempt to escape the PoE, must also necessarily eschew any attempt to describe God as "just".

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Inconnu

Justice could be described as "striving for balance". This can be stated simply in bible speak as "an eye for an eye", its only a metaphor to demonstrate balance, not a threat . It may have emotive connotations but it need not always be interpreted so. This give us "balanced love". It boils down to how you interpret love, I can see how love can be conditional. I think i may have wandered off on this a bit Is this in essence what you are saying Jobar?

Jet Grind

You raise some interesting points. However, I think that the real problem with the idea of an omnobenevolent God in Christianity comes from the fact that, from the very beginning, he seems to have just given us enough rope to hang outselves. If we are all natrually sinners, and we get punished for it, how do we get out? Oh yeah, I forgot, we must accept Jesus! What an outstanding mouse-trap they've made here.

I don't understand why anyone could find such things believable.

Albert Cipriani

Bravo Bill!
You are absolutely right: Jobar is absolutely wrong.

Seriously, I agree with everything you said... for once!

Jobar, I worry for your psychological maturity if you honestly find love and justice mutually incompatible. If you really do feel this way, you would make a lousy father.

I hope you do not deem that insulting. I mean it as a matter of fact and by "you" I mean anyone who shares your apparently one-dimensional view of love and justice. Humans are far more emotionally complex than you seem to imagine. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Dr. Retard

Now, "justice" is a pretty contestable word. But all the same, I dont think it always deals with punishment for crimes.

Suppose you reward good behavior with praise. Or you reward a benefactor with your sincere gratitude. That looks like justice to me.

K

Albert Cipriani:

If you would punish a child to exact some measure of justice rather than to teach and to guide, it's your parenting skills I would question. A good parent punishes when necessary to help a child in his/her social development. I can't even imagine what kind of parent punishes to mete out justice - essentially punishing for the sake of punishment.

Albert Cipriani

K says:
Seeing as your statement is a false dichotomy, it's your thinking skills that I would question. Non-Dichotomously Not Yours, Albert the Traditional Catholic

K

Albert Cipriani:

Then please explain how meting out justice is such an important part of parenthood. You implied that Jobar would make a lousy father for failing to do just that. How exactly does justice fit into the equation of determining good parenting?

Remember that justice, as far a God is concerned, has nothing to do with teaching. God's justice is simply a scorched earth form of retribution. It's an eternal punishment for a momentary transgression - punishing for the sake of punishment. I'm quite interested to know how this kind of justice has any connection whatsoever to a good parent.

Albert Cipriani

Dear K,
I hesitate to answer you as I doubt whether to take you seriously. But since we have had some good dialogues in the past, I will sequester my suspicions, suspend my disbelief, and tell myself that you are not simply trying to anger me.

We are all born with a sensible appetite as well as a supernatural appetite for justice. (See this Other Thread for a more detailed explanation) Just as my mother had to prevent me from trying to eat my toys and dog shit and encourage me to eat my lima beans, so too, do parents need to mold a child’s native sense of justice. Catholic theology refers to this process as the formation of conscience.

Children learn how to talk and walk and acquire all of their most important skills through emulation, not through dialogue. Ergo, if parents are to have any hope of forming their children’s nascent sense of justice, parents must mete out justice rather than attempt to justify themselves through dialoguing with their children.

This sounds like someone with serious authority issues that need working out, like someone who could have been parented by someone with Jobar’s revulsion to punishment.

“Punishment for the sake of punishment” is the definition of sadism, not justice. Reality for the sake of reality is the principle whereby I live my life. Unreality for the sake of unreality is the principle whereby evil people live their lives.

Heaven and hell are the same reality apprehended by different sorts of beings. If you’ve developed a taste for reality, your hungers will be sated. If you’ve developed an aversion for reality, you will suffer aversion ad nauseam.

Evil people love illusion and so do their evil in the dark to avoid the revelation of light. When they die, the only difference will be that they can’t take the darkness of this world with them. So all their illusions will be stripped away and they will no longer be able to do what they’ve come to enjoy doing best -- avoid reality.

Who the damned are and the damnable things they want to do will therefore be painful to them. If you choose to call this state of affairs a punishment, then you have as distorted a view of what constitutes punishment in the afterlife as you do in terms of good parenting skills. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic