Almost every word has multiple meaning based upon the context. In the context of “God is perfectly just” and “God is infinitely merciful” the quoted words have only one meaning, the ones having been mentioned.
Read it here:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice
Sorry but I don’t see anything in the the link you provided that suggests justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.
And thus they are all mutually exclusive. You can try to create your own definitions, but then you will exclude yourself from rational consideration. What you did here is the usual cop-out from a hard-hitting question: “redefine the concept”. And that is not intellectually honest.
I don’t see how it can be construed what I did was a cop-out from a hard hitting question ‘redefine the concept’ as I was blissfully unaware I was being asked to do so.
I have no desire to create my own definition of anything. I don’t see any need to.
You also committed another frequent error. If you wish to criticize someone is not sufficient to say that the other party is wrong. It is mandatory to say what the correct interpretation would be. You are not in the position to question what the priest’s intended meaning might have been.
In that case I have committed no error as I did not say anyone was wrong nor intend to imply they were, nor did I intend to criticize anyone. .
We can adopt a black and white reading three statements made by a priest in isolation of anything else he said. You posed a question It is impossible that “you get what you deserve” and that “you DON’T get what you deserve”. I would say it’s not impossible where something is given on the basis of merit by contrast to something that is given as a gift and thus not dependent on merit, but you’ve discussed this extensively on another thread, and it I think it unlikely I could add anything more persuasive.
Since you gave me a cute anecdote, let me give you back another one.
There is this young man who is so generously “endowed” with the size of his male organ (25 inches!!!) that he would love to have it changed to a more reasonable size. He heard about this witch in the nearby forest, and according to the hearsay, if he asks the witch to marry him and she refuses, he will lose 5 inches of his organ. So he goes to see the witch and asks her to merry him. The witch says: “No!”. The young man checks his size, and it is now only 20 inches. He likes the change and asks the witch again to marry him. The witch again says “No”. Lo and behold, his size is now 15 inches… He thinks that one more shrinking is just what he needs… so he asks the witch the third time. The witch gets angry and says “I already said ‘NO’ and when I said ‘NO’ I really meant ‘NO’!!!”.
So I suggest to accept what people say is actually what they meant to say… unless you have a very good and strong reason to doubt.
The point of my story was a black and white interpretation of what is actually said may be a far cry from what was intended. Your story appears to contain a different principle - we should be careful what we ask for as we might just get it. It’s an amusing story but I don’t get the connection.
On the point of being intellectually honest,
In engaging in dialogue with you before you stated I would probably say in response to one your posts the holocaust or something like it was not gratuitous suffering. In this dialogue I had no intention of making a response that in any way would remotely resemble the holocaust or something like it was not gratuitous suffering, and could not in my wildest dreams have formulated a response that in any way could have resembled it. The only reason in my view you assumed I would is solely because I’m Catholic.
You have said I am not in position to question what the priest’s intended meaning was.
You do not say in the thread Justice-Grace-Mercy the priest said justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. In which case their being mutually exclusive appears to be based on your interpretation of his statements. This is further evidenced by the fact posters say they like the statement, yet do not appear to of the opinion this renders justice and mercy mutually exclusive. You appear to see this as a point of contention which is your prerogative, but this does not change the fact others posters on this thread are not interpreting the priests words as you are making it your interpretation.
This being the case, I don’t think it’s fair to say I am in not a position to question the priest’s intended meaning when that appears to be what you doing. Besides, I’ve never been very good at following suggestions made by posters on internet forums but in my defense I rarely make suggestions to others short of being asked for them. You state based on what the priest said 'you have two options: either discard the concept that “God is BOTH perfectly just and infinitely merciful”, or stick to your guns, and degrade God to the status of a “married bachelor”, who cannot exist, having two mutually contradictory attributes. I think I can state with confidence there was no intention on the priest’s part to lend endorsement to these statements in any shape form or fashion, - but I state the obvious. Given I have every confidence you are aware of the obvious, intellectual honesty is not demonstrated in construing someone’s words in a manner they never intended - but then what would I know? I am allegedly someone who would argue the holocaust or something similar is not gratuitous suffering - so much for facts and evidence.
