Something Wicknight posted over yonder...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

In order to question whether God's justice is valid or not we must try and define what we think justice is in the first place.

Couldn't agree more.

I have my own questions above trying to establish what you guys consider justice to be

Would it be just for the State to accept a mother going to jail for 15 years because her son raped someone, while the son is freed?

Would it be just for a mother to go to jail for 15 years because her son raped her, while the son was freed?

So a son rapes his mother. His mother feels that to serve justice someone must pay for this crime against her. Her daughter steps up and says she will pay for what the son has done to her mother. The mother, not wanting the son to go to jail agrees and locks the daughter up in the prison for 15 years.

If you want to take a crack at them.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So let us assume that your son is accused of a crime and is subsequently tried and found guilty and sentenced accordingly, say 20 years in prison. Now you appeal to the judge for clemency because you know your son will not survive even 2 years in prison let alone 20. But the judge says that the law is the law and he must pay the price for his crime. But you insist and even offer to do the time yourself so that your son might go free. Lets assume that the judge conceded to your appeal and lets your son go free and sends you down instead. Would you regard that as justice? Yes or no will suffice.

No, absolutely not.

I see no purpose in the context of justice that such an act would serve. I can understand the father appealing that the judge (or the person who the son has harmed) forgive the son or appealing that since he will no doubt die in jail the sentence does not fit the crime, but the father doing the time instead of the son is pointless from the view of establishing justice.

If you disagree I would ask you try and explain what purpose you think it serves in the context of justice. Do you think justice is served so long as someone, doesn't matter who, does the sentence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If no, then should the situation arise in real life would you not do the time for your son, knowing that just 2 years in prison would actually kill him?

That is a different question to whether it would be just to do so. I probably would but that doesn't mean justice is served. I would probably try and cheat justice to try and spare my son suffering, but I wouldn't be under any illusion that this would be the just thing to do. My son would in effect be getting off scot free which is not just, and I would going to prison for something I didn't do, which equally is not just.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let us assume that you would, but you still don't agree that it amounts to justice being served.

It is like you are reading my mind

Soul Winner wrote: »

But after three years in prison you start reading books about law and you come across an article which actually outlines the legality of a father doing time in their offspring's stead if they (the father) believe that the sentence would eventually end up killing their offspring. What that would mean is that even though you disagree with the law book about justice, the law of the land states that it is legal and therefore justice would be served should that situation arise.

Again that is a different issue. I'm sure there have existed civilisations where you could serve someone elses sentence, particularly among family members. For example a husband could make his wife serve his sentence, since he in effect owned her. Or you could inherit your fathers guilt and have to do time for his crime if he was dead.

But I wouldn't consider any of these systems just, and few if any of them still exist in the world as they don't fit any notions of justice. Basically when it came time to explain how any of these systems were just no one could (a bit like the situation we find ourselves in now). They were invented for reasons other than justice, and they were done away with because they couldn't be justified from the point of view of justice.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is the same with what God says justice is and what we think justice should be. You might disagree or simply not understand God's justice but that does not mean that it isn't justice.

True, but it still means I don't understand. And by the looks of this thread a lot of Christians don't understand it either.

The closest anyone has come to explaining something that was logical based on what we understand as justice was yourself and I get the impression that as you are explaining it to me you are still sorting it out in your own head.

Which is all perfectly fine, there are lots of things in your religion that are believed on faith, things that you don't understand exactly why God did what he did but you believe he knows best.

The issue I've always had is the claim of the justice of Jesus' sacrifice was the idea that this should be easily understood by humans, and if I don't get it there is something wrong with me, not something wrong with the story being understandable. It has been preached to me more times that I can count that God is justice and what happened with Jesus was to serve this justice. Now if the concept of justice that was being served is unknown to humans then this is pointless.

If the claim had been this is justice because God says it is justice and we don't have to understand that we simply have to accept it, then there is no issue from me. I already don't believe God exists, so that means nothing to me.

raah!

Jakkass wrote: »

Ush1: I've read a lot of his stuff before. The point is, it isn't the argument that's problematic, it's the way that he's set up his assumptions or presuppositions a priori.

I think this sort of thing arises out of people just constantly reading conclusions and then waving them about as true without ever having understood the motivating logic. An obvious example is the popular science people like to cite. A list of nice simplified conclusions for people to take and apply without any actual understanding.

This disinclination to start from the start of a theory, at it's assumptions, has led much of these new atheists to hold notions of objective truth. They don't know logic requires assumptions, and thus they believe that all their positions have been arrived at through "objective reasoning".

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I think this sort of thing arises out of people just constantly reading conclusions and then waving them about as true without ever having understood the motivating logic. An obvious example is the popular science people like to cite. A list of nice simplified conclusions for people to take and apply without any actual understanding.

This disinclination to start from the start of a theory, at it's assumptions, has led much of these new atheists to hold notions of objective truth. They don't know logic requires assumptions, and thus they believe that all their positions have been arrived at through "objective reasoning".

Ummm...pop over to the A&A forum and ask them about objective truth in science and see how far you get :pac:

Anyway, what does this have to do with the question of the justice of the crucification? Are you guys taking the line PDN took that without first being a believer in Christianity (and spiritually awaken) you won't be able to understand the justice of the crucification?

Jakkass seems to be saying I won't understand it if I hold to my assumptions, but he seems at a loss to explain what those assumptions are and how they stop me understanding? Is the assumption he is talking about that there is no God? If that is the case is it necessary to believe in God to understand the crucification?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Jakkass seems to be saying I won't understand it if I hold to my assumptions, but he seems at a loss to explain what those assumptions are and how they stop me understanding? Is the assumption he is talking about that there is no God? If that is the case is it necessary to believe in God to understand the crucification?

I've mentioned them by name at least twice in this thread. Unless at a loss means having listed them that is!

raah!

Nothing really, ush's post just annoyed me, it's not really relevant to the thread. Apologies for de-railing.

So far I have yet to meet an atheist on this forum (or any new atheist) who doesn't think they hold the position they do because it is simply objectively true. And if anyone else were to excercise their reasoning in a straightforward and unbiased way, they would not be able to help but be an atheist. I've heard that about a million times. Maybe it's wrong, and maybe I have a bad sample size.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I've mentioned them by name at least twice in this thread. Unless at a loss means having listed them that is!

No you mentioned Ush1's assumptions, and have yet to explain what that has to do with this thread or what my assumptions are.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

So far I have yet to meet an atheist on this forum (or any new atheist) who doesn't think they hold the position they do because it is simply objectively true.

I find that impossible to believe since you have spend a good deal of time interacting with regular posters from the A&A forum, including myself. And since none of us believe humans can know something is absolutely true I'm left concluding you simply didn't understand their (or my) position. But this is, as you say, rather off the topic. Like I said pop over to the A&A forum and ask them about science and knowing something is true. That should clarify any misunderstandings pretty sharp-ish.

philologos

Wicknight: Please read the whole thread!

Ush1

raah! wrote: »

Nothing really, ush's post just annoyed me, it's not really relevant to the thread. Apologies for de-railing.

So far I have yet to meet an atheist on this forum (or any new atheist) who doesn't think they hold the position they do because it is simply objectively true. And if anyone else were to excercise their reasoning in a straightforward and unbiased way, they would not be able to help but be an atheist. I've heard that about a million times. Maybe it's wrong, and maybe I have a bad sample size.

What about my post is not relevant to the thread exactly?

The poster who posted the original question seems to be struggling to get a clear, concise answer. This is blatently obvious.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

No you mentioned Ush1's assumptions, and have yet to explain what that has to do with this thread or what my assumptions are.

