If you were God...

[R_Daneel]

RD: We have not been discussing mundane mercy and justice. What we have been discussing is Divine Mercy and Divine Justice.

Well, if they are qualitatively different from the secular concepts, then to call them “justice” and “mercy” are incorrect.

For the Church, the divination of these concepts by their affinity with an All-powerful God, presupposes those concepts. They were but merely usurped by secularity. And, you would have to admit, wouldn’t you, that Divine Mercy and Justice, at least, may have existed before mankind was mature enough to merge them into worldly only thought? They existed from the earliest times of the Jews.

Hammurabi’s code is just as old, maybe older. No, none of these concepts were “usurped”. Just like the golden rule was formulated way before Jesus. If anything, these ideas were “usurped” by Christianity. And there were ancient codes in China, also way before the Jews had their concepts formulated.

RD. I expect something higher from you than that old, tired hack. BTW, how is “married” a secular concept? It, too, was usurped from religion.

Oh, come now. Humanity has experimented with different types of arrangements for forming communities, since time immemorial, some were polyamorous, some were monogamous. You cannot claim that these “marriages” (marriage is just a word) all came from Christianity. I will have to tell you a joke about this “usurping”.

In the Communist Soviet Union an American turist is taken for a guided tour to see that great achievements of communism. The guide shows him a giant statue. The visitor asks whose staute is that. The guide says: “His name was Dobtchinsky, and he was a great invertor.” “What did he invent?” asks the visitor. “Well, he invented the radio, the telegraph and television”, says the guide. Later they see an even greater statue. “And who was that?” asks the visitor? “He was Bobtchinsky, also a great inventor”, says the guide. “What did he invent?” asks the visitor. “He invented the airplane, space flight, the microprocessor and computers”, says the guide. Still a bit later they come to a really humongous statue. “Wow” says the visitor, “and who was that?”. “He was Grobtchinsky, the greatest inventor of all” - says the guide. “Really, what did he invent?” asks the visitor. “He invented Dobtchinsky and Bobtchinsky” comes the answer.

I hope you are not offended, but that is what I see here. You claim that everything was “invented” by Christianity. Sorry, no such luck. We do talk about “justice” and “mercy” and they are simply contradictory concepts. You cannot “invent” some brand new “divine justice” and “divine mercy”, which have nothing to do with the everyday counterparts.

 

[R_Daneel]

I realize how adamant you are against Christian belief. However, below is an explanation, notwithstanding that it might not suit your exquisite whim, but it describes the Catholic perspective on the subject of Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. It most explicitly satisfies us:

But within the one side of the predicate pair “real” and “good” we find another antimony, namely, in the concept of goodness and of love itself. We think of God as the Just One, as the place of absolute and definitive justice. He does not remain deaf to the tears and cries of the victim shackled by injustice. “Nil inultum remanebit,” “nothing remains unavenged,” is what is said in the Dies irae. But we think of him at the same time as the place of absolute mercy and forgiveness, which transcends all human measure. The identity of justice and merciful goodness, which are included in our concept of God, eludes our power of imagination. It is only in the sacrifice of Christ that the darkness is illuminated for the believer. For this sacrifice means that God himself, in order to be able to forgive without injustice the sacrifice of the evil, made himself the sacrifice and thus enabled himself to forgive. - Rationality and Faith in God, from a lecture by Robert Spaemann

Well, you just brought up one of my pet-peeves. We, lowly humans are able to forgive a trespass against us unconditionally, without any hullabaloo. God, as your excerpt goes, needed to sacrifice “himself” to “enable himself to forgive”. Don’t you see why I consider this an absolute nonsense?

Not just a crazy concept, but also contradicted by the idea that God is “immutable”. According to the text, God changed himself from not being able to forgive to be able to forgive. I wonder if the word “enable” (when applied to God) also means something completely different. This is always the end point to our conversation: a simple secular concept which happens to be expressed by a simple word, all of a sudden means something totally different, when applied to God. Is there any starting point that we can agree upon? I am really curious.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, if they are qualitatively different from the secular concepts, then to call them “justice” and “mercy” are incorrect.

