Heh, sometimes it seems like we make two steps forward and one step back, TitL, but that's still net progress, so let's keep on rollin'. :)
Tycho:
Put it this way. Sometimes people in the world today get treated unjustly by powers that they readily accept as existing, and whose laws they knowing broke. In the past in parts of the USSR, for example, christainity was banned. Some people broke the law to practice christianity anyway. And sometimes they got caught, and hauled before some manner of judge who would dish out ridiculous punishments, such as shipping them off to work camps. The people who suffered under that regime realized they were breaking the law. They realized that the law was real, and the government really actually existed. But they certainly didn't feel their punishment was just, or that the government was good for sending them to siberia.
quote:
Why is it not just? Based on what evidence?
Do you consider it just? I intentionally picked an example that I figured we could both agree was unjust. Are you saying the soviets were just when they punishment people by sending them to work camps in siberia for practicing christianity?
To answer your question, though, I'd say it's not just for two main reasons: First, there is the issue of whether the "crime" is something that deserves punishment at all. Is it just to punish people for practicing their religion? I would argue no (so long as their religion harms no one else, at least. Some crazy cult that kidnapped people and killed them would be a different issue). Second is the fact that the punishment is unproportional to the crime. It's too harsh a punishment for the crime. Do you disagree with these? Do you think it's just to punish people for being christians, and that sending them to siberia is a just punishment?
Tycho:
Accepting that we are guilty of breaking a law, and that we're deserving any particular punishment are two different things. The latter does not always follow from the former. If you got pulled over for going 1 mile over the speed limit, and the cop said "because you've broke the law, we're going to kill your family," you might willing to accept that you we guilty, but surely wouldn't accept that you deserved such a punishment.
I disagree, and think we can agree the same crime can have different punishments, and still be fair.</quote>
Wait, you're actually saying that you think it'd be fair (or more to the point, just) if a cop pulled you over for going one mph over the limit, and the punishment was that your whole family got executed?! Is there any punishment that you DON'T think is just? Could you please give an example of an unjust punishment for me, because clearly the extreme examples I'm coming up with aren't working!
Trust in the Lord:
Also, we can have different crimes, and have the same punishment. I think we can agree to this through questions and logic.
I can agree that different crimes can this. Different crimes can carry the same punishment. Independent of that, it's also possible for different crimes to
deserve the same punishment. For clarity, that's NOT to say that all crimes deserve the same punishment.
Tycho:
I've seen people come up with lots of crazy interpretations of the bible. It's easier for me to believe that he has a crazy interpretation, than it is for me to believe that he really thinks he's committing acts of horrible evil, but is doing it just to be difficult. For you it seems like the opposite is easier to believe. not really sure where to go from there.
Actually, not stating that. You do seem to switch meanings back and forth here. I am only stating Fred is aware he is not following scripture from the bible. Not a big deal, lots of people do not follow the bible and still claim christian. But it seems reasonable that to follow christianity, you would follow the bible and not a football magazine, regardless of how faithful you believe it is to do so.</quote>
It seems reasonable, but I don't view Fred Phelps as all that reasonable. I think he's probably convinced himself of some pretty kooky (to you and me) interpretations of scripture. I think he believes he's following scripture, and has come up with interpretations of scripture that he follows that would seem very bizarre to you and me, but he really believes them.
Trust in the Lord:
You're interchanging Christianity for belief.
...
Actually the original point is how to tell if someone is christian, and you're interchanging that with belief. Someone's belief does not make it christian.
To me, that's what christianity is, a belief system. If someone believes that Jesus is the son of God, and has died for their sins, that is what makes them a christian, in my view. Their actions don't determine if they're a christian to me, their faith does (and "faith" to me means belief). Some people are better than others at acting the way their holy book tells them to act, but the beliefs are what make them a christian, in my view.
This is particularly important in a "faith vs. works" discussion. The "works" are their actions. It's what they do. Their "faith" is what they believe. I think Fred Phelps has a lot of faith, but his works are pretty lousy. If faith is what gets you salvation, then Fred Phelps should get salvation. If works matter, then he shouldn't.
Tycho:
Not sure where you got that. Did I say "I don't believe it so it can't be true?" Not, I'm saying I don't believe it, which means I don't think it's true.
Trust in the Lord:
Actually, you are saying that. You said even if you were in front of God judging you as described from the bible, you would not feel it's just, which is based on your view point.
I think we have different meanings of some terms here, so we're not understanding what each other is saying. I know I'm not understanding what you're saying here, and it sounds like you're not understanding me. Can leave at that if you like, or you can try to clarify. Not too fussed either way myself. For what it's worthy, I'm NOT saying "I don't believe it, so it can't be true." I don't believe that that follows.
