Can God be both Just and Merciful at d same time?

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
The OP asks, “Can God be both

The OP asks, “Can God be both Just and Merciful at d same time?”

1. Which god?
2. I suspect that a god can be equally as just and merciful as any fictional character.

Talyyn's picture
I agree with CyberLN,

I agree with CyberLN, monotheists (at least this is the most typical theist we have here) always think that only their version of god is discussed. How many ones (such as ancient deities) or ,contemporary in literature, are better that the abrahamic god? And i don't mean that the entity envisioned would be perfect...

Thinkin' of... why do believers always seem to know what is perfection? (but i digress, it could be discussed in another thread)

Dark One's picture
The Quranic God (or the OT

The Quranic God (or the OT/Hebrew God it was based on) is a little too overly Just and the God of the New Testament is a little too overly Merciful. If you can get a God that is somewhere in the middle of the two that would be a good balance, kind of like a normal human really. So a god like Odin perhaps? Not so much Zeus he just kind of did whatever he liked to whoever he pleased when he pleased.

David Killens's picture
@Dark One
ROYISM 's picture
@DEKFUTURE

@DEKFUTURE

There is no mercy without justice.

Let’s say, someone kills your dad, and you come to me seeking justice. Now, I can’t say, I am very merciful and therefore I forgive that criminal. That’s not justice and that’s neither mercy. Because in this case, the one most deserving of my mercy is the victim. Therefore, I have to ensure that your feelings are duly assuaged and render justice.

But at the same time, I can within the bounds of my judicial responsibility, do everything possible to show mercy to the criminal without infringing on your rights. For example, I can explore ways of assuaging the victim’s feelings through means other than offering the criminal a capital punishment. For example, blood money. If you are willing to forgive the criminal in return for blood money then I can facilitate those proceedings.

Whereas, if someone does some harm to me personally, then I can forgive that person fully, showing mercy. Because in this instance, I am the victim and my mercy is not going to cause hurt to anyone else.

Hope that’s clear.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Royism But you ain't god...

@Royism

But you ain't god...

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

Lawyering up and writing a big fat cheque may be your method in avoiding accountability, but it does not serve justice nor mercy.

ROYISM 's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

What makes you think so? If the victim is willing for an alternate arrangement other than retribution, then we can consider justice served.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - If the victim is

ROYISM - If the victim is willing for an alternate arrangement other than retribution, then we can consider justice served.

As I said earlier; different people mean very different things when they use the word justice. The way you are using it, is sure to bring many complaints; as that is definitely not justice according to what I (and probably several others here) was taught.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Blood money to family

Re: Blood money to family member of murder victim

What the...??? SERIOUSLY???... *rolling eyes*... Let's break this down a bit, shall we?

1. Exactly which family member gets the money? The spouse? The siblings? The parents? Aunts, uncles, cousins? How many family members who loved the victim have to get paid off before this "justice" is served?

2. How much is a human life worth? For instance, the murder victim was only five years old, so maybe the payout isn't as much as - say - for that of an adult who was working and providing for the family? I don't know. Somebody help me out here...

3. Pray tell, who picks up the tab for this blood money payoff? The judge? Oh, sure! No doubt he/she has a massive stash tucked away just to be able to be the most benevolent and merciful judge in the land. Riiiiight... The court itself? That would imply the tax payers of that jurisdiction flip the bill for the brib-... uh, payoff. And, personally, I would be PISSED if I knew my tax dollars were being used for such purposes. So, what about the culprit paying? Hmmm... Well, let's say the victim was killed in a robbery. Obviously, if the culprit is having to rob people for money, it is a good bet you will not be getting much of a payoff from that person. Anybody else have any suggestions?

4. Soooo... Once the family member of the deceased has their hush money, the killer is set free to kill again?

5. Oooo... Speaking of hush money.... A super rich and politically powerful family has a miscreant and annoying member who is always getting into trouble and is a potential threat to the family's "good name". (There's one in every family, right?) Anyway, one day little Johnny Boo-boo goes too far and kills somebody... (Whoopsie!)... Obviously, the family cannot allow that type of scandle, so they offer to pay off the family of the victim to keep their mouths shut. Oh, all done very legally through the courts, of course. And no doubt the judge is "praised" by the suspect's family for being such a benevolent and merciful guy/gal... *wink*... Yep, justice truly served, ladies and gentlemen.