The qualification using “Divine” is not new, RD, and you know that. Nice try.

Hammurabi’s code is just as old, maybe older. No, none of these concepts were “usurped”. Just like the golden rule was formulated way before Jesus. If anything, these ideas were “usurped” by Christianity. And there were ancient codes in China, also way before the Jews had their concepts formulated.

Hammurabi code, ca 1790 BC, compared to Abrahamic law, ca 4,000 BC (or older, based upon one’s cosmogony)? I think Abrahamic Law has it beat.

The Code of Hammurabi (Codex Hammurabi) is a well-preserved ancient law code, dating to ca. 1790 BC (middle chronology) in ancient Babylon. - Wikipedia

Oh, come now. Humanity has experimented with different types of arrangements for forming communities, since time immemorial, some were polyamorous, some were monogamous. You cannot claim that these “marriages” (marriage is just a word)

“Marriage” as a religious exigency dates back to earliest times. In some areas, there was a “marriage-like” practice but,

By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union. - New Advent Encyclopedia

(Funny joke.)

I hope you are not offended, but that is what I see here. You claim that everything was “invented” by Christianity.

RD? How could I possibly do that? I know, as well as you do, that Christianity is just over 2,000 years old. But, “religion” is much older.

We do talk about “justice” and “mercy” and they are simply contradictory concepts. You cannot “invent” some brand new “divine justice” and “divine mercy”, which have nothing to do with the everyday counterparts.

And you know as well as I, that Divine Mercy and Divine Justice are not “new” concepts!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, you just brought up one of my pet-peeves. We, lowly humans are able to forgive a trespass against us unconditionally, without any hullabaloo. God, as your excerpt goes, needed to sacrifice “himself” to “enable himself to forgive”. Don’t you see why I consider this an absolute nonsense?

Not just a crazy concept, but also contradicted by the idea that God is “immutable”. According to the text, God changed himself from not being able to forgive to be able to forgive. I wonder if the word “enable” (when applied to God) also means something completely different. This is always the end point to our conversation: a simple secular concept which happens to be expressed by a simple word, all of a sudden means something totally different, when applied to God. Is there any starting point that we can agree upon? I am really curious.

RD:

These concepts are only a small part of the larger picture. We can only give "sound-bites’ on these forums. A few sound-bites cannot possibly give you all the data you wish to require. You know this, too.

If you wouldn’t restrict yourself, apparently, to only those websites, books and periodicals that are tied to secularistic, or atheistic, apparatuses, you might be able to stop asking atheist-formed questions and comment on the essences of materials.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, you just brought up one of my pet-peeves. We, lowly humans are able to forgive a trespass against us unconditionally, without any hullabaloo. God, as your excerpt goes, needed to sacrifice “himself” to “enable himself to forgive”. Don’t you see why I consider this an absolute nonsense?

Not just a crazy concept,

More than just crazy, it was unthinkable. (It’s metaphorical, RD.) (It is the only way it can be described without resorting to simplistic wording, or, ultra-flowery imagery.)

Our enhanced ability to forgive is derived from Christ’s Act. I’m sure there were acts of forgiveness before that time, but, I do not think there were any of such immensity.

but also contradicted by the idea that God is “immutable”. According to the text, God changed himself from not being able to forgive to be able to forgive. I wonder if the word “enable” (when applied to God) also means something completely different. This is always the end point to our conversation: a simple secular concept which happens to be expressed by a simple word, all of a sudden means something totally different, when applied to God. Is there any starting point that we can agree upon? I am really curious.

One more time. All that we see is in time. All that God does is outside of time. His activity takes place in an Eternal Now. Therefore, nothing changes.

A very unthinkable concept for someone who’s mind may not be as fecund, or, open, as he thinks.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

If you wouldn’t restrict yourself, apparently, to only those websites, books and periodicals that are tied to secularistic, or atheistic, apparatuses, you might be able to stop asking atheist-formed questions and comment on the essences of materials.

