I was at some training last night for a new volunteer role I am starting soon. The group passed out coasters with their motto on it.
"Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly"
They freely admit that they've pulled this from Micah 6.
While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed on both the original and truncated versions, I was struck by a problem with the paraphrase.
By what standard to you measure justice, mercy, and humility, when you remove God from the equasion?
It seems like the human takes on all of those three is flawed and tainted by self interest at best.
We see people chanting "No justice, no peace.", which means "Give us the result we want, or we'll throw a tantrum.". We see the results on the Kavanaugh debacle in which he received neither justice, nor mercy. We see people who aren't willing to extend the slightest bit of mercy to their enemies, even to the point of placing extraordinary weight on actions engaged in as a youth. We posthumously destroy the legacies of public figures for not living up to 2019 mores, back in the day. We live in a society where the "humble brag" is a thing.
I realize that the aspiration to those things above is noble. I think that the only place we truely find justice or mercy is before the throne of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
The problem is, what you really mean is the only place we truly fine Justice and mercy is before your understanding of what God wants. The rest of us don't find it that hard to recognize what is just and moral and good. The problem is, modern conservatives have made a religion out of their own rules and regulations. Much like the ancient, you put rules and burdens on people's back and do nothing to lift the burden.
Your problem is that you can’t help yourself from projecting your prejudices on others and telling others what they “really mean”, instead of simply dealing with the reality of what’s actually said.
FYI, if you mean that I believe that God dispenses justice and mercy perfectly and that He is deserving of our humble worship, OK.
Please, by all means, demonstrate that you are capable of perfect justice and mercy. Show me your objective standards for justice and mercy. Explain how “no justice, no peace” actually provides justice.
I have no doubt that you can come up with some standard of justice and mercy that satisfies your subjective notions. But, that’s my point. Your definition (which you haven’t provided), will have a difficult time measuring up to God’s.
If you’re demonstration of mercy that I’ve seen is an example of what you’re talking about, you’ve got quite a burden of proof.
Please, if you are going to make claims, provide proof of the claims you make.
As I pointed out time and time again and you've always met with other Silence, neither of us can objectively prove what is and isn't Justice or Mercy. That does not mean that we can't reasonably know. The difference is, you like to pretend like you do perfectly no what is an associate Justice objectively speaking. You like to pretend that you can look at the Bible and say because this line says something, therefore I know objectively that this is just. But that is just an opinion. You're human opinion. And in my human opinion, you are often clearly wrong in your human opinion. This is why you can't comment on my blog. Because you can't acknowledge your opinions about God ARE your opinions and that those opinions are subjective, not objective.
I'll even try it again... Do you acknowledge that you have no way of objectively proving your opinions about what God thinks is just are objectively factual, as opposed to your opinions?
Please, if you're going to make claims, provide proof of the claims you make.
I'll also even give you some specifics so you can deal with specifics and not generalities. You probably think that abortion is wrong. You probably even think that abortion is killing babies. Do you also think that God is opposed to all abortions? Do you think you know objectively that God is opposed to all abortions?
Or, you think that it is wrong for gay guys to get married, is that right? Do you also think the God is opposed to gay guys getting married? Do you also think that you can know objectively that God is opposed to gay guys getting married? If so and you want to make that claim, then prove it.
You can't.
Sorry for the typos. I was dictating.
Please provide one specific instance where I’ve responded to one of your questions with silence.
I can provide dozens of instances where you’ve done exactly that.
The only “opinion” I’ve expressed on this topic is that God’s justice and mercy are perfect, or that God’s justice and mercy are significantly more perfect than any human’s.
The fact that you are essentially arguing that God’s justice and mercy aren’t perfect is a strange position for some who claims to be a Christian.
I’m impressed by your ability to repeat my requests, I’d be more impressed if you’d actually prove the claims you’ve made. You have to realize how foolish it is for you to demand what you refuse to do yourself.
I’ve written plenty on those two topics, if you have questions you can refer to what I’ve written.
Unfortunately none of those things applies in the context of this post.
When I asked you for specifics. I was hoping for specific examples of your superior ability to demonstrate justice and mercy that are approaching perfection.
I’m not surprised that you haven’t proven your claims or provider what I asked for, it’s par for the course with you.
No problem, I’ve done it myself. I gave up denigrating commenters because of typos long ago.
I’m going to try to simplify this.
Do you agree that God’s justice and mercy are perfect in reflection of God’s perfect nature?
Do you believe that fallen, sinful humans are able to dispense justice and mercy perfectly?
