QM thinks that rapists should die, JM thinks rapists should be 'understood'

[QuestionMark]

I haven't. I thought you were asking me personally.

What the Bible seems to indicate to me is that crimes which have public effects are held to public standards. If you steal a man's leftovers then you should resolve it with that man, and if you can't then you are held liable to your peers. You will probably be tried for stealing, and not for lying.

The maximum sentence for lying against a man in the Scripture, as far as I know, is directly related to what you lied about. So as I said if you lied about stealing, then you would suffer for stealing. If you lied to falsely accuse someone then you would suffer whatever penalty the alleged crime would have been.

[Apotheosis]

I haven't. I thought you were asking me personally.

I thought you personally employed the Bible as your moral compass.

The maximum sentence for lying against a man in the Scripture, as far as I know, is directly related to what you lied about.

Cite?

[PingTheServer]

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.

This guy is trying to teach me about justice. But don't let him fool you, if you actually get into the reality of how disgusting sin is, he'll just pretend like we're all rocks, morality is a population control mechanism, and free will is an illusion.

Then he'll tell you that your worldview is wrong :D

I havent read past the first post yet, but I couldnt help but notice that the athiest took the more 'jesus like" approach in the argument, and the christian is full of vanity, anger, hate.  How's that for irony?

[rickymooston]

I haven't. I thought you were asking me personally.

What the Bible seems to indicate to me is that crimes which have public effects are held to public standards. If you steal a man's leftovers then you should resolve it with that man, and if you can't then you are held liable to your peers. You will probably be tried for stealing, and not for lying.

The maximum sentence for lying against a man in the Scripture, as far as I know, is directly related to what you lied about. So as I said if you lied about stealing, then you would suffer for stealing. If you lied to falsely accuse someone then you would suffer whatever penalty the alleged crime would have been.

I agree with the logic of what QM is saying; don't know if its biblical or not. That is, I've read biblical passages that sounded like what QM is saying but I don't know the bible passages from cover to cover. There are lots of silly rulings in the bible; e.g., the goats milk thing

[QuestionMark]

I thought you personally employed the Bible as your moral compass.

I do, but obviously I'm not a Jew living in the promised land before the Messiah came. There are no prescriptions for how governments should act in detail in America 2 thousand years later.

There are principles that can be applied, and that's what I do. Not everything is 'set in stone'.

The maximum sentence for lying against a man in the Scripture, as far as I know, is directly related to what you lied about.

Cite?
[/quote]
The Law about bearing false witness, as already mentioned.

[QuestionMark]

I agree with the logic of what QM is saying; don't know if its biblical or not. That is, I've read biblical passages that sounded like what QM is saying but I don't know the bible passages from cover to cover. There are lots of silly rulings in the bible; e.g., the goats milk thing

It's a religious law that carries over to the civil law. Boiling a goat in its mother's milk was apparently a pagan ritual, and a disgusting one in God's eyes. God didn't want the Jews to fall into the trap of worshiping pagan Gods who thought it was ok to boil the very young as a form of worship. Molech was thought to desire that his followers throw their children into a molten vat, but this too was disgusting in God's eyes.

What I'm saying is that you can't take perfect forgiveness without reconciliation and redemption because it becomes perfect lawlessness.

The Cross is the center of the Christian message because it carries with it both the demonstration both of God's mercy and justice. If God were not just, then there would have been no penalty needed to be suffered, and if God were not merciful then He would not have suffered the penalty for us.

[Drauthlin]

I agree with the logic of what QM is saying; don't know if its biblical or not. That is, I've read biblical passages that sounded like what QM is saying but I don't know the bible passages from cover to cover. There are lots of silly rulings in the bible; e.g., the goats milk thing

It's a religious law that carries over to the civil law. Boiling a goat in its mother's milk was apparently a pagan ritual, and a disgusting one in God's eyes. God didn't want the Jews to fall into the trap of worshiping pagan Gods who thought it was ok to boil the very young as a form of worship. Molech was thought to desire that his followers throw their children into a molten vat, but this too was disgusting in God's eyes.

If those goats were babies whose parents weren't Israelites, he'd be okay with them being killed though, right? Isn't that what Joshua did at God's command? That's confusing to me.

[Ratman]

The Cross is the center of the Christian message because it carries with it both the demonstration both of God's mercy and justice.