You are mistaken. The only website I frequent is this one. The questions I ask are all mine, I do not borrow other people’s ideas. Yes, I consider your quoted text from Robert Spaemann a very important one. It enumerated one of my pet-peeves (as I said) and it is one of the reasons I cannot take the claims of Christianity seriously at all. In my eyes the whole conglomerate of Christian claims is an incredible hodgpodge of partly nonsensical and partly self-contradictory ideas. I am interested in finding out just how can people take it seriously. Not much progess so far, I am afraid.

I appreciate your efforts. But we don’t get forward at all. When it turns out that basic, simple words do not mean the same thing when applied to humans, and when applied to God, the whole conversation falls apart.

By the way the Abrahamic laws do not date back to 4000BC. No one knows precisely, but they are usually taken to about 2000BC. But, this is not important. Mercy and justice predate Judaism. The longest civilization in China is about 6000 years old, and they had nothing to do with the small Jewish tribe. And they had a very elaborate system.

 

[JDaniel]

You are mistaken. The only website I frequent is this one. The questions I ask are all mine, I do not borrow other people’s ideas. Yes, I consider your quoted text from Robert Spaemann a very important one. It enumerated one of my pet-peeves (as I said) and it is one of the reasons I cannot take the claims of Christianity seriously at all. In my eyes the whole conglomerate of Christian claims is an incredible hodgpodge of partly nonsensical and partly self-contradictory ideas. I am interested in finding out just how can people take it seriously. Not much progess so far, I am afraid.

RD: must you read everything with a stultified eye? Can you not appreciate that the bulk of the concepts with reference to God are impossible for humans to expound? There’s nothing simple about how we are able to define things that are of God. And for that, you give no quarter - no mercy. All of that complexity is not nouveau. It is hard to believe that ancient man had any ability at all to fathom God and His determinants, much less write about it. The seventy-three books of the library called the Bible, began about 600 BC and ended about 400 AD. More than a thousand people were involved, in some way or another. It went through three separate Traditions, to end where it is now. But to the atheist, that is a “waste of straw.”

I appreciate your efforts. But we don’t get forward at all. When it turns out that basic, simple words do not mean the same thing when applied to humans, and when applied to God, the whole conversation falls apart.

As it should.

By the way the Abrahamic laws do not date back to 4000BC.

Do you have a quick reference, by chance?

No one knows precisely, but they are usually taken to about 2000BC. But, this is not important. Mercy and justice predate Judaism. The longest civilization in China is about 6000 years old, and they had nothing to do with the small Jewish tribe. And they had a very elaborate system.

Yes, it was a very, very, very savage - one could say, almost lawless - time.

Chinese law is one of the oldest legal traditions in the world. . . .For most of the history of China, its legal system has been based on the Confucian philosophy . . .Confucianism is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system developed from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Kǒng Fūzǐ, or K’ung-fu-tzu, lit. “Master Kong”, 551–478 BC). - from Wikipedia

Now, you and I know Wikipedia is never wrong! But, it would seem that their law is not as old as Abrahamic law.

Question: are you desiring to quit this conversation? It sounds like it. I will not press it, if you do.

God bless,
jd

 

[Tuno]

ALL stems from and IS seamlessly God, which is the significance of Jesus robe in the Gospel. Therefore whatever you and everyone and everything is doing seamlessly together is what God is “doing.” How could it be different? Such is the “AMing” of God.

 

[R_Daneel]

More than just crazy, it was unthinkable. (It’s metaphorical, RD.) (It is the only way it can be described without resorting to simplistic wording, or, ultra-flowery imagery.)

Oh, well. So now it is “metaphorical”. What does the metaphore mean then?

Our enhanced ability to forgive is derived from Christ’s Act. I’m sure there were acts of forgiveness before that time, but, I do not think there were any of such immensity.

