The Futile Arguments Thread

[AnimatedDirt]

But in your scenario, Jesus isn't part of the court, nor part of the class action lawsuit. He is just the innocent hotdog vendor outside the court house. It would be as if the court (God), sentenced the people who lost in the case (humans) to pay the fine, but instead of giving them punishment, he brought in the hotdog vendor and forced him to pay the fine, THEN asked the people of in court to pay back the hotdog vendor for his forced payment. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

You have it so twisted, it's no wonder it sounds impossible to you.  The God of the OT is in fact, Jesus Christ.  Please, if you will, note John 1:1-18.  In no manner was Christ forced into anything.  What is this "payback" you speak of that the people have to payback to the "Hotdog Vendor"?

But your scenario doesn't punish someone for not joining the lawsuit, but the Bible specifically says you have to, or you'll be punished.

The "punishment" as in a class-action law suit is that the ones that could've joined in, do not reap the rewards of the law suit.  There is punishment.

Think of it this way. I come to you and say that your grandfather robbed my grandfather, which ruined my family financially, so now you have to pay me everything you own. You would think I was crazy, right? But what if I then said that wait, you didn't have to, because I took the innocent postman walking by forced him to pay me everything he had. Then I proclaim that now of course you'll have to pay back the post man for him having been forced to pay me, or you'd be physically tortured. If that scenario seems quite messed up, then you partially understand why I see Christianity that way.

Again...twisted.

The idea that we have our parent's sin (sin from Adam and Eve) so therefore we must be punished for it is ethical thinking out of the bronze age. No court would ever arrest someone for what their ancestors did centuries ago.

This shows exactly how you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.  It's not that at all.  No one is being arrested.  It simply says that everyone is TAINTED with sin.  "If any of you be without sin, let him cast the first stone.".  Sin cannot be fully understood by a created being unless sin is acted upon.  Once acted upon, sin is now IN man and his offspring.  There is not one single soul/person that cannot be saved from sin.  Every human is eligible...from Adam and Eve to the last one born.  Every human is able to live out their life HERE as they see fit.  Free Will, Freedom of choice.  It's what we do with that choice that dictates our eternal destiny.  You aren't being arrested right now are you?

Christianity goes several steps further and says that an innocent person was killed for your supposed sins, and that you need to thank said person or you'll be punished even worse! That is blackmail for a crime no one committed, and it is not justice.

Thankfulness only comes after one understands what was done.  One needn't fully understand what was done, however, one must fully believe that what was done was free and nothing can be done to get it other than sheer whole-hearted belief and trust.

[Event_Horizon]

You have it so twisted, it's no wonder it sounds impossible to you.  The God of the OT is in fact, Jesus Christ.  Please, if you will, note John 1:1-18.  In no manner was Christ forced into anything.  What is this "payback" you speak of that the people have to payback to the "Hotdog Vendor"?

Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, so they have to accept him as their savior or go to hell. That means that because the Christian's ancestors did something bad, then God had to come down as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to remove that sin, however humans have to pay tribute to the being which absolved them of their nonexistent sin or go to infinite torture. God decreed humans have sin, Jesus got rid of it, and now humans owe Jesus. Jesus is blackmailing humanity.

It isn't twisted if you look objectively at it. There are fundamental ethical falsehoods that Christianity accepts as tenets of its religion.

1: The punishment for actions taken against one's ancestors also applies to you, even if you weren't involved, even if you were born centuries later (See God cursing humanity, not just Adam and Eve).

- Of course this is false because anything your parents do is independent of what you do. If your parents lie and cheat, it doesn't mean that you're also a liar and a cheater. Your ethical actions are your own, and only apply to you. If your actions are good, then regardless of what your parents or ancestors did, you are a good person.

2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

- This is also false because to judge someone as "good" or "bad" is to judge them by their actions. A newborn takes no ethical or unethical actions, so it does not deserve punishment as a default. #1 also applies here as well.

3: People are born owing their life to creator their, which they did not choose to accept in the first place. (See commanded devotion to God).

- Essentially this forces someone into slavery. This is wrong because people cannot choose to be born, because they do not exist before they are born. They don't choose their race, sex, nationality, or socioeconomic status. To say that a human owes a God for their existence, means you have forced that human into debt without their choice or consent.

