beastie wrote: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.
I have not said that to follow Jesus' example we should nave no laws and no consequences. On the contrary, I am suggesting that we have laws and consequences which provide forgiveness and reconciliation rather than revenge and punishment.
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'm sorry, are you just talking about Mormonism, or are you talking about whether or not Jesus' example is a good one to follow. I thought we were discussing the latter.
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.
Great, then what's wrong with following Jesus' example? That's not punitive.
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.
Could you explain why this constitutes 'decent and civilized' as opposed to any other action?
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.
I am not trying to broaden the discussion far beyond its narrow scope. I am looking to understand your objections to the death penalty for adultery. So far I understand that you object to it because the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, is that it?
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.
Yes, that's a good understanding of the issue. Fortunately I believe that God has communicated with 100% clarity and certainty that we are not to take life. Isn't that great?
There is nothing, nothing, in the history of the world in general and religion in particular to justify either of these beliefs.
What evidence do you have for this claim?
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.
I think that's a very extreme and imbalanced view.
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.
I agree. But we do. We even vote them into office.
I’m assuming from your other comments that you believe the Old Testament tells the story of such a valid theocracy.
Yes.
And are we supposed to feel comforted by that?
Frankly I don't care how you feel about that. But since I don't believe in the concept of human rights (rights based societies are inevitably selfish and grossly destructive), and since I believe in the social contract, it's no problem for me.
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?
That is what one particular valid theocracy looked like, yes. It does not mean that this is what a valid theocracy always looks like. By the way, I think you need to check the text of Numbers 31:18 (see the LXX).
A God who strikes people dead because their faith was mistaken?
Could you show me an example of God striking people dead 'because their faith was mistaken'?
A God who won’t allow cripples to have full access to his house of worship?
I've dealt with this before in a thread with Sonohito. The law you're talking about only applied to one single family in the entire nation of Israel, the family from whom the High Priest came. No other individual but the High Priest (one man in the entire nation), ever had 'full access to his house of worship', and even then he only had such access once a year (on the Day of Atonement). I really don't see the issue here, since
nobody but the High Priest, from one family in the entire nation, every had 'full access to his house of worship', on one day of the year. I'd like to see this as a law telling us 'God hates cripples' just as much as you, but unfortunately it just won't fly. Every perfectly able-bodied individual in the entire nation except for one man once a year was also restricted from 'full access to his house of worship'. And since complete and full worship of God by the individual did not require or involve 'full access to his house of worship' (as He said many times), it's really a non-issue.
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?
I'm sorry, but I'm lost. Could you explain the problem please? I gather it's something like 'How could you respect a God which punishes people for sin?', or 'How could you love a God whose punishments I disagree with?'.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|