Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objection to Christian concept of Justice

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 5:40:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
By Christian Justice what I have in mind is the the claim about the atonement of Jesus death by crucifixation.

At the core of this claim is about how its just to transfer punishment to an innocent person to "pay" for the guilt/sin/wrongdoing etc of some one else, and thus the guilty person no longer has to be punished.

Sure that is one concept of justice here is another, which some argue is a superior concept of justice.

The superior concept of justice is that......

1) The innocent are to not be punished for something they are not responsible for.

This of course seems much more inline with our moral intuitions, even christians who adhere in religious belief to the penal atonement of Jesus death in normal everyday life practice this principle, after all when was the last time a christian demanded that some one on death row/in jail be released as they would take the "punishment" themselves, and even if they did it would be rejected on the grounds of the moral principle don't punish the innocent for something they are not responsible for.

Ill anticipate some objections....

1) But Jesus accepts the punishment voluntarily

Even if some one accepts the punishment voluntarily it still violates that moral intuition and its seems more asserted than reasoned that a voluntary act of accepting some one else's punishment some how makes a critical difference to the above moral intuition.

2) We accept some one else voluntarily paying some one else's debts, Jesus atonement is like that

But It seems to me we make a distinction between severity of crimes. Even if we accept that some one can pay some one else debt for lesser crimes this moral intuition doesn't seem to extend to more serious crimes such as rape and murder.

As mentioned before we would reject that a murder/rapist go free and in place punish a willing person in their place and then think to our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, It violates our moral intuitions at the most fundamental level.

So the proposition is this, that the atonement penal theory of Jesus death or what ever its called should be rejected on the basis of being quite "unjust" and/or morally untenable and/or morally inferior.

If you want to defend this christian concept of justice against my objections lets hear it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 5:47:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It does seem very odd. Jesus suffered on the cross according to the bible, but he didn't suffer that much. Certainly not enough to retributively atone for the sins of every person who has ever existed on the planet. I can only assume the actual doctrine is different from what it's usually taken to be. Or, you know, Christianity is false and the authors made a mistake. :p
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.newadvent.org...
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'

This doesn't address my moral reasoning does it ?

This ain't church, just posting dogma ain't gonna cut it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:53:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:14:20 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'

This doesn't address my moral reasoning does it ?

On the contrary, it shows why your second anticipated objection to the 'superior concept of justice' is valid. We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense. If they were able to, there would be no problem.

This ain't church, just posting dogma ain't gonna cut it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:19:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:53:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:14:20 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'

This doesn't address my moral reasoning does it ?

On the contrary, it shows why your second anticipated objection to the 'superior concept of justice' is valid. We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense. If they were able to, there would be no problem.

It unclear how even if we grant in a situation that an innocent can "give more" makes a fundamental difference.

If we find it offensive to our moral intuitions the idea that a murder or rapist go free, cause we punished a volunteering Innocent, and once again telling our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, I don't know about you, but my moral intuitions doesn't change one bit even if I grant that the volunteering innocent "gave more".

I think its questionable your assertion that..."We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense."

I think the moral principle of not punishing the innocent is more fundamental and more inline with moral intuitions, your claims about not accepting the punishment of the innocent because they are unable to offer an adequate amount, not so much.


This ain't church, just posting dogma ain't gonna cut it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:21:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But ill think on it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:24:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:19:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:53:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:14:20 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'

This doesn't address my moral reasoning does it ?

On the contrary, it shows why your second anticipated objection to the 'superior concept of justice' is valid. We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense. If they were able to, there would be no problem.

It unclear how even if we grant in a situation that an innocent can "give more" makes a fundamental difference.

If we find it offensive to our moral intuitions the idea that a murder or rapist go free, cause we punished a volunteering Innocent, and once again telling our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, I don't know about you, but my moral intuitions doesn't change one bit even if I grant that the volunteering innocent "gave more".

Let's say we had a rapist who had honestly and truly repented of his crime in full, there was no chance that he would ever rape someone again (somehow you know this with 100% certainty, call it magic) or do anything bad again; in fact he'd become a model citizen if he was let free, but he had been condemned to death.

