Who or What Demands Justice?

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

I have struggled with this. Yes, I know it is a basic Christian belief, and I should just roll with it. But I can’t.

If the following are true:

If God is all powerful.

If God can do anything.

Then God can forgive sins without the need for an atonement.

If that is not so ..

If God has rules that He has to abide by, if there are rules to the universe that must be followed, then where do miracles come from? What makes exceptions possible? It isn’t worthiness. It isn’t belief. It isn’t devotion. Miracles are random.

Anyone have a simple answer? Small words. Simple sentences .. For this slow learner.

I don’t have simple answers, these days concepts are tangled in my mind.

Mythologies evolve and I believe that we’ve seen a subtle shift in a long standing mythology. Science is slowly working itself into the narrative. Who knows, maybe one day it will become the narrative.

I believe we decide for ourselves what is and isn’t a miracle. One person’s miracle is just a cellphone in the mind of someone else.

I think that most things in life are random. We like to maintain the illusion that there is order because the alternative is frightening or unfulfilling.

As to who or what demands justice… we do.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

As to who or what demands justice… we do.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

If the following are true:

If God is all powerful.

If God can do anything.

Then God can forgive sins without the need for an atonement….

Yes, this is a conundrum. Another question is why would God require the suffering of his son? This is actually a popular anti-Christian argument. I’ve heard it said that only a sick, twisted god would inflict such suffering on his son in order to be satisfied. That’s why I like the idea that the demands of justice do not actually come from God.

I believe God has all the power that is possible for him to possess. There is no power available to him that he does not already have. In that sense, he is all-powerful. There are some laws that he doesn’t violate or he would cease to be God (see Alma 42).

By the way, Skousen’s talk is HERE. I would skip to “Transcript 2”.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Yes, this is a conundrum. Another question is why would God require the suffering of his son? This is actually a popular anti-Christian argument. I’ve heard it said that only a sick, twisted god would inflict such suffering on his son in order to be satisfied. That’s why I like the idea that the demands of justice do not actually come from God.

This is actually an area where I like the Trinitarian view (yes, I know it has its problems but just go with it for a minute). The BoM says “Behold the condescension of God” and then shows the crucifixion and atonement. It is then that Nephi understands that the tree represents the Love of God. The BoM in the original wording is even more Trinitarian (it was toned down in editing).

I like the idea of God coming to personally save His children more than His sending a representative.

[Anonymous]

Life demands justice. Things that fight nature tend not to survive.

The God of the Old Teatament demands justice – unless He is killing people for not accepting the House of Israel or for not worshipping Him (even though they have no reason to do so).

The God of Calvinism doesn’t care about justice, since He predetermines His ultimate decisions regardless of our actions.

The God of Mormonism (the theology, not the membership) is much more gracious, since the final decision doesn’t require any particular affiliation or even specific actions in this life – and all universal requirements will be accomplished for everyone eventually. Doing your best is a much less “demanding” standard, especially coupled with loving forgiveness and godly understanding.

Every member sees things through an individual lens, and the human default is to believe one’s lens is the only true lens.

Luckily for us, our scriptures and hymns are full of varying views from which we can construct our own understanding.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

As to who or what demands justice… we do.

BTW, I love the teachings of stayLDS poster mercyngrace on this subject:

Quote:

Even the sacrifice and penal substitution metaphors for the atonement miss the point, IMO. The writer of Hebrews seems to indicate that the law of sacrifice was provided to assuage our own guilt. WE need a price to be paid, not God. That’s why He repeats time and again that He doesn’t need the blood of beasts but a broken heart and contrite spirit.

IMO, there was no price to be paid – no law written on stone tables that preceded Satan (our white witch per Lewis’ tales). There is an accuser, our adversary, and whether he roams the earth lying in wait to deceive or exists only in the blackness of our own hearts, he can be satiated and his sense of justice must be appeased. This accuser is appeased, when he comes face to face with one who willingly, and motivated by unadulterated charity, suffers an unfathomable injustice on behalf of another. Then and there the accuser hangs his head in shame, drops his stone, realizes his own culpability, and frees his offender of his just demands. In that instant, mercy claims both accuser and accused. Charity, if they allow it, changes them both.

In essence, Abraham stood ready to appease a God who gently reproved “You do not need to appease me. I will show you through the unblemished Lamb, how to accept an offer that has always been extended.”

And He did.

[Author]

Posts