Funny thing, I happen to be walking my dog and a JW came up to me.  We talked a bit and I did not say I was an atheist so he ended up handing me a booklet that said "Jesus did not die on a cross.  He died on a pole, or a stake.  The Greek word translated "cross" in many Bibles meant just one piece of timber.  The symbol of the cross comes from ancient false religions. The cross was not used or worshiped by the early Christians. Therefore, do you think it would be right to use a cross in worship?--Deuterronomy 7:26; 1 Corinthians 10:14."

Also I recall that Jesus even said something about taking up your crosses.  This makes me think that the cross was a symbol from earlier religions.  Could it be borrowed from other reliegions? Sorry if this is offtopic.

[QuestionMark]

If those goats were babies whose parents weren't Israelites, he'd be okay with them being killed though, right? Isn't that what Joshua did at God's command? That's confusing to me.

This is the fundamental error in my opinion. You think that because God has the right to do something that man can do the exact same thing and be justified. Why would you think that?

[QuestionMark]

Also I recall that Jesus even said something about taking up your crosses.  This makes me think that the cross was a symbol from earlier religions.  Could it be borrowed from other reliegions? Sorry if this is offtopic.

There were a variety of cross styles, needless to say I don't worship the cross, it is a symbol. If someone could conclusively prove to me that the cross didn't look like a lower case 't' -- † (like this) then I would use whatever symbol was more appropriate to represent my beliefs.

[Drauthlin]

If those goats were babies whose parents weren't Israelites, he'd be okay with them being killed though, right? Isn't that what Joshua did at God's command? That's confusing to me.

This is the fundamental error in my opinion. You think that because God has the right to do something that man can do the exact same thing and be justified. Why would you think that?

God didn't kill those infants. Joshua and his men did, yes? Why didn't the big man just do it himself?

It's easy to justify the very actions you normally condemn by saying it's an act of God. But yeah - I think anything 'God' has the right to do, men do as well, because the only 'God' that exists is in the minds of men.

[JustMyron]

If those goats were babies whose parents weren't Israelites, he'd be okay with them being killed though, right? Isn't that what Joshua did at God's command? That's confusing to me.

This is the fundamental error in my opinion. You think that because God has the right to do something that man can do the exact same thing and be justified. Why would you think that?

Is there anything God would be unjustified in doing? Genocide, mass rape, drowning most of humanity, making absolutely irredeemably terrible TV shows like The Hills, all A-OK if God does it, but unconscionable for human beings? Is that how you figure things work?

The basic concept is, if goodness is a universal standard then it applies to God as much as it does to humans.

If you say "God is good", but then make "Good" mean whatever God does, even if that includes allowing The Hills to exist (I know you try to make an argument for permissive vs. active will, but I'm sorry, even permitting that show to happen in the first place was wrong), then the word "good" has lost all its meaning.

(Yeah, this is a little tongue in cheek, but seriously, you can't make "good" mean "oh, whatever, it doesn't really matter what good is or isn't, I guess if God does it it's fine".)

[QuestionMark]

Is there anything God would be unjustified in doing?

Lying

[JustMyron]

Ok, but murder, though - that's OK?

[QuestionMark]

Murder is unjustified killing. It would be somewhat difficult to prove that God is unjustified in killing someone.

[JustMyron]

Murder is unjustified killing. It would be somewhat difficult to prove that God is unjustified in killing someone.

Ah. So he can kill whoever he wants, but if he were to lie to someone, that would be wrong.

Makes perfect sense.

[JustMyron]

Hey QM, how come in your world it's sometimes OK to kill someone, but never OK to lie to them?

[QuestionMark]

Good question.

Killing someone is justified when they have shown themselves unfit for life. A person for instance who rapes or murders someone ought to himself be killed.

Someone could justly carry out that killing, but no one could justify lying.

Ultimately, it goes back to the fact that lying is actually impossible for God. It would require Him to be untrue to Himself.

[JustMyron]

I take a different approach. Killing is generally worse than lying, because it does more harm. If I had to choose between lying to someone and killing them, I would choose to lie to them, without hesitation. So it doesn't make sense to me that you think lying is never OK, but killing, which is worse than lying, is sometimes OK.

Would you lie to save someone's life?

[QuestionMark]

No, I'd probably disable the would be murderer.

Depends whose life, and in what circumstance.