Do you believe that it’s possible for humans to make judgements about justice and mercy without being influenced by their prejudices, and self interest?
3 simple yes or no questions
The irony of you asking me for examples of you not answering questions in a comment where you directly ignored and did not answer several questions is not lost on me. Unfortunately, it is lost on you.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes.
Now I'll make it simple. Three and a half simple yes or no questions.
A. Do you think that God is opposed to abortion?
B. If yes, do you think that you know this as an objective fact?
B1. ...or do you recognize that you hold it as your subjective opinion?
C. If you think you know this as an objective fact, do you recognize that you cannot prove this?
I answered yours. Time will tell if you will answer my mine. My bet would be, no.
You’ve been making that false claim for months,if you can’t provide proof, maybe you should reconsider your claim.
By all means, provide specific instances of justice being dispensed 100% dispassionately and of mercy being displayed perfectly by a fallen sinful human, on a regular basis.
A. Yes
B. Yes
B1 Yes
C. Not to your satisfaction
So, prove you claims.
I’ve answered your questions, which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post. Any further exploration of these off topic questions will not be addressed.
1. You literally only answered some of the
2. You literally answered nonsensically. As if your subjective opinion is also an objective fact. And you did not recognize the nonsensical and irrational nature of such a delusional claim.
So, by all means, try again.
3. Do you recognize that you cannot through this claim, period?
The question is, can you prove it? Not whether you can prove it to someone's satisfaction but whether you can prove it objectively? That is the nature of objective facts, that is observable to all people regardless of their opinions. This is literally a subjective opinion, it is literally not an objective fact.
4. Do you recognize that reality?
As to your question or request, prove what claims?
No, I literally answered all 4.
Perhaps you should have paid attention to my previous comment. Hint, I answered exactly the questions you asked.
Now, the detour (distraction, smokescreen, off topic nonsense l) is done.
I’ll pick the easiest one. First sentence of your first comment. Prove it.
FYI, I’ve never claimed I could prove any of this objectively. I have been clear that we can reasonably know the answers.
I'm sure you think you answered them. You literally did not, at least not a direct answer to the actual question that was asked. Try again.
Or don't. No one will be surprised.
You seem confused by the concept of answering, I absolutely literally answered your questions as asked. It’s right there in black and white. But please keep up with the diversionary tactics. It’s instructive to watch you dodge.
Sigh.
I asked, literally...
"C. If you think you know this as an objective fact, do you recognize that you cannot prove this?"
YOU answered...
C. Not to your satisfaction
Now, follow closely:
I DID NOT ASK if you could prove it to my satisfaction.
I asked if you recognize that you can't prove it. Period.
You literally can not objectively prove it. Not to anyone's satisfaction.
The point being discussed is understanding the difference between unprovable subjective opinion and provably objective fact.
You ARE correct that your OPINION about God's opinion on the matter of abortion is a subjective opinion. That means, then, that you can't prove it objectively. I have nothing to do with it. You can't prove it to any reasonable people as objective fact.
I repeat:
You can't prove it to any reasonable people as objective fact.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
That is the question that is being asked of you.
You clearly don’t understand the concept of an answer. You asked a question, I answered it. It’s pretty simple.
Now I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that this obsession with redefining answer, had occurred right after I’ve told you that I’ve answered you diversionary off topic questions and asked you for specific proof of your specific claim.
It could be, but I suspect it’s not.
You clearly don’t understand the concept of an answer. You asked a question, I answered ANOTHER question. It’s pretty simple.
If I ask, for instance...
Do you think it is objectively demonstrably factual that Craig abuses Haitian children?
And someone answers
"I can't prove it to YOU that Craig abuses Haitian children..."
That is answering another question, not the one I asked. Further, it is implying something that the person can't prove (presumably), rather than recognizing the reality.
Understand?
But no, of course you don't understand. Otherwise, you'd have answered the actual question being asked and quit with these ridiculous dodges. You clearly don't understand the concept of questions and answers.
No, I objectively answered your question. The fact that you don’t like the answer doesn’t negate the other existence of the answer.
Your continued efforts to focus on this diversion rather that proving your claim is raising questions about your ability to prove your claims. It seems that you’d rather focus of fighting reality than to simply prove your claim.
But, please, keep it up. You’re just providing more evidence that you keep making claims you can’t prove. Keep it up.
I can explain it to you, Craig, but I can't understand it for you.
If you ever DO finally understand the actual question and want to answer it, let me know.
No, you don’t have to explain anything else, you’ve made things quite clear. Your choice to focus on diversion and hide from proving your claims says everything I need to hear.