If I come along and say 'Hey, I really took a liking to this rapist for some reason. If I cut off my finger, I can magically unrape the rape victim, and it's like the rape never happened. Only problem is I have to cut off my finger, but I want to cut off my finger because I love the rapist and don't want him to be killed.'

If you accept my deal, the rape victim is unraped (magic!), the ex-rapist goes free, and I voluntarily chop off my finger. What's immoral about this?

I think its questionable your assertion that..."We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense."

I think the moral principle of not punishing the innocent is more fundamental and more inline with moral intuitions, your claims about not accepting the punishment of the innocent because they are unable to offer an adequate amount, not so much.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:27:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:40:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
By Christian Justice what I have in mind is the the claim about the atonement of Jesus death by crucifixation.

At the core of this claim is about how its just to transfer punishment to an innocent person to "pay" for the guilt/sin/wrongdoing etc of some one else, and thus the guilty person no longer has to be punished.

Sure that is one concept of justice here is another, which some argue is a superior concept of justice.

The superior concept of justice is that......

1) The innocent are to not be punished for something they are not responsible for.

This of course seems much more inline with our moral intuitions, even christians who adhere in religious belief to the penal atonement of Jesus death in normal everyday life practice this principle, after all when was the last time a christian demanded that some one on death row/in jail be released as they would take the "punishment" themselves, and even if they did it would be rejected on the grounds of the moral principle don't punish the innocent for something they are not responsible for.

Ill anticipate some objections....

1) But Jesus accepts the punishment voluntarily

Even if some one accepts the punishment voluntarily it still violates that moral intuition and its seems more asserted than reasoned that a voluntary act of accepting some one else's punishment some how makes a critical difference to the above moral intuition.

2) We accept some one else voluntarily paying some one else's debts, Jesus atonement is like that

But It seems to me we make a distinction between severity of crimes. Even if we accept that some one can pay some one else debt for lesser crimes this moral intuition doesn't seem to extend to more serious crimes such as rape and murder.

As mentioned before we would reject that a murder/rapist go free and in place punish a willing person in their place and then think to our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, It violates our moral intuitions at the most fundamental level.

So the proposition is this, that the atonement penal theory of Jesus death or what ever its called should be rejected on the basis of being quite "unjust" and/or morally untenable and/or morally inferior.

If you want to defend this christian concept of justice against my objections lets hear it.

I don't necessarily have too fully understand it (although I'm beginning to) I just have to accept it; and I accept it by the free gift of faith..

Usually atheists want to have both ways; they say 'how can I be held accountable if I'm prone to sin and why do we need a perfect sacrifice'..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:30:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As you should probably know, there's more atonement theories out there than the penal substitution theory....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:36:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:24:11 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:19:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:53:50 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:14:20 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:07:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:02:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:56:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org...

Is there something specific you wanted to draw my attention do ?

'I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Question 46, Article 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."'

This doesn't address my moral reasoning does it ?

On the contrary, it shows why your second anticipated objection to the 'superior concept of justice' is valid. We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense. If they were able to, there would be no problem.

It unclear how even if we grant in a situation that an innocent can "give more" makes a fundamental difference.

If we find it offensive to our moral intuitions the idea that a murder or rapist go free, cause we punished a volunteering Innocent, and once again telling our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, I don't know about you, but my moral intuitions doesn't change one bit even if I grant that the volunteering innocent "gave more".

Let's say we had a rapist who had honestly and truly repented of his crime in full, there was no chance that he would ever rape someone again (somehow you know this with 100% certainty, call it magic) or do anything bad again; in fact he'd become a model citizen if he was let free, but he had been condemned to death.

If I come along and say 'Hey, I really took a liking to this rapist for some reason. If I cut off my finger, I can magically unrape the rape victim, and it's like the rape never happened. Only problem is I have to cut off my finger, but I want to cut off my finger because I love the rapist and don't want him to be killed.'

If you accept my deal, the rape victim is unraped (magic!), the ex-rapist goes free, and I voluntarily chop off my finger. What's immoral about this?

Nah you have lost me on this.

1) The whole chopping of the finger, is that mean't to be a substitute punishment for the rapists punishment ?