4: Unethical actions, such as murder and rape, are able to be washed clean by the punishment of an innocent bystander and not through the punishment of the perpetrator (See the sacrifice of Jesus).

- Obviously nobody would accept hurting someone else for the unethical actions of another. If a person really likes someone else, that person can take the other's punishment for them, but not the other's responsibility. The one who committed the action is still responsible for it, regardless of how many others are punished or how harshly.

5: If someone does something to benefit another, even without that person's consent, they still owe the original person for the benevolent action (See commanded acceptance of Jesus).

- This is plainly false because it is akin to blackmail. Consider the situation if the mob forced a favor onto someone, then immediately asked for that person's servitude. I cannot do something nice for you without your consent, then force you to do something nice for me.

6: Infinite punishment is fair for a finite life (See Hell).

- Pretty self explanatory why it's wrong. An infinite punishment for one is excessive no matter the crime, since only an infinite crime can justify an infinite punishment, and mortals only exist in a finite lifetime. That, and an infinite punishment treats all unethical actions as the same. The person who steals 50$ is given the same punishment as a genocidal maniac who kills 13 billion people.

And yet Christians say their God and his laws are just. Judging from the content of Christianity itself, this is not so.

[Davin]

Well...the Bible plus historical evidence that seems to be "unsound".

There is no historical evidence of the god, only of things mentioned in it. No evidence for the creation in the bible. No evidence for the world wide flood in the bible. No evidence for most of the things in the bible. There is reasonable evidence for places in the bible that existed at the same time the bible was written, however this kind of reasoning would lead to accepting Spiderman as real because New York exists simply because it depicts Spiderman swinging around New York.

But then again, I don't promote "proof" (as required by you) for faith and trust.

Then you can equally accept subatomic robots that created everything a few weeks ago including light in transit from distant stars. Given the lack of evidence for both concepts, they have equal rational weight.

We then are left with the knowledge of an old book that people would need/want MORE evidence.  None will be given.  Full Stop.

Then it's a useless concept because it's indiscernible from it not existing.

The evidence is there if one wishes to search it out.

Is your assumption that I haven't searched it out? After years of searching and finding nothing, I'll just wait for people to support their claims like I do with everything else (except the things I come up with, which I will provide support for).

[Stevil]

AD, I thnk quite a few of us are honestly baffled with how people can accept the concepts of the bible or the interprations taught by the churches representing the respective faiths based on the bible. I can see that quite a few of us have put a great deal of thought into these concepts but something is not clicking. We are seeing contradiction, we are seeing entrapment, punishment for who our parents and ancestors are, being castracised for simply being human, teachings that we are not worthy, that we must repent, that we owe our future to Jesus, lessons that we must obey the Christian god no matter how vile the act that we are being asked to do, lessons that we should be intolerant of others, and above all, an undying and relentless desire for world domination. It seems Christianity is viral and will never stop untill the last human is turned.
What we are not seeing is proof.
What we are not seeing is reason,
What we are not seeing is tolerance and love.

We are not even seeing a valid reason why Christianity is anymore valid than any of the thousands of other religions out there.
We are simply being told by Christians to have faith and believe. Not to think, not to look for proof. Any of the arguments you put forth for your god could equally apply to many of the other gods that are theorised.

Can I ask you a few personal questions?
Were you always a Christian?
Are your parents Christian?
What was it that turned you to believe that Christianity is without doubt the real truth. not the Truth, but the truth.
Have you put much consideration into other beliefs, e.g. why did you pick Christianity over Islam, over the Greek gods etc

[defendor]

I've changed my tactics from quoting constantly but I will, solely for coherence of argument.

1: The punishment for actions taken against one's ancestors also applies to you, even if you weren't involved, even if you were born centuries later (See God cursing humanity, not just Adam and Eve).

- Of course this is false because anything your parents do is independent of what you do. If your parents lie and cheat, it doesn't mean that you're also a liar and a cheater. Your ethical actions are your own, and only apply to you. If your actions are good, then regardless of what your parents or ancestors did, you are a good person.

According to scripture, we are all sinful.  You have done things either you regret, or have disobeyed a set ethical standard (law) or your own conscience.  Assuming you have, then how does your own qualifications of good and bad apply if they haven't been obeyed flawlessly?

