My version of justice is more "just" than god's

[Ana the Ist]

This thread is to propose a debate on a particular viewpoint that came up in another thread. Specifically, I claimed that my version of justice (wherein the punishment fits the crime and the guilty are the ones punished) is more "just" than that of the god of the christian religion. I will start first and be speaking specifically about the principles of justice and how they apply to my proposed system and how they contrast with the unjust "justice" found in the christian beliefs regarding the afterlife, original sin, and possibly even salvation through crucifixion.

Since I'll be taking the view that my version of justice is more just....I'll be starting and my opponent will respond defending christianity. Since this is not an apologetics debate, the truthfulness of christianity regarding the positions discussed will not be attacked. Three posts each, one week response times, standard rules apply.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

I agree with your proposal and look forward to debating this with you. Also, as I work full-time and am in school full-time, I would like to thank you for the generous amount of time you've allotted for responses.

 

[elopez]

I may be interested if you have not found interest in another partner.

I will start first and be speaking specifically about the principles of justice and how they apply to my proposed system and how they contrast with the unjust "justice" found in the christian beliefs regarding the afterlife, original sin, and possibly even salvation through crucifixion.

Are we then restricting the debate to these issues?

Since I'll be taking the view that my version of justice is more just....I'll be starting and my opponent will respond defending christianity. Since this is not an apologetics debate, the truthfulness of christianity regarding the positions discussed will not be attacked.

You are aware that by definition, what is in the bold is aplogetics, correct? This would then be an apologetics debate. That doesn't mean, however, that we need to go through and debate the reality of an after life, for example, yet can assume it exists for sake of argument. Is that what you mean? If so I think that is agreeable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with your proposal and look forward to debating this with you. Also, as I work full-time and am in school full-time, I would like to thank you for the generous amount of time you've allotted for responses.

No problem! I work full time as well, and I certainly remember what it was like to be a full time college student. I'll notify the moderator so he can set up the debate room ,and as a courtesy, I'll send you a message when I make my initial post so you get the full time allotted.

Looking forward to the debate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I may be interested if you have not found interest in another partner.


Are we then restricting the debate to these issues?


You are aware that by definition, what is in the bold is aplogetics, correct? This would then be an apologetics debate. That doesn't mean, however, that we need to go through and debate the reality of an after life, for example, yet can assume it exists for sake of argument. Is that what you mean? If so I think that is agreeable.

That is what I meant elopez....I'm not going to debate the existence of the christian afterlife, Jesus or his resurrection, god or original sin. I'm not going to debate the "truth" of these matters either...I'm restricting my objections to the justice/injustice embedded within them.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Theo expressed an interest in debating this topic with me so I created this thread for that purpose.

 

[Resha Caner]

This thread is to propose a debate on a particular viewpoint that came up in another thread. Specifically, I claimed that my version of justice (wherein the punishment fits the crime and the guilty are the ones punished) is more "just" than that of the god of the christian religion.

Hmm. I thought you understood Christianity better than this, Ana. But this statement implies a fractal misunderstanding that will make this debate very difficult.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm. I thought you understood Christianity better than this, Ana. But this statement implies a fractal misunderstanding that will make this debate very difficult.

Yea? It's certainly possible that I've bitten off more than I can chew...

I'm not sure what you mean though. I only know of one definition for "fractal" and I can't make sense of how you used it here. Nonetheless, I feel I can make a solid argument against the doctrines that I listed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yea? It's certainly possible that I've bitten off more than I can chew...

I'm not sure what you mean though. I only know of one definition for "fractal" and I can't make sense of how you used it here. Nonetheless, I feel I can make a solid argument against the doctrines that I listed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning your ability to debate. I don't know TheoNewstoss. He may give you a good fight. But if he approaches this with either an attempt to objectively define justice and morality or a claim that amounts to saying God is just because he's God (or because the Bible says so), I'm sure you'll shred him.

I was just saying that the way the debate is proposed misunderstands Christianity before it even starts. So, this could easily devolve into tail-chasing over who God is, what Christianity is, etc. FYI, to be "fractally wrong" means to be wrong on many levels. It's like someone who makes an errant statement about chemistry, and as you try to correct them you find out they don't know what a chemical is, and then you find out they don't know what a molecule is, and then you find out they don't know what an atom is, and then you find out they don't know what an electron is, and so forth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning your ability to debate. I don't know TheoNewstoss. He may give you a good fight. But if he approaches this with either an attempt to objectively define justice and morality or a claim that amounts to saying God is just because he's God (or because the Bible says so), I'm sure you'll shred him.