2) I don't see what you getting at about asking me if I accept the deal, this is about dealing with punishment within the larger concept of justice, not whether I or anyone else are accepting deals.

3) Unrape ? really ?


I think its questionable your assertion that..."We don't accept an innocent person atoning for serious crimes because they are unable to offer something the offended one loves more dearly than they detested the offense."

I think the moral principle of not punishing the innocent is more fundamental and more inline with moral intuitions, your claims about not accepting the punishment of the innocent because they are unable to offer an adequate amount, not so much.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:36:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your moral objection is not valid, God is the only objective source for morality. Without an objective source, you have no basis for claiming anything to be moral or immoral. It's simply your individual preference, and has no authority over anyone else's beliefs. With that kind of subjectivity you could pick anything at all out of the Bible and call it immoral, but all it really means is that you, personally, don't like it or don't agree with it. You do have the freedom to reject that objective moral idea, but your rejection has no bearing on it's objectivity.

As for the rest of the argument, it's by God's grace that we are forgiven of our trespasses by the sacrifice of one man. Jesus' love and forgiveness, of even His killers, was sufficient to wipe away our sins in the eyes of God.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:50:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:36:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Your moral objection is not valid, God is the only objective source for morality. Without an objective source, you have no basis for claiming anything to be moral or immoral. It's simply your individual preference, and has no authority over anyone else's beliefs. With that kind of subjectivity you could pick anything at all out of the Bible and call it immoral, but all it really means is that you, personally, don't like it or don't agree with it. You do have the freedom to reject that objective moral idea, but your rejection has no bearing on it's objectivity.

As for the rest of the argument, it's by God's grace that we are forgiven of our trespasses by the sacrifice of one man. Jesus' love and forgiveness, of even His killers, was sufficient to wipe away our sins in the eyes of God.

Well that's nice you can just claim anything you want, and no matter what objections or discrepences some one points out, must be nice to live in a bubble, where your beliefs are protected from reason, scrutiny etc.

Your sir now go in the fundy coloum. Let the adults talk ok ? Same goes for you christopher blows, then again no one expected any differently from you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:19:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:30:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
As you should probably know, there's more atonement theories out there than the penal substitution theory....

In fact, my main man George MacDonald wrote a particularly scathing piece on penal substitution that, I think, highlights it's deficiencies.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:23:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:19:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:30:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
As you should probably know, there's more atonement theories out there than the penal substitution theory....

In fact, my main man George MacDonald wrote a particularly scathing piece on penal substitution that, I think, highlights it's deficiencies.

Yeah but Pop, the bible says............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:24:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:50:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:36:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Your moral objection is not valid, God is the only objective source for morality. Without an objective source, you have no basis for claiming anything to be moral or immoral. It's simply your individual preference, and has no authority over anyone else's beliefs. With that kind of subjectivity you could pick anything at all out of the Bible and call it immoral, but all it really means is that you, personally, don't like it or don't agree with it. You do have the freedom to reject that objective moral idea, but your rejection has no bearing on it's objectivity.

As for the rest of the argument, it's by God's grace that we are forgiven of our trespasses by the sacrifice of one man. Jesus' love and forgiveness, of even His killers, was sufficient to wipe away our sins in the eyes of God.

Well that's nice you can just claim anything you want, and no matter what objections or discrepences some one points out, must be nice to live in a bubble, where your beliefs are protected from reason, scrutiny etc.

Your sir now go in the fundy coloum. Let the adults talk ok ? Same goes for you christopher blows, then again no one expected any differently from you.

The pot calls the kettle black...lol. Are you not protecting your own views from scrutiny by putting dissenters in the fundy column?? Atheists can be fundies too, ya know.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:41:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:24:20 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:50:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:36:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Your moral objection is not valid, God is the only objective source for morality. Without an objective source, you have no basis for claiming anything to be moral or immoral. It's simply your individual preference, and has no authority over anyone else's beliefs. With that kind of subjectivity you could pick anything at all out of the Bible and call it immoral, but all it really means is that you, personally, don't like it or don't agree with it. You do have the freedom to reject that objective moral idea, but your rejection has no bearing on it's objectivity.

