Athiests

[objectivitees]

Atheist - Lack of belief in religion of any kind. Usually stated. It technically isn't a belief system since the only belief needed is that there is nothing spiritually. Can blend with Pantheism in cases or Buddhism and L. Satanism. There is no rules to Atheism, dogma, or actual ism. Its just a stated lack of belief.

This definition is inaccurate. It is a reformulation of the traditional definition which is "Believes God does not exist." It was re-defined as an avoidance technique for having to defend what Atheists now refer to as 'strong atheism', (as opposed to weak atheism) because strong atheism is logically indefensible. Weak Atheism, on the other hand, re-defined to mean "lack of belief" in any God or 'religion', is defensible only because it allows the "atheist" to play word games by constantly shifting focus on what his real beliefs are. Conceptually, it is equivalent to the traditional definition of Agnosticism, which is why Lance is able to claim there are "no rules" to "Atheism". (Agnosticism means knowledge of God is not possible) if there are no rules, then you can't argue against the (re-defined) 'Atheist' position, because it literally cannot be pinned down, as the believer in 'atheism' will inevitably equivocate. if you, as the opposition in a debate or discussion aren't skilled at catching the equivocations, the 'atheist' will always seem to be one step ahead.

In short, it's a word game, don't accept the Atheists premise that this definition is accurate, or you have lost the debate from the beginning.

I suggest you read James w. Sire's book, "The universe next door", if you want an introduction to worldviews or world religions.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

This definition is inaccurate. It is a reformulation of the traditional definition which is "Believes God does not exist."

You mean God, god or gods?

It was re-defined as an avoidance technique for having to defend what Atheists now refer to as 'strong atheism', (as opposed to weak atheism) because strong atheism is logically indefensible.

Strong Atheism is declaring that there is no God. Its no differnt then Theism claiming there is a creator or creators.

Weak Atheism, on the other hand, re-defined to mean "lack of belief" in any God or 'religion', is defensible only because it allows the "atheist" to play word games by constantly shifting focus on what his real beliefs are.

You want to provide what is the real definiton of Atheism then? Since these people are constantly shifting thier beliefs, it would sugest you know the true definition they are shifting from.

Conceptually, it is equivalent to the traditional definition of Agnosticism, which is why Lance is able to claim there are "no rules" to "Atheism". (Agnosticism means knowledge of God is not possible)

Actually, true agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to know truth, and that there is no reason to care. It is the predocesor to Skepticism. You forgot to mention that Agnosticism can be combined with Theism to make Deism, and Pantheism to equivilate with central mysticism.

if there are no rules, then you can't argue against the (re-defined) 'Atheist' position, because it literally cannot be pinned down, as the believer in 'atheism' will inevitably equivocate.

Actually, what you do is have the Atheist define exactly what they believe. Even a nihilist has ethics. Find out the person's stance, before charging into the argument. Its actually quite simple.

if you, as the opposition in a debate or discussion aren't skilled at catching the equivocations, the 'atheist' will always seem to be one step ahead.

Becasue you asserted a claim based on an assumption, and treaded into territory you wheren't aware of. This is why its important to not assume in arguments.

In short, it's a word game, don't accept the Atheists premise that this definition is accurate, or you have lost the debate from the beginning.

Actually, you will have lost the debate, since you shut down teh person's beleif and don't watn to debate them, unless they conform to a definition you already have preset in your own mind. The definiton is correct. Their is no atheist dogma or doctorine. Its just a lack of belif in God or gods.

I suggest you read James w. Sire's book, "The universe next door", if you want an introduction to worldviews or world religions.

I'll save you guys some time. The answere this guy watns is Naturalism.

 

[Titopoet]

Science is about validating and verifying propositions. The spectacular and undeniable success of science as a method of learning about the world we live in is validation and verification enough of science.

Just because they might not have specifically defined what they mean by "reality" does not mean that their work is fallacious. That is a non sequitur.

