Blood Atonement

[_Jason Bourne]

Gaz,

I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the "principle" of blood atonement? You would support a theocracy that, for example, implemented the death penalty for adultery and theft?

I don't know about theft, but adultery under a theocrasy I would say yes.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Gazelam would actually support a theocracy that implemented the death penalty for adultery? That's unbelievable. Perhaps I'm at a disadvantage here, being so new to the board, but I can't imagine any reasonable adult supporting such nonsense. Is Gaz generally this outlandish or is this uncharacteristic for him? Frankly, if Gaz really would support the death penalty for adultery, he is seriously troubled.

If my husband were to committ adultery, I would be angry. Probably angry enough to leave him. But if some religious despot tried to execute him for it, they'd have to kill me to get to him, dammit! Who, with any love or mercy or kindness in their heart, would want to see their spouse or former spouse executed for adultery? Only a complete sicko.

Disgusted,

KA

Kimberly,

Yes, he means it. Read on in the thread. Astounding is it not?

[_beastie]

Gaz is, no doubt, a "chapel Mormon" in that he generally refuses to try and bend the words of the prophets to current mores and science. Internet Mormons are much more PC about this sort of thing and will try to minimize BY's (and other church leaders) teachings on the subject, and insist that the critics are distorted them by saying that these teachings actually meant that these leaders believed the only way some people's sins could be forgiven was by shedding their own blood.

Of course he's in a difficult position, morally. There are very few people today, Mormon or mainstream, believer or nonbeliever, who would support BY's teachings. But he's being true to what he believes being a prophet means. Internet Mormons tend to dilute that so much that sometimes I'm left wondering what possible purpose they imagine a prophet has.

Fort's position is more interesting to me, although I admit I am still unclear as to what it is. I believe he justifies the Biblical theocracy which includes punishments that today seem horrific. I think he is in a similar moral quandary as Gaz. Neither is able to equivocate on what God's word says, so they're left defending actions and statements that most people view as obviously insupportable.

I've been focusing on adultery because BY often referred to that particular sin, but he mentioned many other crimes worthy of blood atonement, and the Bible lists quite a few actions that merited the death penalty as well. For example:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I have a divided mind as to the different sorts of apologia believers offer in response to what seems obviously indefensible teachings of past religious leaders, be it Brigham Young or "Moses". On one hand, I admire people willing to stand up for what they really believe without diluting it to appear more palatable to nonbelievers, but on the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want them in charge of government. Give me the equivocators any day, because they are willing to dilute or modify "God's word" to basic common sense and decency.

[_Fortigurn]

Ah, you still seem to think I mean 'God has communicated with 100% clarity to all people of all eras'. I've been trying to make it clear that I haven't been saying that, but I'll be explicit about that now. I am not saying that. I am not saying that God has communicated all the information, to all the people, with 100% clarity.

Let me try this approach to try and figure out just what you are asserting.

Does God communicate with 100% clarity to all those who seek such communication from him?

No.

Shall I throw in some random stats about how many people have been killed by those who claim God has communicated to them with 100% clarity?

You go right ahead, wouldn't fuss me in the least. I might even help out.

Note the words "in any fashion". Of course you can't "give back" years of someone's life, but you can make restitution to a live person in some fashion. You can't do that with a dead person.

You still can't restore what you took, and that's the point.

I'm not using this argument against the death penalty per se, just against instituting the death penalty for actions that society, outside of relying on what "God Says", would not normally impose the death penalty. God doesn't communicate clearly enough to warrant that risk.

I don't see the problem. If you're prepared to trust that men can decide who dies and who lives, what's the issue? Their choices are going to be totally arbitrary.

Then why was that your sole response?

It wasn't.

[_Fortigurn]

Fort's position is more interesting to me, although I admit I am still unclear as to what it is.

It's actually remarkably similar to yours. I believe the death penalty is justifiable in certain situations. I just differ with you as to what they are.

I believe he justifies the Biblical theocracy which includes punishments that today seem horrific.

