@Blindwatchmaker
from u ans, stop the blame-game is this serious debate man..not some street argument..
1.Condeming the unconvinced
Is it morally just to condemn someone for not believeing they sincerely find unconvincing. Again u fell for " If justice cannot assess reflective engagement due to belief’s involuntariness, how do you hold anyone accountable for any belief?", asserting that punishing unbelief is cruelty if belief isn’t a choice without grounding ur moral standard. As i ans before No, justice does not condemn solely for finding a belief unconvincing but evaluates reflective engagement with rational evidence (doxastic voluntarism). Compatibilist responsibility holds that moral agency lies in how one navigates reasons, volitional acts like evaluating evidence or cultivating epistemic virtues, not in forcing belief. Ur incompatibilist assumption, that responsibility requires libertarian freedom doesnt work because it renders all beliefs involuntary, undermining ur own skepticism’s rational accountability, u see the problem Again i told not to use “cruelty” because its begs question relying on ungrounded institutions.
2. Ok u assert that moral judgement requires moral agency and if belief isnt a choice, punishing unbelief is unjust. Ur partially engaging in the question If beliefs are involuntary, how is your skepticism rationally accountable?, by claiming respobsibility lies in pursuing truth, not beleif, but u fail to resolve how ur incompatibilist stance sustains accountability, contradicting urself by conceding compatibilist ground..so now few posts before u were incompatisbilist, now ur using compatibilist views..
Ur incompatibilism, that belief voluntariness precludes responsibility, undermines all epistemic accountability including ur skepticism. If beliefs are determined, ur truth-seeking is a reflex, not a rational act. Compatibilism resovles this by seeking that responsibility lies in reflextive engagement with reasons, not libertarian choice. Divine justice evaluates howone handles evidence like moral intuitions and cosmic order, not mere unbelief, refuting ur “cruelty” claim. Ur assertion that sincerity in searching is sufficient assumes subjective intent trumps objective truth, brother that is epistemic relativism (u were avoiding relativism and nihilism and now you, yourself are using relativistic arguments..) A transcendental moral ontology ensures justice aligns with rational value, not arbitrary punishment.
3. Sincerity and Moral Worth
U claim sincerity is the “Only relevant part” of belief’s moral worth, ok u talking abt If sincerity alone defines moral worth, how do you distinguish between a sincere skeptic and a sincere dogmatist?, by asserting sincerity is necessary but not sufficent, judged by effects and shared values. Again u fell for it, because u fail to ground these values objectively, u are presupposing a normative standard, which u cannot defend..Am i right?
Ur relaicne on sincerity and “shared human values” lacks objective normativity, as evolutionary or cultural origins reder them contingent. Without an objective truth criterion, ur disticntion between skeptic and dogmatist collapses into subjectivism, undermining ur moral critique Divin justice, assessing reflective engagement with rational cues, coherently evaluates sincerity within a rational moral order, refuting ur claim that i have emptied moral language. Ur own framework cannot sustain objective moral distinctions..am i right??
4. Epistemic humility and Moral clarity
Again u accuse me of using terms like axiological frameworks etc of being distractions. U are sidestepping the question If complex moral issues can be reduced to simple intuitions, how do you avoid oversimplifying justice into subjective sentiment? by demanding simplicity without addressing the complexity of moral ontology.
Idk i have addressed ur part before..i love philosophy and theology and have studied it as long as i remeber and now I’m pursuing PhD thus such concepts helps me revise what I have learnt till now..now philosophy precision requires technical language to address issues like justice and responsibility, dismissing it as distraction doges substantive argument, and ur afraid because these destroys ur views and u cant accept it
Ur demand for clarity without complexity assumes moral questions are reducible to intuition, risking oversimplification, i asked u if it was a yes or no question to which u ans its a multifaceted question, then how can u expect a simple ans?? My arguments are grounded in compatibilism and transcedental ontology, it directly ans ur questions..are u in some governing body for philosophy or what..u accept those which u like and reject those which answers ur question. Divine justice’s rational coherence aligned with a necessary being’s nature counters ur “redefining goodness” claim.
Blindwatchmaker.
