Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 01-06-2002, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SeaKayaker:
<strong>David Gould,

Thanks for the reply.

Speaking hypothetically, if a person were to do something deserving of infinite torture (I realize that this assumes that it is possible to do something so bad that it is deserving of infinite torture), would infinite torture then be just for that person?

SeaKayaker</strong>

Hi SeaKayaker,

I have been away so I apologise for the delay in my response.

My contention is that under the standard human definitions of the word 'just' and 'good' torture cannot be either. Therefore, your hypothetical merely points to what I was saying earlier - for God to be just and good and use torture, the words must be redefined. Such redefinition makes the words meaningless in a human sense and thus God can be anything he wants to be, say anything he wants to and do anything he wants to ans still claim legitimately (under his definitions) to be just, good, truthful, righteous et cetera. This does not help your cause.

David

David Gould · 01-06-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SeaKayaker:
<strong>David Gould, Grizzly, et alii:

Sorry for the long delay, but I have been thinking about this one.

Having considered this issue more fully, I think that it makes a false assumption: that either God operates on the basis of the human definition of justice or on some unknowable definition of justice. I think that our definitions of justice differ, since yours is independent of God whereas mine is dependent upon Him. I would like to think that, for me, there is no difference in the definition of justice between God and man. However, for the person who does not believe that God exists, the same would not be true. Seeing this, I realize that your definition of justice differs from God’s definition.

So, what does this mean for our discussion? It raises the issue of which definition of justice is the better. At this point, I will say that yours is better (more logical) for the atheist, and mine for the Christian (I realize that I am leaving out other theists, but they would likely either fit in with the Christian or have yet another definition of justice). Leaving that issue, though, we come to the conclusion in your argument, that Christians have as much to fear from a God who is not just by the human definition as you do. For now, my main point is that God’s definition of justice may differ from yours, but that does not mean that it is an unknowable void. Through His word, we can see how He acts. Sure, there are cases of His judgment (always on guilty people, I might add), but we can see that He has offered a way of redemption through His Son.

Does this make sense to you?

SeaKayaker</strong>

Unfortunately, it does not make sense to me. All you are doing is admitting my premise - God is not just and good according to the standard definition. Thus, you have as much to fear from him as I do.

Please give your Christian definition of good and just with biblical references. This would help me understand what you are saying.

David

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.