Replies

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for living!

Exactly God's point and the idea behind his perfect mercy and the topic we are discussing. I actually believe you are catching on.

Wow. I thought I was pointing out an absurdity in your argument - the absurdity of inherited guilt. But if that means I'm "catching on" to what you really believe, then what I'm catching on to horrifies me. Maybe you're not talking about inherited guilt per se, but the way you think of us is no better than how Muslims think of us: For them we're mere dream particles of Allah, who will forget about us if we step out of line. The implications you make from this are somewhat different than with Islam, but the basic premise is still very toxic. (IMO)

I accept no guilt for the so-called crime of merely existing, nor for anything my distant ancestors may have done.

As pointed out above (unless you're perfect), this statement is not at issue. Therefore, not a valid argument. God is not holding you accountable for anyone else's problems.

Ah, but He is! I was baptized into the Catholic Church when I was a couple weeks old, to erase my Original Sin. If I was Protestant, I'd be baptized later when I was able to give "informed consent" to the baptism, but it'd still be the same thing. Confession is where we confess our sins for what we have actually done to harm others. Original Sin is all about inherited guilt.

The second problem is the scapegoat. Just thinking off the top of my head, a rigorously just yet merciful response would simply entail forgiveness of whatever actual sins we as individuals commit, and for which we truly repent & try to pay back the damages.

So many flaws; where to start. First, perfect justice requires perfect punishment. Someone must pay for the crime or else it wouldn't be perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Second, as pointed out above, there is no "scapegoat", God needed to satisfy perfect mercy and he did it with himself, once again no third party involved. Third, repentence is good and God accepts that, but someone still must pay for the crime or perfect justice would not be served.

Everybody is either more or less perfect than someone else. What's the general principle you are assuming here? It's this:

There are levels of "perfection" of acts of justice.
There are levels of "perfection" of people.
For a given crime, the victim deserves an amount of "perfection" in their justice proportional to their own generalized "perfection".
God is infinitely perfect, therefore any justice due God must be infinitely perfect, else it's as good as no justice at all. (any-finite-number / Infinity = 0)

But if we apply this argument to people in general, we come up with this:

There are levels of "perfection" of acts of justice.
There are levels of "perfection" of people.
For a given crime, the victim deserves an amount of "perfection" in their justice proportional to their own generalized "perfection".
JennyP is more perfect in general than Willie the Ne'er Do Well.
If Willie the Ne'er Do Well steals JennyP's purse, JennyP deserves a level of justice that's closer to perfection than Willie the Ne'er Do Well would've deserved if JennyP had stolen Willie's wallet.

Clearly wrong.

I think the whole idea of "mercy" is based on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge.
Nothing to do with either of these, mercy is the setting aside of punishment. Restitution and revenge are not in play here. God will set aside our deserved punishment because he is merciful, but this only satisfies half of the equation. God must also satisfy perfect justice. Someone must suffer the consequences of sin.

But mercy is precisely the setting aside of just punishment! If I forgive Willie's stealing my purse, there's no more to be done. If my forgiveness is contingent on Willie giving me my purse back or paying me back in some other way, fine. But would that be "more perfect mercy?" "Less perfect mercy?" I don't think your theory of perfect justice can answer that.

(As for justice vs. restitution and/or revenge: What else could punishment consist of? But that's a side argument, so we can agree to disagree on that. Though I'd be interested to know just what punishment consists of, if not either restitution nor revenge.)

It's simple, to the point, and deals with the debt the criminal owes to the victim.
But fails to answer the question of perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Therefore this is flawed thinking, we are not discussing debt, but justice (someone must be punished) and in God's mercy, the transference of that punishment, in essence to himself.

But you cannot divorce "justice" from the "debt". "Justice" isn't some floating abstraction, disconnected from the harm someone initiated on an innocent victim. There can't be a crime without a debt incurred, except if the law being broken is flawed & arbitrary. No, Justice has everything to do with paying the debt, and mercy consists of satisfying the debt. Nothing more.

Everybody is either more or less perfect than someone else.

False premise.

Too much rehashing the same failed logic on your part. Realitive perfection to imperfect beings is still imperfection. Therefore, until you find a perfect human, the logic still stands. Already answered the original sin thing, you simply refuse to understand. So, this is a mute point as we are all imperfect. You are equating temporal and human aspects to a perfect eternal Being, which I already explained. God requires perfect justice for it is God that has been wronged, no third party is involved; therefore, perfect mercy meets perfect justice in God. You can complain to me all you want, but it is not I you need to complain too. I didn't make this up, I just read it and passed it on to you. The logic is sustainable and is well reasoned.

You also assume a great deal about what I believe.

And if it is not too impertinent of me, have a good evening.

At your service, W.K.