First, I am not talking about “forgiveness”, I am talking about “unconditional forgiveness”, which is missing from Christianity. The quoted text tells that God has a precondition of a final sacrifice (in the form of Jesus or himself… not clear) to be able to forgive. It is asserted that God is willing to forgive the trespasses of those who repent, and ask for forgiveness. But that is not unconditional forgiveness. We are able to forgive unconditionally, God apperently is not. I think it is a serious character flaw.

And the number of acts of forgiveness before Jesus is not relevant. Even if there was one act of unconditional forgiveness, it destroys the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary for human forgiveness.

One more time. All that we see is in time. All that God does is outside of time. His activity takes place in an Eternal Now. Therefore, nothing changes.

A very unthinkable concept for someone who’s mind may not be as fecund, or, open, as he thinks.

Indeed it is. And it is not a mystery, it is absurd. An action without change is absurd. An action without time is absurd. The idea of “eternal now” is absurd. You say it is the limitation on my ability to conceptualize it. Maybe so. But I cannot internalize “doublethink”. I cannot accept that “Oceania is at wat with Eurasia and at peace with Eastasia and therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and at peace with Eastasia” - and one second later accept the opposite. It simply does not work that way. A nonsense will stay a nonsense even if someone calls it a mystery. A contradiction cannot be resolved by saying that it is just a metaphor.

You know, I am not saying that God does not exist. But I can say that if God exists, he nothing like the Catholic Church asserts he is. You could not be further away from the truth - and this is nothing more than my opinion.

 

[R_Daneel]

RD: must you read everything with a stultified eye? Can you not appreciate that the bulk of the concepts with reference to God are impossible for humans to expound? There’s nothing simple about how we are able to define things that are of God. And for that, you give no quarter - no mercy. All of that complexity is not nouveau. It is hard to believe that ancient man had any ability at all to fathom God and His determinants, much less write about it. The seventy-three books of the library called the Bible, began about 600 BC and ended about 400 AD. More than a thousand people were involved, in some way or another. It went through three separate Traditions, to end where it is now. But to the atheist, that is a “waste of straw.”

That would be fine, if only Christians would come clean, and declare honestly: “We have absolutely no idea what God is. We cannot comprehend God. We are unable to fathom anything about God. None of our concepts can describe God and his ways”.

That would be quite acceptable. But Christians don’t do that. They talk about God and God’s attributes as if their utterings were sound and meaningful. Only when someone like me comes around and scratches the surface, do Christians pull back into the God of Universal Agnosticism, of whom nothing meaningful can be said, since our vocabulary and our concepts are simply not applicable.

That is the problem. You cannot have it both ways. If I cannot say anything “bad” about God, because my words are insufficient and my concepts are inapplicable, then you cannot say anything “good” about God, for the very same reason.

Do you have a quick reference, by chance?

Only the same Wikipedia But Hammurabi’s code is at least written down on clay tablets, which the Torah’s written version came from about 1300BC. But that is not really the point. There were several legal systems developed independenty from each other.

 

[d_erford]

That would be fine, if only Christians would come clean, and declare honestly: “We have absolutely no idea what God is. We cannot comprehend God. We are unable to fathom anything about God. None of our concepts can describe God and his ways”.

That would be quite acceptable. But Christians don’t do that. They talk about God and God’s attributes as if their utterings were sound and meaningful. Only when someone like me comes around and scratches the surface, do Christians pull back into the God of Universal Agnosticism, of whom nothing meaningful can be said, since our vocabulary and our concepts are simply not applicable.

That is the problem. You cannot have it both ways. If I cannot say anything “bad” about God, because my words are insufficient and my concepts are inapplicable, then you cannot say anything “good” about God, for the very same reason.

We cannot comprehend God completely. We are unable to completely fathom anything about God. None of our concepts can describe God and his ways completely.

