Originally posted by no1marauderClearly since an earlier post of yours (Western society -- executing our children etc.) did not make the distinction I clarified in that post, people are confused.
LH: Do you mean something that is objectively so grevious a wrong that death would be a just penalty for it
Most people don't agree that "disrespecting one's parents" or adultery is "such a grevious wrong that death would be a just penalty for it". Period. You are rather plainly thick or disingenous to declare that people are merely confused.
Originally posted by TheSkipperI'm not answering this post separately since I will be raising the same points from my reply to your previous post (and part of the answer will follow once you respond to that post).
So we are clear, your comment in this thread that most concerns me is the following:
{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.
{end LH}
At the time you made this comment we had just began discussing whether or not a ...[text shortened]... response (above) is baffling and I would be interested to hear your explanation.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by lucifershammerI am not sure I understand what you mean by your distinction. Are you saying that stoning would be a just punishment for disrespecting your parents or adultery, but humans are not in the position to do it? So if God would do it, it would be right?
Clearly since an earlier post of yours (Western society -- executing our children etc.) did not make the distinction I clarified in that post, people are confused.
Originally posted by Palynka(Just dug this up since you referred to this recently)
Ok, so since forgiveness is always possible and it's preferable to stoning, stoning is therefore not correct in Jesus view.
Assuming classic Christian theology, why was forgiveness possible here? And why do you think Jesus did not use the "hardness of hearts" (or something similar) line here?
Originally posted by Nordlys1. I was speaking of death generally, not specifically stoning.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by your distinction. Are you saying that stoning would be a just punishment for disrespecting your parents or adultery, but humans are not in the position to do it? So if God would do it, it would be right?
2. In both cases there would be considerations of consent/will and knowledge/moral responsibility/maturity. I've specified this as well. I've also specified that the nature and severity of the disrespect would matter in the second case.
3. (Given all the above) Yes and yes.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's the fourth meaning in Merriam-Webster, suggesting it's technically proper but rarely used. You are wrong (as usual). Also, you might check the meaning of derivative words like"childish" or "childhood".
Wrong on both counts. Look it up in a dictionary.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[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 this thread don't and that appears to be at the heart of what's being posted about.[/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? Obviously, this will depend on the severity of disrespect so is there any sort of disrespect that you would like to see the death penalty implemented as a response? This is regardless of what the law of the particular state/country may be. In fact, assume for the purposes of this question that you are king and what you say goes. Would king LH ever order someone put to death for disrespecting their parents? Would king LH ever order someone put to death for engaging in an adulterous relationship?
Let me explain by way of analogy. Let's suppose that a country has a law prescribing the death penalty for murder. Now let's say there's a murderer in a particular neighbourhood. Death is the legal punishment for this murderer's crimes -- does that mean the townspeople can just band up and, say, hang him? Maybe they form a town committee and have a trial first. Would you disagree that it is still vigilanteism and not in accordance with the law? What is the difference between this situation and an authorised judge finding the man guilty and sentencing him to death at the hands of an authorised executioner?
If you agree that such a distinction exists (especially to a theist -- who does believe in a "higher Judge" ), then I'll answer your questions.[/b]
Well, it depends on the social contract doesn't it? If the particular society has deemed it accessible to deal with crime via hastily thrown together juries and judges then I suppose it is permissible. My society, on the other hand, requires more pomp and circumstance than that and not following the procedures we have deemed necessary for justice is in itself a violation of the law.
So, yes, I see a distinction but depending on the particular social contract either situation could be "proper" for a particular society.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL. How long did you hunt for a dictionary that put it that low?
It's the fourth meaning in Merriam-Webster, suggesting it's technically proper but rarely used. You are wrong (as usual).
And can you think of many other definitions that would be more obvious in a question about parent-child relationships?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNot very long; Merriam Webster is the most used dictionary in the States. Look up the following words:
LOL. How long did you hunt for a dictionary that put it that low?
And can you think of many other definitions that would be more obvious in a question about parent-child relationships?
Childhood
Childish
Childlike
Child's play
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't understand your question. I'm no expert on Christian theology, so I don't know what you mean by 'classic'.
(Just dug this up since you referred to this recently)
Assuming classic Christian theology, why was forgiveness possible here? And why do you think Jesus did not use the "hardness of hearts" (or something similar) line here?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYOU are the only one showing confusion. No one else in this thread believes that adultery or disrespecting one's parents is sooooooooooooooo "objectively wrong" that it merits death.
The distinction between objective wrong and something you put into law, no1.