He's assumed my assumptions.;)

This is getting a tad tiresome...

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: Please read the whole thread!

I've read the whole thread I still can't find where you explained why me believing God doesn't exist stops me from understanding the logic of the crucification. Like I already said, I don't believe Han Solo existed either.

This seems to be just PDN's argument that you can't understanding it unless you believe? Would that be correct?

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

This is getting a tad tiresome...

Agreed.

If people don't actually have an answer to the question, if they just want to preach that I'm spiritually dead in side or some such and thus can't understand what they apparently see so clearly, I would much prefer they just didn't bother posting. Telling me they understand but are unable to explain it to me is rather pointless.

It just gets in the way of genuine posters such as Soul Winner who are actually interested in discussing this topic with me and attempting to explain and understand themselves the logic behind the crucifixion.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

I've read the whole thread I still can't find where you explained why me believing God doesn't exist stops me from understanding the logic of the crucification. Like I already said, I don't believe Han Solo existed either.

This seems to be just PDN's argument that you can't understanding it unless you believe? Would that be correct?

And it would seem the logical follow on from that, correct me if I'm wrong, would be that it is pointless to ask a question regarding Christian faith if you are not already a Christian? You just wouldn't understand.

As PDN said, non believers are akin to trying to teach a cat algebra.

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

And it would seem the logical follow on from that, correct me if I'm wrong, would be that it is pointless to ask a question regarding Christian faith if you are not already a Christian? You just wouldn't understand.

As PDN said, non believers are akin to trying to teach a cat algebra.

Well that assumes I accept what PDN and Jakass are saying. Naturally I don't. There are a ton of stories that I don't believe actually happened yet I can still see them as consistent in their internal logic. Star Wars being the one I've already used.

it seems little more than a deflection tactic, hiding the fact that they themselves don't really understand it, and I'm really not interested in silly theological posturing.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that assumes I accept what PDN and Jakass are saying. Naturally I don't. There are a ton of stories that I don't believe actually happened yet I can still see them as consistent in their internal logic. Star Wars being the one I've already used.

it seems little more than a deflection tactic, hiding the fact that they themselves don't really understand it, and I'm really not interested in silly theological posturing.

That's a fair point. To be honest I think the answers you will get may tell you more about the individual posters than any actual answer to your query.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

I find that impossible to believe since you have spend a good deal of time interacting with regular posters from the A&A forum, including myself. And since none of us believe humans can know something is absolutely true I'm left concluding you simply didn't understand their (or my) position. But this is, as you say, rather off the topic. Like I said pop over to the A&A forum and ask them about science and knowing something is true. That should clarify any misunderstandings pretty sharp-ish.

Well, I'll note this in the future. I hope you're not thinking of just substituting the word "absolute" with "99.95%". But yes, I'll take note of this, and bring it up. This is most certainly inconsistent with the vast majority of any of the attitudes I've encountered so far. But then again, on this particular topic I have not conversed with most of the posters, perhaps only one or two.

Tbh, If I asked people about knowing things are true, I think they would say somethign along the lines of "science shows us things are true". "No other form of reasoning can verify things". Anyway, I'll bear this in mind, and be sure to ask about people's epistemological foundations before I interact with them.

Edit: Ush

What about my post is not relevant to the thread exactly?

I was talking about my own post. My post was de-railing the thread.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

This seems to be just PDN's argument that you can't understanding it unless you believe? Would that be correct?

One could begin to understand it if one is willing to accept that it is possible that God can exist, and that it is possible that He could bring Jesus into the world.

If one is to assume that all things are material, and if one is to assume that there is no way that a God could exist as a result of the previous due to the fact that God is immaterial, then of course logically from that assumption there is absolutely no way that this could happen. I would agree with you if I shared your assumptions about God. Since I don't that's another story.

What I do agree with PDN's assessment on is that non-believers certainly cannot gain as full an understanding of God, because the Spirit is not in them. Paul argues this in 1st Corinthians quite clearly.

I think PDN is coming from this Scriptural understanding:

1 Corinthians 2:14 wrote:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

1 Corinthians 1:18 wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

PDN holding the Scripture as an authority seems to hold this point of view also. Of course I welcome him to correct me if I am wrong.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

One could begin to understand it if one is willing to accept that it is possible that God can exist, and that it is possible that He could bring Jesus into the world.

I think you'll find most atheists regard a possibility for God.

philologos

If one is to assume that all things are material. One cannot regard God as a possibility, unless one is willing to challenge their assumption that all is material. In the case of Jesus paying the price for the sins of the world, this becomes rather relevant.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

One could begin to understand it if one is willing to accept that it is possible that God can exist

Again I'm not following why you think this is a requirement?

I spent 6 years studying Shakespearian plays, none of which actually happened. To understand the logic and motivation of the characters in these plays it was not necessary to believe they were really.

Jakkass wrote: »

If one is to assume that all things are material, and if one is to assume that there is no way that a God could exist as a result of the previous due to the fact that God is immaterial, then of course logically from that assumption there is absolutely no way that this could happen.

But Jakkass that has nothing to do with the question. The question has never been could this happen?

The question is what notions of justice are the reasons for the crucification consistent with. From the point of view of serving justice the crucification seems pointless. Soul Winner and others have argued it wasn't that it served a point of justice and we are discussing what that was. It has nothing to do with whether it actually happened or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

What I do agree with PDN's assessment on is that non-believers certainly cannot gain as full an understanding of God, because the Spirit is not in them.

If that is your position that is fair enough, but it makes the idea that there is a rational and understandable reason for the crucification that should be clear to non-believers and people who have not yet accepted Christianity ring hollow. I'm perfectly happy with the answer that to a non-believe the crucification doesn't make sense, that would certainly explain why it doesn't make sense.

But that is a vastly different answer to the idea that it does make sense, it is easy to understand you just aren't following it, which is what these questions are often met with.

It can't be both, both easy to understand yet incomprehensible unless you are already a believer.

philologos

^^ They have everything to do with the question. They directly determine the outcome. Therefore, it would be more prudent to tackle the actual assumptions.

I'm following it quite clearly. Largely the reason I can believe that Christ is crucified, is that I believe that there is a wholly just Creator God, who cares for humanity so much that He does not want to exercise His wrath on us. If God doesn't exist, or if the world is material, this is a no go. It just doesn't work.

As for not understanding and the Spirit. Dare I say, nobody would understand on any real level unless God's Spirit had been working through them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ They have everything to do with the question. They directly determine the outcome.

The outcome of what?

Seriously I think you are a totally different page to what is being discussed here. The question is nothing to do with could this happen, did this happen, is the story true, was Jesus really crucified or anything like that.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm following it quite clearly. Largely the reason I can believe that Christ is crucified, is that I believe that there is a wholly just Creator God, who cares for humanity so much that He does not want to exercise His wrath on us.

That is not the issue. The question is not was he crucified. The question is not what was the reason he was crucified.

The question is was the reason given for the crucification consistent with notions of justice.

Jakkass wrote: »

If God doesn't exist, or if the world is material, this is a no go. It just doesn't work.

God existing or not existing doesn't change the reason given for the crucification.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for not understanding and the Spirit. Dare I say, nobody would understand on any real level unless God's Spirit had been working through them.

Which makes claims that these topics can be rationally discovered some what pointless, wouldn't it?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Tbh, If I asked people about knowing things are true, I think they would say somethign along the lines of "science shows us things are true".