2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

- This is also false because to judge someone as "good" or "bad" is to judge them by their actions. A newborn takes no ethical or unethical actions, so it does not deserve punishment as a default. #1 also applies here as well.

Define Good and Bad. How can someone's actions be qualified as either good or bad without a set moral standard?

3: People are born owing their life to creator their, which they did not choose to accept in the first place. (See commanded devotion to God).

- Essentially this forces someone into slavery. This is wrong because people cannot choose to be born, because they do not exist before they are born. They don't choose their race, sex, nationality, or socioeconomic status. To say that a human owes a God for their existence, means you have forced that human into debt without their choice or consent.

Right, that's the creation/creator relationship, if a potter chooses to make a pot for flowers, what is it to the clay to question the potter? But as the Bible indicates, we owe nothing to God, for we can provide nothing of value to God.  This is because, it is his creation.

4: Unethical actions, such as murder and rape, are able to be washed clean by the punishment of an innocent bystander and not through the punishment of the perpetrator (See the sacrifice of Jesus).

- Obviously nobody would accept hurting someone else for the unethical actions of another. If a person really likes someone else, that person can take the other's punishment for them, but not the other's responsibility. The one who committed the action is still responsible for it, regardless of how many others are punished or how harshly.

The real defiance is not against the person, it is against God.  For if someone did obey God, then he would not violate his neighbor.  So the unethical action has its source in the disobedience of God, so the only proper rectifying act would be from God, i.e. Jesus.

5: If someone does something to benefit another, even without that person's consent, they still owe the original person for the benevolent action (See commanded acceptance of Jesus).

- This is plainly false because it is akin to blackmail. Consider the situation if the mob forced a favor onto someone, then immediately asked for that person's servitude. I cannot do something nice for you without your consent, then force you to do something nice for me.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the magnitude of the death and resurrection of Christ, but I don't understand what you mean by commanded acceptance of Jesus?

6: Infinite punishment is fair for a finite life (See Hell).

- Pretty self explanatory why it's wrong. An infinite punishment for one is excessive no matter the crime, since only an infinite crime can justify an infinite punishment, and mortals only exist in a finite lifetime. That, and an infinite punishment treats all unethical actions as the same. The person who steals 50$ is given the same punishment as a genocidal maniac who kills 13 billion people.

Yes and no.  The punishment is not for stealing 50 bucks or killing a magnitude of people, the punishment is for denying God and in our very beings, living to defy God and establish ourselves as "God."  So if the crimes of our finite life are defying the magnitudes of an infinite God, then the punishment fits the crime.

For this next part, idk if that was to say there was evidence from history or the bible, so I'll try and give both.

There is no historical evidence of the god, only of things mentioned in it.

"I am the Lord God there is no other" I think this whole argument is about whether or not God exists ha

No evidence for the creation in the bible.

"God said, "let there be light" and there was light." The identity of information requires intelligence, our DNA has information, and even at the quantum level, all of the subatomic particles relay information, even if that information is + or -

No evidence for the world wide flood in the bible. No evidence for most of the things in the bible.

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Every ancient culture has a depiction of a flood.  The reason why God killed every creature was because of Man's dominion over everything over the earth and the wickedness of that time.  So not only was man evil, but the fact man was ruling over the world in an evil and malicious way, that there needed to be a restart, if you will.

Is your assumption that I haven't searched it out? After years of searching and finding nothing, I'll just wait for people to support their claims like I do with everything else (except the things I come up with, which I will provide support for)

Check out R.C. Sproul and Ravi Zacharias

Can I ask you a few personal questions?

Nope, you can't ha jk  

[Stevil]

What was it that turned you to believe that Christianity is without doubt the real truth. not the Truth, but the truth.

I have actually written a pretty lengthy note on facebook titled "Why do I believe?" I would be more than willing to share that with you.

Thanks for answering those questions of mine.
Yes, please, I would genuinely be interested to know, not to debunk you, but to understand what you personally found so compelling about the Christian scriptures. We have many Christians appear from time to time on this site and they all focus on the Points Of Difference with regards to Christianity and non belief. E.g. objective morality, purpose, after life, ID rather than randomness...
I also read a lot of preaching, quotes from the bible and statements such as "people should...". There are never proofs offered, but sometimes statements that we should believe and not look for proof (emotional pleas, basically).

