Jesus Camp closed

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b][b]

What do you mean by "warrant the death penalty"? Do you mean something that is objectively so grevious a wrong that death would be a just penalty for it or something that we should have laws decreeing the death penalty for? I see a clear distinction between the two -- most people reading my posts in th tract either situation could be "proper" for a particular society.

TheSkipper[/b][/b]

What I mean by "warrant the death penalty" is if you were watching the trial of said disrespectful adult son or daughter would you be hoping for the penalty of death?

No, I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't want to see the death penalty in any actual case unless the person presented a clear danger to more lives that cannot be reasonably prevented in any other fashion. I think that answers pretty much your entire first set of questions.

So, yes, I see a distinction ...

And so, when I say "death is a just punishment for X" I am referring to that "higher" objective system of justice and not what we implement here in our societies. Now, as a social contract theorist and (possibly) an atheist you do not accept such a higher set of scales exists. That's fine -- then the only comments of mine you ought to pay attention to are the ones about laws and what we are permitted to implement. If you want to evaluate my comments on objective justice, you'll have to accept (at least for the purposes of this discussion) that such exists.

(I'll assume for the moment that you recognise the distinction and are willing to continue the discussion from such a point of view. Since you seem to be a sensible guy, I'm hoping I won't have to fend off "would you support human laws that provide for stoning" etc. etc. from you any more).

So, to answer your question, can I think of circumstances where the disrespect is grave enough to objectively merit death (even though us fellow humans are not permitted to implement that penalty)? The simplest case would be an adult who does actually murder his parents. We instinctively realise that the gravity of this crime is greater than if he had just murdered two strangers. What is that "additional" bit? I would say it's broadly what I mean by "disrespecting one's parents" in this case. I would say that, objectively speaking, this person has committed two grave crimes, both worthy of death. Now, the disrespect may be a lesser "sin" (it's easier to use that term for clarity) than the murder itself but I consider it grave enough in its own right.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What I mean by "warrant the death penalty" is if you were watching the trial of said disrespectful adult son or daughter would you be hoping for the penalty of death?

No, I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't want to see the death penalty in any actual case unless the person presented a clear danger to more lives that cannot be reasonably prevente ...[text shortened]... you'll have to accept (at least for the purposes of this discussion) that such exists.[/b]

Ok, I'm satisfied, you have not lost your mind, or at least you have not demonstrated as much here. 😉

As a theist I have a hard time dealing with the angry, killing God of the Pentateuch but to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld:

"You don't worship the god you want or wish you had, you worship the god you've got."

I just conveniently forget to thank him for being a murderous psychopath for the first few generations of his dominion over us. 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What I mean by "warrant the death penalty" is if you were watching the trial of said disrespectful adult son or daughter would you be hoping for the penalty of death?

No, I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't want to see the death penalty in any actual case unless the person presented a clear danger to more lives that cannot be reasonably prevente ...[text shortened]... than the murder itself but I consider it grave enough in its own right.[/b]

BS. You posted this in response to disgust at the idea that most of us here don't agree with "your culture's" traditional penaly of death for violence by child against parents:

LH: Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, I'm satisfied, you have not lost your mind, or at least you have not demonstrated as much here. 😉

As a theist I have a hard time dealing with the angry, killing God of the Pentateuch but to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld:

"You don't worship the god you want or wish you had, you worship the god you've got."

I just conveniently forget to thank him for being a murderous psychopath for the first few generations of his dominion over us. 😉

Except He (I should probably use 'They' to clearly indicate the Trinity) isn't the angry killing God. They realises that there is the criterion of justice that must be met before They can re-establish Their relationship with mankind; so one of Them decides to take it upon Himself to meet that criterion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BS. You posted this in response to disgust at the idea that most of us here don't agree with "your culture's" traditional penaly of death for violence by child against parents:

LH: Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.

And how exactly does that make what I wrote in response to TheSkipper BS?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What I mean by "warrant the death penalty" is if you were watching the trial of said disrespectful adult son or daughter would you be hoping for the penalty of death?

No, I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't want to see the death penalty in any actual case unless the person presented a clear danger to more lives that cannot be reasonably prevente ...[text shortened]... than the murder itself but I consider it grave enough in its own right.[/b]

So, is it your position that Old Testament stonings were unjust in virtue of being implemented in human society rather than left to God?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except He (I should probably use 'They' to clearly indicate the Trinity) isn't the angry killing God. They realises that there is the criterion of justice that must be met before They can re-establish Their relationship with mankind; so one of Them decides to take it upon Himself to meet that criterion.

Well, then one of the trinity has an idea of justice that differs greatly from mine. Perhaps they created me without the ability to understand such justice, which is fine, but they cannot then turn around and expect me to find the actions of the offending member of the trinity "just". Neither can I support the remaining two member’s tacit approval of this supposed justice. I simply assume the author(s) of the relevant books exaggerated to make their God look tough while being compared to the other savage deities of the time. Call it denial if you must but it is the only way I find myself capable of worshiping such a god, I guess I just have to take my chances that it will work out for me.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just for whom to stone? You and me? No - that's clearly implied in what He said. Just for Him to stone? I think the answer to that is yes (of course this could get a little more complex once you start looking at the work done on the Cross and God's simplicity etc.)

