Protestantism

» redback - Jeff's test

Hey Pink and Brian and all else

My thoughts on this discussion are that responses clearly citing my post seek a response from me. Of course, they're open to all here (is that 4 or 5?) and I'm NOT limiting replies. BUT your rule of citing my user name within the post before it refers to me...? My responses to a (Pink) post where I cite (Pink) are for (Pink) to respond to AND any one else. Subtly different "rule". But in any event, a discussion format vs 3 bald questions incite different responses. Anyway, I whinged BUT I directly responded seeking a response to my substantive comments, not my whinge...and now I'm reading responses.

I AM trying to engage you guys but it seems if I throw around a few insults I'll incite mutual cries of cyber friendship.

Brian...I still have no trouble remembering you can't reply to all my posts...even the ones you directly refer to me and I respond to. ABC

We are at war on terror so no nation is in defined 'peace' is it? If we offered the terrorist certain forms of 'soft' justice, we apparently play into their hands by showing weakness. If we impose other forms eg sanctions etc we have enduring war.
Justice in part can be measured by the relative absence of injustice - hence trying to identify a tolerable or minor injustice for the sake of an (uneasy) peace such as has existed within the USA since the War of Independence, within Australia etc.

'Peace' can be dissected too. Such as the peace the acceptance of Jesus apparently can bring to an individual so that inertia to worldly injustices exists. Ask such a Christian their views...I have.
----
Pink...it's not only whether we have "...a unified understanding..." of what justice means, it's also whether it will be accepted whatever it's called. When I made mention of the sacred cow of it, there seems to me a tendency to throw the term at people who can't seem to accept it's JUSTICE they're getting whether they want that brand or not.

And to me, tis more sensible to look at a tangible concept then ask if it has elements of justice in it...in a world where I believe no absolute justice exists. Like you say re tit for tat: We can give 'justice' but only if there's something in it for us...if it costs us less than it costs them. Otherwise, why hasn't US brand justice extended to 'less important'** parts of the world.

Pink, Brian, anyone?
** 3C
BTW: no-one's saying justice is free of cost, are they? Justice delayed is justice denied etc.

-- posted by redback