Blood Atonement

[_beastie]

This demonstrates the somewhat schizophrenic nature of religion. On one hand, it can plant the seeds of compassion and tolerance. On the other hand, it can plant seeds of violence and death.

I try hard to remain somewhat balanced about religion in general, and often remind myself of the good it can encourage human beings to do. It's hard to keep that in mind today, when Gaz's of other religions actually enact their principles of justified murder.

Who is one justified killing? The adulterer (well, usually the adulteress, let's be realistic)? The thief? The blasphemer? The apostate? The counterfeiter?

Those who reject the "truth"?

These were the sins BY and other church leaders cited as justifying death.

Or how about innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and whose lives can be used to manipulate powerful governments, for the greater good of the religion in question?

[_Fortigurn]

I have to say I believe the modern penal system is a whole lot more destructive than something like the Law of Moses. But the Law of Moses requires a largely moral community in order to function effectively. On the other hand, our modern penal system is just permanently broken because it's based on sheer lunacy instead of a correct understanding of the human psyche.

The leaders in Israel had lost the moral authority to enforce the Law of Moses, as Christ pointed out (and hey, where was the man, he was supposed to be stoned also, under the Law of Moses?), but even putting that aside, there's no doubt that Christ was teaching that the Law of Moses was now to be swept aside, and the moral law of forgiveness was to take force.

The law of forgiveness is a far more difficult law to keep, and more dangerous to enforce, and again only works within a largely moral community. I know many secular people who nod approvingly at Christ's words to the woman taken in adultery. I don't know any of them who would be happy to see the same grace extended to someone who shot their son, or robbed their house.

[_Gazelam]

I have to say I believe the modern penal system is a whole lot more destructive than something like the Law of Moses. But the Law of Moses requires a largely moral community in order to function effectively. On the other hand, our modern penal system is just permanently broken because it's based on sheer lunacy instead of a correct understanding of the human psyche.

The leaders in Israel had lost the moral authority to enforce the Law of Moses, as Christ pointed out (and hey, where was the man, he was supposed to be stoned also, under the Law of Moses?), but even putting that aside, there's no doubt that Christ was teaching that the Law of Moses was now to be swept aside, and the moral law of forgiveness was to take force.

The law of forgiveness is a far more difficult law to keep, and more dangerous to enforce, and again only works within a largely moral community. I know many secular people who nod approvingly at Christ's words to the woman taken in adultery. I don't know any of them who would be happy to see the same grace extended to someone who shot their son, or robbed their house.

Excellent post Fort. Why can't I be that well spoken?

[_beastie]

Fort,

We're not talking about whether or not a society should have laws and enforce them. I'm not suggesting that society, as a whole, follow Jesus' example and simply forgive thieves and murderers. I'm talking about whether or not a decent, civilized society should enact the death penalty for things like adultery, theft, etc.

So tell me, Fort, would you condone a society that enacted the death penalty for adultery, like Iran, if they applied it evenly to men and women?

[_Fortigurn]

Fort,

We're not talking about whether or not a society should have laws and enforce them.

I agree.

I'm not suggesting that society, as a whole, follow Jesus' example and simply forgive thieves and murderers.

Why not? That's the example Jesus set. Why pick and choose? Well, it's simple. Some of what Jesus did appeals to us, and some of it doesn't. So we pick and choose. As I said, people are happy with the idea of Jesus letting the adulteress go free, but not happy with the idea of being asked to forgive the guy who stole their car. So we're not really enamoured with the idea of forgiveness, we're enamoured with the idea of a law which is easy on the sins we're most likely to commit.

I'm talking about whether or not a decent, civilized society should enact the death penalty for things like adultery, theft, etc.

Well you need to define 'decent' and 'civilized', and explain your objection to the death penalty. Let's face it, my objection to the death penalty, and your objection to the penalty, is simply because we're weak, soft, coddled, spoon fed Westerners who've been conditioned to view forceful behaviour and violence as psychologically aberrant. I would like to say I object to the death penalty because 'It's wrong', but outside a moral code established by an absolute moral authority the sentence 'The death penalty is wrong' is simply meaningless. The real reason why I object to the death penalty is that I've been indoctrinated to believe that it's wrong. So it 'feels wrong'.

Why is taking a man who stole a car and putting him in prison for 4 years (where he's going to be beaten, raped, and generally physically and psychologically mistreated, definitely permanently damaged), not wrong, whereas putting someone to death for butchering 10 people with a screwdriver is wrong? Why do we permit our soldiers to go and kill thousands of people overseas (including non-combatants), but we don't charge any of them with murder?