Okay. Whereas I am comforted by your clarification, it represents the
height of Scriptural equivocation. Levitical law was God's Law for His
people. It was given to them with the specific intent of being
applied when and where appropriate. The terms of whether it was or
was not appropriate were indicated clearly in the Law itself.

If you are suggesting that it is never permissible for you, me or
any other human being to kill someone for adultery (and I hope
you are) -- that God's Divine Justice will do the 'stoning' at the seat of
Judgment) -- then how do you account for the Law's presentation in
Leviticus which informed Jewish behavior for around a thousand years?

If the killings are indeed metaphorical references to the Justice that
will be meted in the afterlife, it's certainly unclear from Leviticus.
Indeed, it reads:

If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the
adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death...Be careful to
observe all my statutes and all my decrees; otherwise the land where
I am bringing you to dwell will vomit you out. Leviticus 20:10, 22

If a man is discovered having relations with a woman who is married
to another, both the man and the woman with whom he had relations
shall die. Thus you shall purge the evil from your midst. Deuteronomy 22:22

Especially the second quotation, there can be no misinterpretting: God
is commanding that the evil be purged from the midst of the people
by the people. (You will notice the next two verses specifically
refer to the stoning of a woman in a specific case, again confirming the
idea that God's Law was instructive and not informative.)

So..............

Either God gave a Law to His people indicating that it was indeed a
command (and not simply just) for them to kill adulterers (both men
and women...where was the man in the pseudo-Johanine pericope?)

OR

The transcription of God's Law in God's Book by God's People was so
deeply flawed and perverted from His True Intent that for a thousand
years people wrongly stoned adulterers because of it.

Here is what I think:

If the pseudo-Johanine presentation is indeed authentic (and I am
personally inclined to think it is), then I applaud Jesus: He was saying
this punishment is absurd. Yes, adultery tears at the fabric of a
healthy society; yes, it causes great strife to the individuals, their
families, and their community. BUT, He recognized that the Law
attributed to God (kill the adulterers) was absurd and didn't represent
His understanding of God at all. (Luke's?) Jesus didn't think that this
Levitical Law was just as it was written (with the indication that the
people execute the justice) and so He (rightly) intervened.

Any other reading entails either recognizing that God was equivocal
about Levitical Law (it used to be okay to kill adulterers, now it's not)
or that God's scribes severely perverted God's true commands.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except He (I should probably use 'They' to clearly indicate the Trinity) isn't the angry killing God. They realises that there is the criterion of justice that must be met before They can re-establish Their relationship with mankind; so one of Them decides to take it upon Himself to meet that criterion.

Because the view expressed in the original post was clearly supportive of one set of human laws (i.e. your culture's) over another's (i.e. a sane culture's at least in this area). Now, you are goalpost shifting to wit:

LH: And so, when I say "death is a just punishment for X" I am referring to that "higher" objective system of justice and not what we implement here in our societies.

EDIT: I meant to Reply and Quote to this post:

And how exactly does that make what I wrote in response to TheSkipper BS?

Originally posted by Nemesio
... God gave a Law to His people indicating that it was indeed a
command (and not simply just) for them to kill adulterers ...

...Any other reading entails either recognizing that God was equivocal
about Levitical Law (it used to be okay to kill adulterers, now it's not)

I don't see why that makes God "equivocal" about Levitical Law.

In the original, pre-Levitical covenant (signified by the Ten Commandments, iteration 1), there were no detailed laws (e.g. dietary ones) or punishments. When He saw His People weren't ready for that yet, He switched to a more detailed regimen. That doesn't mean the latter was intended to be perpetual.

I see it in much the same way as a father might deal with a son who is a heroin addict. The father would like his son to give up drugs altogether but, since that is too difficult for the son to handle, might put him on a regimen of methadone instead. Indeed, he might even "command" the son to take methadone.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because the view expressed in the original post was clearly supportive of one set of human laws (i.e. your culture's) over another's (i.e. a sane culture's at least in this area).

No it wasn't. It was intended to highlight one set of moral norms/mores over another. The particular societal laws implementing those morals may be inappropriate/extreme -- that doesn't make the moral norm/more itself invalid.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No it wasn't. It was intended to highlight one set of moral norms/mores over another. The particular societal laws implementing those morals may be inappropriate/extreme -- that doesn't make the moral norm/more itself invalid.

BS. Your phrasing speaks for itself.

LH: Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BS. Your phrasing speaks for itself.

LH: Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.

You have to learn some time that "BS" isn't a counter-argument.

And yes, the wording does speak for itself (if you can recognise the difference between what's actually written and what you think or would like to see written).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You have to learn some time that "BS" isn't a counter-argument.

And yes, the wording does speak for itself (if you can recognise the difference between what's actually written and what you think or would like to see written).

Neither is lying about what you said. BS is an appropriate response to the tactics you attempt on this forum.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Neither is lying about what you said. BS is an appropriate response to the tactics you attempt on this forum.

It's the only response you can come up with, so you use it all you can.

If you think I'm lying, show me where I've deliberately said something that is untrue (if you believe in objective truth, that is).