My point is I think you're wrong and you don't. That's it- we're done — Outlander

Couldn't agree more.

I submit for your consideration two notions of justice (not to be confused with vengeance or revenge). First as communal, reactive, rehabilitative, and based in love - and clearly this is problematic in practice. Why or how love? That goes back to Plato, I forget which dialogue - anyone?

The second is divine and involves forgiveness, itself by no means an easy topic.

In contrast, Western conceptions of God describe a creator/created, master/slave, owner/property arrangement that is entirely inconsistent with these "justice adjacent" concepts. Being coerced into behavior that one does not wish to participate in through the threat of social or physical harm is not just, yet it is the foundation of most God-centered enterprises. — Pro Hominem

"Western conceptions of God," it seems to me, are Judeo-Christian in substance, and from the OT to the NT (Old, New, Testament) that God underwent significant reworking from being vengeful and even petty, to being a loving and a forgiving God . Nor is it clear to me what anyone is coerced into doing that they do not want to do - and of course the threat of harm of some kind or another is exactly a part of what keeps society from going off the rails.

My own view of justice is informed by Kant's deontology, which among other things means I self-legislate to be as just as I can be, well-advised by others, but neither subject to nor needing them.

So if the God to be excluded is vicious, then agreed. But that is not most folks' idea of God.

The question to you is do you know the difference between the idea of a thing and the thing itself? — tim wood

God is just a word without concrete substance. I think this manifest comprehension of a distinction. Here the idea is without being, it never escapes the domain of its own abstraction.

God is just a word without concrete substance. — JerseyFlight

Substance as idea, is how I get it. And with that, substance. And the domain of its abstraction is nevertheless a domain. In this I suspect we're in complete accord, not worth the trouble grinding words to fit.

And the domain of its abstraction is nevertheless a domain. — tim wood

Yes, but purely a formal one. There is no authority here.

Agreed, absolutely not. You provide the authority. (Well, maybe not you, but you know what I mean - the self-legislating kind.

"Western conceptions of God," it seems to me, are Judeo-Christian in substance, and from the OT to the NT (Old, New, Testament) that God underwent significant reworking from being vengeful and even petty, to being a loving and a forgiving God . — tim wood

Scripture is clear that God did not get "reworked" in the period between testaments. Malachi 3:6, NASB: "'For I, the LORD, do not change;..." God is consistently described as eternal, abiding, and unchanging. OT and NT are the same guy. The NT has lots of references to God's wrath and the avoidance thereof, which brings me to....

Nor is it clear to me what anyone is coerced into doing that they do not want to do - and of course the threat of harm of some kind or another is exactly a part of what keeps society from going off the rails. — tim wood

People are coerced into "believing" or even "obeying" God (or his proxy, Jesus) or else they face horrible punishment. 1 Thessalonians 1:10, ESV: "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." Romans 2:5, NIV: "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." Matthew 25:46 NIV “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” The implications are clear: believe or else.

I particularly love this one: Acts 12:23 KJV "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost." Gotta love that King James Version. It really drives it home. So much for the New Testament God of peace and love.

You ask what people are being asked to do that they don't want to? Well, everything. I don't want to reject my native reason and intelligence so that I can sit around spouting a bunch of nonsense and telling everyone how lucky I am that God allowed me to give up most of the things that make life fun and interesting so that I could blow smoke up his ass for the rest of eternity. I don't want to spend my life believing something that just plain isn't real and doesn't make any sense. Which brings me to...

So if the God to be excluded is vicious, then agreed. But that is not most folks' idea of God. — tim wood

Actually, my view of the Christian God is, in fact, "most folks" view. There are more people on Earth who don't believe this stuff than do believe it. Especially in places with free access to good education. Which is why the church has been actively propagandizing people in poor, underserviced areas of the world. People who don't have the capacity to see through the haze of babble.

Make no mistake, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is as vicious as it gets. And he is most certainly not just. I don't say any of this to convince you of anything - if you were an evidence-based thinker, you wouldn't need the convincing - I say it because this is a philosophy forum and I am very, very familiar with what they "are for" as you put it.

PS - we could have had a much more civil conversation if you had approached me civilly.

I share every last ounce of justified and intelligent contempt you here articulate.

Does it require other people? Probably. It's hard to believe that if there were only one living human, they would give much thought to justice. — Pro Hominem

I agree with you.So you think that justice does not reside in an entity but in relation between the entities.

n contrast, Western conceptions of God describe a creator/created, master/slave, owner/property arrangement that is entirely inconsistent with these "justice adjacent" concepts. Being coerced into behavior that one does not wish to participate in through the threat of social or physical harm is not just, yet it is the foundation of most God-centered enterprises. — Pro Hominem

How do you think we got the conception that god is just?Did we start by conceptualizing that god was just or more simply was our morality back then deontological or Consequentialism.

God negates justice — JerseyFlight

Can you elaborate on that?

My definition kinda do include God but I can see guys, like Rawlsians totally exclude god and even mote neoliberalists and socialists. A creative God-fan could probably sneak in God into anything but I see people do totally without god

I will second philosophisim and Tim, Yes

Can you elaborate on that? — philosopher004

I did, read through the thread.

How do you think we got the conception that god is just?Did we start by conceptualizing that god was just or more simply was our morality back then deontological or Consequentialism. — philosopher004

Define God as you're using the term.

I can tell you this much - regardless of your god-definition, god predates notions of a "just god" by centuries if not millenia. In the case of the Judeo-Christian god, the notion that "he" is just is an entirely modern creation, and not scriptural at all. Like every other part of the god concept, justice was created at the time it needed to be to keep the religion relevant to the flock.