Blood Atonement

[_beastie]

I have no will power. I will just be late.

Where did I express an objection to the death penalty "per se"?

You seem to be willing to assume that all the human beings who don't agree with how you interpret God's "100% clear" communications are simply people of bad intent I cannot make that assumption.

[_Jason Bourne]

quote="Jason Bourne"]One may think that as a society we have moved beyond murder to take care of the misfits.[/quote]

You make it sound like an advance to a higher stage.

Yes I believe it is.

Why would you see it this way?

Why would you not?

When we face misfit nations, we just kill the people who make up their population. What's the problem?

We do? When and how frequent?

What justifies the killing of another human?

What justifies cruelly depriving him of his liberty?

When someone is a threat to the rights of another depriving them of liberty protect those they may harm. One needs not murder them do accomplish this.

[_Fortigurn]

Yes I believe it is.

On what basis?

Why would you not?

Well that doesn't exactly answer my question.

We do? When and how frequent?

Every time we have a war.

When someone is a threat to the rights of another depriving them of liberty protect those they may harm. One needs not murder them do accomplish this.

But we habitually deprive people of their liberty even when they aren't a danger to anyone. That won't fly.

[_Fortigurn]

I have no will power. I will just be late.

Where did I express an objection to the death penalty "per se"?

Third post down on this page.

You seem to be willing to assume that all the human beings who don't agree with how you interpret God's "100% clear" communications are simply people of bad intent I cannot make that assumption.

No I am not assuming that all the human beings who don't agree with how I interpret God's 100% clear communications are people of bad intent.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
I have no will power. I will just be late.

Where did I express an objection to the death penalty "per se"?


Third post down on this page.

You're going to have to show me. I don't see it. All of my comments appear to be about what I thought they were about - the death penalty for adultery or other "theocratic" sins, like writing "bad" books.

No I am not assuming that all the human beings who don't agree with how I interpret God's 100% clear communications are people of bad intent.

Well, then, what possible reason could there be for their disagreement? It cannot be because they genuinely interpret the evidence differently than you do, because if that were the case, then clearly God has not communicated with 100% clarity.

[_Fortigurn]

You're going to have to show me. I don't see it. All of my comments appear to be about what I thought they were about - the death penalty for adultery or other "theocratic" sins, like writing "bad" books.

I thought those were expressions of your objection to the death penalty per se. I didn't see you say 'I object to the death penalty for X and Y, but not for Z'. You associated it with 'oppressive regimes'. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, then, what possible reason could there be for their disagreement?

They simply prefer other ideas, or another way of life. This isn't necessarily the result of evil intent, it's simply a matter of them deciding what they prefer. When I choose to break the law, it's not because I have evil intent, or because I don't understand. It's because I make the decision that my human rights take precedence over the law, and my personal desire to self-optimize must be respected over the rules of society. It's not because I'm a bad person, it's just a matter of me exercising my freedom of choice.

[Tator]

Scenario 1:

"Sally" inadvertantly married a homosexual man. This occurred because her theocratic society mandates that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexual acts can be punished by death. So all homosexuals, rather than risk death, try to be straight, and get married. So Sally's husband, while is has been able to force himself to have sex with Sally enough to impregnate her once or twice, can't maintain a physically intimate relationship with her. The emotional intimacy is limited as well, as Sally's husband tends to have one extremely close male friend with whom he is emotionally intimate without physical sexual contact. For years Sally has been starved for both physical and emotional intimacy.

Sally's theocratic society has also banned divorce except in rare cases, and sexual "incompatibility" is not considered a valid cause for divorce. Sally should just "grow up" and satisfy her need for intimacy by being emotionally intimate with the worshiped deity and throwing herself into motherhood.

Sally does her best to do so, but the underlying need is still there, and one day, she meets a man with similar issues with his spouse. They become close friends without sexual contact, but as time goes by the desire for sexual intimacy overwhelms their fear and morals. They begin an adulterous reliationship. Sally is torn by guilt and does not allow this relationship to interfer with her loving parenting of her children, and since her husband has never wanted emotional intimacy with her in the first place, has no effect on their relationship.