Your literal, actual first sentence in this thread was a claim you can’t prove, but you’d rather bitch because you don’t like my answer.
No, it’s all clear now.
As to my first sentence, perhaps I'm mistaken.
Look, we both agree that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God knows perfectly what is justice. We both agree that humans don't perfectly know what is just. In generalities, you and I agree. Right?
It's when we move to specifics that you sound like you're talkin about Justice coming from your specific understanding of what is just.
But maybe I'm mistaken. You tell me.
When we move to a specific moral question or question of Justice, you do not think that MY understanding of what is just is just.
For instance, on the topic of abortion, I think what is Just is for women and families to decide for themselves how to handle their own pregnancies.
But you disagree. You think that Justice is found in YOUR understanding of what God wants to do. Am I mistaken?
You tell me.
"To your satisfaction" is the perfect response, as Dan presumes he can dictate what constitutes an objective reply based on his absolutely subjective opinion. He can SAY "objective", but HE will decide if your response qualifies as such...without explanation...without facts...only that he says so.
This is why I waste no time with such crapola and simply strive to explain and procure explanation. Dan prefers to avoid the point in favor of these games.
That is the most equivocal, milquetoast, spineless exclude for admitting that you just made up a BS false claim and when pressed you couldn’t prove it.
If only you’d admit the same about the other claims you can’t prove.
And once again, he does not answer the question. Once again, he dodges with a milquetoast vague non-response. The only question I have is... are you deliberately being obtuse or is it just sheer ignorance for you?
Again, if you ever get around to wanting to answer the actual question, let me know.
If we agree in general, and you really have no way to prove your contention regarding humans administering justice, why did you feel it necessary to open your comments with a false claim? Why focus on the disagreement?
As to human determination of justice it’s not about your interpretation it’s about fallen, sinful humans determining justice as compared to a perfect living God determining justice. Literally by definition human justice is inferior. Feel free to argue otherwise, but you’d need actual proof.
Yes, you’re mistaken, I believe that God is perfectly just, perfectly merciful, and perfectly loving. For me to try to impose my idea of what is just on God is presumptuous and an expression of hubris. You can tell this by the fact that I literally didn’t even attempt to impose my opinions on God’s justice. I’ll leave that to you, you’re clearly more comfortable making pronouncements on things that are objectively just than I.
So, yes you’re mistaken. I’ve never said that I get to define justice for God.
I know it’s hard for you to comprehend, but the rest of us don’t operate on your time schedule. It’s not that I didn’t answer your question. It’s that I hadn’t answered it yet. I had better things to do than waste time with you.
I felt it more value to point out your hiding from admitting your false claim and pointing out your hypocrisy than to correct your errors.
But now I’ve done both, and I suspect that no apology or clear acknowledgment will be forthcoming.
It’s easier to focus on and stir up disagreement and throw up smokescreens and diversions. That’s how you’ve chosen to respond.
Art, I agree that Dan’s concept of prove can be elastic at times.
Hell, he couldn’t prove that the first sentence in his first comment was true.
There's nothing true or provable in any sentence of that first comment. First of all, who's "the rest of us"? Dan ASSUMES he's part of some vast group of like minded people who have a perfect understanding of what's just, moral and good. But that's not even a subjective understanding. His is pure invention based on worldly criteria. Otherwise his opinions on such things as sexual behavior and murder wouldn't be so self-serving. In other words, instead of us imposing rules for Christian behavior, Dan rejects Christian teaching he and his like minded reprobates find inconvenient. Then, he attacks those who abide and/or defend Christian teaching as having invented "OUR OWN" rules with which we then burden others.
I have noticed that Dan frequently tries to speak as if he represents a significantly large group of people who all think just like him. He’s never demonstrated the truth of this, he just asserts it.
At least he’s consistent because he also frequently tries to lump the individuals he responds to into groups of his own making.
Perhaps the best option is to speak for oneself and to be content with that. Not to try to gain additional credibility by pretending to represent people who one doesn’t represent. It’s his version of the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers.
Dan,
You seem to be making the argument that abortion is a form of justice. That it’s the sort of justice that you’d see from a perfectly just God.
Yet, are all abortions equally just?
Are all abortions equally good?
Does justice in abortion only accrue to one of the three parties involved?
Who decides which of the three parties involved gets justice?
Once again you’re making the claim that abortion=justice, so unpack and demonstrate the truth of that claim.
If you dare.
Even though you haven't answered my question, I'll answer yours, just because it's pretty simple and obvious, at least for those not blinded by partisanship and idolization of their human theologies...