I appreciate your humility to “pause and think” about views other than your own. This is a true mark of honesty in your quest(I know, you say you are not on a quest, but I just like the word).
Regarding God being limited, You posted:
I think, if you personalize this idea, you will see that you and I both do this, but in a lower, less perfect fashion. You have personal standards in your life that you sincerely believe are representatives of your chracter; standards that emenate from your personal identity. You are fairminded, you are sincere, you are honest, etc. From where I sit, these seem to be extensions of who you are. Of course you can choose to set these aside, but doing so will surely make you feel like you are not yourself. You may even find yourself apologizing for losing control of yourself after the fact. If you loose your patience, it is not representative of who you are, if you are dishonest, it is you being “not you”. You will feel like, and call it a mistake. Well mistakes are something God does not do; Holiness implies never deviating from His character. Can God loose His cool but just chooses not to? Does God submit to character qualities that are above Him. I say NO. The character qualities that we know and appreciate as humans that we consider to be good are only good to us because they are inviolable expressions of God. Justice is good because God is Just. Mercy is good to us because God is Merciful. God is the wellspring of goodness, and we drink from that well often, often unaware.
I need to go to a meeting.
maybe we can talk later.
Peace
KP
- Does Substitutionary Atonement Impose a Limit on God?
No, because God does not submit to justice; He embodies it (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 89:14). Justice is not some external force binding Him, it is a reflection of His character.
Greek & Hebrew Breakdown
ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) – Propitiation, atoning sacrifice (Romans 3:25), linking to the mercy seat where blood was shed for forgiveness (Exodus 25:17).
כָּפַר (kaphar) – To cover, to atone (Leviticus 17:11), showing sin requires more than mere dismissal, it demands restitution.
God’s holiness and justice are not rules He follows, they are Him. If He ignored sin, He would deny His own nature, which is impossible (Numbers 23:19).
- Wouldn’t God Be the One Defining Justice?
Yes, but not arbitrarily. God defines justice in accordance with His character. He doesn’t rewrite morality at will, justice flows from His intrinsic nature.
Romans 3:26 states that God presented Christ as a sacrifice so He might be just and the one who justifies. This means His forgiveness isn’t random, it is the fulfillment of His own righteousness.
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē) – Righteousness, justice (Romans 1:17). This word shows that God’s justice is woven into His essence.
If justice were arbitrary, sin would have no consequences. But because sin is real, justice must address it meaningfully (Isaiah 53:5).
- Why Not Simply Forgive the Contrite?
Because true justice requires payment for wrongdoing. If a judge simply pardoned a murderer because they were sorry, would that be justice? No, justice isn’t based on feelings; it’s about restoring what was broken (Numbers 35:33).
Correct?
Hebrews 9:22 – Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. Forgiveness requires atonement because sin carries a real cost.
Isaiah 53:5 – He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. This shows that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary, not arbitrary.
- Does Substitutionary Atonement Diminish God’s Holiness?
No, it upholds it. If God ignored sin, He wouldn’t be holy. The cross isn’t a limitation, it’s the perfect balance of justice and mercy (Romans 5:8, John 3:16).
חֶסֶד (chesed) – Loving-kindness, covenant mercy (Psalm 136:26). Mercy isn’t separate from justice, it’s fulfilled through justice.
- Does Sincerity & Truth-Seeking Matter?
Yes, but sincerity alone isn’t enough. If Christianity is true, belief matters, not because God demands blind allegiance, but because truth must be recognized (Jeremiah 29:13, Matthew 7:7).
God values sincerity (Psalm 51:17), but sincerity doesn’t change reality. If sin separates from God, then reconciliation requires more than honest searching, it requires atonement.
Final Thought
God is not limited by justice, He defines it. Atonement is not an external requirement but the necessary fulfillment of His nature. The cross is where love and justice meet, making true forgiveness possible.
Where do you stand on this?
Johann.
I have to admit this all sounds a little like theological handwaving to elide an inconvenient philosophical problem.
For me, three problems remain
- The Belief Problem: Even granting that sin requires atonement, why would unbelief require it when unbelief isn’t chosen (I know you think it is on some level), and as you have said when in some cases belief is impossible without God’s intervention.