6. Hey! Here's a fun little scenario for ya, folks! Jane's husband (John) is a worthless lush. Bills are overdue and barely food to eat in the house. Jane is sick of living like that. She makes a discrete arrangement with an individual. A few days later, the husband ends up dead in a botched robbery. Suspect is caught. Case goes to court. Jane decides, "I'll forgive him as long as I am compensated for my loss." Jane gets a nice hefty blood money payoff from the court... *cha-ching!*... A couple of days later Jane meets with the suspect to pay him his cut of the take. Yep, justice!

Need I continue?.... *head cocked to one side*...

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Bloid money (continued)..

Re: Blood money (continued)...

Oops. Almost forgot...

As I believe I saw somebody already mention, we ain't gods. To elaborate a bit, it is completely absurd to compare a human judge in a human court system to an all-knowing/all-powerful god that is supposedly responsible for creating everything. Ridiculous does not even begin to cover it.

For starters, the human judge likely had no way of knowing the crime would take place. And even if he/she did know, it is also likely he/she had no way to prevent it. Although, most people in that position would have at least made some effort to prevent the crime. On the other hand, this "perfectly" benevolent and "merciful" god character would KNOW exactly when and where the crime would happen, and it would certainly have the ability to stop the perpetrator. However, instead of preventing the crime and saving the victim, this god prefers to let the crime happen and then compensate the victim's family for their loss? By golly, that is a fucking SUPER idea! Who needs a loved one when you can have cold hard cash, instead? Oh, and let's not forget, if we forgive the culprit, we have to set him/her free! Win-win for everybody! Yay! Yep, god is certainly just and merciful! Hallelujah!

ROYISM 's picture
@Tin Man

@Tin Man
The questions you have raised deals with the details. What I stated was a broad principle. The kind of questions you have raised can be directed at any judicial system. Let’s look at a system that doesn’t deal with blood money. Let’s say a 65 year old man and a 25 year old man commit the same kind of crime And they both are given a lifetime sentence in jail. The old man dies 5 years later. So the young guy ends up serving longer term than the old guy for the same crime. Where is justice there?

What about a guy who commits 50 murders and a guy who commits 10 murders? Both receive the same death punishment? Where is justice there?

In India you have what’s called a mercy petition where convicted criminals are sometimes forgiven by the President of the country. Where is the justice there?

How do you decide which of the two crimes is greater – killing a 3 year old or killing a 25 year old who is supporting a family?

There are many issues in every legal system if you get into the details. And the answers to these questions may not satisfy everyone, everywhere. It all depends on people’s worldviews.

ROYISM 's picture
@Nyarl

@Nyarl

You said: “… that is definitely not justice according to what I (and probably several others here) was taught.”

Giving the power to decide the fate of a criminal in the hands of the victim is the most empowering aspect of this law. This is actual justice. If the victim wants retribution so be it. If the victim prefers mercy (without blood money) so be it. If the victim prefers forgiveness with blood money so be it. What can be more empowering than this. On the contrary, imagine a situation where the judge/president (a party who is not in the least way affected by the crime) decides to forgive the criminal. In India, the president of the country has the right to pardon, without consulting the victim in any way.

Secondly, think of the situation where the criminal is awarded a jail term. The criminal spends his time in jail, enjoying some basic facilities such as food, stay and some weekly entertainment and so on All this with the tax payers’ money (including the victim’s). What justice would that be?

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

"Giving the power to decide the fate of a criminal in the hands of the victim is the most empowering aspect of this law. This is actual justice. If the victim wants retribution so be it. If the victim prefers mercy (without blood money) so be it. If the victim prefers forgiveness with blood money so be it. What can be more empowering than this."

Empowering for who, the guilty or the victim? If, for example, some very rich pedophile (Epstein), targets poor children then offer them such a huge amount of money to shut up (make them an offer they cannot refuse) that the victim is placed in a situation where it would be sheer insanity to turn down the offer.