As for the rest of the argument, it's by God's grace that we are forgiven of our trespasses by the sacrifice of one man. Jesus' love and forgiveness, of even His killers, was sufficient to wipe away our sins in the eyes of God.

Well that's nice you can just claim anything you want, and no matter what objections or discrepences some one points out, must be nice to live in a bubble, where your beliefs are protected from reason, scrutiny etc.

Your sir now go in the fundy coloum. Let the adults talk ok ? Same goes for you christopher blows, then again no one expected any differently from you.

The pot calls the kettle black...lol. Are you not protecting your own views from scrutiny by putting dissenters in the fundy column?? Atheists can be fundies too, ya know.

When I try to explain some objections to a certain beliefs and concepts, you know beliefs that are just blaseted by people with a certain book in hand, people who claim God must punish sin, then tell me God can do what he wants, then tells me oh without God there is no objective morality tell me God did this, God did that, but then I and other people notice that some problems appear in their claims, when put together, some holes seem to emerge in their concept of justice.

So medic, I try probe their concept of Justice and explain some objections that can be raised, sure some try to deal with the reasoning, then there are f*ck tards who feel threatened, so they just retreat to some bullsh*t tactics, you know like blasting some bible verses, so yeah in that case, I form the view they are being fundys. I dunno medic, am I being just as bad.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:50:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And medic that moral intuition I mentioned before, I bet you have it too. That moral reasoning I was talking about, I bet you have it too. Now sure, you may have to perform some interesting mental gymanstics to make it square with certain religious beliefs about human atonement sacrifices, but never the less, its still there, just something to think about before you blast me and my moral reasoning.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:47:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It does seem very odd. Jesus suffered on the cross according to the bible, but he didn't suffer that much. Certainly not enough to retributively atone for the sins of every person who has ever existed on the planet. I can only assume the actual doctrine is different from what it's usually taken to be. Or, you know, Christianity is false and the authors made a mistake. :p

Sure, because you know what being stripped from an eternal love relationship feels like for a necessary being. I'm sure words wouldn't describe it bud.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:30:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:36:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Nah you have lost me on this.

1) The whole chopping of the finger, is that mean't to be a substitute punishment for the rapists punishment ?

2) I don't see what you getting at about asking me if I accept the deal, this is about dealing with punishment within the larger concept of justice, not whether I or anyone else are accepting deals.

3) Unrape ? really ?

Never mind, I'm retarded and I won't be able to explain this properly.

It's pretty much the second objection, except that it does truly apply to the most heinous of crimes, as long as an equal compensation can be found.

If some guy owes me five dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up five dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

If some guy owes me ten billion dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up ten billion dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

The reason I think it's difficult to envision this for some of the greater crimes is because there's no way to imagine compensation for them. How can you, for example, compensate a rape victim for being raped? Compensate a murder victim for being murdered? You can't really, but if someone could do that for you and was willing to, that would be okay.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:30:06 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:36:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Nah you have lost me on this.

1) The whole chopping of the finger, is that mean't to be a substitute punishment for the rapists punishment ?

2) I don't see what you getting at about asking me if I accept the deal, this is about dealing with punishment within the larger concept of justice, not whether I or anyone else are accepting deals.

3) Unrape ? really ?

Never mind, I'm retarded and I won't be able to explain this properly.

It's pretty much the second objection, except that it does truly apply to the most heinous of crimes, as long as an equal compensation can be found.

If some guy owes me five dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up five dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

If some guy owes me ten billion dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up ten billion dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

The reason I think it's difficult to envision this for some of the greater crimes is because there's no way to imagine compensation for them. How can you, for example, compensate a rape victim for being raped? Compensate a murder victim for being murdered? You can't really, but if someone could do that for you and was willing to, that would be okay.

Okey I think I got a better idea where your coming from. But I still think my original objection in in tact here is why......

1) Once again we have money analogies, even at 10 billion dollars, it still just money, but once again when you try to extrapolate that same volunteer paying principle to a rapist it doesn't work with our moral reasoning. We clearly recognize something different about crimes concerning money say crimes against people, like rape murder. We see rape and murder in a whole different realm, even for arguments sake we grant that the rape victim is compensated, it still doesn't seem to work.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 2:54:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:05:36 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:30:06 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:36:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Nah you have lost me on this.