The issue with you saying “bad” things about God is not that your words are insufficient, it is that they are incorrect. We can say “good” things about God because He has revealed Himself to us. We do this, though, with the knowledge that our definitions for “good,” “merciful,” “just,” etc., are just glimmers of He who is perfectly those things. So it is not that what we say has no meaning, it is that we cannot grasp the full meaning of what we are saying. Does this mean that we lack complete understanding about God? Yes. But does that lack mean that what we do understand is incorrect? No.

 

[R_Daneel]

The issue with you saying “bad” things about God is not that your words are insufficient, it is that they are incorrect. We can say “good” things about God because He has revealed Himself to us.

I hope you don’t think that this assertion is acceptable.

We do this, though, with the knowledge that our definitions for “good,” “merciful,” “just,” etc., are just glimmers of He who is perfectly those things. So it is not that what we say has no meaning, it is that we cannot grasp the full meaning of what we are saying. Does this mean that we lack complete understanding about God? Yes. But does that lack mean that what we do understand is incorrect? No.

Still, words have meanings. If you say that God’s justice is “more just”, because he can evaluate all the circumstances of a deed “precisely” and so his sentence is “exactly” commensurate to the deed, while our ability to do so is imperfect, then there is no problem. The word “justice” still means exactly the same, but God’s justice is “better” or more precise. If you say that God’s mercy is “better”, then we cannot agree. “Mercy” is a imbalance, mercy means that the person should get a “just sentence”, but is given a lesser sentence. The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is nothing but a meaningless oxymoron.

But under no circumstances can a sentence be both “just” and “merciful”. That is a logical contradiction.

If “love” for humans means to treat someone with compassion, to act in someone’s best interest, then we have a clear definition. Under no condition can a human torture someone else and still claim “love” for that person. Under no circumstances can the torturer declare: “but I love him, and want the best for him, and if I explained it to you, you would know that torturing him is the best thing that could have happened to him”. If “love” for God means that God can torture or allow someone to be tortured, then “love” became incoherent, meaningless.

 

[dskysmine]

I hope you don’t think that this assertion is acceptable.

Still, words have meanings. If you say that God’s justice is “more just”, because he can evaluate all the circumstances of a deed “precisely” and so his sentence is “exactly” commensurate to the deed, while our ability to do so is imperfect, then there is no problem. The word “justice” still means exactly the same, but God’s justice is “better” or more precise. If you say that God’s mercy is “better”, then we cannot agree. “Mercy” is a imbalance, mercy means that the person should get a “just sentence”, but is given a lesser sentence. The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is nothing but a meaningless oxymoron.

But under no circumstances can a sentence be both “just” and “merciful”. That is a logical contradiction.

If “love” for humans means to treat someone with compassion, to act in someone’s best interest, then we have a clear definition. Under no condition can a human torture someone else and still claim “love” for that person. Under no circumstances can the torturer declare: “but I love him, and want the best for him, and if I explained it to you, you would know that torturing him is the best thing that could have happened to him”. If “love” for God means that God can torture or allow someone to be tortured, then “love” became incoherent, meaningless.

Hi R Daneel.
You might want to check on some of the definitions that you are using according to the catholic encyclopedia.
When you speak of mercy within justice doesn’t mean that some one gets a “lighter sentence”. Justice and mercy according to catholicism are interconected because Go’d Justice, like His mercy are always existant. God cannot be just without mercy, and He cannot be merciful without being just. That is why everyone gets a “trial”.
You are thinking that mercy would make you give a lighter sentence to someone, but in fact you are giving the same sentence.
For example, a case where there are 2 robbers. One feels guilty about his actions and wishes to repent. He can be given a sentence of 1 year in prision and 2 of community service. Another robber, who doesn’t feel guilty, gets 4 years in prision. You would probably say that it isn’t “just” that they got different sentences, but the fact is that they will suffer the “same”, because one will live the 3 years feeling guilty while the other won’t.
Is this understandable?