I do not expect you, ROYISM, to actually have the empathy to grasp this, but the emotional scars of what is basically a child rape is something that damages a person and strips way the innocence of youth. You have actually put this scenario into a negotiable situation where just the number of dollars matter, and those numbers are the price of a human life.

ROYISM 's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

You said: “Empowering for who, the guilty or the victim? If, for example, some very rich pedophile (Epstein), targets poor children then offer them such a huge amount of money to shut up (make them an offer they cannot refuse) that the victim is placed in a situation where it would be sheer insanity to turn down the offer.”

No. That’s not how it works. This is not some secret deal between the victim and the perpetrator. This is offered as an option to the victim after the full trial is over and the guilty is convicted. IF it were like how you put it, this could happen anywhere. Imagine a rape takes place in your country. The rapist can always approach the victim and offer huge sums of money to dissuade him/her from going to the police. And it could be irresistible for the victim. How would you counter that?

You said: “I do not expect you, ROYISM, to actually have the empathy to grasp this, but the emotional scars of what is basically a child rape is something that damages a person and strips way the innocence of youth.”

And all parents would appreciate what you say. Which is why they wouldn’t be willing to forgive the rapist. So, in such instances, you can be pretty sure that the rapist would be punished. According to Islamic law, it’s nothing short of death penalty.

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

"If the victim is willing for an alternate arrangement other than retribution, then we can consider justice served."

As I read that sentence my mind flashed to Jeffrey Epstein.

Paying off a victim is neither justice not mercy but a compromise based on cash. IMO it is disgusting, and not unlike old Norman law and slavery, where a human being had a price.

ROYISM 's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

You said: “Paying off a victim is neither justice not mercy but a compromise based on cash. IMO it is disgusting, and not unlike old Norman law and slavery, where a human being had a price.”

It’s all to do with the lens you are looking through. As long as the victim has the power to decide, it upholds justice. Because the one who suffers from the crime is the victim and he should have the power to decide. That’s the fairest thing.

What about offering capital punishment to a murderer? Doesn’t that make you disgusted? Some human rights activists say that it harks back to our primitive days because it’s nothing but a revenge mentality. They say, how can one murder be an answer to another murder? Both are barbaric. I mean, if you go down that road, you can pick a reason to feel disgusted with anything.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "What about offering

Re: "What about offering capital punishment to a murderer? Doesn’t that make you disgusted?"

As far as I am concerned, any person who is tried and convicted of raping and/or maliciously killing an innocent child would be getting the easy way out with the death penalties we have here in the States. Personally, I would be more than happy to put the piece of shit on his/her knees in front of a large mirror and let them watch themselves as I stand behind them and put a bullet through the back of their heads. Then I would go out to eat at a nice restaurant and enjoy the rest of my day. But that's just me.... *shrugging shoulders*.... There is a saying I heard somewhere before, and it is one I am rather fond of in relation to criminals convicted of such atrocities. Goes something like this (paraphrased): "Forgiveness is between that person and his/her respective god(s). I'll just help arrange the meeting."

Sheldon's picture
@Tinman

@Tinman

I forget the film, but a priest was lecturing a cowboy friend not to seek vengeance for the murder of his family, and said "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

The cowboy said " Well that's fine by me...

As long as he doesn't take too long, and I can watch."

Always remembered that line as a brilliant rebuttal to that particular piece of vapid religious hokum.

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon Re: "The cowboy

@Sheldon Re: "The cowboy said " Well that's fine by me...
As long as he doesn't take too long, and I can watch."

LOL... Nice! Never heard that one before. I like it!... *big smile*... Please let me know if you remember the movie.

David Killens's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM

"As long as the victim has the power to decide, it upholds justice."

Maybe in your fantasy world of unicorns and lucky charms, but in reality very few victims have 100% independence. If they are offered a huge sum of money by a very rich pedophile, or pressured by someone of influence, then there is no justice, just blood money.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "Whereas, if someone does

Re: "Whereas, if someone does some harm to me personally, then I can forgive that person fully, showing mercy. Because in this instance, I am the victim and my mercy is not going to cause hurt to anyone else."

...Until, of course, the suspect (having been released without punishment because of your "mercy") chooses the next victim to cheat/harm/kill. Yeah, smooth move, Ex-lax. Any other pearls of brilliant wisdom you wish to cast before us swine?

