Blood Atonement

[_beastie]

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.

I don't care what adjective you attach to the behavior, you are essentially saying that when other people reject what you have determined to be the essence of the 100% clear communication of God's, the problem isn't that they genuinely disagree with your interpretation, since God, after all, did convey this with 100% clarity. Oh, they understand it all right,they just reject it for "other" reasons. They knew full well, and rejected it.

Restating it in this way without the adjectives "evil" and "bad intent" don't change my point one whit.

Quote:
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?

When you compared those who reject God's perfectly clear truth to those who steal a car, knowing it's against the law, but doing it to enrich themselves. That is why I used phrase evil or of bad intent, which you contested.

Once again, I don't care what adjective you attach to the behavior, you are saying that the people "knew full well" what God was saying and, for whatever reasons, chose to ignore it.

So what is this perfect communication of God's? The Bible?

Have I been exposed to this 100% clear communication?

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


Oh, ok.

If God had communicated the evidence of his own existence iwth 100% clarity, faith would be unnecessary. We would all "know", even if we chose to ignore him.

[_Fortigurn]

I don't care what adjective you attach to the behavior, you are essentially saying that when other people reject what you have determined to be the essence of the 100% clear communication of God's, the problem isn't that they genuinely disagree with your interpretation, since God, after all, did convey this with 100% clarity. Oh, they understand it all right,they just reject it for "other" reasons. They knew full well, and rejected it.

I am not saying that this is the case for everyone.

Restating it in this way without the adjectives "evil" and "bad intent" don't change my point one whit.

It's more accurate to what I said. My whole point is that people don't simply reject this communication because of bad or evil intent.

When you compared those who reject God's perfectly clear truth to those who steal a car, knowing it's against the law, but doing it to enrich themselves. That is why I used phrase evil or of bad intent, which you contested.

I didn't say that this was an example of someone doing something without bad or evil intent. I also said it was perfectly possible for people to break a law which had been communicated to them with 100% perfect communication, without evil or bad intent.

Tell me, do you think that sane rational people should be expected to obey laws which they think are stupid and dumb?

Once again, I don't care what adjective you attach to the behavior, you are saying that the people "knew full well" what God was saying and, for whatever reasons, chose to ignore it.

I am saying that this is the case for some, not all.

So what is this perfect communication of God's? The Bible?

That's part of it, yes.

Have I been exposed to this 100% clear communication?

Part of it, undoubtedly.

If God had communicated the evidence of his own existence iwth 100% clarity, faith would be unnecessary. We would all "know", even if we chose to ignore him.

This doesn't actually follow. Evidence is not proof.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes I believe it is.

On what basis?

Personal opinion mostly as well as seeign the barbarism and irrational way it is often appplied in radical theocratic nations. Also I believe the risk of executing an innocent is high. Ending life is irrevocable.

Why would you not?

Well that doesn't exactly answer my question.

Ok so no I answered. Why do you not see using death as a punishment antiquated?

We do? When and how frequent?

Every time we have a war.

Which is not what you described.

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.

So? That does not make it rigth nor meant we cannot do bettter.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
I don't care what adjective you attach to the behavior, you are essentially saying that when other people reject what you have determined to be the essence of the 100% clear communication of God's, the problem isn't that they genuinely disagree with your interpretation, since God, after all, did convey this with 100% clarity. Oh, they understand it all right,they just reject it for "other" reasons. They knew full well, and rejected it.


I am not saying that this is the case for everyone.

If it is not true for everyone, and what is actually true is that people reject what you believe to be the 100% clear communication of God due to the fact that they disagree with your interpretation of these words, where-ever they are found, then I'm correct: God is not communicating with 100% clarity.


Look, I'm not aserting that God definitively does not exist, I'm not a "strong" atheist. I realize God may full well exist. I'm an agnostic atheist in that I don't believe it is possible for people to "know" whether or not God exists, and I personally have no belief in a god of any sort. Maybe God does exist and communicates with some people. But it is clear from the history of the world, and my own history, that this communication is murky and ambiguous, and few agree on what "he" says.

So what I object to isn't people believe in God, but rather asserting "and THIS is what HE says". Once people begin to assert non-ambiguity and certitude in what "God is saying", then religion often becomes just one more tool one tribe uses against another tribe. And there is nothing in the history of the world to make such definitive statements justifiable.

When a theocracy uses this kind of certitude to deprive people of life for reasons that societies normally would not classify as justifying a death penalty, they are depriving people of the one thing that can never be restituted in any fashion in case of error.

(and, by the way, in regards to my earlier examples of "Sally" and "Bob", I never said they had no alternative behaviors open to them. I said that one would receive the death penalty.)

[_Fortigurn]

Personal opinion mostly...

Well at least you're up front about it.

Why do you not see using death as a punishment antiquated?

Because it's a choice. Choices don't 'antiquate', they don't get old all of a sudden. It's an inapplicable term for this action.

So? That does not make it rigth nor meant we cannot do bettter.

No, and it doesn't make it wrong either. And there's the rub. In our Western society, what the majority decide is what is 'right'. Today X might be right. Tomorrow X might be a crime. Some people find this comforting.