Scenario 2

"Bob" is a respected religious/political leader in his theocratic society. His job keeps him away from home for long hours, so his wife has been a functional single mother. His ego has grown disproportionately due to the adulation of those whom he leads, who are certain that he has some sort of special communication with God. He is feted and treated like royalty. He believes he is entitled to this treatment. This fact, combined with his own childhood, results in emotionally distant and abusive behavior towards his wife and children the rare times he is at home. His wife and children can relax when Bob is away, but when he is at home, they walk on eggshells in fear, not certain when the unpredictable "boom" will drop. He never actually strikes any of them, but engages in vicious, scarring verbal abuse without apparent provocation, or upon the smallest infraction of his rules or power.


Under a "valid" theocracy, one of of these parents would meet the death penalty.

[_beastie]

They simply prefer other ideas, or another way of life. This isn't necessarily the result of evil intent, it's simply a matter of them deciding what they prefer. When I choose to break the law, it's not because I have evil intent, or because I don't understand. It's because I make the decision that my human rights take precedence over the law, and my personal desire to self-optimize must be respected over the rules of society. It's not because I'm a bad person, it's just a matter of me exercising my freedom of choice.

So it's not bad or evil intent to deliberately disobey a God who has made himself 100% clear? It's not bad or evil intent to deliberately enrich yourself at the cost of others?

This makes no sense.

For heaven's sake, Fort, God hasn't even manifested his own existence with 100% clarity, much less anything else.

[_Fortigurn]

Scenario 1:

"Sally" inadvertantly married a homosexual man. This occurred because her theocratic society mandates that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexual acts can be punished by death. So all homosexuals, rather than risk death, try to be straight, and get married. So Sally's husband, while is has been able to force himself to have sex with Sally enough to impregnate her once or twice, can't maintain a physically intimate relationship with her. The emotional intimacy is limited as well, as Sally's husband tends to have one extremely close male friend with whom he is emotionally intimate without physical sexual contact. For years Sally has been starved for both physical and emotional intimacy.

Sally's theocratic society has also banned divorce except in rare cases, and sexual "incompatibility" is not considered a valid cause for divorce. Sally should just "grow up" and satisfy her need for intimacy by being emotionally intimate with the worshiped deity and throwing herself into motherhood.

Sally does her best to do so, but the underlying need is still there, and one day, she meets a man with similar issues with his spouse. They become close friends without sexual contact, but as time goes by the desire for sexual intimacy overwhelms their fear and morals. They begin an adulterous reliationship. Sally is torn by guilt and does not allow this relationship to interfer with her loving parenting of her children, and since her husband has never wanted emotional intimacy with her in the first place, has no effect on their relationship.

Scenario 2

"Bob" is a respected religious/political leader in his theocratic society. His job keeps him away from home for long hours, so his wife has been a functional single mother. His ego has grown disproportionately due to the adulation of those whom he leads, who are certain that he has some sort of special communication with God. He is feted and treated like royalty. He believes he is entitled to this treatment. This fact, combined with his own childhood, results in emotionally distant and abusive behavior towards his wife and children the rare times he is at home. His wife and children can relax when Bob is away, but when he is at home, they walk on eggshells in fear, not certain when the unpredictable "boom" will drop. He never actually strikes any of them, but engages in vicious, scarring verbal abuse without apparent provocation, or upon the smallest infraction of his rules or power.


Under a "valid" theocracy, one of of these parents would meet the death penalty.

I'm sorry, I don't see any valid theocracy which would leave either of these people with no option other than to commit acts which incur the death penalty.

[_Fortigurn]

They simply prefer other ideas, or another way of life. This isn't necessarily the result of evil intent, it's simply a matter of them deciding what they prefer. When I choose to break the law, it's not because I have evil intent, or because I don't understand. It's because I make the decision that my human rights take precedence over the law, and my personal desire to self-optimize must be respected over the rules of society. It's not because I'm a bad person, it's just a matter of me exercising my freedom of choice.

So it's not bad or evil intent to deliberately disobey a God who has made himself 100% clear?

No that's not what I said. People don't necessarily do it with evil intent, no. They often do it with the best of motives. This doesn't mean it's right, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that they knew full well what was expected, and chose not to do it.

It's not bad or evil intent to deliberately enrich yourself at the cost of others?

I'm sorry, but where did I say that?

For heaven's sake, Fort, God hasn't even manifested his own existence with 100% clarity, much less anything else.

Oh, ok.