1. Most rational, moral humans recognize ideals of human rights.
2. One of our human rights is the right to self determination, to make up one's own damn mind about personal matters.
3. Thus, women have the right to determine their own spouses, their own health care and how to deal with their own pregnancies, as a matter of human rights and justice.
4. Admittedly, for at least some people, there is the question of whether or not a fetus is fully deserving of all rights the mother has, including the "right to life..."
5. Unfortunately (for anti-abortion types), the question of a supposed fetal right to life is simply undetermined. Unanswerable.
6. That being the case, the question reasonably lands with the mother and family to decide as a matter of justice/self determination. Because, if not the family, who gets to force the woman to decide against her will? A tyrannical Gov't? Not in a just world.
But then, we've covered all this before.
Thank you for repeating your personal unsupported opinions about the wonders of abortion.
I appreciate the effort, but I’m not seeing where you actually answered the actual questions I asked.
I suspect part of your confusion is that you claimed to answer my “question”, while being confused by the presence of multiple questions. It’s an easy mistake to make, and I’m sure your recognize your error when you look again.
It’s the same mistake that you make when you keep believing that repeating a false assertion will somehow make it true.
Again, I appreciate the attempt, but I’m positive that you can do better if you just pay a little more attention and read carefully.
Of course we’ve been over your unsupported opinions before, we’ve been over the science and law that disagree with you and your commitment to unfettered “self determination” and unlimited “bodily autonomy”. They’re interesting notions, but nothing you can prove.
But because, as you noted we’ve covered your opinions, therefore I thought it would be helpful to cover different territory. That’s why I didn’t ask you questions about things you’ve already shared your hunches about.
To revisit something you’ve never answered, please explain the specific point where a living human being is granted the “right to life” , and what entity grants the “right to life”?
In addition to explaining where you find justice in abortion.
Perhaps you should explain how your using the term justice and how you would equate your version of justice with God’s perfect justice.
1. When does a human entity enjoy a right to life? We are all agreed that birthed babies enjoy that right. Beyond that, we don't know.
Let me say that again...
Beyond that, we. Do. Not. Know.
You don't know. I don't know. None of us know and none of us can say authoritatively that the 6-month fetus has a right to life or that the 3 week fetus has a right to life. None of us knows that. Anything that any of us offer on that question is an unsupported opinion.
I've answered your question. You answer mine.
Do you recognize that reality?
2. What entity grants a right to life?
Generally speaking, all humans, or at least nearly all modern-day humans, recognize that as a basic human right. It's a basic human right that all humans - and as far as I know, most human governments - acknowledge for humans that have been birthed.
Beyond that, different humans and different governments have different opinions about fetuses and whether or not they enjoy a right to life. None of them can state authoritatively that yes, a fetus has a God-given right to life.
Do you agree with that reality?
I think one of your implied questions is, does God grant a universal right to life to All Humans and to all fetuses, as well? We don't know the answer to that. Not authoritatively.
Do you recognize that reality? I answered your questions. Your turn.
Re: your last question... there are not two versions of justice. There's just justice. We might say we can see better instances of justice and worse instances. But by justice, I just am using the standard English definitions...
The quality of being just, impartial and fair. Ideal actions. Acting in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
"5. Unfortunately (for anti-abortion types), the question of a supposed fetal right to life is simply undetermined. Unanswerable."
This is clearly untrue, and no more than another assertion for the sake of personal convenience. This is the necessary lie upon which abortion "rights" are based.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by God's perfect justice? Or do you only mean a supposed perfect justice that we can't know as humans, so it's indefinable?
1. So, you claim we can’t know, so your default is deny unborn humans the right to life. How compassionate,
2. According to the US Constitution “our Creator” grants the right to life. I guess you’re just going to ignore that.
If the question you keep demanding I answer is “Do you recognize that reality?” repeated ad nauseum, then i frequently answer it.
The answer is that I realize that you are claiming that it’s reality, but I recognize that you haven’t objectively proven your claim.
You appear to be saying that justice is justice across the board. That the OJ verdict was as equally just as any other verdict. That you are capable of dispensing justice perfectly and dispassionately while setting your prejudices aside, is that your claim?
I mean that when God judges everyone that He will judge perfectly. He will perfectly balance justice and mercy. Because He knows all, He will judge based on outward actions and inward intentions.
In short, I mean that a perfectly just dispenses perfect justice. Conversely, that means that human justice is, by definition, imperfect.
You still haven’t answered the specific questions that were asked. Not much surprising there.