But no I certainly wouldn't lie to save someone's life.

[JustMyron]

But no I certainly wouldn't lie to save someone's life.

Do you now see why I think in most cases rapists shouldn't be killed?

Simply put, it's because killing someone is a big deal. Even if you say it's just. Arbitrarily defining some killing as wrong and other killing as not wrong leads to stupid situations, like you being unwilling to tell even a little white lie to save someone's life. Would that little white lie be wrong? Sure. But much, much less wrong than having someone die, when you could easily prevent it. Is allowing a rapist to suffer less than they might justly deserve wrong? Sure, in a way (if you consider strict retribution in proportion to any wrongs committed to be the only option). But it's less wrong than the alternatives, which just perpetuate and increase suffering in the name of justice. Sometimes, especially in situations where someone has done something really wrong, there are no perfectly good ways out.

[QuestionMark]

I've never had a problem seeing why you think things, on any given issue at any given point.

The problem I have with you, well, with your philosophy is that it is inconsistent among its major parts.

Earlier you contradicted me when I said that atheists think that if a wrong is not noticed then it isn't a wrong.

If a lie is white, and no one notices you are saying that it isn't wrong, or at least that it is less wrong than something else.

I don't think wrong is a sliding scale. Something is either right to do, or wrong to do.

In the Bible, God does not punish people for lying if their intent was to do His will and they were simply misinformed.

However, if someone knew that God was sovereign over all things and intended to judge all men for all their deeds, then it would be presumptuous to step in and judge someone for yourself.

Lying to someone, is a form of judgment. You have usurped God's authority as the final judge of all things but doing something that is wrong and assuming that He would approve of it.

[none]

would you lie to save an infant, a fetus, or a non-person?

[JustMyron]

Fact: If you kill someone, it doesn't matter whether you've convinced yourself it's justified, the effects of your actions are the same, regardless. Whether you've said that this particular death was just you killing someone, and not murder, so in your head what you've done somehow becomes OK, killing is killing, and any time you do it you are depriving society of the contributions that person would have made, hurting those who care about that person.

Any time you kill someone, that's wrong. It should sadden you, and not make you glad because you've seen someone punished. There may be situations where killing is the best available option, but just because it's the best available option, doesn't make it good.

[QuestionMark]

would you lie to save an infant, a fetus, or a non-person?

I don't understand the question.

[QuestionMark]

Fact: If you kill someone, it doesn't matter whether you've convinced yourself it's justified, the effects of your actions are the same, regardless.

If you think conscience is irrelevant, then yes.

Whether you've said that this particular death was just you killing someone, and not murder, so in your head what you've done somehow becomes OK, killing is killing, and any time you do it you are depriving society of the contributions that person would have made, hurting those who care about that person.

Well, you weren't very specific. I don't think I would ever kill someone without both the societal support and a conviction that God accepts the act as righteous.

Any time you kill someone, that's wrong. It should sadden you, and not make you glad because you've seen someone punished. There may be situations where killing is the best available option, but just because it's the best available option, doesn't make it good.

Killing does not make me happy, nor does killing make God happy. I do not derive pleasure from punishing people. I don't know why you would make these assumptions of me.

[none]

would you lie to save an infant, a fetus, or a non-person?

I don't understand the question.

if you needed to lie to save a infant, fetus, or non-person from death would you do it?
i just threw in non-person to include everything that might be alive...

[QuestionMark]

None,
     I would under no circumstances lie in an attempt to right a wrong. I do not believe that you can make something good by doing something evil.

[JustMyron]

Earlier you contradicted me when I said that atheists think that if a wrong is not noticed then it isn't a wrong.

Yes.

If a lie is white, and no one notices you are saying that it isn't wrong

Incorrect. Lying is wrong, whether someone notices it or not. Please don't attempt to twist my words. If you say you understand my thinking, then demonstrate this understanding.

or at least that it is less wrong than something else.

Whether someone catches you or not does not change whether something is wrong. Some things are less wrong than others, but whether you're caught or not doesn't change the degree to which something is wrong.

As for wrongness not being a sliding scale, the idea that stealing a dollar out of your mom's wallet is morally equivalent to murdering her, since both are wrong, is just plain stupid. How wrong something is is measured on a sliding scale.

[JustMyron]

None,
     I would under no circumstances lie in an attempt to right a wrong.

That is not what he asked.