Fallacies about Faith (page 18)

adamah

Jgnat said-

We do have an adversarial justice system where both sides prepare their best argument and the most persuasive wins. That may not always be just and it is rarely swift.

True, and what counts to many lawyers is not seeing that justice is delivered, but winning the case, which often means that their client gets off scot-free and justice ISN'T delivered. A lawyer pleads on behalf of guilty individuals, and seeks to avoid justice.

But the point is, God is claimed to offer 'perfect' justice AND 'perfect' mercy AND 'perfect' retribution for lawless ones and perfect this and that, etc..... Just don't think about it too hard!

mrhhome

So I repeat the question: give me ONE example of a FACT that was unknown at the time of Jesus, but that is common knowledge today, and accepted as a FACT; perhaps something Jesus revealed which was something ONLY the Son of God could know... - adamah

That is easy. He predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurred almost 40 years later. Of course, the story is told in a gospel supposedly written after the destruction of the temple, and that story is used to date the writing of the scripture. Then again, if Jesus really did predict the destruction of the temple, that is not a valid way of dating the writing of those scriptures.

Establishing verifiable facts is difficult with any historical event. Study ancient greek history. There is all sorts of academic debate on historical events and figures even without supernatural phenomena. Unfortunately when studying history, you have a single unique event which is often recorded by biased writers decades later. You can conduct all the critical analysis that you want. Ultimately, you just will never know what actually happened. You just pick a version of the story that you believe.

mrhhome

FlyingHighNow made an excellent point about justice and mercy. Justice simply requires impartiality. This does not inherently preclude mercy.

mrhhome

A few atheists are ruining the reputation and respect of all atheists. It boils down to what your objective is. If it is convince, respect is important. Recent posts upset me b/c they reminded me of my JW father with the autocratic manner. You must believe this or you are garbage! I will enforce belief! The GB has existing structures if I want that in life. I don't think that this forum is only for lurkers. Imagine a lurker reading these posts. Vomit? Someone will find the Witnesses very enticing after a glimpse. It feeds into all the JW propaganda.

+1

Both sides of this debate need to reconsider tactics.

Repeating confessions of faith like an incantation is not an effective way to influnence atheists. Actions speak louder than words. Referring back to my first post on this thread, the walking testimony to our beliefs should be our "fruits of the spirit." If we are not demonstrating "fruits of the spirit", how can we claim that anything we believe is real?

Likewise, I challenge some of the atheists to ponder their reactions. Why does this topic provoke such an emotional response?

FlyingHighNow

Adamah, if you're going to quibble over words, you really should go back and read the posts that have led up to your response. Now, let's look at what you just said:

FHN said-

So justice can be merciful.

Yeah, that's "moving goalposts", i.e. changing your position to something completely different than the original.

You changed the words to "can be", and dropped the superfluous "perfect" adjectives, thus entirely changing the meaning of the statement to something more reasonable. In fact, I would completely agree with that, since sure, justice can be merciful; however, that wasn't the claim you originally objected to:

Cofty said- God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Now, let's start with what Cofty said originally:

God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Cofty

Them I asked him:

Why not? Do you mean, Tec's god? Do you mean any god?

The, you, Adamah said:

'Perfect justice' implies rendering punishment in accord with prescribed legal procedure, with no room for lenience; 'perfect mercy' requires showing lenience from justice, so the two are fundamentally at odds.

The contradictory nature depends on what is actually meant by the adjective "perfect": it's not contradictory, if it's only meant to imply that a "perfect balance" can be struck between justice and mercy. But on their own, 'perfect justice' and 'perfect mercy' are fundamentally incompatible.

Adamah you didn't use Cofty's word perfectly. Your use of the word perfect, instead of perfectly, changes the meaning of what Cofty said. You're making up your own definitions of what perfect justice and perfect mercy is, when that is not what Cofty was talking about in the first place.

If God is to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, then it will involve being fair and showing mercy. I asked Cofty why God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful. You are the one who came up with this cock eyed claim about "perfect justice":

'Perfect justice' implies rendering punishment in accord with prescribed legal procedure, with no room for lenience; 'perfect mercy' requires showing lenience from justice, so the two are fundamentally at odds.

The contradictory nature depends on what is actually meant by the adjective "perfect": it's not contradictory, if it's only meant to imply that a "perfect balance" can be struck between justice and mercy. But on their own, 'perfect justice' and 'perfect mercy' are fundamentally incompatible.

OnTheWayOut

faith IS based upon evidence

Ha ha!!

Tec and Stands For Pure Worship kill me, they are so funny with their over-the-top satire about what they pretend to believe.

I wish more people realized that they don't even believe their own b.s..

FlyingHighNow

I'll go on to say that for God to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, God has to be fair and God has to show mercy. Now, I asked him which god he was speaking about, was he talking about Tec's god, or any god? The Bible god shows time after time that he is not perfectly just or perfectly merciful. That doesn't mean that God isn't perfectly just or perfectly merciful. I don't know about you, but I sure don't base my views and concepts of God on the split personality God of the Bible. I think the Bible God, and I am not speaking of Jesus because I don't believe the Bible ever claims that Jesus is God, is as far from being perfectly just or perfectly merciful as a god can get.

adamah

FHN SAID-

Your use of the word perfect, instead of perfectly, changes the meaning of what Cofty said.

Say what? The first is an adjective, the second is an adverb.

Care to explain what you believe the critical difference in meaning exists between the phrases, 'perfect justice' and 'perfectly just', or is this only a 'distinction without a difference'?

(BTW, it's clear you didn't read the article for which I provided a link...)

Adam

FlyingHighNow

When Cofty used the words perfectly just or perfectly merciful, he was speaking of God or god or a person, if you will. Speaking of qualities of a person is different from speaking about your, you, Adamah, your concept of what perfect justice or perfect mercy is. Describing the qualities of a person is very different from describing Adamah's personal ideas of what constitutes perfect justice or perfect mercy. You gave us your own made up definition of what you consider to be perfect justice. Cofty didn't do that. He said that god cannot be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. You are the one who decided what that must mean. And I still ask, whose god is cofty talking about? Is it Tec's god or some other god or all gods or what.

Hummingbird001

There is perception. And there is judgement.

When you perceive your message, why do certain believers judge it as God's?

Fallacies about Faith

Share this