The only punishments under a Biblical theocracy were death by stoning, amputation, beating, or monetary fines. I don't find any of those 'horrific'. To call any of them 'horrific' is simply a matter of subjective opinion. I find modern prison life far more horrific a punishment than any under the Law of Moses, but the majority of Westerners would find that absolutely laughable, and approve wholeheartedly of the conditions under which most prisoners suffer. I believe that the penology of the Law of Moses has a number of significant advantages over modern penology, forgiveness among the foremost.

I think he is in a similar moral quandary as Gaz. Neither is able to equivocate on what God's word says, so they're left defending actions and statements that most people view as obviously insupportable

Since 'obviously insupportable' is clearly a matter of personal opinion, that doesn't concern me. You won't find

I've been focusing on adultery because BY often referred to that particular sin, but he mentioned many other crimes worthy of blood atonement, and the Bible lists quite a few actions that merited the death penalty as well. For example:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I'm looking at this and I'm thinking 'What idiot of a son, knowing this law, would willfully place himself in this situation?'. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of patience for anyone who knows full well what the consequences of their actions are, and goes right ahead and does them anyway.

Beastie, this might help you to understand my position. In the Bible there is a differentiation made between the 'high handed sin' (committed with 'malice aforethought'), and the 'sin of ignorance', committed inadvertently or in a moment of weakness. The most obvious example of such differentiation is the laws regarding 1st degree murder, and manslaughter. The most extreme punishments were reserved for those who committed the 'high handed sin', though even that was forgivable in exceptional circumstances.

ｉt was so incredibly easy to avoid these punishments under the Law, childishly simple in fact. I could complain about how unfair it is to deprive someone of a year or five of their life (during which time they're brutalized and permanently damaged physically and psychologically), just for stealing a car, but most people would just laugh at the idea. Better that I try not to steal cars. It's not difficult to avoid.

[_beastie]

Fort,

It seems an inevitable conclusion that this God is ruling by fear and control. That's always been the modus operandus of the Old Testament God, anyway, I'm just used to Christians preferring the New Testament in formulating their opinions.

Once again, if a parent tells a child that he will beat that child literally black and blue if they violate one of the parent's rules, you could say "how simple, how childish, the child should simply obey the rules!!!" Yet we recognize something inherently flawed in this style of parenting for many reasons, one of which is that this style of parenting is not successful in creating responsible, independent adults.

Yet, when it comes to God, somehow this is supposed to work?

And you say that God does not communicate with 100% clarity to anyone who seeks that communication. Even better. That means the rest of us are just supposed to trust the reassurances of those who claim God has spoken to them that clearly?

Thanks, but no thanks.

And, by the way, your only response to the Sally/Bob scenario, unless I missed a post of yours, was to reply that they had other choices. Just like you've stated here. You have other choices, you don't have to be beaten black and blue, you can just obey. It doesn't matter if your obedience is based solely in fear. It doesn't matter if fear based obedience doesn't help develop you into a responsible, reliant human being in general. Just obey so you don't get beaten. Or, in the case of this particular question, killed.

Previously you jokingly mentioned that perhaps only Richard Dawkins could deserve the fate of living surrounded by conservative southern baptists. I normally am skeptical, myself, of some of Dawkins' assertions, but conversations like this really make me wonder if he has simply recognized something I haven't quite recognized yet, but perhaps am beginning to.

[_Fortigurn]

Fort,

It seems an inevitable conclusion that this God is ruling by fear and control.

Instituting punishments for moral infractions constitutes 'ruling by fear and control'?

That's always been the modus operandus of the Old Testament God...

I suggest you read a little more.

...anyway, I'm just used to Christians preferring the New Testament in formulating their opinions.

It is nothing to do with 'preferring' the New Testament. You can't 'prefer' the Old Testament or the New Testament in this matter. The New Testament also upholds the concept of punishment for sin (which appears to be the root issue of contention in this thread).

Once again, if a parent tells a child that he will beat that child literally black and blue if they violate one of the parent's rules, you could say "how simple, how childish, the child should simply obey the rules!!!" Yet we recognize something inherently flawed in this style of parenting for many reasons, one of which is that this style of parenting is not successful in creating responsible, independent adults.

You're comparing apples to oranges. That is a disproportionate punishment for the offense, and does not take into account the child's lack of responsibility for certain of its actions. Adults are in a completely different situation. You can't tell me that if someone is punished for stealing a car, the fault lies with the law which punished him.