If they do they don't understand science. A corner stone principle in science is that we cannot determine anything is actually true (thus ruling out the possibility that it is false). We can only build support for the position that it is true through examination of tests that should fail if it wasn't true (this is known as falsifiability). The more times the theory (a model of what we believe is happening) passes these tests the more confidence we have that the model is accurately reflecting the reality. But at no point can we ever say it is completely accurate and the theory is true.

raah! wrote: »

"No other form of reasoning can verify things".

That is a different issue. Verifying theories doesn't prove they are true, but it does increase the confidence in the theories.

No other system comes close to science in this regard. Which is why there is one theory of electro-magnetism (which may still be wrong) and thousands of religions.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

If they do they don't understand science. A corner stone principle in science is that we cannot determine anything is actually true (thus ruling out the possibility that it is false). We can only build support for the position that it is true through examination of tests that should fail if it wasn't true (this is known as falsifiability). The more times the theory (a model of what we believe is happening) passes these tests the more confidence we have that the model is accurately reflecting the reality. But at no point can we ever say it is completely accurate and the theory is true.

Well I wasn't talking about what science is, I was talking about what people on those forums say. I do not equate atheism with science.

That is a different issue. Verifying theories doesn't prove they are true, but it does increase the confidence in the theories.

No other system comes close to science in this regard. Which is why there is one theory of electro-magnetism (which may still be wrong) and thousands of religions.

Maths... any other system which relies on deductive reasoning? Anyway, nevermind this, it's off topic.

Ush1

raah! wrote: »

Well, I'll note this in the future. I hope you're not thinking of just substituting the word "absolute" with "99.95%". But yes, I'll take note of this, and bring it up. This is most certainly inconsistent with the vast majority of any of the attitudes I've encountered so far. But then again, on this particular topic I have not conversed with most of the posters, perhaps only one or two.

Tbh, If I asked people about knowing things are true, I think they would say somethign along the lines of "science shows us things are true". "No other form of reasoning can verify things". Anyway, I'll bear this in mind, and be sure to ask about people's epistemological foundations before I interact with them.

Edit: Ush


I was talking about my own post. My post was de-railing the thread.

Okay, so what about my post annoyed you?

Marcus.Aurelius

PDN wrote: »

How do you make that flying leap of logic?

Are you implying that God said "keep the change"?

Morbert

While I admire the story of Jesus's sacrifice for us. I have to admit that the justice explanation doesn't sit right with me.

PDN wrote:

The point of the sacrifice is not to compensate God for the loss He has received because of our sin. Justice is very different from compensation.

...

A father may pay a fine on behalf of his son. That is still justice.

If all that matters for justice to be served is compensation, then I would agree that paying up on behalf of someone else is sufficient. But if justice isn't about compensation, then I wouldn't see that as just at all.

I always understood the crucifixion story as a story of God coming with us in our suffering, so that we would always be able to return from it. A shepherd who stays with lost sheep, and experiences the cold and hardship with them, in case they ever decide they want to go back home.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

The question is what notions of justice are the reasons for the crucification consistent with.

..if that is your position that is fair enough, but it makes the idea that there is a rational and understandable reason for the crucification that should be clear to non-believers and people who have not yet accepted Christianity ring hollow.

I remember a discussion between yourself and myself on this very subject which broke down at the point where I held justice to rightly involve punishment (something which is part-reflected in our very own justice system). You disagreed. You saw the punishment element of 'justice' as antiquated and not in keeping with your more utilitarian, 'modern' notions.

It might be that the Corinthians statement about an unbelievers inability to understand is well exampled in this. In your economy, there is no such thing as wrong - just the man-animal acting in ways that society would be 'better off' without. And so you restrict justice to incarceration for societies protection (utilitarian) and would promote rehabilitation programmes (as an efficient way to prevent reoccurance). This latter too, a utiliarian view of justice.

Without a knowledge* of the transcendent nature of wrong you have no ability to see wrongness as something rightly attracting punishment. And so it will never appear "rational and understandable" to you. The problem however need not necessarily reside in the the deploying of the Corinthians statement. It could just as easily be true and you blind.


*the world and his brother, despite unbelief, already know in their heart of hearts that there is such a thing as transcendent wrong - this fact underscored by their justice systems (whether primitive or modern) incorporating a punishment element. A fact undescored by a common sense of morality. And a fact underlined by the certainty thatpreviously justice-utilitarians will scream bloody murder at the wrong done to them when they themselves become victims.

Your own rejection of transcendency would appear to lie at the extreme borders of all viewpoints. It is not one shared as vociferously by very many.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I remember a discussion between yourself and myself on this very subject which broke down at the point where I held justice to rightly involve punishment (something which is part-reflected in our very own justice system). You disagreed. You saw the punishment element of 'justice' as antiquated and not in keeping with your more utilitarian, 'modern' notions.

I did, but I also said that this was a modern concept, not the case for the ancient civilizations around the time of the Bible.

Concepts like an eye for an eye seem out of date to us in an age when we closely and systematically study social and psychological behavior and view social order as more than simply punishing those who harm us. But they wouldn't have to a middle eastern tribes man 4,000 years ago. That doesn't mean we don't understand it though, more that we have transcended it as our goals have changed.

So in relation to this discussion I would be happy with an explanation of the sacrifice fo Jesus that made sense based simply in the terms and logic of those ancient people but even then there seems to be little forthcoming, only some rather muddled answers that seem to brake down when applied to situations other than Jesus' sacrifice, which would seem to show they are not general notions of justice at all but rather just special cases created solely to get the Jesus sacrifice event to pass standards of justice.

Faced with that nearly everyone on this forum apart from Soul Winner has retreated to the interesting but ultimately pointless (in relation to my understanding) position that without Christian faith you can't understand the logic of why this was just.

Which of course is fine I'm sure there are plenty of things you guys think only become understandable after conversion.

But if that is the conclusion of the Christians here then it brings the discussion some what to an end. The reason I don't understand it is because it is not understandable.

It is necessary for me to possess some unknown quantity that clarifies why this sacrafice was just but strangely makes me and anyone else with the quantity unable to articulate the logic to others, including fellow Christians it seems.

It become just something you know without understand why you know, I guess.

I would hope you appreciate that this is rather unsatisfactory as an answer to a non-believer like myself as it is rather indistigiousable from you guys simply not understanding a central tenant of your religion particularly well while pretending you to with the cavat that while you do understand it really well you can't explain it to me.

I have not given up by any means that there is an understandable logic at play here, though I suspect that if someone perhaps more knowledgeable in this area does arrive at a logical and understandable reason (again Soul Winner has got awful darn close more than once) there will be a lot of back tracking from the position that it is not understandable to a position of "See!!! We told you it made sense!!" :pac:

TravelJunkie

hi wicknight

You really can't understand why God thought sending his Son was justice?

Ok, well, how about if you just give him credit that seeing as he is the wronged party, as well as Judge, then he can actually decided that it is justice.

But that is not what it is about.

Why did God do it? For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...

To understand why it is justice - in Gods eyes - is going to be very difficult for you.

Can you understand what your neighbour truly feels - let alone God?

Or do you fancy yourself as God?

I think I know what you're getting at. I thought you were trying to understand the crucifixion because of some kind of interest in it personally, about How and Why God saves, but it seems you're trying to find a reason as to why someone would 'Write such a Story' .

The fact that you, such an intelligent person, couldn't rationally come up with such an explanation, makes it obvious that this isn't Human logic. It's Gods logic. Or, Gods wisdom rather, we can't assume there is logic as we know it.

So agree to disagree - with God.

If he exists....

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

hi wicknight

You really can't understand why God thought sending his Son was justice?