Thank you for reply. The verifiable principle is a metaphysical claim (beyond the testing of Science) so the question is if one meta physical claim can be accepted then what is the criteria to exclude other metaphysical claims. Not a non sequiter as it goes a the heart of the argument that Harris, Dawkins and the rest present, they claim God cannot pass the evidence test, but either can the fundamental premise of testing of the evidence ie Science. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Many of their "God is illogical" are the games that logicians play with in the quirks of language. (See why a white horse is not a horse.)
Harris's taxonomy of the God debate has four categories: Fundamentalists. Moderates, Accommodatists, and Atheists. Fundamentalists are literal believers. Moderates are the most dangerous in his view because they hold onto a false view and create games to justify themselves. They are the worse because they offer cover for the fundamentalists. The second worst group in his view is the Accommodatists, as they don't believe but can see how others can logically. Finally, are the those who have the truth that there are no Gods. They are the only morally up right and possesors of seeing the world right. It is paper thin and does not fit the evidence. Imagine if as a scientist, I use a category for cat that says the only true cat is the cat with orange fur. How skewed would be my results. Same for the above categories as fundamentalist have only been around for about hundred years, and they are a minority in the Christian world. (I am not certain about Islam) Charismatics, Catholics, Orthodox make up 90% of Christians today. Historically it is worse and Fundamentalists make up less than 1% of Christians. So when A Christian claims God is beyond humans to fully understand and reveals God incarnate man, Jesus, Atheists claim that the Christian is being a Moderate and dodging the evidence question. The problem is Christians have been making this claim as a metaphyiscal claim before any evidence challenge from Science, in fact before formal Science itself.

Finally, I am using the common use of the word reality. Go to any Christian church on Sunday and Jesus as God has a reality. That reality has been studied my anthropologists, sociologists, and students of Culture. A researcher can measure how many songs are sung, how many prayers are said and the effects on the persons life.
The question I have for you and the other Atheists is simple, how can God's existence be challenged without dealing with the existence question.
Symbolically Harris argument is G=M, M=E{F} therefore G=E{-G}, is the very definition of non sequitur.
G=God M=myth, F=fiction
Setup logically the question of God then can only be a question of the nature of God. Is God a projection onto nature? Is God a creation of the human mind? Is God the Creator? Is God Jesus? Each of these positions are consistent with reality and can be both attacked and defended. What Harris wants to do is set up a position where he can attack religious beliefs, while crawling back into a cave of illogic when called to defend a position, saying that he has no position and the proof is on those who hold a position. He does not want to defend a position, even as he holds one. Sloppy thinking, but it is a great rhetorical position to place oneself. It just violates the rules logic and that is why his writing is a dance of logically falsies.
The question I have is when you use the word, God, what do you mean?

 

[AAA]

Fundamentalists make up less than 1% of Christians.

To use your own logic, doesn't that depend on how you define 'fundamentalist'?

Can you please tell me how 'fundamentalist' was defined and how this statistic was derived?

Finally, I am using the common use of the word reality. Go to any Christian church on Sunday and Jesus as God has a reality. That reality has been studied my anthropologists, sociologists, and students of Culture. A researcher can measure how many songs are sung, how many prayers are said and the effects on the persons life.

It is true that Christians believe in Jesus. That belief is real, and a part of reality.

Whether Jesus is what Christians believe he is is another matter altogether. That is, it is not at all clear that Jesus is real, and a part of reality.

It seems to me that nobody here but you has an issue with this rather obvious distinction.

The question I have for you and the other Atheists is simple, how can God's existence be challenged without dealing with the existence question.

What is the existence question?!

Symbolically Harris argument is G=M, M=E{F} therefore G=E{-G}, is the very definition of non sequitur.
G=God M=myth, F=fiction

Sorry, I can't follow this at all. If you want to bother explaining it, please do so with plain language and common sense - that's all we need to sort these matters out (and that is another principle that Sam Harris espouses)

Setup logically the question of God then can only be a question of the nature of God. Is God a projection onto nature? Is God a creation of the human mind? Is God the Creator? Is God Jesus?

Right, and option #2 (god is a creation of the human mind) means that god is not real - he is imaginary. One of Harris' points is that believing that god (any theistic god for the purposes of this discussion) is real is unjustified. One of his primary interests is the nature of belief at the level of the brain. If you would like to argue that any theistic set of beliefs is justfied, be my guest and start a new thread where you do that. I would suggest that you defend Christian theism given the Forum we're on!