I was just saying that the way the debate is proposed misunderstands Christianity before it even starts. So, this could easily devolve into tail-chasing over who God is, what Christianity is, etc. FYI, to be "fractally wrong" means to be wrong on many levels. It's like someone who makes an errant statement about chemistry, and as you try to correct them you find out they don't know what a chemical is, and then you find out they don't know what a molecule is, and then you find out they don't know what an atom is, and then you find out they don't know what an electron is, and so forth.

Gotcha, and thanks for clearing that up. I'm aware that I can't possibly argue against every denominations beliefs...that's why I'm solely going to focus on the "justness" of three doctrines within christianity. Those are, original sin, the afterlife (or heaven and hell), and the resurrection as salvation. I'm starting with certain assumptions (that they are all real, for example) and I'm not going to debate any aspect of god other than the notion of justice implied by each of these doctrines.

Hopefully it's a topic allowed for debate...I think it could be interesting.

 

[Resha Caner]

Gotcha, and thanks for clearing that up. I'm aware that I can't possibly argue against every denominations beliefs...that's why I'm solely going to focus on the "justness" of three doctrines within christianity. Those are, original sin, the afterlife (or heaven and hell), and the resurrection as salvation. I'm starting with certain assumptions (that they are all real, for example) and I'm not going to debate any aspect of god other than the notion of justice implied by each of these doctrines.

Hopefully it's a topic allowed for debate...I think it could be interesting.

It will be interesting if just to see which version of original sin, justification, etc. is used. Even those concepts vary from denomination to denomination.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It will be interesting if just to see which version of original sin, justification, etc. is used. Even those concepts vary from denomination to denomination.

True...and that's one of the benefits of starting first, I get to set the tone. If, for example, I were to choose the most common version of these doctrines...my opponent could certainly try to argue for a different/more obscure version...but then he would risk alienating a fair portion of the audience.

Thanks for adding your two cents, but I think I should drop the talk of strategy for now.

 

[Resha Caner]

True...and that's one of the benefits of starting first, I get to set the tone. If, for example, I were to choose the most common version of these doctrines...my opponent could certainly try to argue for a different/more obscure version...but then he would risk alienating a fair portion of the audience.

Thanks for adding your two cents, but I think I should drop the talk of strategy for now.

Go for it. Lutheran theology is not obscure, but it seems many Americans (Christian and not) are unfamiliar with it. So, once you defeat the more popular Reformed ideas (or whichever you go after) people are more than welcome to come join we Lutherans

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Since I'll be taking the view that my version of justice is more just....I'll be starting and my opponent will respond defending christianity. Since this is not an apologetics debate, the truthfulness of christianity regarding the positions discussed will not be attacked. Three posts each, one week response times, standard rules apply.

I agree with your proposal and look forward to debating this with you. Also, as I work full-time and am in school full-time, I would like to thank you for the generous amount of time you've allotted for responses.

No problem! I work full time as well, and I certainly remember what it was like to be a full time college student. I'll notify the moderator so he can set up the debate room ,and as a courtesy, I'll send you a message when I make my initial post so you get the full time allotted.

Looking forward to the debate.

These two members have agreed to a debate, so I ask that everyone else refrain from posting in this thread. Once the debate is set up, there will be a "Peanut Gallery" thread set up for further discussion by non participants.

Draft stipulations:

Title:

Justice: "Punishment fits the Crime" vs. "Christian Justice"​

Subject:

"Punishment fits the crime and the guilty are the ones punished" is more "just" than that of the God of the christian religion in regard to the principles of justice and how they apply to a punishment based system; and how they contrast with justice found in the Christian beliefs regarding the afterlife, original sin, and possibly even salvation through crucifixion.​

Stipulations:

1. There will be three alternating rounds (three posts each) Ana the Ist will begin, affirming "Punishment should fit the crime"; TheoNewstoss, will follow on the side of Christian Justice.
2. There is a one week time limit for each post
3. All CF's standard rules apply; and all sources may be used for reference. (20% copyright rule applies to all quoted material)
4. Start date will be at Ana the Ist's convenience.
5. A Peanut gallery will be opened in Ethics & Morality

@Ana the Ist , @TheoNewstoss , please review these proposed stipulations, and I can get these set up in the next 24 hours once everyone agrees.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Everything looks good to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Looks right to me.