Tycho:
Yes. That doesn't make the law just, nor does it mean I deserve any punishment the law chooses to dish out.
Trust in the Lord:
That's to establish who determines the consequences. If the person who determines the consequence is just and correct, then the consequence is just and correct.
I think this is a major point of disagreement for us. It sounds like you view something as "just" if it's done by someone who "is just". For me it's the opposite. Someone is just if their actions are just. Sounds like we view the causation as going in opposite directions. Out of curiosity, is it only God that you feel this applies to, or does it work the same for humans as well? Do you consider a human being's action to be just if they're a just person, or do you consider the person to be a just person if their actions are just?
Trust in the Lord:
Here's an example. What's worse? An 300 pound adult fighter punching as hard as he can .....
a 2 year old child
his significant other
A 300 pound adult fighter in the ring
the president of the USA
Certainly we can compare that some situations are worse than others, and some deserve greater punishment, agree/disagree?
Tycho:
Yes, but that's not what we're asking (and ironically, it undermines your position that the penalty for every crime is exactly the same--eternal torture in hell). Whether different crimes deserve different punishments is besides the point. The question is whether an infinite punishment is ever appropriate for a finite crime.
Trust in the Lord:
I was asking this to determine a punishment. If you relook at the question, which one do you think results in the greatest punishment?
It's a serious question. Of the four people being harmed, which one results in the greatest punishment?
Results in the greatest punishment, or
deserves the greatest punishment? They're not the same thing, in my view. The former depends on who's dishing out the punishment. In some places it's not against the law to beat your child or wife. In other places it is. In some places boxing is illegal (and thus carries a punishment), in other places it's not (so doesn't). In the US I'd guess punching the president would
result in the worst punishment, but I'd say punching a 2 year old as hard as you can
deserves a worse punishment.
Trust in the Lord:
Not liking something has never actually been a logical conclusion for saying it's arbitrary or wrong though.
Tycho:
I didn't say "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong." I've pointed out that it's sadistic and arbitrary, and implied (and am now making explicit) that this is inconsistent with a good and loving God.
Trust in the Lord:
Yes, you did. You said it was based on your opinion. What other basis would you suggest arbitrary and wrong?
Tycho:
Huh? "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "I don't like it." Saying something is wrong in my opinion doesn't just mean I don't like it. I'm saying I don't believe your premise, because it implies an arbitrary and sadistic deity while at the same time asserting His goodness and justness. I'm saying your assertions are inconsistent, and thus at least one must be false. Yes, that is my opinion, but it's a far cry from "I don't like that so it can't be true."
Trust in the Lord:
I don't agree. I'm not sure how one can say it's arbitrary based on an opinion is somehow different than saying you don't like it because it's doesn't match your view point?
Guess we're using the same terms to mean very different things here. Not really sure where to go from here. To you "it's arbitrary" seems to mean "I don't like it because it doesn't match my view point" which isn't what it means to me. As you say, probably best to agree to disagree here.
Tycho:
I find "God is good, loving, and just" to be contradicted by "God punishes anyone who believes the wrong thing to an eternity of torture in hell." I know you don't consider that a contradiction, because you don't start with the assumption that "an eternity of torture isn't something good, loving, and just beings subject others to." Because you've started with the premises you have, you are led to the conclusion that torture isn't necessarily a bad or unloving or unjust punishment. To me that looks absurd. But to you, the idea that God isn't loving of just sounds absurd. Where we end up depends on what we accept as true before we start. We've accepted different things (me, that torture is not loving, you that God is loving), so reach different conclusions. We don't see the contradictions in our own views because they come from premises which we don't share. Without shared assumptions, we're pretty much guaranteed to disagree on the conclusions. Again, that's just how logic works.
Trust in the Lord:
I don't think you're proven your statement. That my assumptions are in contradiction with another of my assumptions. To me, at best, your assumption contradicts my assumption is the conclusion reached.
That was the only thing I found incorrect in the statement. I think we agree that where we base our assumptions are in disagreement.
Fair enough. I think it comes back to our differing understanding of what "just" means.
Trust in the Lord:
It's because they [Westboro folks] know they are not following scripture in the bible on all matters. It's not like they haven't been told these verses. They are actively disregarding scripture. A choice.
I disagree. I think they're not
disregarding scripture, but
interpreting it in a way that seems strange to you and me. I don't think
they believe they're disregarding scripture. That doesn't make them correct, but the question is about whether they have faith, not whether they're doing what's right.
Trust in the Lord:
I believe what's happening here may possibly be the changing of words here and talking over each other. But I think it's reasonable to tell if someone is following the bible, and that seems the best tool to use if someone is follow Christ. Jesus used the bible to compare right from wrong. Just as you would use a football rules book to know if the play is correct or not. You don't use your beliefs to determine if someone is following Jesus or not.