Each of these positions are consistent with reality and can be both attacked and defended. What Harris wants to do is set up a position where he can attack religious beliefs, while crawling back into a cave of illogic when called to defend a position, saying that he has no position and the proof is on those who hold a position. He does not want to defend a position, even as he holds one. Sloppy thinking, but it is a great rhetorical position to place oneself. It just violates the rules logic and that is why his writing is a dance of logically falsies.

Lots of assertions here, but no substance. Neither Harris nor I will permit you to commit the fallacy of "shifting the burden", which has been dealt with in previous posts in this very thread. This is where you will come up against Russell's teapot every time.

The question I have is when you use the word, God, what do you mean?

It depends on the context. On this forum, there is a fairly specific meaning pertaining to the Christian god.

 

[objectivitees]

You want to provide what is the real definiton of Atheism then? Since these people are constantly shifting thier beliefs, it would sugest you know the true definition they are shifting from.

I did. But I guess you weren’t paying attention. Nonetheless, if you wish to review, you may check the definition I provided (and you missed) with a brief and cursory check into the history of the term.

Actually, true agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to know truth, and that there is no reason to care. It is the predocesor to Skepticism. You forgot to mention that Agnosticism can be combined with Theism to make Deism, and Pantheism to equivilate with central mysticism.

Very good! That is the “true†definition of Agnosticism, with respect to epistemology. However (unfortunate for you) we are dealing with the Ontology of Religious belief, wherein my application of the term means just what I said it did. With respect to Religion, Agnosticism means there is no way to know if God exists. Therefore your attempt to discredit my claim is just a strawman argument on your part.

Actually, what you do is have the Atheist define exactly what they believe. Even a nihilist has ethics. Find out the person's stance, before charging into the argument. Its actually quite simple.

Emphasis added.

Your condescension here is palpable. My point was, by the definition you provided; it would be impossible to determine what the Atheist believes. Therefore as I said before, don’t accept their definition as a premise to debate, as you would be conceding defeat before you ever begun. I think you need to finish your coursework in “world religions†before you continue to critique my posts, as eventually, study in that area would lead you to a study of “hermeneuticsâ€, and a proper understanding of what I said. By the way, how do you know if a Nihilist has "ethics", the Nihilist himself can't even claim that knowledge. If you claim he does, you're only doing so by your standard, not his. Therefore nihilists don't claim ethics.

Becasue you asserted a claim based on an assumption, and treaded into territory you wheren't aware of. This is why its important to not assume in arguments.

There was no ‘assumption’ made, I provided the necessary details for correctly understanding what I said. You just missed that part, which led you to the error of your conclusion that ‘I assumed’.

Actually, you will have lost the debate, since you shut down teh person's beleif and don't watn to debate them, unless they conform to a definition you already have preset in your own mind. The definiton is correct. Their is no atheist dogma or doctorine. Its just a lack of belif in God or gods.

Again, since you missed it twice now, I’ll repeat, if there is no dogma or doctrine, then there is no belief you can debate. What you are suggesting is that before engaging anyone and everyone in debate you must find out what the individual believes personally which is not expedient. All attempts by the Atheist to define Atheism as “Lack of beliefâ€, is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to make it seem valid, by hiding behind the classic definition of Agnosticism. To debate concepts (Atheism/Theism) a definition of what Atheism is must be agreed upon. The definition you provided is not a definition, but a lack of a definition. Clear Agnosticism. To accept your (the Atheist’s) re-definition of Atheism, will put the discussion in a place where no real meaning can be derived epistemologically, and therefore makes the entire debate Nihilistic.

I'll save you guys some time. The answere this guy watns is Naturalism.

First thing you got right! All systems of belief that deny the existence of God, (no matter how you define them) are necessarily naturalistic. (Naturalism)

 

[AAA]

strong atheism is logically indefensible.

By strong atheism, do you mean "god, as defined by these theistic beliefs, does not exist"? If so,I think Austin Dacey does a nice job of defending strong atheism. It's not a proof that god doesn't exist, of course, because it is impossible to prove that a supernatural entity does not exist. If you're interested, just google Austin Dacey versus William Lane Craig and you should find his position nicely outlined in the debates.