- The Sovereignty Problem: If God’s justice requires specific responses with no exceptions, then something—even if internal to God’s nature—constrains God’s choices. This paints God as diminished in power and limited by rules (whether of his own creation or not.)
- The Judge Analogy Fails: Human judges operate within legal systems they didn’t create. Your analogy also assumes retributive justice is the only valid form (increasingly, even human legal systems recognize restorative justice as superior). But most crucially: the murderer in your example chose to murder. The wrongdoing was volitional and intentional. As much as you can insist that nonbelief is equally volitional, no one has come close to explaining how anyone could simply choose to believe something they find unconvincing.
The deeper problem is that your framework creates somethign like a reverse Euthyphro dilemma. As I’ve tried to point out, if whatever God does is definitionally just, then “justice” becomes meaningless as a moral category—just a synonym for “whatever God wants.”
Your quote Numbers 23:19 in your reply. Just a few chapters later, we find Moses instructing the Israelites to finish ethnically cleansing the Midianites by killing all the remaining young male children and captured women—but explicitly ordering them to “keep alive for yourselves” the virgin girls. The sexual slavery implications are unavoidable, and we’re presumably to assume Yahweh endorsed this scheme.
I dont say this to be controversial or provocative but rather to show how this inversion of morality leads to uncomfortable questions which I feel fortunate not to have to resolve.
Many thoughtful Christians find this passage as morally troubling as I do, but your theological framework forces you to defend it as perfectly just. That’s the practical consequence of your position: it requires sanctifying what most people—including many believers—instinctively recognize as horrific.
I’m thinking we’re unlikely to find common ground here, as in your paradigm there is literally nothing God could do that would count as morally problematic. That’s not a strength of your theology—it’s a fundamental weakness that empties moral language of meaning.
Your problem is with God’s justice.
But rather than making justice meaningless, divine righteousness defines morality, preserving coherence rather than dissolving it into subjective opinions.
J.
Unbelief isn’t merely passive ignorance-it’s a rejection of truth (Romans 1:18-20). Scripture presents faith as a moral posture, not just intellectual assent (John 3:36). While divine enablement is necessary (John 6:44), human responsibility remains. People resist belief for reasons beyond logic-pride, rebellion, or indifference. Jesus directly condemns those who refuse to believe despite evidence (John 5:40), showing volition is involved. Belief isn’t effortless, but its rejection is still a moral decision.
God isn’t constrained by justice-He is just (Psalm 89:14). His nature is the standard, not an external force imposing limits. Sovereignty doesn’t mean arbitrary freedom but perfect consistency (2 Timothy 2:13). A God who contradicts justice wouldn’t be sovereign but incoherent. His power isn’t diminished by moral perfection; rather, His justice confirms His unchanging righteousness (Malachi 3:6). True sovereignty operates within divine integrity, not outside it.
Human justice systems reflect limited authority, but God’s justice is intrinsic to His nature (Deuteronomy 32:4). Retribution and restoration aren’t opposing forces-Scripture shows both (Isaiah 1:27). Unbelief isn’t passive; it’s rejecting revealed truth (John 5:40). Belief is volitional in that people engage with or resist evidence (Acts 17:30). Just as someone can resist love, they can resist truth, making unbelief a moral decision, not mere intellectual incapacity.
J.
We’re clearly never going to agree on this, Johann.
But I want to point something out gently: continuing to post Bible verses as though they prove your point feels a little tone-deaf, given that I’ve already explained I don’t accept the Bible as authoritative. I fully understand that you do—but quoting it to someone who doesn’t is circular. That’s the core of the issue, and I don’t think ChatGPT can flag that kind of loop for you.
Others in this forum have at least acknowledged the apparent moral tension here.
It’s kind of amazing that you don’t.
No passage in any book can settle the claim that honest, open-minded unbelief is somehow a moral failing deserving of punishment. I find that idea not just unconvincing, but frankly absurd.