Yet, when it comes to God, somehow this is supposed to work?

No it doesn't. I don't read anywhere that God required children who did wrong to be punished by being beaten black and blue, or anything remotely similar.

And you say that God does not communicate with 100% clarity to anyone who seeks that communication.

I was using your definition of 'communicate with 100% clarity', which apparently does not mean 'God enunciated what He wished with sufficient clarity for anyone to understand', but means 'God communicated with the person in such as way that they were able to not only understand but felt compelled to obey, regardless of any imperfection in their perception or any personal will do do otherwise'.

And, by the way, your only response to the Sally/Bob scenario, unless I missed a post of yours, was to reply that they had other choices.

My response was actually that I didn't see any valid theocracy which would leave only those options available to them. Your entire argument was predicated on their actions being valid by virtue of the theocracy placing them in a situation in which no other options were available. If that was not your argument, I apologise and invite you to restate your argument.

Just like you've stated here. You have other choices, you don't have to be beaten black and blue, you can just obey.

Well you're the one who objected forgiving the guy who stole your car, and insisted that people have to be punished for their crimes, so I don't understand why you're backflipping now and objecting to the idea of people being punished for their crimes. Or are you not, in fact, objecting to the idea of people being punished for their crimes?

How about this - I get sent to prison just for moving a car from one part of the city to another. That's all I did, and I get 5 years for it. Is that right?

It doesn't matter if your obedience is based solely in fear.

Oh yes it does, it does very much. If your obedience is based on fear, you end up with a corrupt society like ours in the West. See where that leads?

Previously you jokingly mentioned that perhaps only Richard Dawkins could deserve the fate of living surrounded by conservative southern baptists.

Yes, so that he could live with real people, and try to understand them. I think he takes a very mechanistic view of people, and fails to treat them as actual independent organisms. I find his writings quite dehumanising.

I normally am skeptical, myself, of some of Dawkins' assertions, but conversations like this really make me wonder if he has simply recognized something I haven't quite recognized yet, but perhaps am beginning to.

He has recognised that convictions sufficiently held will overcome scruples insufficiently valued. This isn't exactly news.

Look Beastie, we can sum up your objections to the Biblical penology very simply:

* It's your opinion that some of the punishments are disproportionate to the crime

* It's your opinion that some of the acts which are punished shouldn't be classified as crimes (or even immoral)

* It's your opinion that a society which punishes moral infractions is 'ruling by fear and control'

Would that be right?

[_beastie]

MANY, if not MOST of the punishments are disproportionate to the crime

SOME of the acts which are punished shouldn't be classified as crimes

A society that punishes in excess due solely to God telling certain people to do so is ruling by fear and control. Don't commit adultery or you will get killed. Don't sass your parents or you will get killed.

Fort, I'm not willing to spend anymore time debating this with you. If you want to give a summary argument about why you think this system of governance is justified, go right ahead.

[_ajax18]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but JSF talks about Blood attonement in his book Doctrines of Salvation. He basically says that God will require something equal to being executed of adulterers now since blood attonement is illegal and can't be practiced by the Church. I remember reading it on my mission. I hadn't heard of the idea of blood attonement yet and we asked the area authority about it in a zone conference. Needless to say we didn't get a straight answer.

From a legal respect I don't see how punishment should ever be proportionate to the crime. Of course it's disproportionate. That's almost like saying if you steal something and get caught, your only punishment is that you have to give the stuff back. I'll take that deal any day and come out on top cause I probably won't get caught the first 20 times.

[_Fortigurn]

On one hand, I admire people willing to stand up for what they really believe without diluting it to appear more palatable to nonbelievers, but on the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want them in charge of government.

Nor do I. Fortunately, Christians have no mandate to operate in politics.

[_Fortigurn]

MANY, if not MOST of the punishments are disproportionate to the crime

SOME of the acts which are punished shouldn't be classified as crimes

In your opinion.

A society that punishes in excess due solely to God telling certain people to do so is ruling by fear and control. Don't commit adultery or you will get killed. Don't sass your parents or you will get killed.

Fortunately the Law of Moses doesn't just say 'Do this or be killed', or 'The only reason not to do this is because God says so'. I think you've missed the message of love in the Law of Moses.