1) The whole chopping of the finger, is that mean't to be a substitute punishment for the rapists punishment ?

2) I don't see what you getting at about asking me if I accept the deal, this is about dealing with punishment within the larger concept of justice, not whether I or anyone else are accepting deals.

3) Unrape ? really ?

Never mind, I'm retarded and I won't be able to explain this properly.

It's pretty much the second objection, except that it does truly apply to the most heinous of crimes, as long as an equal compensation can be found.

If some guy owes me five dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up five dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

If some guy owes me ten billion dollars, so I tell him 'Pay up or I'll kill you' and his brother scrounges up ten billion dollars and pays me on the guy's behalf, that's fine.

The reason I think it's difficult to envision this for some of the greater crimes is because there's no way to imagine compensation for them. How can you, for example, compensate a rape victim for being raped? Compensate a murder victim for being murdered? You can't really, but if someone could do that for you and was willing to, that would be okay.

Okey I think I got a better idea where your coming from. But I still think my original objection in in tact here is why......

1) Once again we have money analogies, even at 10 billion dollars, it still just money, but once again when you try to extrapolate that same volunteer paying principle to a rapist it doesn't work with our moral reasoning. We clearly recognize something different about crimes concerning money say crimes against people, like rape murder. We see rape and murder in a whole different realm, even for arguments sake we grant that the rape victim is compensated, it still doesn't seem to work.

Let's say the rape victim is unraped. Then what's the problem? Seems to work fine for me.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:11:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 2:54:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:


Let's say the rape victim is unraped. Then what's the problem? Seems to work fine for me.

I don't think the claim about being unraped is even conceivable. You can't conceive of a circle that is both 100% red and green at the same time. Just try to conceive of a women who is raped but that same women later becomes unraped.

Either the rape happended or it didn't you can't unrape.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:15:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:11:17 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 2:54:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Let's say the rape victim is unraped. Then what's the problem? Seems to work fine for me.

I don't think the claim about being unraped is even conceivable. You can't conceive of a circle that is both 100% red and green at the same time. Just try to conceive of a women who is raped but that same women later becomes unraped.

Either the rape happended or it didn't you can't unrape.

That's why it's a hypothetical. The rape happened. Somehow, it was magically undone by a third party who didn't want the rapist to suffer. What would the problem be?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:40:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:15:35 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:11:17 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 2:54:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Let's say the rape victim is unraped. Then what's the problem? Seems to work fine for me.

I don't think the claim about being unraped is even conceivable. You can't conceive of a circle that is both 100% red and green at the same time. Just try to conceive of a women who is raped but that same women later becomes unraped.

Either the rape happended or it didn't you can't unrape.

That's why it's a hypothetical. The rape happened. Somehow, it was magically undone by a third party who didn't want the rapist to suffer. What would the problem be?

Oh I don't do hypotheticals, that's like lying to your brain. (30 Rock joke).

But seriously, even with a hypothetical you still have to conceive of that hypothetical, and I can't conceive of what "unrape" is any more I can conceive of a circle that is all red and all green at the same time.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 4:48:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 4:40:29 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:15:35 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/15/2012 3:11:17 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/15/2012 2:54:39 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Let's say the rape victim is unraped. Then what's the problem? Seems to work fine for me.

I don't think the claim about being unraped is even conceivable. You can't conceive of a circle that is both 100% red and green at the same time. Just try to conceive of a women who is raped but that same women later becomes unraped.

Either the rape happended or it didn't you can't unrape.

That's why it's a hypothetical. The rape happened. Somehow, it was magically undone by a third party who didn't want the rapist to suffer. What would the problem be?

Oh I don't do hypotheticals, that's like lying to your brain. (30 Rock joke).

How else do you expect to determine the morality of a third party providing equal compensation for a major crime then?

But seriously, even with a hypothetical you still have to conceive of that hypothetical, and I can't conceive of what "unrape" is any more I can conceive of a circle that is all red and all green at the same time.