I am starting to think that these people are too deep, to indoctorined into their beliefs to be able to relate to non believers.

I really do wonder why people become Christians or Muslims or ...

It does seem to me that generally the people that become theists are the people whose personalities are that way inclined and that these personalities would generally accept the faith that is more accessible at the time that they are ready for it.

I feel there is no compelling proof to be a theist or a strong atheist, hence it comes down to personal preference, hence personality types.
I think the atheist (science) root is more suited to personalities that are happy to accept an impersonal path, a path where energy has properties that cases substance to attract and form stars and planets. an impersonal path where primitive live develops to more complex organisms and humans are simple a development along this long path.
I think the theist root is more suited to personalities that are happy to accept a personal path, a path where the universe was created for them, where they are special and in the image of the creator and have a purpose for being. A path where eternal life is the only option as they would not be too special if their life was only momentary

[defendor]

Ya man no problem.  You answered my questions so I will gladly return the favor.  

The thing about the personality aptitudes and the beliefs that are associated with it I think hold much truth.  For example, regardless if God exists, someone may not feel the need to repent or be saved, thus no need for God.  Or someone may feel that if God exists, what is rational is what they can do FOR God to objectively earn salvation.

As for the note I wrote, i'll gladly send it to via message, it is pretty lengthy. Then if you would like to post it, I give you full reign to, but be warned, it has many punctuation and grammar errors and jumps around a lot, so I'll send it to you and we can talk over it personally.

[Event_Horizon]

According to scripture, we are all sinful.  You have done things either you regret, or have disobeyed a set ethical standard (law) or your own conscience.  Assuming you have, then how does your own qualifications of good and bad apply if they haven't been obeyed flawlessly?

Your scripture says you are sinful, and that's the exact problem I bring up. What is sin? Sin is the transgression from God's will (according to the dictionary), but what transgression has a baby preformed? You say we are all born with original sin, well right there is a problem because it assumes that the process of being born itself is against God's will. There is a much better form of ethics here in this world regarding human rights to which consequentialism applies after that. Obviously moral values from the Bible are false, since the Bible advocates things like rape and slavery. Unlike the Bible, my moral values change to accept better principles and reject older, non-functioning principles.

Define Good and Bad. How can someone's actions be qualified as either good or bad without a set moral standard?

Quite easily if we provide the moral standard. The moral standard proposed by enlightenment thinkers has gone way beyond what the Bible ever said. If you think actions come down to simple good and bad, then that is incredibly simple and I would say juvenile. It's easy to read and regurgitate from a book, and it's hard to weigh actions and outcomes, but the latter is the correct methodology for examining and then applying ethics to a myriad of situations and changing cultural context.

If a potter chooses to make a pot for flowers, what is it to the clay to question the potter?

Exactly, and that's why it's wrong. If the pot were somehow sentient, how could the pot give consent to be created or not? Imagine a situation when a child is born to a set of parents, and that set of parents thinks that because they gave birth to it, that the child must serve them for the rest of their remaining years, doing whatever they say, no matter what. Essentially the child is born as a slave to their parents and is not an independent person in their own right. To say that we owe God for our creation means that we are slaves to him, that we are not able to form our own societies for our own human growth. Slavery is not an ethical concept, and Christianity advocates for supernatural slavery on a species level.

The real defiance is not against the person, it is against God.

That's even worse! By your thinking, if I steal from you, I'm actually stealing from God, and therefore I don't need to compensate you for your loss. I could take your car, repent in church, and keep the car because I redeemed myself in God's eyes. That is not justice.

For if someone did obey God, then he would not violate his neighbor.

But God commands you to obliterate your neighbor if they don't agree with you. God commands killing in his name. He commands slavery and torture and rape. If someone were not to kill another who worked on the sabbath, that would be an unethical action because it goes against God. Killing is therefore not only necessary, but a moral ought.

I don't understand what you mean by commanded acceptance of Jesus?

The Bible says you must accept Jesus as your personal savior or go to unending torture. If you really examine it, Jesus allegedly absolved me of my sins before I was even born, to which I owe him for that sacrifice. The problem is that I never gave consent for that action, and the sin itself is debatable in the first place.

The punishment is not for stealing 50 bucks or killing a magnitude of people, the punishment is for denying God and in our very beings, living to defy God and establish ourselves as "God."  So if the crimes of our finite life are defying the magnitudes of an infinite God, then the punishment fits the crime.