Nope, I don't see how the wrong against God can be righted by just more wronging against God. If I had my house burnt down I wouldn't think justice was righted by having my son hit by a bus.

The question is really that simple. There was a claim that this was done for justice, and then an explanation that seems to have little bearing on any concept of justice I'm familiar with. So to me there seems to be a disconnect from what is being claimed and the explanation for it.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Why did God do it? For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...

To understand why it is justice - in Gods eyes - is going to be very difficult for you.

Perhaps, but I seem to not be alone in this

It seems rather difficult to most people. A lot of posters here can tell me it was justice but seem to have a hard explaining how exactly, explaining the concept that is being fulfilled here.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Can you understand what your neighbour truly feels - let alone God?

Or do you fancy yourself as God?

God understanding this isn't really relevant. The question is can the rest of us understand it, and articulate that understanding. So far the answer seems to be a resounding no, though I still hold out hope. I'm really waiting for Soul Winner to get back as he seems to be the only one who has given this question much thought.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I did, but I also said that this was a modern concept, not the case for the ancient civilizations around the time of the Bible.

Concepts like an eye for an eye seem out of date to us in an age when we closely and systematically study social and psychological behavior and view social order as more than simply punishing those who harm us. But they wouldn't have to a middle eastern tribes man 4,000 years ago. That doesn't mean we don't understand it though, more that we have transcended it as our goals have changed.

I think my point was that we haven't transcended it.

The motivation for a punishment element in the criminal justice system connects directly to the sense of wrongness having being done - quite aside from utilitarian motivations or extenuating factors (which fall under the umbrella of things psychological - and by which I take you to mean 'a means to assign responsiblity to anywhere but the perps own heart').

It wasn't (and isn't) the suggestion that punishment is the only thing happening at the cross but that punishment was (and is) a valid element in justice - a fact agreed upon, nigh on universally, by both the worlds justice systems and the worlds victims. In so far that you deny that, this part of the answer will never be "rational and understandable" to you. This, not because it isn't rational and understandable but because you deny what the world and his brother ... and you, when you yourself are the victim ... accepts.

So in relation to this discussion I would be happy with an explanation of the sacrifice fo Jesus that made sense based simply in the terms and logic of those ancient people but even then there seems to be little forthcoming, only some rather muddled answers that seem to brake down when applied to situations other than Jesus' sacrifice, which would seem to show they are not general notions of justice at all but rather just special cases created solely to get the Jesus sacrifice event to pass standards of justice.

Perhaps you could bring me up to speed regarding the areas of difficulty you have? The punishment for punishment sake element is argued above - although we parted company on that before. What else do you not see as understandable?

It is necessary for me to possess some unknown quantity that clarifies why this sacrafice was just but strangely makes me and anyone else with the quantity unable to articulate the logic to others, including fellow Christians it seems.

It's a trite point but I think you do understand but you prefer to deny because of the consequences for your unbelief. Like I say, come "you: the victim" time you will find yourself desiring the requirement that the perp be punished for punishments sake.

I have not given up by any means that there is an understandable logic at play here, though I suspect that if someone perhaps more knowledgeable in this area does arrive at a logical and understandable reason (again Soul Winner has got awful darn close more than once) there will be a lot of back tracking from the position that it is not understandable to a position of "See!!! We told you it made sense!!" :pac:

I'm not sure that wrong-attracts-punishment can be dissected any further than stemming from holiness' response to evil. It, like the laws of nature, is the way it is. It's your refusal to accept the dog-in-the-street view (supposing to be able to deny all until it can be shown rationally and logically) that seems to be the source of the difficulty.

Your perogatve (stemming from your philosophically rationalist underpinnings). Not necessarily a weakness in 'our' case. There'd be dozens of unbelievers who'd have no problem with punishment for punishments sake afterall.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In so far that you deny that, this part of the answer will never be "rational and understandable" to you.

I'm not denying that. The issue has never been do we, humans, deserve punishment for disobeying God. That is taken as a given in this situation.

The issue is how does Jesus' suffering fulfill that notion of justice. We do something wrong, and we deserve punishment. But we don't get punished instead Jesus gets punished and this is supposed to fulfill standards of justice.

While Christians may proclaim this as a wonderful thing Jesus did for us that still doesn't explain what notion of justice was fulfilled by it, the idea that someone else can be punished instead of you for what you did and that is still just.

Are you of the belief that when someone does something wrong it is satisfactory to fulfill notions of justice that someone else, anyone, gets punished for this? That it does not necessarily have to be the person who did the crime in the first place (ie the person deserving of punishment)?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a trite point but I think you do understand but you prefer to deny because of the consequences for your unbelief.

That is a rather redundant argument as it works under the assumption that if this story made sense it would therefore have to be true and therefore I would be required to worship God. Which is not the case.

I believe Hitler existed, that doesn't require me to be a National Socialist

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that wrong-attracts-punishment can be dissected any further than stemming from holiness' response to evil.

The issue isn't wrong-attracts-punishment. That, as I said is taken as a given.

The issue is wrong-attracts-punishment and it doesn't matter who gets punished.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not denying that. The issue has never been do we, humans, deserve punishment for disobeying God. That is taken as a given in this situation.

Okay. I was merely highlighting your previous denial of the proper place of punishment in justice as a practical application of the Corinthians passage. I was attempting to show that the problem lay in you (and your denial of what the dog in the street accepts regarding justice) and not in the Christian argument. And that might be the case elsewhere. Let's see...

The issue is how does Jesus' suffering fulfill that notion of justice. We do something wrong, and we deserve punishment. But we don't get punished instead Jesus gets punished and this is supposed to fulfill standards of justice.

While Christians may proclaim this as a wonderful thing Jesus did for us that still doesn't explain what notion of justice was fulfilled by it, the idea that someone else can be punished instead of you for what you did and that is still just.

Onto this problem then.

Consider the scenario of a guarantor. Someone who stands behind the debtor and says "if they can't pay then I will". It happens all the time with teenage boys hire-purchasing their first motorcycle. Here's a case of the defaulter - the teenage boy - not paying the price and a substitute paying instead.

Justice is concerned that the debt be paid. It's quite happy that a substitute does the paying so long as any substitute is rightfully (let's say: freewillingly) introduced by the parties involved.

Rather than query whether Christs substitution is "logical or understandable" (because the basis of such 'fair play' lies in conventions stemming from mankinds innate sense of justice rather than something that can be derived from some absolute principles) we must look to our justice systems in general. Do they include punishment? Yes. Thus punishment is not out of place in the case of Christ. Do they contain substitution? Yes. Thus substitution isn't out of place in the case of Christ

Are you of the belief that when someone does something wrong it is satisfactory to fulfill notions of justice that someone else, anyone, gets punished for this? That it does not necessarily have to be the person who did the crime in the first place (ie the person deserving of punishment)?

I've no principled problem with substitution (although the thoughts of the magnitude of what Christ did can fill me with the same kind of awe you get when looking at a star filled sky). If someone is prepared to pay my debt in my place then I see no problem. Remember however that the transaction doesn't come free - there is an accounting exercise to be considered. The teen who has defaulted has an indebtedness to his father - not necessarily for the money so much as a debt of gratitude. In practice you might find that this debt of gratitude expended in increased love for the father. So is it with God. God pays my debt which automatically results in my being indebted to him - that indebtedness expressing itself in love and obedience. And so God is 'repaid' in a currency that he values. His suffering for my love of him.

That is a rather redundant argument as it works under the assumption that if this story made sense it would therefore have to be true and therefore I would be required to worship God. Which is not the case.