Blindwatchmaker
You raise some very interesting, and thought-provoking questions, and you have been forthright with also offering your observations and conclusions. I know of no one that I sense has studied this subject in more depth than you. I’d like to return to your original question: “Can someone simply choose to believe something they aren’t convinced is true?”. If that’s OK.
You have repeatedly stated your position is that no one simply chooses to believe in something, or that something is true; that they believe it because they have been convinced. You mention convincing might come from three sources; evidence, upbringing, or even divine intervention? I’m sure you think there are more sources that could be added to this list of examples. I do to. I think we have adequately agreed on the definition of belief, but one thing I’d like your expert opinion on is the relationship between the kind of belief and the source. Do you think the strength, or the intractableness of a belief has a direct correlation to the source of convincing? Might it also become a stronger (more firmly held) belief if the convincing comes from multiple sources? How, in your expertise, is a belief born, and does it go through a growth process (integration), or possibly a progressive death (disintegration)? In short, what influences the strength and permanence of a person’s belief?
Also I’d like to explore what we find “convincing” and why. What factors influence us to accept or reject the source of convincing that proceeds belief. Do certain types, or categories of influence tend to more effectively convince certain types or categories of belief? Is there an a-priori trust in the source before the convincing process can lead to a belief? For example, many people believe what they hear from news media. Most of us believe (are convinced by) what our Mother’s taught us; maybe that you should change your socks every day. Some honest souls say they refuse to believe something they have been exposed to until they can confirm its veracity for themselves; i.e. doubting Thomas. Do all of our beliefs come from being convinced by a previously trusted source? If so, what made those trusted sources trusted to us? Was it belief in the goodness or reliability of the trusted source which led to belief in the source information transmitted through them, which led to the adoption of a personal belief. Does any firmly held personal believe always need a prior belief, (trust) on which it can build, of from which it can be born? How far back does this chain reaction go?
I’m trying to hear your thoughts on the lifecycle of a belief held by a person.
I believe you have answers.
KP
Just for starters, you are having a conversation with me, not ChatGPT-I think @Fritzpw_Admin should really step in here.
You’ve argued that quoting Scripture to you is ineffective because you don’t accept it as authoritative. But here’s the flaw in that reasoning: you are critiquing theological claims that originate from Scripture while refusing to engage with its authority. That’s self-defeating. You’re asking me to defend Christianity without using the Christian foundation, which is like debating physics while rejecting the laws of thermodynamics.
Correct? Then what is your purpose here?
If you reject biblical authority outright, then you have no grounds to critique biblical doctrines-because you have no standard against which to measure them. You’re operating from moral intuitions that lack an objective foundation. If morality is just social convention, then your outrage against divine justice is purely emotional, not rational.
Correct?
Now, let’s tackle your core objections point by point.
- Rejecting Scripture as Circular Reasoning
You say quoting the Bible is tone-deaf. But Christian doctrine is derived from Scripture-so rejecting it while critiquing Christianity is incoherent. You’re engaging in a theological debate without an anchor.
If Scripture isn’t authoritative, then nothing in your argument holds weight, because you’re trying to argue against Christian doctrine using non-Christian assumptions.
You demand external validation for Christian beliefs while offering none for your own moral stance.
If biblical morality needs external proof, so does yours. What’s your standard?
- The Moral Tension in Justice
You claim others acknowledge a moral conflict in divine justice, but I don’t. This assumes moral intuition dictates truth. But moral discomfort is not evidence of injustice. Truth isn’t determined by how people feel about it-it’s determined by objective standards.
You’re appealing to human morality as though it’s universal, but whose morality? Modern Western ethics? If justice depends on social consensus, then it’s relative, and your outrage is just personal opinion. But biblical justice is rooted in God’s nature, not shifting human standards.
Correct?
If morality is subjective, then why should I accept your sense of right and wrong over God’s?
- The Alleged Absurdity of Unbelief as Sin
You say unbelief isn’t a moral failing. But that assumes belief is purely intellectual, when Scripture defines it as a moral posture. Faith isn’t merely accepting facts, it’s submitting to truth (John 3:19-20). People reject God not because of lack of evidence but because of moral resistance.
