Hummmm. I've been trying to think what the best way to answer this is. (In some ways I must admit I am more interested in the meta-argument rather than the actual argument itself!)
We have different ideas of what justice is, which means clearly we are going to disagree if something is just. So in someways unless we can agree which definitions we should be using there is really not much point in arguing anything from those definitions!
My thinking is that if you are trying to show that what someone believes is inconsistent then you are obliged to work from their definitions. If you are trying to convince someone that your beliefs fit into their view of the world then you have to work with their definitions, or demonstrate that their definitions are wrong.
Looking back at the thread, I think that your arguement is not that I am being inconsistent, but that my beliefs about God's justice don't fit with your view of justice. So I think the way forward is for me to find out what your definition of justice is and try to establish why I think it is wrong.
So, thinking about justice (and using concepts from our justice system as the basis for what is considered just) I think we need to work out which of the following are part of justice:
1) Wrong-doing being punished 2) Ignorance of the law not being an excuse 3) Claiming the devil made me do it (or I guess modern day: I'm genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour) not being an excuse
(Actually I'm particularly interested in what you think about 2, and whether it should be part of our justice system, and why. I will add, that my argument is not, and will not become, that you being ignorant is not an excuse, as I do not think you are ignorant. Just thought when typing that that is part of our justice system, for quite good reasons.)
I think if you do away with 1 you run into big problems deciding what to do about people who commit "crimes of passion" in the heat of the moment, as deterrence and preventing reoffending, rehabilitation become weaker arguements.
I mention 3 as it might be useful to have a view on if issues about God's sovereignty and our responsibility come up later.
On the whole Hank thing, I'm guessing "kiss Hank's ass" is meant to be a witty metaphor for "repent and believe" and "Hank will beat the shit out of me" is describing God's punishment of sin. In which case I would point out that the Christian claim is not that sin is not punished, but that Christians are in union with Christ who faces that punishment for us. (It is important that I mention that we are united with Christ. Otherwise there is the obvious question of how is it just that someone else is punished for what I've done wrong.)
I'm not convinced God turning up for a chat would really make any difference at all. The last time he did we nailed him to a tree! Out of interest, if you were about at the time, witnessing the miracles Jesus did, do you think you would have followed him, or would you have told him his teaching on hell, for example, were wrong and unjust? I think the main thing greater revelation from God does is help people solidfy the positions they are in already.
Not too sure what you mean by cosmic jobsworth...
Oh, and one final comment. God doesn't need anything, he chooses to achieve his purposes through his means of choice.
Oh dear, that was rather more rambly than my usual comment. I guess mainly as I haven't decided what is the best point to argue. My apologies for that.
Meanwhile at some stage I should probably post something about WAP, and how I think using theories which rely on an multiverse of other universes we can never possibly observe is really rather curious from people who say the evidence for God is not enough! But that's for another time.
Justice
We have different ideas of what justice is, which means clearly we are going to disagree if something is just. So in someways unless we can agree which definitions we should be using there is really not much point in arguing anything from those definitions!
My thinking is that if you are trying to show that what someone believes is inconsistent then you are obliged to work from their definitions. If you are trying to convince someone that your beliefs fit into their view of the world then you have to work with their definitions, or demonstrate that their definitions are wrong.
Looking back at the thread, I think that your arguement is not that I am being inconsistent, but that my beliefs about God's justice don't fit with your view of justice. So I think the way forward is for me to find out what your definition of justice is and try to establish why I think it is wrong.
So, thinking about justice (and using concepts from our justice system as the basis for what is considered just) I think we need to work out which of the following are part of justice:
1) Wrong-doing being punished
2) Ignorance of the law not being an excuse
3) Claiming the devil made me do it (or I guess modern day: I'm genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour) not being an excuse
(Actually I'm particularly interested in what you think about 2, and whether it should be part of our justice system, and why. I will add, that my argument is not, and will not become, that you being ignorant is not an excuse, as I do not think you are ignorant. Just thought when typing that that is part of our justice system, for quite good reasons.)
I think if you do away with 1 you run into big problems deciding what to do about people who commit "crimes of passion" in the heat of the moment, as deterrence and preventing reoffending, rehabilitation become weaker arguements.
I mention 3 as it might be useful to have a view on if issues about God's sovereignty and our responsibility come up later.
On the whole Hank thing, I'm guessing "kiss Hank's ass" is meant to be a witty metaphor for "repent and believe" and "Hank will beat the shit out of me" is describing God's punishment of sin. In which case I would point out that the Christian claim is not that sin is not punished, but that Christians are in union with Christ who faces that punishment for us. (It is important that I mention that we are united with Christ. Otherwise there is the obvious question of how is it just that someone else is punished for what I've done wrong.)
I'm not convinced God turning up for a chat would really make any difference at all. The last time he did we nailed him to a tree! Out of interest, if you were about at the time, witnessing the miracles Jesus did, do you think you would have followed him, or would you have told him his teaching on hell, for example, were wrong and unjust? I think the main thing greater revelation from God does is help people solidfy the positions they are in already.
Not too sure what you mean by cosmic jobsworth...
Oh, and one final comment. God doesn't need anything, he chooses to achieve his purposes through his means of choice.
Oh dear, that was rather more rambly than my usual comment. I guess mainly as I haven't decided what is the best point to argue. My apologies for that.
Meanwhile at some stage I should probably post something about WAP, and how I think using theories which rely on an multiverse of other universes we can never possibly observe is really rather curious from people who say the evidence for God is not enough! But that's for another time.