Weak Atheism, on the other hand, re-defined to mean "lack of belief" in any God or 'religion', is defensible only because it allows the "atheist" to play word games by constantly shifting focus on what his real beliefs are ... you can't argue against the (re-defined) 'Atheist' position, because it literally cannot be pinned down, as the believer in 'atheism' will inevitably equivocate. if you, as the opposition in a debate or discussion aren't skilled at catching the equivocations, the 'atheist' will always seem to be one step ahead ... In short, it's a word game, don't accept the Atheists premise that this definition is accurate, or you have lost the debate from the beginning.

Can you provide an example or 2 of this equivocation/"word game"/"shifting focus" to help me understand what you're saying?

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I did. But I guess you weren’t paying attention. Nonetheless, if you wish to review, you may check the definition I provided (and you missed) with a brief and cursory check into the history of the term.

Your definition was "lack of belief in God". That is only part of the definition. The Atheist dosen't beleive in any God, god, or Gods. Its not exclusivly against Christianity.

Very good! That is the “true†definition of Agnosticism, with respect to epistemology. However (unfortunate for you) we are dealing with the Ontology of Religious belief, wherein my application of the term means just what I said it did. With respect to Religion, Agnosticism means there is no way to know if God exists. Therefore your attempt to discredit my claim is just a strawman argument on your part.

I was clearing up the definition for other usesers. I never said your view of religous agnosticism was incorrect. I was adding to it. I was also just commenting that soft atheism, just seems like an excuse to still oneself an athiest, when they may as well call themselves Agnostics.

Your condescension here is palpable.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. If I came off that way, I apologise.

My point was, by the definition you provided; it would be impossible to determine what the Atheist believes. Therefore as I said before, don’t accept their definition as a premise to debate, as you would be conceding defeat before you ever begun.

Its not imposible to figure out what an atheist believes. You ask them. When a person claims they are an atheist, you can automaticly assume they don't believe in God,god, or Gods. anything behond that point depends on the person you are debating.

I think you need to finish your coursework in “world religions†before you continue to critique my posts, as eventually, study in that area would lead you to a study of “hermeneuticsâ€, and a proper understanding of what I said.

I debate online to learn. I ask and ctitique to see if anyone can improve my statemetn or disqualify it.

By the way, how do you know if a Nihilist has "ethics", the Nihilist himself can't even claim that knowledge. If you claim he does, you're only doing so by your standard, not his. Therefore nihilists don't claim ethics.

Ethics is the study o fmoral questions and their applications. Even thouhg a Nihlist claims that they don't care about anything, they still assert that they don't care, making a moral claim. Ethics

There was no ‘assumption’ made, I provided the necessary details for correctly understanding what I said. You just missed that part, which led you to the error of your conclusion that ‘I assumed’.

You assumed that you can't find the atheist's belief. You assumed this. I demonstrated that you can.

Again, since you missed it twice now, I’ll repeat, if there is no dogma or doctrine, then there is no belief you can debate. What you are suggesting is that before engaging anyone and everyone in debate you must find out what the individual believes personally which is not expedient.

One of the main parts of debate is to not assume the knowledge or stance of the oposition. SO you do need to verify what the oponent beliefs or whre they stand before debate. OTher wise you are arguing blind.

All attempts by the Atheist to define Atheism as “Lack of beliefâ€, is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to make it seem valid, by hiding behind the classic definition of Agnosticism.

My defintion has always been, a stated lack of belief. Not a simple non belief. You have stated that this is intellectually dishonsets to claim. Though it si a true claim.

To debate concepts (Atheism/Theism) a definition of what Atheism is must be agreed upon. The definition you provided is not a definition, but a lack of a definition.

No I used the the commonly agreed upon definition. Wich si enough to garner debate

Clear Agnosticism. To accept your (the Atheist’s) re-definition of Atheism, will put the discussion in a place where no real meaning can be derived epistemologically, and therefore makes the entire debate Nihilistic.[/color]Not rally, It depends on teh dabate. I you want to attack atheism as a whole, then you wouldbe in trouble. SInce you'd have to consider the indevidual, not the entire encompassing group.

 

[AskTheA]

Come on guys. We've been through this hundreds of times on this very forum I bet. Likely every athiest here has heard every argument your going to propose. Likewise for the theists/Christians. Can we address literally ANY other question than "How do you justify your lack of beleif?". Seriously. ANY OTHER QUESTION IS TOTALLY WELCOME.