You say no book can prove unbelief is sinful. But no book can disprove it either. The fact that you find the idea absurd is your personal reaction, not an objective argument.
Not so?
If unbelief is purely passive, why does Jesus condemn those who refuse to believe despite evidence (John 5:40)?
Final Challenge
Your objections rely on self-contradictions. You critique biblical morality while rejecting its source, yet offer no alternative objective standard to replace it. If justice is only valid when it aligns with human sentiment, then morality is nothing but opinion. Without God, there’s no foundation for any of the moral judgments you’re making.
If you reject divine justice, what objective standard are you appealing to?
Can you answer brother, since you want to muzzle the ox, casting the Scriptures aside?
Johann.
Wonderful and insightful questions KP. 
Will get to these as soon as I can.
Thanks so much!
There is a lot here that I want to spend some time absorbing before I respond fully. I think I agree with your definitions for the most part if not completely. Though I would add that belief can be something deeply ingrained into our minds before we are consciously aware that we are making a choice to believe.
In my own experience, which I believe relates to this discussion, I have explored the impact of negative self talk (or thought) upon my own life and it’s origins.
“I matter, I belong, I am loved, I will succeed” verses “my life means nothing, nobody will ever love me, I will never succeed at anything.” The first set builds self esteem, encourages bonding, taps into your ability to give the task at hand your all to accomplish. You can blossom and bloom with the first set. The next set shrinks your capacity to thrive. There is no reason to try. You undercut the possibillities.
And the truth is, both sets can be true. The belief behind us becomes the goal post in front of us. Whether conscious or not.
I love Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. The Grim Reaper is a humanitarian. The quote in my profile is from the HogFather, offered by Death to his granddaughter. It touches on this idea that you have to believe in the thing that you want to come into existence. The little lies, like Santa Clause, are practice for the bigger lies, like Justice. Grind the Universe up into dust, and show me one iota of Justice. (Or Love. Or Mercy. Or any big concept). We have to believe in it to establish it in our lives.
But how does one challenge something as powerful as a deeply ingrained, self defeating prophecy? How does one see the potential they hold within themselves when all they see in the mirror is just human waste?
How does one take a leap of faith to become the person that they could be? Where do you get that glimmer of possibillity? Or the hope to work against years of pent up self-defeatism?
And perhaps this problem is also true when it comes to God. If a version of you is created by belief, and a version of the world that you experience is also created by belief, wouldn’t your experience of God also somehow be affected whether God is real or not?
Imagine that you did not believe it was possible that someone could love you. And at some point, someone comes along who genuinely does. Now your belief says, its not possible. And you are being confronted with proof that this belief is false. Can your mind percieve the love this person is attempting to offer you? Can it be real to you? Or will your mind make every attempt to dismiss, hide, sabotage the thing that would force you to change something so tied to who you are going back to maybe infancy?
With Narcissim, love is absent at the earliest possible age when it is needed to internalize a definition of love, aka the mother or initial caregiver is absent or incapacitated and the infant is neglected. In its place, attention is infused and confused for love. Attention, not love, becomes the source for that person as they grow. Not by choice. It just happens.
There is no such thing as grace or failure for this person- an illusion of perfection must be maintained beyond question. Depth is not possible. The ego is inflated. And others are drawn in to this person’s orbit who willingly strive to maintain the illusion. They are tossed aside when failure occurs and replaced by others.
The only way this person comes to know love is by a complete shattering of the illusion. They must rebuild from the ground up and learn to love themselvss first. This grows into a capacity to love others. Few Narcissists survive long enough to reach this- some do- but many end their own lives.
It is the false reality, the illusion, that must be dealt with first before a true reality can emerge and be percieved. And a person must believe there is a better experience to be had before letting go of the only reality they have ever known.
With that said, there is a point where reality is quite fluid. It fluxuates, changes, meets us where we are. And it is an either or affair. To some degree, we do create the world we live in. And once we know another possibility exists we must make the choice to stay where we are or let the old world dissolve and allow the new one to take its place.