But I'm not asking whether they're
following Jesus, I'm asking whether they
believe that Jesus is the son of God and has died for their sins. We agree their actions (ie, their works) are bad. The question of whether their beliefs (ie, their faith) is there or not. To me it looks like they've got plenty of faith (too much, if anything!). What you keep talking about is what I would call "works."
Tycho:
The key point here is that faith causes us to interpret the world differently than we would otherwise. If we believe with all our heart that a book is the word of God, and that book says both "1+1=3" and "1+1=5", then we'll believe that three and five are the same thing. It doesn't matter that it's a contradiction. We'll believe it CAN'T be a contradiction, because God's word can obviously have no contradictions in it. ANY explanation that eliminates the contradiction will seem more believable to us than accepting that a contradiction exists. It doesn't matter that the explanation sounds absurd to other people. They just don't get it (and God will punish them for being so blind anyway).
Trust in the Lord:
Strangely enough, I disagree. I don't think any expalantion that eliminates the contradiction means the contradiction doesn't exist. I think it needs to be reasonable and possible. I think that's the same standard other people should hold onto too, reasonable and possible explanation.
Except "reasonable and possible" are somewhat subjective. You believe some things that I consider unreasonable and impossible, but to you they're reasonable and possible. I imagine some of the stuff I believe seems unreasonable and impossible to you, but I assure they seem reasonable and possible to me (I wouldn't believe them if they didn't, obviously). Likewise with Fred Phelps. What he beliefs seems unreasonable and impossible to you and me, but I have to assume that it seems reasonable and possible to him. If we assume that anyone who claims to believe something that
we find unreasonable and impossible
also think its unreasonable and impossible, then we reach a conclusion that they don't actually believe what they say they do, and are just pretending to do so for some reason. It's easier for me to believe that Fred Phelps really believes all the kooky ideas he has than it is for me to believe that he's just pretending to believe them for some unknown reason.
I find his beliefs and interpretations as unreasonable and impossible, but it really looks to me like he considers them reasonable and possible. People seem pretty good at believing things that are unreasonable and impossible (in my view). Sometimes it seems more common than people believing reasonable and possible things! ...but that may be because I spend as much time in this particular forum as I do! ;)
Trust in the Lord:
I'm not sure why you feel my position is based on assumption? Is that because you feel that I cannot have it based on evidence? I am at a loss how you hold me as difficult to converse with because I must be making assumptions because I have a different viewpoint than you who is basing it on evidence and not assumptions, right?
Tycho:
Hmm, perhaps the word 'assumption' is causing a bit of problem here.
Trust in the Lord:
No, the problem was you made a statement that my position was based on assumption, not on premise. so there's no point in asking if what He is claimed to do contradicts that. It seems like you don't even consider it worth thinking about
It suggests I was unwilling to consider other ideas.
Two points on this: When I say your position "is based on assumption" I mean "you've just assert it as the premise." There's no difference between the two for me. So if "you're asserting your conclusion as the premise" makes more sense to you, that's all I meant by it.
As for the not considering it worth thinking about, what I meant was that it sounded to me like you didn't want to discuss anything other than the premise you were asserting. When I said something different, you kept say "but we're talking about this premise here..." Which seemed to me like you we're trying to steer us away from a different conversation. I assumed that was because you didn't feel the other conversations were worth having. Didn't mean it to be offensive, just meant that it seemed to me like you weren't interested in discussions that didn't start with the premise you were asserting.
Tycho:
Your beliefs may well be based on evidence, but your argument here hasn't mentioned any, so the position you are arguing isn't based on evidence.
Trust in the Lord:
The statement is incorrect. One does not have to provide proof before something is true. This is kind of the issue I am referring to.
What I can agree with, is that I wasn't attempting to prove my evidence.
That's all I meant by it. You were saying "this is the premise" and not trying to prove that premise. That's what I mean when I talk about the argument being based on assumption. In formal logic contexts, I mean the exact same thing when I say "make an assumption" and "assert a premise." Both just mean we're saying "let's accept X is true without proof and see where it leads us." "Assumptions," "axioms," "premises," "priors," and the like all mean the same thing in this context.
Tycho:
Whoa! Major progress that! I've been trying to get that across for years now! :) Okay, while it seems like a "non issue" for you, some important things follow. You often say things like "atheists choose not to believe in God," but hopefully you realize now why that's not accurate.
Trust in the Lord:
It's completely accurate. I am choosing to not believe in no God, I am choosing actively to believe Allah is not real, etc.
I think I'll take this bit to another thread, as it's an important issue for me, but sort of takes us off the track of this thread.