[_Fortigurn]

If it is not true for everyone, and what is actually true is that people reject what you believe to be the 100% clear communication of God due to the fact that they disagree with your interpretation of these words, where-ever they are found, then I'm correct: God is not communicating with 100% clarity.

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.

Look, I'm not aserting that God definitively does not exist, I'm not a "strong" atheist. I realize God may full well exist. I'm an agnostic atheist in that I don't believe it is possible for people to "know" whether or not God exists, and I personally have no belief in a god of any sort. Maybe God does exist and communicates with some people. But it is clear from the history of the world, and my own history, that this communication is murky and ambiguous, and few agree on what "he" says.

So what I object to isn't people believe in God, but rather asserting "and THIS is what HE says". Once people begin to assert non-ambiguity and certitude in what "God is saying", then religion often becomes just one more tool one tribe uses against another tribe. And there is nothing in the history of the world to make such definitive statements justifiable.

You'd make a good Deist. Of course, they produced the infamous 'Reign of Terror' subsequent to the French Revolution (around 200,000 people slaughtered in about 5 years, almost 5 times the number killed in 250 years of witch hunts, not a bad job eh?), so you don't want them running the country. But they're ok if you keep a lid on them.

When a theocracy uses this kind of certitude to deprive people of life for reasons that societies normally would not classify as justifying a death penalty, they are depriving people of the one thing that can never be restituted in any fashion in case of error.

Well that's not the 'one thing that can never be restituted in any fashion in case of error'. You can't give someone 5 years of their liberty back after you've taken it from them on the basis of wrongful imprisonment, but no one objects significantly to that. Let's face it, the 'death-penalty-is-wrong-because-you-can't-give-back-what-you're-taking-away' argument just isn't valid. The only form of punishment which can materially be restituted is material confiscation. And even then you'd probably have to pay interest.

(and, by the way, in regards to my earlier examples of "Sally" and "Bob", I never said they had no alternative behaviors open to them. I said that one would receive the death penalty.)

Yes, I'm aware of that.

[_Jason Bourne]

Why do you not see using death as a punishment antiquated?

Because it's a choice. Choices don't 'antiquate', they don't get old all of a sudden. It's an inapplicable term for this action.

Ir sure choices get antiquated and out dated all the time. People uses to be afraid to sail to far on a boat cause they thought they would fall off the edge of the earth and be consumed by sea monsters. Incarcaration of the mentally ill used to be a lot worse then it is now. We used to think blacks were inferior and enslaving them was ok, we uses to think dumping chemicals into streams was a OK and did not casue any probleme at all but now we no better and on and on and on. We often change our choices into better ones when we have better information or even eveolve socially. We Do it all the time

So? That does not make it rigth nor meant we cannot do bettter.

No, and it doesn't make it wrong either. And there's the rub. In our Western society, what the majority decide is what is 'right'. Today X might be right. Tomorrow X might be a crime. Some people find this comforting.

The majorty often chooses in correctly. Majority does not make a choice right or correct. It just meand most people got something wrong.

[_Fortigurn]

Ir sure choices get antiquated and out dated all the time. People uses to be afraid to sail to far on a boat cause they thought they would fall off the edge of the earth and be consumed by sea monsters.

That's a belief becoming antiquated, not a choice. The choice not to sail too far is still valid.

Incarcaration of the mentally ill used to be a lot worse then it is now. We used to think blacks were inferior and enslaving them was ok, we uses to think dumping chemicals into streams was a OK and did not casue any probleme at all but now we no better and on and on and on. We often change our choices into better ones when we have better information or even eveolve socially. We Do it all the time

These are all examples of beliefs becoming invalidated by additional information or societal mores changing. They aren't examples of actions becoming antiquated.

The majorty often chooses in correctly.

Really? How do you know? I guess that's a comfort for those living under George Bush.

Majority does not make a choice right or correct. It just meand most people got something wrong.

Actually under social contract theory (on which Western societies are built), it does make a choice right or correct. Under social contract theory, morality is the product of social agreement.

[_beastie]

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?

You'd make a good Deist. Of course, they produced the infamous 'Reign of Terror' subsequent to the French Revolution (around 200,000 people slaughtered in about 5 years, almost 5 times the number killed in 250 years of witch hunts, not a bad job eh?), so you don't want them running the country. But they're ok if you keep a lid on them.

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?

Well that's not the 'one thing that can never be restituted in any fashion in case of error'. You can't give someone 5 years of their liberty back after you've taken it from them on the basis of wrongful imprisonment, but no one objects significantly to that. Let's face it, the 'death-penalty-is-wrong-because-you-can't-give-back-what-you're-taking-away' argument just isn't valid. The only form of punishment which can materially be restituted is material confiscation. And even then you'd probably have to pay interest.

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.

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.

Quote:
(and, by the way, in regards to my earlier examples of "Sally" and "Bob", I never said they had no alternative behaviors open to them. I said that one would receive the death penalty.)



Yes, I'm aware of that.

Then why was that your sole response?

[_KimberlyAnn]

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