Algebe's picture
@ROYISM: assuaging the victim

@ROYISM: assuaging the victim’s feelings through means other than offering the criminal a capital punishment. For example, blood money.

That sounds like a license for rich people to murder at will. They can afford to buy off the bereaved families, so why not?

The idea of blood money belongs back in the dark ages with vendetta. When criminals harm any one of us, they harm us all by damaging the social fabric in which we live as human beings. That is why crime requires a collective response from society through the law enforcement and justice systems.

And by the way, there isn't enough money in the world to pay me for the life of one of my loved ones.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Somebody's suggestion to

Re: Somebody's suggestion to consider using "Blood Money" as a means of "justice".

Errrrr... Ummmm.... Could somebody please remind me exactly what century this currently is? For some odd reason I feel as though I have stepped into the Twilight Zone and somehow gone back in time a few hundred years... *shaking head to clear cobwebs*....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man
'
Same person who suggested that probably keeps a supply of young goats and silver coins to purchase the neighbour's or best friend's 6 year old daughter....

Beggars fucking belief that we still have bronze age mentalities in the 21st century.

David Killens's picture
"I feel as though I have

"I feel as though I have stepped into the Twilight Zone and somehow gone back in time a few hundred years"

Actually almost exactly one thousand years when such practices were in use.

ROYISM has dragged us back to a very barbaric era.

ROYISM 's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

You said: “That sounds like a license for rich people to murder at will. They can afford to buy off the bereaved families, so why not?”

Please understand that it’s not the murderer who has any say in this. He is entirely at the mercy of the victim. If the victim chooses to forgive him, he can (even without blood money). Or he can choose to have him executed. The victim comes from a position of power in this scenario, and criminal is at his mercy.

You said: “And by the way, there isn't enough money in the world to pay me for the life of one of my loved ones.”

If that’s how you feel, you can ask for the execution of the murderer. You are entirely within you rights to choose that. But you can’t force every victim to think like you. If there is someone who thinks that by having the killer executed, there is really no benefit coming out of it for anyone. But by probably forgiving him in return for blood money, the victim’s family would be able to live a good life, and the criminal might also learn a lesson, mend his ways and probably turn into a productive citizens both for the society and the family. This could be a good solution in many cases. So why not?

Algebe's picture
@ROYISM: Please understand

@ROYISM: Please understand that it’s not the murderer who has any say in this.

Well you didn't really explain that in your post. In New Zealand people who suffer bodily harm due to crime receive compensation under the Accident Compensation scheme. In addition, a judge can order a criminal to pay compensation to the victim. But such arrangements have no bearing on the criminal's sentence. You commit the crime, you do the time.

It's also naive to say that the victim is in a position of power. Victims are typically in a state of terror. The thing they want most is assurance that the criminal can't hurt them again.

If that’s how you feel, you can ask for the execution of the murderer.

Did I say I was in favor of the death sentence? It's not an even option in any of my countries. (The death penalty today seems to be linked mainly to countries dominated by 'religions of love'.) However, I do think murderers should stay in jail until their victims stop being dead.

ROYISM 's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

You said: “It's also naive to say that the victim is in a position of power. Victims are typically in a state of terror. The thing they want most is assurance that the criminal can't hurt them again.”

Why should the victim be in a state of terror when the criminal has been convicted and the power to decide his fate is given to the victim? If he continues to feel threatened he has all the right to ask for the punishment to be carried out. It’s this authority the law places in his hands that makes him feel empowered.

You said: However, I do think murderers should stay in jail until their victims stop being dead.”
Think, which is a better system. If I am a victim, I would rather that I be given the power to decide the convict’s fate. After all, in a jail sentence, the convict is going to be fed three times a day and given a pretty decent stay with some basic facilities (including a weekly entertainment) and so on with tax payers’ money (including the victim’s taxes). So, at the end of the day, the victim has no say but to end up feeding the killer of my loved one. Shouldn’t the victim be given a chance to decide how he prefers to render justice?

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM "in a jail sentence,

ROYISM "in a jail sentence, the convict is going to be fed three times a day and given a pretty decent stay"

I'm not sure what jails you've witnessed operate, but I don't think any sane person would describe their stay as decent.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.