I believe Hitler existed, that doesn't require me to be a National Socialist

You are of course correct. But if arriving at an intricately woven tapestry that reconciles at such fine points as "the worlds justice systems as an expression of an innate sense of justice" you would be faced with having to suppose a bunch of sheepherders cobbling such a tale together. You're never going to get proof this side of God turning up at your door. Until that point you need only ask "where does the evidence point". If dismissing a sealed argument then the onus would be on your head - something your innate sense of justice sould accept as rightfully attracting condemnation.

God hasn't an insurmountable problem with you choosing condemnation. Your choice is something he is awaiting.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. I was merely highlighting your previous denial of the proper place of punishment in justice as a practical application of the Corinthians passage. I was attempting to show that the problem lay in you (and your denial of what the dog in the street accepts regarding justice) and not in the Christian argument. And that might be the case elsewhere. Let's see...

I'm aware of what you were doing but it was based on the false assumption that I'm using my own notions of modern justice applied to this case and that was the issue because my modern notions of justice can't explain Jesus sacrifice. I'm not and it isn't the issue. The issue is that I can't find any notions of justice that explain Jesus' sacrifice.

In fact the answer to this question will come when someone explains what notion of justice applies here. I don't have to agree with it to understand it (I don't agree with eye for an eye but I understand the concept).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider the scenario of a guarantor. Someone who stands behind the debtor and says "if they can't pay then I will". It happens all the time with teenage boys hire-purchasing their first motorcycle. Here's a case of the defaulter - the teenage boy - not paying the price and a substitute paying instead.

Justice is concerned that the debt be paid. It's quite happy that a substitute does the paying so long as any substitute is rightfully (let's say: freewillingly) introduced by the parties involved.

Yes that has been discussed already but it really isn't what we are talking about here. As PDN said earlier -

The point of the sacrifice is not to compensate God for the loss He has received because of our sin. Justice is very different from compensation.

What you are describing is compensation rather than justice.

You can see this when you apply it to something other than money. Would any justice system, ancient or modern, view it as justice for me to go to prison for a murder my brother committed while he got off scott free?

No, I don't think so because punishment is different to money. Money is neutral, it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you owe me €100 I don't care if I get it from you or your father because €100 is €100. All I want is €100.

Justice is not the same. We want the person who did the crime to be punished. Punishing someone else is irrelevant. Your father serving 20 years in prison is not the same as you serving 20 years in prison for murder. That doesn't add up to the same thing it would if it was money.

Which is why this analogy with money breaks down because it is not like for like.

I do appreciate though that you are attempting to explain and figure it out yourself rather than simply dismissing the question because I'm spiritually dead inside :P

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than query whether Christs substitution is "logical or understandable" (because the basis of such 'fair play' lies in conventions stemming from mankinds innate sense of justice rather than something that can be derived from some absolute principles) we must look to our justice systems in general. Do they include punishment? Yes. Thus punishment is not out of place in the case of Christ. Do they contain substitution? Yes. Thus substitution isn't out of place in the case of Christ

But they don't included substitution in terms of justice, only in terms of compensation and this isn't an issue of compensation.

Again no justice system I'm aware of would feel it is justice that I go to prison for my brothers crime. That would serve no purpose since I haven't done anything and he would be freed and suffer no consequence of his actions.

Punishment is not neutral like money is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If someone is prepared to pay my debt in my place then I see no problem.

I imagine you would have a problem with that if, again, we moved from compensation to justice and were discussing something like prison term.

BTW this is just the first hurdle. We still haven't got to the problem that God is paying the debt with something he already has. So even if we accepted the your notion it is akin to the car dealer paying the debt for a defaulted car owner himself to himself. Jesus' suffering would have no value to God. Which only highlights how this analogy breaks down even more.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are of course correct. But if arriving at an intricately woven tapestry that reconciles at such fine points as "the worlds justice systems as an expression of an innate sense of justice" you would be faced with having to suppose a bunch of sheepherders cobbling such a tale together.

Well not to insult your religion or anything but the Bible looks exactly like what I would imagine a bunch of sheepherders would cobble together.

Contrast the Bible with say the works of the Greek philosophers and the difference is striking.

So I'm afraid I've never been one of these people who was profoundity impressed by the messages contained in the Bible. To me that is like thinking Star Wars is the best movie you have ever seen simply because it is the only movie you have ever seen.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're never going to get proof this side of God turning up at your door. Until that point you need only ask "where does the evidence point". If dismissing a sealed argument then the onus would be on your head - something your innate sense of justice sould accept as rightfully attracting condemnation.

We have been over this in other threads. My "innate sense of justice" tells me that most of the things in the Bible are wrong, particularly the genocide. But then when I say that you just dismiss this as my selfish sinful nature.

Sort of a Catch 22 then isn't it. Apparently it is only my innate sense of justice when it agrees with you, when it doesn't agree with you it is is my wicked selfish sinful heart :P

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact the answer to this question will come when someone explains what notion of justice applies here. I don't have to agree with it to understand it (I don't agree with eye for an eye but I understand the concept).

Okay. So moving on...

Yes that has been discussed already but it really isn't what we are talking about here. As PDN said earlier -

The point of the sacrifice is not to compensate God for the loss He has received because of our sin. Justice is very different from compensation.

What you are describing is compensation rather than justice.

You can see this when you apply it to something other than money. Would any justice system, ancient or modern, view it as justice for me to go to prison for a murder my brother committed while he got off scott free?

No, I don't think so because punishment is different to money. Money is neutral, it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you owe me €100 I don't care if I get it from you or your father because €100 is €100. All I want is €100.

The financial debtor thrown into prison isn't compensating our justice system (to whom he owes no money). He is being thrown into prison for his failure to uphold his obligation to conform to a contract. It is the wrongness/immorality aspect of his actions that are being considered. An issue for justice.

Then we now consider the father/guarantor refusing to pay the debt-default of his son. He will be thrown into prison for the same reasons the son would have been thrown into prison - not for compensatory reasons but because he is morally obliged (by way of substitution) to honour a contract he has engaged in. Justice gains nothing except justice being done.

Justice is not the same. We want the person who did the crime to be punished. Punishing someone else is irrelevant. Your father serving 20 years in prison is not the same as you serving 20 years in prison for murder. That doesn't add up to the same thing it would if it was money.

Having established (I'll presume) that one can indeed substitute moral responsibility from one person to another we need to look at this next scenario.

The (admitted) difficulty isn't one of the impossible-in-principle shifting of moral responsibility from one to the other - for we have seen above that it is possible to shift so. Rather, its a specific case where we find it "not sitting well with us" to so shift - remembering that our justice systems are really only a codified reflection of our instrinsic sense of what constitue fair play.

But to deal with your overarching point first "a notion of justice" has been supplied: moral responsibility shifted from the one to the other is possible in justice. Why it is that we can decide this shift is okay and that one more problematic is a different issue - one of degree perhaps.

BTW this is just the first hurdle. We still haven't got to the problem that God is paying the debt with something he already has. So even if we accepted the your notion it is akin to the car dealer paying the debt for a defaulted car owner himself to himself. Jesus' suffering would have no value to God. Which only highlights how this analogy breaks down even more.

God's wrath is to be released finally in the total consumption of sin (which ties in with and parallels a sense of all justice having been served). When sin is consumed God's wrath will be expended and spent. The "value" of Christs suffering to God would be found in it's being a means whereby Gods wrath is released.

Well not to insult your religion or anything but the Bible looks exactly like what I would imagine a bunch of sheepherders would cobble together.

