Common Creationist Arguments - Morality

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Morality.shtml ^

[Junior]

Your point being? You cannot argue with her points so you try to discredit her? Interesting tactic -- it's called an ad hominem attack, and is logically worthless.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Good Thought provoking analysis.

[WhiteKnight]

The whole bit about having his son pay for our past & future sins really is an incoherent analogy, IMO. Can you envision a justice system that lets an innocent 3rd party step in & take the real criminal's punishment? We would immediately recognize such a system as unjust and fundamentally flawed. But here it's supposed to be convincing evidence that God is wise and loving???(Loving maybe, but certainly not wise!)

Interesting comment, expected better from you.

WhiteKnight

[jennyp]

Interesting comment, expected better from you.

LOL! Sorry if "interesting" is the best I can come up with today. (Have I raised the bar too high? =:-) What's your opinion of the thinking embodied in the Scapegoat Theory of Justice?

[WhiteKnight]

LOL! Sorry if "interesting" is the best I can come up with today. (Have I raised the bar too high?

One question at a time. No just the opposite.

W.K.

[WhiteKnight]

What's your opinion of the thinking embodied in the Scapegoat Theory of Justice?

My opinion is of little importance. The topic you suggest as God's being unwise, is perfectly logical given certain presuppositions. But you already new that.

W.K.

[Dynamo]

I pray for myself, for the world, and for you. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He loves you and me that much.

Your defiance against the absolute authority weilded by God implies that it was okay for His only Son to be butchered by men, but that the God who created all men has no such right.

I pray for you... and God loves you.

[WhiteKnight]

We would immediately recognize such a system as unjust and fundamentally flawed.

Logically speaking, the system is perfect.

Assumption 1: God demands justice

Assumption 2: God is merciful

Assumption 3: We are discussing the eternal not the temporal

Assumption 4: The entire human race is guilty

Using these basic assumptions, how does a perfect God satisfy the demand for perfect justice and at the same time exhibit perfect mercy?

I believe you already know the answer.

W.K.

[jennyp]

I pray for myself, for the world, and for you. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He loves you and me that much.

Can I ask you the question too, then: Why is this example of what I'd call the "Scapegoat Theory of Justice" a logical one? Can you even visualize a society whose justice system is based on the idea of offering up innocent 3rd parties to stand in punishment for the real criminals' crimes? Would you call it a just society? Would you call it a reasonable theory of justice? Coherent, even? I don't.

This tells me, as much as anything else, that Christianity was dreamed up by men of a very particular time & place.

[WhiteKnight]

See # 29

W.K.

[Admin Moderator]

The next one to post that picture again will be suspended. Knock it off.

[Hajman]

Dynamo: I pray for myself, for the world, and for you. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He loves you and me that much.

jennyp: Can you even visualize a society whose justice system is based on the idea of offering up innocent 3rd parties to stand in punishment for the real criminals' crimes?

Invalid comparison. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. In your example, others offer the innocent. The willing and the enforced.

-The Hajman-

[jennyp]

Using these basic assumptions, how does a perfect God satisfy the demand for perfect justice and at the same time exhibit perfect mercy?

Obviously the perfect solution is to visit harm on yet another innocent party - "the scapegoat". </sarcasm>

I can see at least 2 problems with your scenario. First, the assumption that all humans are guilty. Guilty of what? Are you referring to Original Sin? That's another very flawed parable, IMO. Basically we're guilty just for existing as humans in the first place. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for living! I accept no guilt for the so-called crime of merely existing, nor for anything my distant ancestors may have done.

The second problem is the scapegoat. Just thinking off the top of my head, a rigorously just yet merciful response would simply entail forgiveness of whatever actual sins we as individuals commit, and for which we truly repent & try to pay back the damages. I think the whole idea of "mercy" is based on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge. It's simple, to the point, and deals with the debt the criminal owes to the victim. No 3rd parties need to become victims of the justice system. A much better system, IMO.

[AndrewC]

on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge.

Where is that right established?

[jennyp]

Invalid comparison. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. In your example, others offer the innocent. The willing and the enforced.

Mmmmm... well, true, offering oneself to do the time for another's crime is less bad than being forced to, but it still doesn't make sense. I mean - if "fall guy" was a recognized occupation, what do you think the going rate would be to get someone to do a 2-5 sentence in a medium-security prison? etc. (There's a dystopian novel there somewhere!)

Look, I can understand how a believer in God would be comforted by His willingness to forgive us our transgressions if we repent, but many Christians seem to be moved by the symbolism of Jesus the Willing Fallguy. It's that metaphor specifically that makes no sense to me.

[jennyp]

on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge.

Where is that right established?

I think victims have the right of restitution at least. Revenge (punishment of the criminal) seems to be society's attempt at the next best thing.

It's the only way to enforce our inalienable right to property, which comes from our right to life. There's no way a society that recognizes the general right of theft could survive, and enforcing proportional punishment of some kind flows pretty clearly from that prohibition.

[Hajman]

Mmmmm... well, true, offering oneself to do the time for another's crime is less bad than being forced to, but it still doesn't make sense. I mean - if "fall guy" was a recognized occupation, what do you think the going rate would be to get someone to do a 2-5 sentence in a medium-security prison? etc. (There's a dystopian novel there somewhere!)

Look, I can understand how a believer in God would be comforted by His willingness to forgive us our transgressions if we repent, but many Christians seem to be moved by the symbolism of Jesus the Willing Fallguy. It's that metaphor specifically that makes no sense to me.

It wouldn't make much sense looking at it from a human point of view. The reason why is because Jesus wasn't the 'fall guy'; Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. In other words, him being the 'fall guy' (as you put it) was enough to clean our wrongdoing. Why not just let the wrongdoer do that himself? Because it failed. It couldn't do what was needed. The small peice of the equation in here that you're missing is perfection, something man doesn't have (and so man's system won't work in the big scheme of things).

-The Hajman-

[PatrickHenry]

There's no way a society that recognizes the general right of theft could survive, and enforcing proportional punishment of some kind flows pretty clearly from that prohibition.

Well put. It's virtually self-evident, as it were.

[PatrickHenry]

The small peice of the equation in here that you're missing is perfection, something man doesn't have (and so man's system won't work in the big scheme of things).

If I may jump in, it seems rather like the "progressive" income tax, coupled with the welfare system. Destroy the very best, as an undeserved gift to the rest of us. I never looked at it this way before. These discussions are an excellent stimulant.