Take care,
Daniel

 

[R_Daneel]

You might want to check on some of the definitions that you are using according to the catholic encyclopedia.
When you speak of mercy within justice doesn’t mean that some one gets a “lighter sentence”. Justice and mercy according to catholicism are interconected because Go’d Justice, like His mercy are always existant. God cannot be just without mercy, and He cannot be merciful without being just. That is why everyone gets a “trial”.
You are thinking that mercy would make you give a lighter sentence to someone, but in fact you are giving the same sentence.
For example, a case where there are 2 robbers. One feels guilty about his actions and wishes to repent. He can be given a sentence of 1 year in prision and 2 of community service. Another robber, who doesn’t feel guilty, gets 4 years in prision. You would probably say that it isn’t “just” that they got different sentences, but the fact is that they will suffer the “same”, because one will live the 3 years feeling guilty while the other won’t.
Is this understandable?

Not a bad reasoning at all. The trouble is that being “just” is taking everything into consideration, even the perpetrator’s state of mind. That does not belongs to mercy, it is part of a just sentence.

There is another problem I can see. When you talk about human circumstances, part of the process is “revenge” and part of it is “rehabilitation” - to allow the criminal to change and become a better person. That is why showing repentance will allow a lighter sentence - which is “just” since all the circumstances must be considered. This is not applicable in the “heavenly” justice scenario. There is no “rehab” there, the sentence is final - and last forever…

True, we humans are unable to reach perfection in justice, but God can, that is why I said that God’s justice is “better” - but the meaning of the word is still the same.

What do you propose “mercy” means, if it does not mean an unwarranted “lighter sentence”?

 

[d_erford]

I hope you don’t think that this assertion is acceptable.

Sure it is, just not to non-believers

Still, words have meanings. If you say that God’s justice is “more just”, because he can evaluate all the circumstances of a deed “precisely” and so his sentence is “exactly” commensurate to the deed, while our ability to do so is imperfect, then there is no problem. The word “justice” still means exactly the same, but God’s justice is “better” or more precise. If you say that God’s mercy is “better”, then we cannot agree. “Mercy” is a imbalance, mercy means that the person should get a “just sentence”, but is given a lesser sentence. The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is nothing but a meaningless oxymoron.

But under no circumstances can a sentence be both “just” and “merciful”. That is a logical contradiction.

I think dskysmine answered this well.

If “love” for humans means to treat someone with compassion, to act in someone’s best interest, then we have a clear definition. Under no condition can a human torture someone else and still claim “love” for that person. Under no circumstances can the torturer declare: “but I love him, and want the best for him, and if I explained it to you, you would know that torturing him is the best thing that could have happened to him”. If “love” for God means that God can torture or allow someone to be tortured, then “love” became incoherent, meaningless.

We allow our children to suffer the pain of a shot because we know it will make them healthier. Does that mean we must not love them? God helps strengthen us through our trials and suffering, which is the loving thing to do.

As for torture, God loves even the torturer, and so allows the actions out of respect for free will (a sign of love), but that does not mean He personally causes or condones it. God can, if we trust Him, make good come even from torture, which is evidence of His love as well.

 

[JDaniel]

Theoretically any action of God’s part can have 3 results:

1. improves God’s perfection,
2. maintains God’s perfection or
3. lessens God’s perfection.

Option #1 is clearly a contradiction. Perfection cannot be improved upon.
Option #2 leads to a logical contradiction, by making the concept of perfection undefined. It would imply that there is more than one perfection - while each variant is still “perfect”, which is an oxymoron. And besides, God is perfect in every respect.
Option #3 would make God less than perfect, and that is also logically contradictory. God’s perfection cannot be destroyed.

Please pardon me for interrupting, but, I had to. RD, your concept of the parameters, as listed, could be imperfect. There are two more parameters, besides the three you listed:

1. no change occurs to God at any point between, before, or after, what merely appears to us as privation and possession,
   (as in Creation: something is made where there was nothing before, and the descriptive words are merely our human convention to help us understand it)
2. or, merely the species that is the union of the matter and form is changed, not the efficient cause, i.e., God (where it involves an efficient cause).
   (in the same way a builder is not changed, per se, upon building a house. He is an external cause.)