The fact is that practically every modern Western society I can think of does not view human life as sacred or indispensable. It's dispensable when necessary, just as liberty is equally dispensable, and not an inalienable right. There are no inalienable rights. The very Declaration of Human Rights is a social fiction for the purpose of conditioning and group control. And in the absence of any more powerful form of conditioning, I'm perfectly happy for children to be raised on that tidy little set of falsehoods.

The fact is that humans are inherently bestial, and need a social control mechanism. We usually accomplish this today by a combination of indoctrinated propaganda and threats of violence, deprivation of privilege, and penalty. That's what you have to live with in a rights based society. This is called 'enlightened' thought. Isn't it great?

So tell me, Fort, would you condone a society that enacted the death penalty for adultery, like Iran, if they applied it evenly to men and women?

Not in this dispensation, no. There exists no valid theocracy today.

[_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.

Really!!!! Wow!!! I wonder how may LDS feel that way. What are you? A Mormon Taliban? THis just makes me sick.

How about for fornication? Would you cut off the head of sexually active teens?

[_Jason Bourne]

Take a good look at the face of theocracy, Gaz.

Death Penalty

BERLIN, Sep 29 (IPS) - Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal calling on its members to write letters to the Republic of Iran asking them not to stone seven women.

Nearly all of the women have been sentenced to die by stoning for adultery. Officially Iran had placed a moratorium on the cruel and painful practise in 2002, but Amnesty claims sentencing continues. The group has received credible reports that two people were stoned to death in May.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled that treating adultery and fornication as criminal offences does not comply with international human rights standards.

"The sentence of execution by stoning for adultery breaches Iran's commitment under article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that death sentences will be imposed ‘only for the most serious crimes'," Amnesty wrote in its appeal.

Under Shari'a law, a prisoner is buried up to her breast, her hands restrained. Rules also specify the size of the stones which can be thrown so that death is painful and not imminent. Both men and women can be sentenced to die by stoning. In practise, however, an overwhelming number of women receive that penalty.

Now listen to another viewpoint:

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.
3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
5"Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court."
John 8:1-9

DAMN Beastie!!!!! I am appalled at Gaz. Damn!! Are there really Mormons that would want this. Well hell!!!! Like I say, theocracy is a dangerous thing and I would never ever want one-Mormon, Christian, Islamic, etc.

Damn Gaz!!! You really want this???

[_Jason Bourne]

You rquestion to me was would I agree to it under a theocracy, and under that circumstance I would agree.

If these women live in a society where that is the law, and they have broken the law, they were comiting adultery with a knowledge of what the results would be.

DAMN!!! You are a friggin sick dude and I am ashamed that the LDS Church breeds such as you. What about the men? No wonder you love Brigham Young, accept his the fact that he did not know who God was bugs you a bit. But he was a ok for all the other stuff!!

Christs forgiveness of the woman came with the warning to go her way and sin no more. I wonder if she was to return under the same conditions if he would put forth the effort to stop the crowd, seeing as how she commited the act with full knowledge.

Oh you bet Gaz. He probably would have advicated the stoning then. I hope you don't have kids. SHEEEEESH!!!!

[_cacheman]

I just read the second page of this thread, and saw Jason's post to Gaz and I thought that surely he was exaggerating Gaz's position. But when I went to find Gazelam's post, I was shocked to realize that it was exactly as Jason had portrayed. Wow!

cacheman

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
Fort,

We're not talking about whether or not a society should have laws and enforce them.


I agree.

So far so good, but in your next statement you appear to reverse this agreement.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting that society, as a whole, follow Jesus' example and simply forgive thieves and murderers.


Why not? That's the example Jesus set. Why pick and choose? Well, it's simple. Some of what Jesus did appeals to us, and some of it doesn't. So we pick and choose. As I said, people are happy with the idea of Jesus letting the adulteress go free, but not happy with the idea of being asked to forgive the guy who stole their car. So we're not really enamoured with the idea of forgiveness, we're enamoured with the idea of a law which is easy on the sins we're most likely to commit.

You are ignoring the context of Jesus’ actions. He prevented a woman from being stoned for adultery. It is fallacious to then insist that, if we were really to follow Jesus’ example, we should have no laws and no consequences.

We are talking about one extreme, irrevocable form of punishment for acts such as adultery, theft, counterfeiting, swearing, criticizing Joseph Smith, apostasy, even rejecting the gospel as a potential convert. This list is obtained from Brigham Young’s statements on the matter, but societies today who enact the death penalty for “crimes” other than murder are also pretty eager to apply it in similar situations. Note the example of radical Islam, which declares the death penalty on people who write books they don’t like.

I have stated many times, and recently on the free will thread, that I don’t believe in legal consequences that are designed to be “punitive”. I believe in consequences designed to protect society.