Let's change it to murder. The person was murdered. They came back to life through the intervention of a third party who wants the murderer to not be punished. What's wrong with this?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:06:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:47:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It does seem very odd. Jesus suffered on the cross according to the bible, but he didn't suffer that much. Certainly not enough to retributively atone for the sins of every person who has ever existed on the planet. I can only assume the actual doctrine is different from what it's usually taken to be. Or, you know, Christianity is false and the authors made a mistake. :p

It was the fact that the Son of God was sacrificed, not that he suffered. Did he suffer? Sure. But what's relevant is not that -as a Mel Gibson film so graphically portrayed- that he was flogged, beaten and tortured. What is relevant is that he was without sin, assumed the sins of the world and triumphed over death.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:40:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
By Christian Justice what I have in mind is the the claim about the atonement of Jesus death by crucifixation.

At the core of this claim is about how its just to transfer punishment to an innocent person to "pay" for the guilt/sin/wrongdoing etc of some one else, and thus the guilty person no longer has to be punished.

Sure that is one concept of justice here is another, which some argue is a superior concept of justice.

The superior concept of justice is that......

1) The innocent are to not be punished for something they are not responsible for.

This of course seems much more inline with our moral intuitions, even christians who adhere in religious belief to the penal atonement of Jesus death in normal everyday life practice this principle, after all when was the last time a christian demanded that some one on death row/in jail be released as they would take the "punishment" themselves, and even if they did it would be rejected on the grounds of the moral principle don't punish the innocent for something they are not responsible for.

Ill anticipate some objections....

1) But Jesus accepts the punishment voluntarily

Even if some one accepts the punishment voluntarily it still violates that moral intuition and its seems more asserted than reasoned that a voluntary act of accepting some one else's punishment some how makes a critical difference to the above moral intuition.

2) We accept some one else voluntarily paying some one else's debts, Jesus atonement is like that

But It seems to me we make a distinction between severity of crimes. Even if we accept that some one can pay some one else debt for lesser crimes this moral intuition doesn't seem to extend to more serious crimes such as rape and murder.

As mentioned before we would reject that a murder/rapist go free and in place punish a willing person in their place and then think to our selves, yes this is good and acceptable, It violates our moral intuitions at the most fundamental level.

So the proposition is this, that the atonement penal theory of Jesus death or what ever its called should be rejected on the basis of being quite "unjust" and/or morally untenable and/or morally inferior.

If you want to defend this christian concept of justice against my objections lets hear it.

The punishment is damnation, not an earthly execution, which Christ's crucifixion atoned for. That's the punishment of relevance. Crucifixion was only the initiating act, in that it ended his life that he may enter into hell and proclaim God's triumph to rise three days later.

The idea here is simple: earthly sin begets eternal damnation. Take note of the fact that two levels are in play here (life on earth and life in eternity).

If there is earthly sin, then people merit eternal damnation.
Jesus triumphed over eternal damnation.
Sin is forgiven (i.e. negated, meaning that damnation is no longer a punishment that follows.)

If that doesn't make sense, just let me know and I'll try to clarify further.

So, let's move on to your proposition that "The innocent are to not be punished for something they are not responsible for."

On earth, yes. It's a different calculus in questions of salvation and damnation, as I have described above.

"But Jesus accepted the punishment voluntarily."

Yes, he was crucified, died and was buried... Three days later rose, and etc.

Read the Apostles Creed. That might explain things more clearly.

"We accept some one else voluntarily paying some one else's debts, Jesus atonement is like that"

Sin is sin, but what's interesting is that it's not only the things we do, but the fact that we were born with original sin that merits our damnation. This rather goes against the philosophy of the enlightenment we have all become so familiar with, but Christianity presupposes a view of human nature more akin to Hobbes than Locke or Rousseau. And yes, human justice NOW regards a punishment as something which must be matched to a crime. This hasn't always been the case. It was once the case that stealing a loaf of bread could get a person hanged or sent to London Tower. It was once the case that stealing could result in a hand chopped off or adultery could merit a beheading. In some parts of the world that is still the case. Read, if you are interested Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and Foucault's Discipline and Punish if the genealogy of human morality and the means by which we address wrongdoing are subjects that interest you.