But that is not ethical in the least. Just because supposed proxy recipient of the crime is "infinite", whatever that means, doesn't require the punishment to be infinite. Even if I assume that I am performing a crime against God, a crime against said being doesn't make it an infinite crime, so an infinite punishment is not justified.  A misdemeanor and genocide are two different crimes, and therefore they should be dealt punishment in accordance to their crimes. That is moral thinking that logical, reasonable, and just. That is not what Christianity advocates for.

[LegendarySandwich]

Event_Horizon, I love your posts. Good job debunking Christian "justice".

[defendor]

Your scripture says you are sinful, and that's the exact problem I bring up. What is sin? Sin is the transgression from God's will (according to the dictionary), but what transgression has a baby preformed? You say we are all born with original sin, well right there is a problem because it assumes that the process of being born itself is against God's will. There is a much better form of ethics here in this world regarding human rights to which consequentialism applies after that. Obviously moral values from the Bible are false, since the Bible advocates things like rape and slavery. Unlike the Bible, my moral values change to accept better principles and reject older, non-functioning principles.

The transgression is the ability to disobey God, that is what makes us unworthy. We can get to heaven for perfection, but even by your standards, I'm sure even you are not perfect.  So before even we commit one sin, we have the ability to, and the ability to sin, makes us sin, and then when we do commit our first sin, at the age of accountability, we are against God.  Committing the sin makes us unholy.

But you make a lot of mentions to what the bible advocates, so I would like to know where in the bible that the bible advocates things like rape?  

The slavery from a cultural standpoint, was a rich man taking in a servant and training him, and as his payment was to live and serve with the master.  Think of an indentured servant, it is not the American slave trade.  The process the bible were talking about, a person from a poor family would send a child to a rich man, and he would be trained and taught, it was a beneficiary.  Joseph was also a slave in Egypt and was second in command

Quite easily if we provide the moral standard. The moral standard proposed by enlightenment thinkers has gone way beyond what the Bible ever said. If you think actions come down to simple good and bad, then that is incredibly simple and I would say juvenile. It's easy to read and regurgitate from a book, and it's hard to weigh actions and outcomes, but the latter is the correct methodology for examining and then applying ethics to a myriad of situations and changing cultural context.

There are moral dilemmas, but if there is an objective moral standard that man has proposed, why are men still evil by its own standards?

Exactly, and that's why it's wrong. If the pot were somehow sentient, how could the pot give consent to be created or not? Imagine a situation when a child is born to a set of parents, and that set of parents thinks that because they gave birth to it, that the child must serve them for the rest of their remaining years, doing whatever they say, no matter what. Essentially the child is born as a slave to their parents and is not an independent person in their own right. To say that we owe God for our creation means that we are slaves to him, that we are not able to form our own societies for our own human growth. Slavery is not an ethical concept, and Christianity advocates for supernatural slavery on a species level.

Thats the idea, it can't give consent to be created or not.  So why can you give consent to a creator?  On what authority could you talk back to a creator God?

That's even worse! By your thinking, if I steal from you, I'm actually stealing from God, and therefore I don't need to compensate you for your loss. I could take your car, repent in church, and keep the car because I redeemed myself in God's eyes. That is not justice.

The issue of crime and evil, is of the heart.  You would owe the crime of disobedience to God.  You would justly owe the compensation, but the temporal nature of the theft is less in scope than the nature of the eternal disobedience.

But God commands you to obliterate your neighbor if they don't agree with you. God commands killing in his name. He commands slavery and torture and rape. If someone were not to kill another who worked on the sabbath, that would be an unethical action because it goes against God. Killing is therefore not only necessary, but a moral ought.

Where does the bible say that God commands us to obliterate our neighbor if they don't agree with us?  Where does it command that we kill in the name of God?  Where does the Bible say that he commands slavery and torture and rape.

The punishment of working on the Sabbath in the mosaic laws were death.  If someone knows the punishment for disobeying law, why would they do it?  The simple fact they could not obey a simple rule of taking a Sabbath shows the infinite disobedience of their hearts.

The Bible says you must accept Jesus as your personal savior or go to unending torture. If you really examine it, Jesus allegedly absolved me of my sins before I was even born, to which I owe him for that sacrifice. The problem is that I never gave consent for that action, and the sin itself is debatable in the first place.