Quote:
I'm talking about whether or not a decent, civilized society should enact the death penalty for things like adultery, theft, etc.


Well you need to define 'decent' and 'civilized', and explain your objection to the death penalty. Let's face it, my objection to the death penalty, and your objection to the penalty, is simply because we're weak, soft, coddled, spoon fed Westerners who've been conditioned to view forceful behaviour and violence as psychologically aberrant. I would like to say I object to the death penalty because 'It's wrong', but outside a moral code established by an absolute moral authority the sentence 'The death penalty is wrong' is simply meaningless. The real reason why I object to the death penalty is that I've been indoctrinated to believe that it's wrong. So it 'feels wrong'.

Why is taking a man who stole a car and putting him in prison for 4 years (where he's going to be beaten, raped, and generally physically and psychologically mistreated, definitely permanently damaged), not wrong, whereas putting someone to death for butchering 10 people with a screwdriver is wrong? Why do we permit our soldiers to go and kill thousands of people overseas (including non-combatants), but we don't charge any of them with murder?

The fact is that practically every modern Western society I can think of does not view human life as sacred or indispensable. It's dispensable when necessary, just as liberty is equally dispensable, and not an inalienable right. There are no inalienable rights. The very Declaration of Human Rights is a social fiction for the purpose of conditioning and group control. And in the absence of any more powerful form of conditioning, I'm perfectly happy for children to be raised on that tidy little set of falsehoods.

The fact is that humans are inherently bestial, and need a social control mechanism. We usually accomplish this today by a combination of indoctrinated propaganda and threats of violence, deprivation of privilege, and penalty. That's what you have to live with in a rights based society. This is called 'enlightened' thought. Isn't it great?

Decent and civilized means being extremely cautious and conservative when it comes to enacting the one irrevocable consequence – death. Decent and civilized means being aware of the awesome power of the state, and hence, taking it seriously enough to err on the side of caution.


Moreover, I’m talking about the death penalty in very specific instances – let’s focus on adultery to make it simpler. Of course I object to the death penalty for adultery. Personally, I think any person who would approve of the death penalty for adultery has gone a little unhinged thanks to religion. That doesn’t mean I would object to the death penalty for murder, or that I would always oppose war. You are trying to broaden the discussion far beyond its narrow scope.

Death penalties for something like adultery are always associated with theocracies, as far as I know. So an irrevocable penalty is being instituted for something that is entirely faith-based – the idea that not only is adultery a sin but it is so grievous a sin that God demands death as the payment.

Another poster on Z, long ago, distilled something crucial about belief in God when he said that, to him, what is important to know about another person’s belief is this: do you believe in a God who tells human beings to kill other human beings? This one question reveals much more than simply asking “do you believe in God”? It reveals that the individual in question has, for whatever reason, decided that his/her faith actually goes far beyond faith into knowledge and certitude, assuming the individual isn’t a sociopath. Only someone who believes these things would feel comfortable believing in a God who tells human beings to kill other human beings:

1. God communicates with human beings clearly enough for there to exist 100% certainty as to what he is communicating.
2. Human beings can then transmit that information with 100% clarity and certainty.

Why 100%? Because nothing less is acceptable when talking about ending someone’s life.

There is nothing, nothing, in the history of the world in general and religion in particular to justify either of these beliefs.

So, in the end, what we are left with is human beings who are either so arrogant or filled with hubris, or perhaps mentally unstable, that they insist on not only believing these two things despite the complete lack of supporting evidence for them, but then insist that THEY or their particular leaders can then be these reliable transmitters of divine information.

People with this level of arrogance, hubris or mental instability are not the sort of individuals who should have the power of life and death in their hands.

Certainly all societies are hypocritical when it comes to human rights, although, in general, the world has made progress in that regard. But that is no reason to shrug and allow the most arrogant among us to make a decision of such magnitude for society.

Quote:
So tell me, Fort, would you condone a society that enacted the death penalty for adultery, like Iran, if they applied it evenly to men and women?


Not in this dispensation, no. There exists no valid theocracy today.

I’m assuming from your other comments that you believe the Old Testament tells the story of such a valid theocracy. And are we supposed to feel comforted by that? That is what a valid theocracy looked like??? A God who tells his followers to kill everybody except virgins, so the men can then have the virgins for themselves? A God who strikes people dead because their faith was mistaken? A God who won’t allow cripples to have full access to his house of worship?

Once again, I have to ask: even if you are certain that such a God exists, why would you worship and love Him? I can understand feeling fear and demonstrating loyalty, like a member of the mafia demonstrates to his don, but love? Respect? How do you wrap your mind around that?