That remains to be seen. Suffice to say, you would need to be able to maintain your sense of injustice regarding the Crucifixion. Not that considering it just would cause the gates of your unbelief to fold (I suspect)

Contrast the Bible with say the works of the Greek philosophers and the difference is striking.

Indeed. All the Greek philosophers argue in a circle terminating in man. The Bible argues in a circle terminating in God.

Sort of a Catch 22 then isn't it. Apparently it is only my innate sense of justice when it agrees with you, when it doesn't agree with you it is is my wicked selfish sinful heart

I think your innate sense of justice is just like mine but you deny it in order to win arguments.

I was always suspecting that your view of punishment for punishments sake being unjust ..was a dodge. It's just that I can't commute with you to see your enragment when another commuter cuts you up in traffic .. and your delight and 'wrath-tension' release when a cop spots him too and pulls him over.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The financial debtor thrown into prison isn't compensating our justice system (to whom he owes no money). He is being thrown into prison for his failure to uphold his obligation to conform to a contract. It is the wrongness/immorality aspect of his actions that are being considered. An issue for justice.

Yes, that is the point. Throwing his wife in jail for example serves no purpose.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then we now consider the father/guarantor refusing to pay the debt-default of his son. He will be thrown into prison for the same reasons the son would have been thrown into prison - not for compensatory reasons but because he is morally obliged (by way of substitution) to honour a contract he has engaged in. Justice gains nothing except justice being done.

Again, yes that is the point. The father is thrown in jail for he did wrong, not what the son did wrong. The father guaranteed the son and then defaulted on that. He did something wrong, and faces justice for that. His wife doesn't. His brother doesn't. His daughter doesn't

You cannot have someone else face justice for what you did, that serves no notion of justice that I'm aware of.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Having established (I'll presume) that one can indeed substitute moral responsibility from one person to another we need to look at this next scenario.

You haven't established that, you just de-established that with the two cases above, cases that could have come straight from the examples I've be using.

Find me a genuine non-crucification example where someone faces punishment in place of someone else when they themselves have done nothing wrong.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The (admitted) difficulty isn't one of the impossible-in-principle shifting of moral responsibility from one to the other - for we have seen above that it is possible to shift so.

No we haven't. You presented to very good cases demonstrate that we do not shift moral responsibility from one person to another. Everyone faces justice for what they did, not what others have done.

There is not really any point in continuing with the rest of your post as you are just contradicting yourself now. Go back over the examples above and explain how justice is served by someone facing punishment for something they are not responsible for.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, yes that is the point. The father is thrown in jail for he did wrong, not what the son did wrong. The father guaranteed the son and then defaulted on that. He did something wrong, and faces justice for that. His wife doesn't. His brother doesn't. His daughter doesn't

Rebooting...

The father, in going guarantor is saying that "in the case of my sons failure to fulfill his promise, the legal/moral obligation to pay becomes mine". At (and only at) the point of the son's default, does the moral responsibility switch to the father. And it switches to the father without his having done a thing (other than occupy the position of substitute)

In the example we're dealing with, the fathers moral responsibility can be dealt with in two ways: pay the money or do a prison term. In Christs case there was only one option: die. But the principle is the same: moral responsibility switched to a substitute without the substitute having done anything but volunteer to be a substitute.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rebooting...

The father, in going guarantor is saying that "in the case of my sons failure to fulfill his promise, the legal/moral obligation to pay becomes mine". At (and only at) the point of the son's default, does the moral responsibility switch to the father. And it switches to the father without his having done a thing (other than occupy the position of substitute)

Agreed. But (and this is the important point), if the father defaults on the lone he is punished for what he did not for what the son did.

So I agree entirely that a person can become a guarantor for a loan or something, but this has nothing to do with justice or shifting of punishment.

The father is not saying I will accept the punishment my son is facing. If the father had not guaranteed the loan he could not step in when the son is facing punishment for default and say give me the punishment, not my son.

Again a person is only punished for what they did. You cannot substitute punishment in any justice system I'm aware of.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the example we're dealing with, the fathers moral responsibility can be dealt with in two ways: pay the money or do a prison term. In Christs case there was only one option: die.

But Christ did not "guarantee our loan." All this happened after we defaulted, so to speak, and Jesus is described as being the innocent party, someone who has never sinned.

What is described in the Bible is equivalent to the father saying after the son is facing punishment for defaulting now I will take his punishment, which is not the same as guaranteeing the loan.

Again I'm aware of no justice system that would allow this. In your example the father is punished for what he did, defaulting on a loan he took responsibility for.

You are some what ignoring why we have guarantors in the first place, it is not to shift punishment when a loan isn't paid. It is to decrease the risk bank takes by holding more than one party responsible for paying the loan back, under the idea that it is less likely neither party will be able to pay the loan back.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But the principle is the same: moral responsibility switched to a substitute without the substitute having done anything but volunteer to be a substitute.

Moral responsibility didn't switch at all. The father added himself to the group responsible for paying back the loan. So now there were just two people responsible for the loan, rather than one. And they are punished when they default on this responsibility.

So again this is not an example of punishment shifting from a person who did something wrong to a person who didn't.

Remember the point of the crucification is that Jesus is an innocent party. The father in this example isn't, he has defaulted on a loan he guaranteed.

So really this analogy doesn't explain anything. Nice try though, at least you are discussing this we rather than dismissing me as some who can't understand because I'm spiritually dead :eek::p

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed. But (and this is the important point), if the father defaults on the lone he is punished for what he did not for what the son did. So I agree entirely that a person can become a guarantor for a loan or something, but this has nothing to do with justice or shifting of punishment.

My reboot framed things so as to extract the principle involved. The principle involved is the substitution of a moral responsibility from one party to another without the 2nd party 'doing anything' but being a sustitute.

You would agree that the guarantor becomes morally responsible for the defaulted loan?

The father is not saying I will accept the punishment my son is facing. If the father had not guaranteed the loan he could not step in when the son is facing punishment for default and say give me the punishment, not my son.

Again a person is only punished for what they did. You cannot substitute punishment in any justice system I'm aware of.

The father in going guarantor accepts all the legal consequences that come with the moral responsibility involved. Because that includes the potential for prison (in the case the father is willing but unable (come that time) to pay, he is indeed accepting of the (potential) consequence of punishment at the time of going guarantor.

But Christ did not "guarantee our loan." All this happened after we defaulted, so to speak, and Jesus is described as being the innocent party, someone who has never sinned.

What is described in the Bible is equivalent to the father saying after the son is facing punishment for defaulting now I will take his punishment, which is not the same as guaranteeing the loan.

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast -- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

There is an unmistakeable thread of salvation-in-Christ-from-eternity past running through scripture. It wouldn't do to centre too much on timing.

Again I'm aware of no justice system that would allow this. In your example the father is punished for what he did, defaulting on a loan he took responsibility for.

My example of the father being punished was to illustrate the moral responsibility of substitution. We needn't concern ourselves with whether he pays or doesn't pay in order to accept the principle that a moral responsibility can be shifted from one to the other by substitution to an otherwise innocent.

Moral responsibility didn't switch at all. The father added himself to the group responsible for paying back the loan. So now there were just two people responsible for the loan, rather than one. And they are punished when they default on this responsibility.

"A guarantor is someone who pledges that a loan or other type of debt will be paid. Usually, a guarantor agrees to pay or perform another person's debt or duty should that person fail to do so. The term is most commonly used in reference to financial assistance. A parent who cosigns a student loan for a child could be considered a guarantor – should the child default on his or her debt, the parent would be held liable for the remainder of the loan."

Not the parent and child. The parent.