-cont-
The fear of the unknown must be conquered before making your acquaintance with it. This includes the change of who you are for the person you will become. You don’t know who that person is yet. But you become that person as you unfold. The old you will die in this change. But the true you, the one who is neither this or that idea of you, remains to continue the journey of unfolding. And that is part of what all of this is about. Removing the thing that keeps you from moving forward. And discovering who or what you really are when everything is said and done.
Faith is that thing that tells you that you are ready to cross worlds. Your desire for change becomes greater than the fear of what you will leave behind as you become something more.
And Faith in God is a lot like jumping into a deep pool of water for the first time and finding out that the law of Physics will use that big breath you hold to pull you back up to the surface again.
The breath of life carries you from one depth to the next. Life falls apart, reality changes, but you remain. Until you don’t. And then you follow the breath. But as you experience being held by life from one moment to the next, you see God. Something is holding you together when nothing can remain. Something maintains the rules that allow life to exist when nothing should.
Johann,
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’ve been doing here, so let me try to clear it up.
I’m not asking you to stop quoting Scripture because I want to “muzzle the ox” or silence you.
I get it. This is a Christian forum. Of course people are going to quote scripture. I’m saying that if your aim is to persuade me, quoting verses from a book I don’t accept as authoritative won’t get you very far. That’s not an insult—just a simple fact.
You believe the Bible is God’s word. I don’t.
So pointing to Bible verses to prove your point is circular from my perspective. If a Muslim quoted the Qur’an to prove that Muhammad is God’s final prophet, You’d expect them to offer more than “because their book says so,” right?
You also seem to think that unless I accept divine authority, I have no grounds to make any moral judgments at all. That’s just not true. I don’t need a holy book to know that kindness is better than cruelty, or that punishing someone for something outside their control is unjust. Those aren’t “just feelings”—they’re widely shared human intuitions, and I’m happy to compare moral systems and see which ones hold up.
And just to be clear: I’m not trying to hold the Bible to my moral standards and declare it “wrong” just because I don’t like it. I’m asking whether its ideas about belief, justice, and punishment make coherent moral sense—even on their own terms.
Whether they are connected to ANY meaning of morality or fairness or goodness that makes sense.
If you’re telling me God punishes people for being unconvinced, and I reply that this seems unfair, you don’t get to just say “that’s the way it is” and expect that to settle it. I’m looking for more depth than that.
I read your post on Belief and it was interesting but actually makes my point for me.
It’s saying that mere intellectual assent is not sufficient for Belief. That there is another more relational layer to it which must follow. I totally accept that in this context.
BUT what the article (and you) miss, is that the second part of belief (the no.2 Personal Acceptance part) can only follow provided the first part is there too.
It’s like saying a house is not just walls, you need a roof too and then expecting someone to make a house with just a roof.
As for your other link to Romans 16:17, I’ll try not to take that personally.
Brother.
I believe that revelation comes before the real choosing of what to believe. That revelation may be through a mental experience like hearing what others believe or from thinking through a certain circumstance in life, or can come as an interior experience of the human spirit, where an idea seems to come from outside oneself . We normally choose to believe based on logic along with our personal frame of reference. I do not believe belief comes out of thin air without reasoning.
1.Going with the first
If unbelief isnt chosen and if belief requires divine intervention, condeming it is unfair.
My response to that would be, unbelief itself doesnt require atonement like deliberate wrongdoingm rather divine justice evaluates how individuals engage with available evidence like reason, moral intuitions and world’s order. Compatibilism suggests responsibility lies in reflective engagement with reasons and not in forcing belief. For ex- someone isnt blamed for not believeing a complex math proof they cant grasp but for dismissing it without effort. If belief requires divine intervention, in some case, a just system would account for those limits, jusding based on what’s reasonably accessible like moral or rational cues. THis avoid punishing mere unbelief, ensuring fairness. Again as i said in the prev post, the incompatibilist view of urs falters as it would exempt all involuntary beliefs from accountability, including ur own skepticism, undermining rational agency.