 

[objectivitees]

Its not imposible to figure out what an atheist believes. You ask them.

Lance, and when you ask them, and they give you the "definition" you provided, it will be impossible to determine their actual belief, because they equivocate, and become as Agnostics, while you keep trying to address their re-defined "Atheism". My point is clear, historically the term 'Atheist' meant a person denied the existence of God. The def you provided is, (while I am sure taught at our liberal universities)an evasion tactic on the part of Atheists who are less than honest (not all are mind you)and want to defeat you in a debate, rather than have an exchange of ideas honestly.

Now, on to my question (of 'justification of belief' for ATA...)

Premise One) Atheism makes an a priori assumption Logic is a valid means for deriving knowledge to assert Rational (true) claims or prove irrational (false) claims about the nature of Reality.

Premise Two) Atheism is incapable of rationally justifying the existence of Logic within the paradigm of it's own worldview (Naturalism) making it an arbitrarily held belief, and arbitrary beliefs are irrational by the precepts of logic.

Conclusion) Therefore, Atheism is an irrationally held belief.

Can you refute this argument successfully?
Does that qualify as "any other question"?

By strong atheism, do you mean "god, as defined by these theistic beliefs, does not exist"?

No, I mean "God" by means of Ontology.

 

[Titopoet]

Come on guys. We've been through this hundreds of times on this very forum I bet. Likely every athiest here has heard every argument your going to propose. Likewise for the theists/Christians. Can we address literally ANY other question than "How do you justify your lack of beleif?". Seriously. ANY OTHER QUESTION IS TOTALLY WELCOME.

Thank you for your reply. I can see why you think I am asking you to justify your lack of believe. That is not my question. Simply put how can the new atheists make the claim the religion is illogical? Especially, with the development of linguistics and symbolic logic. I have not heard any of the new atheists answer the Wittgensteinian language view.
A quick illustration.
When I was learning symbolic logic, I was sitting around talking to a fellow student right after daylight savings change in the spring. I think we were playing with some logical paradoxes like white horse dialog or the barber of Seville. Suddenly, another guy joined us and said: "Man, I don't believe in Daylight Savings Time."
My friend got a smile on his face and answer, "So, you don't think people did moved their clocks forward one hour, you must have been late by hour."
After a brief debate, the other guy was force to admit what he meant was that he did not agree with Daylight savings nor did he like it.

I diagramed symbolically Harris fallacy in an earlier post and I guess I did not make it clear.
So I use the older form:
For Harris: God is an iron age myth.
Myth are unscientific fiction.
Therefore God is not.

His conclusion does not follow. What would follow for Harris is God is an unscientific fiction.

But then that would be a claim he would have to defend. I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, rather I am pointing out a truth that one has to make a positive claim about the word "God," whether that is God is a human construct, an evolutionary quirk or Allah. I believe that Jesus is God and a person of the Holy Trinity. I view that my claim is an answer to how to live my life. What I am calling the new atheists is the same as my friend said about Daylight Savings. To take a position that the new atheist make no claims about the nature of God, (we simple don't believe in God) and then proceed to make claims about God is intellectually dishonest, irrational and illogical. If you believe God is a project of Human beings, have the cojounies to say so and defend that position. I believe that Jesus is God, and belief in Jesus is a way of transformation. I know and accept what that means.

The reason I have been using the new Atheists and not Atheists is that Atheists like Russell, Gould, Rorty and Quine understood the logic behind it and were honest enough to know they were making claims about "God."

 

[objectivitees]

To take a position that the new atheist make no claims about the nature of God, (we simple don't believe in God) and then proceed to make claims about God is intellectually dishonest, irrational and illogical.

Funny, that's what I was saying too.

 

[(THE)]

I have a good friend who is a Christian Reform which is similar to Presbyterian/Calvinism I beleive. I, however am an Athiest. I've read Christian forums before where there is an "Ask the Athiest" thread. Most ofen it's the athiest trying to A: deconvert the Christians, or B: act rudely or make the look silly so the Athiest can say "look how smart I am".