1. So, you claim we can’t know, so your default is deny unborn humans the right to life. How compassionate,
Wrong, I note the reality that WE DON'T KNOW authoritatively if an unborn human has a right to life AND SO, it should be left to the family/individuals involved rather than someone who doesn't know making that decision for them.
Self-determination. IF WE DON'T/CAN'T know (and you don't - OR PROVE THAT YOU DO, but you can't so you won't), then WHO does it make the most sense to decide?
Consider this analogy: We know that one person on the planet driving a fossil fuel powered car around safely doesn't make any significant harm to the whole world. We also know that if everyone on the planet drove, it would destroy the world. We don't know how much the world can bear before public safety and public lives are threatened. GIVEN THAT WE DON'T KNOW, do you want gov't to make the decision FOR YOU on whether or not you should drive a car? Or do you want that decision to stay with the individual?
Again, answer the question: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE REALITY that you can't prove your hunch about human fetuses enjoying a "right to life..."? I think the answer is yes, but you hate like hell to say that out loud, thus proving your cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
This is why I push you all so hard to acknowledge reality... because historically, fundamentalists have used and abused the presumption that they are speaking for God to inflict all manner of evil. Beginning with the humility to recognize that you don't have all the answers is an important starting place for being a rational adult.
2. According to the US Constitution “our Creator” grants the right to life. I guess you’re just going to ignore that.
That IS an opinion, but it is an unproven opinion and the implications of that opinion remain to be seen and proven. I'm not ignoring that opinion, I was trying to stick to proven known facts, and not mere subjective opinions. See above note about fundamentalists and abuses of power and authority.
Still not answered the questions asked, still asserting that reality is defined by your say so.
I unit understand that your default position is against the right of the unborn to live. Or that you choose to allot that right to the whim of others.
Yet none of that heartlessness addresses the issue of justice. You made the claim, yet you won’t prove it or clarify it.
Goalposts moved again.
FYI, my position is that if we truly can’t know, then we default toward the protection of innocent life, not the ending of innocent life.
"Wrong, I note the reality that WE DON'T KNOW authoritatively if an unborn human has a right to life AND SO, it should be left to the family/individuals involved rather than someone who doesn't know making that decision for them."
HA! This is a scream! We don't know "authoritatively" if ANY person has a right to life. I would love for Dan to make his argument to the contrary!
"We also know that if everyone on the planet drove, it would destroy the world."
How do we know this exactly? All we know with absolute certainty is that Dan lacks the ability to craft an analogy.
"Again, answer the question: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE REALITY that you can't prove your hunch about human fetuses enjoying a "right to life..."?"
Actually, this has been done. Dan simply rejects whatever is put forth to that end, because he needs to have abortion legal and in order for that to remain he needs for enough people to pretend that the unborn is not a person with that right. Dan is evil personified.
Dan engages in the logical fallacy of appealing to authority by pronouncing things to be “reality”. He presumes that he is free from his burden of proof because it’s “reality”.
Of course, he can’t prove almost everything he claims, and doesn’t appear to want to attempt to.
I think you’re falling into the Dan trap there at the end. Dan isn’t evil, he’s misguided, blinded by partisanship, ignorant on some subjects, and possibly stupid, but he’s not evil. Saying that he is, simply trivializes evil, much like Dan does. I expect better from you on this kind of thing.
If I was first coming upon Dan, I could perhaps regard him as you're doing now. But I've been dealing with him for 10+years and no facts, evidences or logic turns him from his evil positions...which seem more evil than ever. I don't trivialize evil, because I don't believe it's usually "Hitlerian" in its manifestation. It's generally far more subtle and everyday. Thus, I'm not at all being flip about using the term with regard to Dan and his consistently unchristian positions. Evil is anything that draws one from God, and can appear kind in doing so...often using what appears to be kindness, love and even Christian to do so. The best we can say, then, is that his preference for stupidity and ignorance has made him a tool for evil
I can’t alter your perceptions and impressions of Dan, although I strongly disagree. I can ask that you not refer to Dan as evil here.
I agree that you see a more mundane sense of evil, and you might be right, but dial it back here.
Art, do you get irrational, out of context comments that don’t make any sense?
I get random attempts at commentary that goes right to my spam folder. On occasion, such as since these recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton, I take a quick peek to see if any contains "the plan" that we never got. Otherwise, I simply delete them with the test of the spam. I notice that he fills Dan's blog with comments, but I generally don't read them. Other than that, no....no other irrational, out of context and senseless comments come my way.
Some of the ones I get are so unhinged and out of context that they are literally senseless, It’s a strange phenomenon.
It's a desperate cry for attention by one who worked so hard to be ignored.
Of course it is.
Post a Comment