Unending torment.  Torment is from within, torture is from external.  

You don't owe him for his sacrifice, that is not grace.  You can either accept the grace or not, that's the whole thing about Christianity is whether or not you want to accept it.  But you have to first realize that we need grace.  Doctors come for the sick, not the healthy.

But that is not ethical in the least. Just because supposed proxy recipient of the crime is "infinite", whatever that means, doesn't require the punishment to be infinite. Even if I assume that I am performing a crime against God, a crime against said being doesn't make it an infinite crime, so an infinite punishment is not justified.  A misdemeanor and genocide are two different crimes, and therefore they should be dealt punishment in accordance to their crimes. That is moral thinking that logical, reasonable, and just. That is not what Christianity advocates for.

They are on earthly terms, but not as God sees it, and what we're talking about is how God sees it.  If God sees something as defying eternal laws, then the punishment fits the eternal laws.  On earth, we have finite laws, and the punishment fits the temporal action.  God has mandated eternal moral laws, we disobey, thus the punishment is just.  We have a grace that comes from God. But I would like to know as indicated earlier, what does Christianity advocate?

[Whitney]

Finite wrongdoings do not justify infinite punishment...that's why the Christian God is unjust.  Nor is it good to stick some naive creatures in a garden with a dangerous tree and tell them not to eat of it; is like putting a toddler in a room with a loaded gun.  Going further, it's even more unjust and not good to punish the rest of creation for the actions of two people.  And if you get rid of the literal translation and just say humans have always been inherently sinful you have an even bigger problem as that would mean god created humans with an inherent desire to sin yet hates that they have such a capacity.  According to the story God already had plenty of angels he could boss around (who somehow managed to sprout free will at some point to disobey God) so why create humans with a free will then get upset that they use it...understanding original sin in this manner is nonsensical.  

The only way a Christian can come close to having a belief in a God who isn't a complete jerk is to believe that God created humans with free will so that they could choose to love him or not.  At death everyone gets a final chance to choose him.  Then, since God only wants to be surrounded by people that love him, those who love him get into heaven when they die.  Those who didn't choose God just cease to exist (no hellfire, as that would be a jerk move and something we would expect from a satanic god).  But, it does take a lot of mental gymnastics to find this kind of god in the words of the Bible...and I would argue that anyone who is concerned about truth would decide to seek it elsewhere rather than try to shoehorn an ethical God into the Bible.

[defendor]

The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

[Tank]

The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

The problem is always with the rules. To expect reasonable people to behave in a reasonable manner when faced with rules of any kind the rules have to be considered reasonable. Suppose you have a black skin and I tell you that you may only sit in seats at the back of a bus and you feel those rules are unjust and disobey them; does that give the rule maker the right to put you in prison? Of course it does not.

[LegendarySandwich]

The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.  But since no one can there is a problem.  Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

That kind of thinking sickens me.

Just because an authority figure made up a rule, expected you to follow it, and punished you for not following it does not make the rule or punishment just.

[Whitney]

The problem is not in the rules.  If we obeyed the rules there wouldn't even be a problem.

That's what wife beaters say too...so, obviously, the problem can be with the rules and with the person who creates them.

Just or unjust, the one who mandates the rules dictates the fall out.

That's the point...God's rules and punishment for those rules is unjust.  Therefore God, if it existed, would be a jerk.

So if your mom tells you, if you do this, and you will get spanked, and you end up doing what she asked you not to, and you get spanked, how is that not just?

Just because a woman gives birth to a child doesn't make her automatically justified for creating a rule then spanking the child for not following that rule.  Bad mothers may say if you don't stop crying I'm going to whoop you (seriously have heard that one before)..that rule is unjustified and beating the child for not complying is abusive as no child who is genuinely upset can just stop crying nor should they be expected to.

Maybe the punishment is too severe for the crime, but if the action was clearly addressed and the punishment was clearly indicated for the action.  And you do exactly what was indicated and the punishment was clearly indicated, how can you say the problem lays with the one who made the rule?

If a master indicates to his slaves that they can't run away yet they still do run away...is the master justified in beating them?  I would hope your answer is no...that the rule for them to not be free was never justified to begin with.

Might doesn't make right.