I intend to do neither of those things; I think that's a waste of time. I just want to foster some understanding. I don't use rude language nor will I say mean things about your beleifs or your god. Feel free to ask me any question, whether or not it is even diretly related to religion. I'm knowledgable about athiesm and have a decent understanding of religions of the world.

I think its easier to talk to a athiest,,,,then a fake christian,,,very soon things will happen that will convert every athiest into a believer,,,lets just hope its not antichrist that convinces athiest to believe......

 

[RND]

You know, I meant to get back to you on this post a while ago. Sorry for the delay.

I have four questions that I would want to ask anyone, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, on this thread:

I found these questions interesting.

Great! I'm glad you found the four questions of interest.

What do you mean by "justice"? Do you perhaps mean "successfully prosecuted to the full extent of the law"?

I think the term justice can mean many different things to many different people and doesn't necessarily have to be limited to what the "law and justice" aspect of justice. In the scope of the four questions however I think that is the general connotation that most people would relate to.

By "mercy", do you mean leniency (ie. "get off easy", or "get away with it")?

No. By mercy the connotation is thought to be "how would I want to be treated if the roles were reversed." For example, what would you the perpetrator of killing your brother want? Mercy or justice?

The carnal heart has an ingrained sense of justice as long as it doesn’t apply to them or theirs. That is self-righteousness and hypocrisy! Furthermore, Satan knows that God will only forgive us according to our willingness to forgive others. The irony of the whole thing is – “we’re all family.â€

As we have received God’s mercy – so are we to bestow the same mercy towards others. “Freely you have received, freely give.†We can hate the sin, but we must love the sinner for “we war not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in high places.â€

By the above, do you mean to imply that the response to all of your questions ought to be "mercy"?

The questions are designed to find out what "you" would consider justice and mercy to be. We all deserve justice, we all want mercy.

 

[Godfrey]

Justice = getting what we deserve
Mercy = not getting what we deserve
Grace = getting what we don't deserve

 

[AAA]

I diagramed symbolically Harris fallacy in an earlier post and I guess I did not make it clear.
So I use the older form:
For Harris: God is an iron age myth.
Myth are unscientific fiction.
Therefore God is not.

I can't say that I've recognized this exact argument from Harris. Can you provide a reference or link that shows that he does advance this specific argument?

In the meantime, please ponder the following reasonable modification:

1. Fictions, by definition, are not real
2. god is an iron age myth
3. Myths are unscientific fiction
Therefore, god is not real

I'm sure you see no problem with this...

 

[AAA]

Premise One) Atheism makes an a priori assumption Logic is a valid means for deriving knowledge to assert Rational (true) claims or prove irrational (false) claims about the nature of Reality.

Premise Two) Atheism is incapable of rationally justifying the existence of Logic within the paradigm of it's own worldview (Naturalism) making it an arbitrarily held belief, and arbitrary beliefs are irrational by the precepts of logic.

Conclusion) Therefore, Atheism is an irrationally held belief.

I reject the premises as formulated.

As Luke Muehlhauser recently wrote on his blog:

"math and logic can’t tell us anything about what exists in the world around us. They can only tell us what is entailed in our own concepts. They can’t tell us whether our concepts refer to things that exist, or how accurately they apply to things that exist. Logic can tell you that if Socrates was a father then he must have produced children because that is how we define our word “father,†but logic cannot tell us whether Socrates was a father. Math can tell you that the surface area of a flat disk inside some circle will be ? × [the radius of the circle, squared], but it cannot tell you whether the plate you just bought is perfectly circular or flat, or what its radius is.

Logic and math can extend our knowledge gained by observation, and they are an integral part of science. But they can’t tell us anything about the world on their own."

 

[RND]

Justice = getting what we deserve
Mercy = not getting what we deserve
Grace = getting what we don't deserve

That's actually very good.

In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation. "Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:8. As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him." Isa. 53:5.

Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. "With His stripes we are healed." -- Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, page 25

 

[AAA]

Justice = getting what we deserve
Mercy = not getting what we deserve
Grace = getting what we don't deserve

I like that.

 

[Godfrey]

Justice = getting what we deserve
Mercy = not getting what we deserve
Grace = getting what we don't deserve

I like that.

Not original, I hasten to add