Justice

MVP said...

So you are happy for an innocent person to take the penalty for someone elses crimes and that person to therfore get off scott-free?


@MVP

Yes, I'm totally okay with that. Again, as I stipulated before, as long as the person that bears the penalty does so voluntarily, by his own choice.

If someone else voluntarily bears the penalty, the guilty party is no longer subject to it.

[As an aside, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the term "scott-free." I believe the phrase 'scot free' originally referred one who did not pay taxes that were due.]

But, to follow that up, I am not so sure that the guilty party does not have some consequences. They still live with the knowledge of their guilt, and their knowledge that someone has made a sacrifice to pay the penalty due.

MVP said...

Your definition of justice is so way off the mark as to be absolutley ridiculous.


@MVP

You already judge me to be (and I quote) "a disgusting person" (albeit you conditioned that judgment on a concretely unconditional condition.) You already judge me to be "very simple". So I am I too be surprised that you judge my definition of justice to be way off. And although I have never provided you with a definition of justice, I'm fairly certain (given your illustrious track record), that you will provide a definition and attribute it to me.)

There is more than one definition of justice, and many ideas about the purpose of human justice, whether it should seek the most good for everyone, or whether it should instead seek retribution.

MVP said...

I am quite sure that if someone murdered someone close to you, and then that person got some masochist to do the time for them, you would NOT be hapy woth that situation.


@MVP

My "happiness" with a situation neither confirms nor denies whether justice has been satisfied. Quite often, when justice is served, there are many people who are not "happy".

I think the issue here is whether justice is served, whether the justice is satisfied with a penalty paid.

I will note that the analogy I used had to do with a guilty verdict and the penalty of a fine. I suggested that justice would be satisfied when the fine was paid, whether that fine was paid by the guilty party or by someone else.

But your analogy works as well, albeit yours plays on emotion and how one feels, rather than on an objective measure of whether justice is satisfied.


MVP said

Your version of justice leaves an innocent man punished and a criminal completely free from any responsibility.


@MVP

Not quite.

The man being punished does not necessarily have to be innocent, he may be guilty as an accomplice, or guilty of some other crime. But the man bearing the penalty could be innocent of any charge.

I said that the penalty was paid, and that the man found guilty was free from serving the penalty, because it had been paid.

I did not say the man was absolved of all responsibility for his actions, or that he would be free from all consequences for his actions. As I noted before, the man will live with his conscience ("with knowledge") of the wrong he has done, and of the pain he has caused.

Beyond earthly, temporal justice and consequences is real justice. A perfect judge who will judge with complete knowledge, from whom nothing can be hidden.

Though human justice has been served, he still faces God's justice, on that appointed day in front of the perfect judge.

MVP said...

Justice? Insanity. Whats more we don't even have to go that far - hows this for a fitting analogy:


If the judge finds me guilty of the emotion of 'hate' (which the court recognises as murder for reasons unknown to anyone but the court)

@MVP

Perhaps the court could make it known to you what the crime is, and why the court finds it so serious. With that knowledge, you could avoid the crime.

Perhaps the court finds no crime in the emotion, but defines the crime more deeply than that. Perhaps the court judges against murderous thoughts.

MVP said

, and the penalty is torture for life,

@MVP

Or, perhaps the penalty is death. The wages of sin is death and utter destruction for eternity.


MVP said
then the penalty must be carried out.
@MVP

Justice would not be perfectly served if the penalty is not satisfied. If the fine is not paid, then justice is incomplete. If the sentence is not carried out, then justice is not perfect.

MVP said

The penalty is on me,

@MVP

Who should the penalty be on, if not the guilty party? Perfect justice would require the penalty on the one who is judged guilty.

MVP said...

but the court is satisfied if someone else is very briefly (in comparison)tortured for me.

@MVP

The court will be satisfied only if the entire penalty is served. If the penalty is death, utter destruction and separation from God, then that penalty must be served.

No, the court would not be satisfied with someone being "very briefly tortured". That would not be a satisfactory payment. The sin debt must be paid in full.

When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin upon the cross, it wasn't just "very briefly". God is eternal, beyond the bounds of time. Jesus felt the full penalty, an eternity of separation from God on the cross and in the grave. (From an eternal perspective, there is an infinite amount of time to spend in a single minute. A single day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a single day.)

("Eternity" doesn't refer to a really, really long time, or even to an infinite amount of time. That notion is incomplete, that definition constrains eternity to within the bounds of time.)

When Jesus bore the penalty for my sin debt, he paid it in full.

It wasn't just the physical torture at the hands of men he endured. And it wasn't just for a few days. He endured the full punishment that was due for my sin.

His anguish upon the cross was much deeper, it was much more than physical pain and emotional suffering.

Jesus bore the entire cost of the penalty upon himself.  He did so voluntarily, for you. He took your place.

MVP said...

In that analogy there is no justice once again as both men are innocent

@MVP

By what standard have you judged the man found guilty to be innocent? How can a man be found guilty by the perfect judge, and yet you deem him to be innocent.

Is your standard of justice superior to the infinitely perfect standard of God's justice?

MVP said

and the punishment outweighs the non-crime by many ridiculous orders of magnitude.

@MVP

By what standard do you measure the orders of magnitude that the penalty is unjust? Have you raised your own personal standard of justice above and beyond that of creator God?

MVP said

Lust and hatred are personal emotions.

@MVP

By what standard to you judge your sins against a Holy God to be acceptable? Do you believe that you can hide your sin, or disguise it by calling it something else?

MVP said

There is no victim, no harm to anybody.

@MVP

Is that the standard by which Almighty God, creator of the universe will judge? That there was "no harm" to anybody? How is that your knowledge superior to an omniscient God?

MVP said

A passing feeling caused by external factors – that’s all.

@MVP

Perhaps the court finds no crime in "passing feeling caused by external factors". Perhaps, that is not a crime. The only sure way to know would be to measure against God's standard of righteousness, the ten commandments.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Ten Commandments will be the standard by which you will be judged, when you stand before the throne on that appointed day. The entirety of your thoughts and actions, everything that you have done.

And the standard is not whether you did more good things than bad things.

Even the court of man, the legal system, doesn't judge a man to be innocent of a crime because it is outweighed by all of the other good things he has done. Even earthly human justice doesn't do that, because that is not justice.

What will be your defense on that appointed day in the courtroom of God's perfect justice? Is your defense prepared, or are you ready to bear the penalty when you are found guilty?

It's not too late.