Remember the point of the crucification is that Jesus is an innocent party. The father in this example isn't, he has defaulted on a loan he guaranteed.

No he didn't - necessarily.

Our example stops at the transfer of moral responsibility. What the consequences of that moral responsibility will be will vary according to the case - with some consequences not requiring the father to do anything. He can be innocent of everything but becoming a substitute.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

My reboot framed things so as to extract the principle involved. The principle involved is the substitution of a moral responsibility from one party to another without the 2nd party 'doing anything' but being a sustitute.

You would agree that the guarantor becomes morally responsible for the defaulted loan?

I would, but not by doing nothing.

The guarantor takes morally responsible for the defaulted loan because they agree to be morally responsible for the loan, just like the son takes responsibility for the loan in the first place. In essence it simply becomes a loan with 2 people rather than one where one promises to pay the loan back if the other can't. Neither are punished unless they don't do what they promise.

So this is not analogous to Jesus.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The father in going guarantor accepts all the legal consequences that come with the moral responsibility involved. Because that includes the potential for prison (in the case the father is willing but unable (come that time) to pay, he is indeed accepting of the (potential) consequence of punishment at the time of going guarantor.

He is. But it is his punishment, not his sons. He guarantees the loan. If he fails in the agreement he is punished. He is not substituting himself in place of the son if the son defaults and is punished.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is an unmistakeable thread of salvation-in-Christ-from-eternity past running through scripture. It wouldn't do to centre too much on timing.

I'm not centering on timing, I'm centering on the idea that Jesus was an innocent.

In your analogy the father is not innocent. If he refuses to fulfill his responsibility as a guarantor as he promised to he will be punished.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My example of the father being punished was to illustrate the moral responsibility of substitution. We needn't concern ourselves with whether he pays or doesn't pay in order to accept the principle that a moral responsibility can be shifted from one to the other by substitution to an otherwise innocent.

We have to focus on whether he pays because this is not about responsibility to pay back the loan it is about if that doesn't happen and where the punishment goes. Is it justice to punish someone who has done nothing wrong?

In your example the father has done something wrong, and thus it is considered justice to punish him.

Jesus had done nothing wrong. We had done the thing that was wrong.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not the parent and child. The parent.

Yes, and that is the consequence of agreeing to be a guarantor. It is the same as the consequence of getting a loan in the first place. We wouldn't think it odd that someone who breaks their contract on a loan is punished, and equally it isn't odd that someone who breaks their contract on being a guarantor for a loan is punished. But they are punished for what they did or didn't do, not what someone else did.

If the son defaults and the father pays the loan himself he is not punished. Paying of the loan is not a punishment. If the father didn't though he would be punished. So there is no substitution of punishment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

No he didn't - necessarily.

Our example stops at the transfer of moral responsibility.

The son is responsible for what he agrees to do and the father is responsible for what he agrees to do. And if either fail to hold to this agreement they are punished for what they did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He can be innocent of everything but becoming a substitute.

The father will not be punished for anything unless he is guilty of something, eg refusing to honor his responsibility to repay the loan he is a guarantor on. So he is not innocent.

So again this example isn't analogous to Jesus, who hadn't done anything wrong.

TravelJunkie

What if you're looking at the whole thing wrong?

What if we're all focusing in on the punishment / sacrifice.

Rather - looking at one sons disobedience and anothers obedience.

Adam disobeyed. And Jesus was obedient, even to the point of death.

Background. Justification (as per oxford dictionary) is to be made righteous in the sight of God. It is how we become legitimate. Justice is the quality of all that is good and righteous.

For the sake of our salvation, to make right what was not right, was required a GREAT ACT of obedience. Jesus, after all, gave himself freely ie. it was his idea, he volunteered to come on our behalf.

(That in itself wicknight should address other issues as well)

So what saved us in the end, was Jesus' obedience (by way of the cross and his blood, etc etc). What doomed us in the beginning, was Adams disobedience.

This great act of obedience by Jesus became a GREAT ACT of JUSTICE.

How does that sound?

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

For the sake of our salvation, to make right what was not right, was required a GREAT ACT of obedience. Jesus, after all, gave himself freely ie. it was his idea, he volunteered to come on our behalf.

And how does that make it right?

TravelJunkie wrote: »

How does that sound?

Like you guys don't have a clue how this was justice being served :pac:

Seriously though, it is the ???? bit that isn't being explained. People keep telling me what happened, but not explaining the purpose behind it. There seems to be lots of stabs in the dark (your attempt at an explanation is nothing like antiskeptics, or like Soul Winners), but no consistent trail of logic here. X happened because when Y happens X makes it right again.

It wouldn't be arbitrary that a great act of obedience is required to right a great act of disobedience, that would be silly. For that to be understandable there should be a logic there. I don't see one, can you explain what it is?

Say you have two sons. One is bold and burns down the parents house. He was disobedient and naughty. The parents wish to punish them, rightly so.

While they are thinking about what to do to this son they ask the other son to walk 20 miles to the nearest town to get the local police man. He does this, even though it is cold outside and he doesn't want to because he is obedient to his parents.

Now, does one act of disobedience have anything to do with the other act of obedience? No, not as far as I can see. It simply means one of the children is obedient and the other not so. They don't cancel each other out or anything like that. If anything the second son just highlights how bold the first one is.

You can say to make right an act of obedience was required but that doesn't mean that actually makes sense. It seems just poking in the dark. If a great act on our part was required that would make more sense, if we had to do a grand gesture of obedience to make up for our disobedience.

But Jesus making an act of obedience does nothing as far as I can see. No notion of justice is served by that. It has nothing to do with us, any more than the second son's act has anything to do with the first son's disobedience.

Do you see what I mean?

TravelJunkie

"Like you guys don't have a clue how this was justice being served :pac:"


I think we do know. And the fact that Christ was a substitute for us is part of His "Justice system" (for lack of a better word) / Wisdom. This, it so happens, doesn't fit into your concept of justice. It doesn't mean we don't have a clue.

He was a substitute and he did so willingly. And, we are so grateful, that we owe him our lives. Pick up your cross and follow me, he said.

You can go looking for X's and Y's. But, it is as simple as He died for us and it all went away, because God said So. And that was my point, it is OK for God to Say So, because he is both Judge and injured party.

Here's another stab in the dark for me: Your one child takes a cookie before dinner and lies about it, so you have to put him in the corner. The rest of the family however are in the main table, enjoying sunday lunch, having a ball, and he is isolated there, poor little thing. The biggest brother says, I'll take his place and he can join the table (Because he knows you have a strict rule about 30 minutes corner time that cannot be broken no matter what).
So, you, who see the love your eldest has for his little brother, deem his love so pure and with great foresight, you know your little son will behave better for it, so you agree. And you forgive the little son and you let the whole thing play out, because, after all, even though you don't want to see your eldest in the corner, you cannot break your own rule, which is 30 minutes corner time.

All these examples are so silly really, because we can't imagine how pure God is, how terrible sin is to him how even our smallest deeds hurt him. But most of all, we can't imagine the height and depth of his love.

So it is with love and trust and acceptance that we believe and thank God for his mercy.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

"Like you guys don't have a clue how this was justice being served :pac:"


I think we do know. And the fact that Christ was a substitute for us is part of His "Justice system" (for lack of a better word) / Wisdom. This, it so happens, doesn't fit into your concept of justice. It doesn't mean we don't have a clue.

Fitting my notion of justice isn't relevant. I'm looking for a notion of justice, it doesn't have to be mine.

For example eye for an eye doesn't fit my personal notions of justice. It is still a notion of justice, there is a logic to it, it is understandable.