This, I think, is how the Church Fathers and Aquinas view it. Now, you may verbally deride it, but, nonetheless, you can’t prove it wrong, or impossible.

Not according to the analysis above. And there is no need for imperfect analogies here, we all know what we are talking about, the “absolute, unsurpassable perfection”, which is one, which cannot be improved or destroyed, which cannot have variations, since God’s perfection is perfect in every respect. This, combined with the concept that a “resultless action” is contradiction in terms proves that “absolute, all-inclusive perfection” cannot be reconciled with any action. Q.E.D.

We seem to be like two creatures from two different planets, who appear to communicate, but, really, we may only be talking past each other. What seems logically absurd to you, is not to us. And what seems logically absurd to us, is not to you. I think our language is very pregnant, while yours is fecund, but not yet pregnant.

God bless,
jd

 

[d_erford]

Not a bad reasoning at all. The trouble is that being “just” is taking everything into consideration, even the perpetrator’s state of mind. That does not belongs to mercy, it is part of a just sentence.

There is another problem I can see. When you talk about human circumstances, part of the process is “revenge” and part of it is “rehabilitation” - to allow the criminal to change and become a better person. That is why showing repentance will allow a lighter sentence - which is “just” since all the circumstances must be considered. This is not applicable in the “heavenly” justice scenario. There is no “rehab” there, the sentence is final - and last forever…

True, we humans are unable to reach perfection in justice, but God can, that is why I said that God’s justice is “better” - but the meaning of the word is still the same.

What do you propose “mercy” means, if it does not mean an unwarranted “lighter sentence”?

Justice, according to the Catechism, “is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” (CCC, 1807) Because of sin, we did not give God His just due. So we would be condemned to death. But Jesus came for our salvation and paid our “dues.” So God exhibits His mercy through His Son (who is also God Himself) providing salvation, but also justice because our debt to Him has been paid. Now, not everyone will accept Jesus, and so do not allow Him to pay their debt. Therefore, they are justly judged and sent to Hell. This is not because God is not being merciful (for He wants all men to be saved), but because He is respecting the individual’s free will to deny Him.

 

[JDaniel]

The nature of the activity does not matter. There are two possible “pictures” here:

1. God alone = ultimate perfection.
2. God + world = imperfection - since only God could be perfect.

Add three more:
3) God (spiritual matter) = perfection.
4) World (corporeal matter) = imperfection.
5) God (outside of corporeal matter) + world (inside of corporeal matter) = Perfection of God unaltered.

Therefore the act of creation destroys the perfection which is represented by God - and by God only.

Not at all! Any act of absolute Creation displays Perfection at its grandest.

Of course the proposition of “God’s creative activity which has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change” is a sheer oxymoron. A “changeless” action cannot be called an “action”. It is just like a “stationary wind, which does not blow”.

Not so. You must give a more careful consideration to what “Creation” actually means, without any “spin.” We earthlings sling the word, creation, about with utter nonchalance, but, we do not create. We can only cause (efficient) - merely gather things into one composite or another, or, decompose an existing composite. There must be something there first, before we “create,” in our lesser activity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

And that is part of the contradiction. Just like that God is “infinitely merciful” and “perfectly just”. There are so many contradictions in God’s definition, that its next to impossible to enumerate them all. (God is the quintessential married bachelor.)

In a sense, that’s true. God, through his Son, is married to us through his Church, yet He remains a bachelor, by our definition of “bachelor.” Hence = “married bachelor.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

And that is part of the contradiction. Just like that God is “infinitely merciful” and “perfectly just”. There are so many contradictions in God’s definition, that its next to impossible to enumerate them all. (God is the quintessential married bachelor.)

RD:

Perfect Justice implies Perfect Mercy. You can’t split them apart!! Therefore, there is no contradiction whatsoever. They must balance each other, in the scheme of all things.

God bless,
jd