2. going to Q2, u said God’s justice requries specific responses, something constrains His choices, diminishing His power,
My response to that would be, Divine justice doesnt limit God’s power but reflects His rational nature. I think u like examples so here i give one, Say a perfectly honest person, they dont lie, not because external rules bind them, but because lying contradicts their character. Similarly God’s justice stems from His essence as rational, maximally perfect being, this isnt constraint but a coherence of character ensuring God’s action are consistent and meaningful. If God acted arbitrarily, ignoring justice, His power might seem unrestrained, but then His rationality would be incoherent, like a dictator. Ur concern assumes power must be unbounded, but rational consistency enhances a perfect being’s agency, aligning justice with objective value
3. U gave the judge analogy, but i think u havent been reading my posts, now ur comparing unbelief to murder??
Sir, @Blindwatchmaker, we cannot use analogy like this because human judges follow external systems, retributive justice isnt sole and unbelie isnt volitional like murder
My response would be that this analogy illustrates accountability but not equivalence. Human judges oeprate within legal framewords but divine justice derives from God’s rational nature, not external rules. Ur point abt restorative justice is valid, human systems increasingly favour rehabilitation, and divine justice could incorporate restoration, aiming to heal rather than only punish. However, accountability presists across models. In human systems even unintentional acts like negligence incur consequences because people are responsible for their impact. Unbelief isnt murder, but involves choices, how one engages evidence and reflects, or dismisses cues. Compatibilism holds that responsibility lies in this process, not in willing belief outright. Ur calim that no one explains how to choose belief overlooks that justice assesses effort like a juror judged fir diligence, not their verdict, making it fair without equating unbelief to intentional crime.
then u bring up The Reverse Euthyphro Dilemma. i hope u have read up my prev posts and its after 100 posts ur asking this
Ur objection talks abt the Euthyphro Dilemma (i talked abt it in the first post, u didnt read it, i think so, even though u said u read it dilegently and u framed this as “distraction”)
THe dilemma is resolved by grounding justice in God’s necessary, rational nature, we call it transcedental moral ontology. Justice isnt arbitrary (“whatever God wants”) but flows from a maximally perfect being’s essence, the standard of objective value.
Again u want example, here is one, a triangle properties arent arbitrary but inherent to its nature, u got it right?? Similarly God’s justice is coherent, not synonym for power, ur alternative, morality based on human intuition lacks an objective ground risk axiological nihilism, as intuitions vary across culture and eras. Divine justice retains moral meaning by aligning with rational, universal value.
U then jump to midianite objection and i have also had similar questions,
My response to it would be (since u said no scripture), U assume ur intuition, that the descirbed act is horrific, is universally normative, but this begs the question of moral authority. Human moral intuitions shaped by evolutionary and cultural factors vary widely, like ancient socities often accepted practices modern ones condemn. Without an objective standard, u risk relativism in this post too. A transcedental moral ontology grounds justice in a rational, necessary being, ensuring moral coherence. *If divine justice appears troubling, human reasons finitude (Kantian Limits) suggest we may lack full context, not that justice is inverted. An axiological framework posits that justice serves ultimate good, potentially resolving apparent moral conflicts in a broader rational order
So if I understand you correctly, you have studied the Scriptures for years and in Greek, and since you did not feel anything, you decided to throw it aside, correct?
Can you tell me how many years you have studied the Scriptures?
And how long has it been since you set the Bible aside that you have been wrestling with this problem?
Johann.
Hi Peaceful — and thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
Broadly, I’m in full agreement with you.
Belief tends to follow once we’ve been convinced of something.
And if we’re not convinced, then belief isn’t really possible.
It’s not something we choose. It’s something that happens in the mind — something we discover we hold, rather than something we deliberately produce.
You can no more choose to believe something than you can choose to find something funny, or choose to be scared of something. Those reactions arise involuntarily, depending on what’s going on inside us.
Here’s a little thought experiment:
Decide — just for the next five minutes — to believe that Paris is the capital of China.
Really try. Not just say it, but believe it.
That feeling — that wall you hit — that’s the experience I’m talking about.
Thanks again for getting involved!
yeah im a kind person..waiting for my friend blindwatchmakers reply…im here and will always be waiting for u because ur reply is of utmost importance to me
Who’s reply are you waiting for Sam?
J.
blindwatchmaker..he is like asking amazing questions..i must say profound indeed