This is what is missing (so far) from the crucification. I'm not proclaiming there isn't a logic here, but so far no one has been able to explain it.

The most people can do is come up with notions of justice that might appear at first glance to sort of fit but on examination don't fit.

Antiseptic put forward the idea of guarantor for a debt, but that doesn't fit as it is not a substitution of punishment.

You put forward the idea of a grand act of obedience to "right" a grand act of disobedience but that doesn't work because there is no system or notion of justice where such a thing holds.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

He was a substitute and he did so willingly. And, we are so grateful, that we owe him our lives. Pick up your cross and follow me, he said.

Again people don't need to simply tell me the story again

TravelJunkie wrote: »

You can go looking for X's and Y's. But, it is as simple as He died for us and it all went away, because God said So. And that was my point, it is OK for God to Say So, because he is both Judge and injured party.

That is a shift in position from this is understandable to this isn't understandable just accept that God said it was justice and don't worry about it.

Which is fine, but it is not the same as understanding. This does seem to be the inevitable end point for this discussion though, which again implies that people here don't understand what the logic was and simply accept it as a matter of faith.

I don't know why people can't just say this. I only asked the question in the first place because of the insistence of Christians that this is something understandable. Anyone who claims there is an understandable logic of justice here then the onus is on them to show how it is understandable. If they just said this is not understandable, it is a matter of faith there would be no issue.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Your one child takes a cookie before dinner and lies about it, so you have to put him in the corner. The rest of the family however are in the main table, enjoying sunday lunch, having a ball, and he is isolated there, poor little thing. The biggest brother says, I'll take his place and he can join the table (Because he knows you have a strict rule about 30 minutes corner time that cannot be broken no matter what).
So, you, who see the love your eldest has for his little brother, deem his love so pure and with great foresight, you know your little son will behave better for it, so you agree. And you forgive the little son and you let the whole thing play out, because, after all, even though you don't want to see your eldest in the corner, you cannot break your own rule, which is 30 minutes corner time.

That though would make sense if that was what was the claim of the Bible (an act of education not justice). But since that isn't the claim it doesn't work.

There is no principle of justice being served in the story. It is a sweet story but it is a sweet story because of the educational aspect, not the justice aspect. The rule isn't anyone in the 30 minutes corner, the 30 minutes is punishment for the person who did something wrong. This is the same problem as the crucification. It was that just anyone would be punished, it was those who sinned. Punishing someone else serves no purpose.

The only redeeming aspect is the brother showing a selfless act to his younger brother, but that is educational not justice. The brother sitting in the corner does nothing to actually placate the punishment of the other brother. This is clearly seen if you imagine that the younger brother didn't know the eldest was doing this. Would the mother accept the elder son coming along and saying I will replace my brother with no educational aspect? No, because that doesn't serve justice. A person being punished is irrelevant, it is only the punishment of the person who did the bad thing that matters.

BTW I'm not saying there was no educational aspect to the crucification, just that it is the justice aspect that causes the problem.

TravelJunkie

Justification as per the cross, the bible teaches, manifests and there is a spiritual metamorphosis of the person. The old man is no longer, and there is a new man.

So, the old man dies, with Christ, spiritually. So we enter into the supernatural here if you like. It was obviously not possible to crucify the whole world now in the past and forever more? But, there is obviously judgement for those who don't accept this, so justification is not for all.

Plus, as christians we are warned on the 'education' element of it (as you put it) of course, if we don't bear fruit, we are not one of His.

I know you know all this, but it is justice then. When the old is no longer. Its by Gods power, call it the biggest miracle there ever was, but you don't believe in God, so I don't know what anyone can add to that really.

Justice is what was wrong being put right. And when we become new, we are put right.

How are we put right? By Gods power.

God isn't vengeful. The purpose behind the plan was to bring us into his presence, not punish us.

I understand it, by faith, but I don't have earthly examples of this.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

But Christ did not "guarantee our loan." All this happened after we defaulted, so to speak, and Jesus is described as being the innocent party, someone who has never sinned.

What is described in the Bible is equivalent to the father saying after the son is facing punishment for defaulting now I will take his punishment, which is not the same as guaranteeing the loan.

Again I'm aware of no justice system that would allow this. In your example the father is punished for what he did, defaulting on a loan he took responsibility for.

You are some what ignoring why we have guarantors in the first place, it is not to shift punishment when a loan isn't paid. It is to decrease the risk bank takes by holding more than one party responsible for paying the loan back, under the idea that it is less likely neither party will be able to pay the loan back.

Moral responsibility didn't switch at all. The father added himself to the group responsible for paying back the loan. So now there were just two people responsible for the loan, rather than one. And they are punished when they default on this responsibility.

But the scripture declares that God did guarantee the debt prior to Adam's sin, and that He (God) didn't default on His responsibility to repay it.

He (Jesus) is described as the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world in Revelation 13:8

It sounds like there was agreement in the heavenly councils prior to the creation of the world and hence prior to Adam's creation and hence prior to Adam's sin.

Peter affirms the same idea in his epistle:

"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." 1 Peter 1:20


A similar idea is conveyed in Matthew:

"So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world." Matthew 13:35

Matthew was quoting Psalm 78:

"I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old." Psalm 78:2

So He (God) did guarantee the debt (sin of Adam) prior to the sin being committed in just the same way that I guaranteed my younger brother's car loan two years ago prior to him defaulting on the payments not long thereafter. My action of going guarentor for him places the responsibilty to repay the debt at my feet.

Does it make sense now?

In order to pay for sin a perfect life was required. A life lived in the limitations of a tent of human flesh. A perfect life could not be garnered from the descendants of Adam's natural line, so it was incumbent on God - if He wanted to save Adam from the consequences of his sin i.e. eternal death - to be kinned with us through the flesh in order to fulfill the type of the Kinsman Redeemer picture as portrayed in the book of Ruth. In that story only one near of kin (blood relative) could redeem a lost inheritance, hence the incarnation.

He (Jesus) also fulfilled the type of the perfect servant. In the Old Testament, if you served seven years as a servant you could go free. But if during that time you obtained a wife and children you could not take them with you after the seven years, they belonged to the master of the house. But if you loved your wife and children and wanted to stay with them then you had to be willing to have your ear (symbol of obedience) bored through with an aul (Exodus 21:6) to the post of the master's door. To live in your master's house with your wife and children, you must first be willing to do this, then actually do it. This was a type of the cross. In order for Jesus (the prefect servant) to live in His father's house with his newly obtained wife and children (the Church - body of true believers in the world) He had to pay this heavy price.

God not only had to be kinned to us in flesh and blood, but He had to have the means to pay the price i.e. a perfectly lived life. Then He had to be actually willing to pay the price, once willing to do so He then actually had to pay the price. Jesus could have been resoted to the glory He once had when He prayed in the garden that the cup pass him by (John 17) but He would not have provided the way of salvation for anyone. And the price to pay for the sins of mankind was a perfect life poured out unto death. This was done through the shedding of His blood. Leviticus 17:11 states that the life resides in the blood.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus 17:11

The writer to the Hebrews sums it up very well:

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 9:23-28

So assuming that God actually exists and assuming that He did meet all the provisos that He bound Himself to by His Word, it is safe to say that His perception of Justice has been met even if we cannot understand it or don't accept it. What really matters is that His integrity and His faithfulness to His own Word is intact, hence providing a basis for faith in Him. As a result His faithfulness He has redeemed His inheritance - us, and we are the beneficiaries of His divine mercy and grace if we simply trust Him, and that is what faith is.