Spirituality
11 Nov 06
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, your culture is morally reprehensible, as is any culture that flat out rejects even a minimal criterion of proportionality for the punishment of transgressions in favor of summary execution. This is tantamount to rejecting the notion of justice altogether.
Depending on the nature and severity of the disrespect and the maturity and moral responsibility of the child, I don't see why not.
In many cultures (including my own), the traditional penalty for violence against one's parents is death.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm hoping everyone here has misunderstood you (including me).
Depending on the nature and severity of the disrespect and the maturity and moral responsibility of the child, I don't see why not.
In many cultures (including my own), the traditional penalty for violence against one's parents is death.
Answering yes or no, do you think that Jesus thought it would be just to stone a woman
caught in adultery? Answering similarly, do you think that it would be just to stone a
child who is disrespectful?
Nemesio
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioHe's said it explicitly, several times, even with emphasis: "I think Jesus did not explicitly reject stoning because he thought it was a just punishment for the crime."
I'm hoping everyone here has misunderstood you (including me).
Answering yes or no, do you think that Jesus thought it would be just to stone a woman
caught in adultery? Answering similarly, do you think that it would be just to stone a
child who is disrespectful?
Nemesio
To answer No to either of your questions would just be doublespeak.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoc, I think you know I tend to be a pretty reasonable individual. I have my failings, to be sure,
He's said it explicitly, several times, even with emphasis: "I think Jesus did not explicitly reject stoning because he thought it was a just punishment for the crime."
but generally I can plow through things and discern what is being said.
Naturally, I read what you did, too.
And, perhaps the deficiency is indeed on my end, for I find it utterly incomprehensible that
someone who claims to be a Christian can genuinely draw this conclusion. Even upon
repetition, even with emphasis, I'm simply hoping he misspoke, or was confused by the question
and consequently gave a confused answer.
That it was just or morally justified at any time in history to stone a person for adultery
is just so perverted, I simply cannot believe what I am reading. It's like KellyJay's waffling on
slavery. It signifies an utterly distorted perspective on morality (and, by theistic extension, on
God).
Again, I admit that the deficiency might be mine, but I wish to give LH the benefit of clarifying
what I genuinely hope was a confused response.
Nemesio
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerInteresting. Could you elaborate on this pattern that you see?
In isolation, yes. But seen in context as to how Jesus deals with other people that come to him for grace/healing (e.g. the rich young man, the father of the possessed boy), I see a very consistent pattern -- and it's not the one most people think.
17 Nov 06
I thought that any Christian has to believe that stoning an adulterer was just at some point in history as it is given as a law in the old testament.
However most Christians I have met avoid such discussions and generally dismiss any criticism of the old testament with statements to the effect that Jesus changed all the laws and they no longer apply and that somehow the laws were just at the time.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperMost people in this discussion appear to be equivocating on the meaning of the word "child":
Yes, I did. Could you provide me with an example of circumstances wherein it would be permissable for a child to be executed for disrespecting his parent(s)?
TheSkipper
1. "Child" in relationship to "parent"; i.e. "child" as synonymous to "son/daughter". This is the sense I've been using it in (and other posters at times). I should've been quite explicit that this can and does include adults.
2. "Child" in comparison to "adult"; i.e. "child" as synonymous to "minor". This appears to be the sense most people have taken.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrWhat do you mean by "minimal criterion of proportionality"? What do you mean by it in this context?
Well, your culture is morally reprehensible, as is any culture that flat out rejects even a minimal criterion of proportionality for the punishment of transgressions in favor of summary execution. This is tantamount to rejecting the notion of justice altogether.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not answering the second question because of the ambiguity around what 'child' means (see my last-but-one post). I'll wait for you to rephrase.
I'm hoping everyone here has misunderstood you (including me).
Answering yes or no, do you think that Jesus thought it would be just to stone a woman
caught in adultery? Answering similarly, do you think that it would be just to stone a
child who is disrespectful?
Nemesio
Do I think Jesus thought stoning was a just punishment for adultery (given all the usual caveats around consent/willingness and knowledge/moral awareness)? I have already said the answer is yes.
Do I think Jesus thought it would be just to stone a woman caught in adultery? (There is a difference between this question -- which you asked -- and the one I answered above.)
Just for whom to stone? You and me? No - that's clearly implied in what He said. Just for Him to stone? I think the answer to that is yes (of course this could get a little more complex once you start looking at the work done on the Cross and God's simplicity etc.)
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhatever the age, do you think that the death penalty is acceptable for any crime other than murder? do you think the death penalty is acceptable for disrespect where the main crime under consideration is the disrespect and not any possible physical or monetary actions due to the disrespect?
Most people in this discussion appear to be equivocating on the meaning of the word "child":
1. "Child" in relationship to "parent"; i.e. "child" as synonymous to "son/daughter". This is the sense I've been using it in (and other posters at times). I should've been quite explicit that this can and does include adults.
2. "Child" in comparison to ...[text shortened]... synonymous to "minor". This appears to be the sense most people have taken.
Do you think that the death penalty is acceptable for adultery?
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI would essentially characterise it as a "challenge-response" system. X comes to Jesus asking for something. Jesus "challenges" X (the challenge need not be explicit; and in some cases X may already have met the challenge or "hurdle" ); i.e asks him to do or give up something that would be difficult. X meets the challenge/makes the hurdle and Jesus gives him/her what she's asked for.
Interesting. Could you elaborate on this pattern that you see?
(I'm not saying that all episodes of Jesus's healing/miracles mentioned follow this pattern; but quite a few do.)
The challenge-response system is clearly seen in the story of the rich young man. Not quite so evident, but it is also seen in the story of the possessed boy. In that case, Jesus asks the father whether he has faith. The response is painfully honest, "Lord, I have faith -- help my lack of faith!". Why didn't a simple "yes" do? Why couldn't the father just lie about his not having complete faith in Jesus?
Even in the raising of Lazarus, he challenges his apostles, Martha and then Mary for their faith. It's not entirely clear whether they've failed or passed.
In the case of the Canaanite woman with the sick daughter (which is the story kirksey was talking about), the challenge is very curious. Jesus's disciples ask him to send away the woman -- but He doesn't. If He'd just said, "Go away, I don't want to help you", that would've been that. Instead his responses, even if they appear to imply the same thing, are open-ended; they invite a response from the woman.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've not said anything about acceptability of the death penalty (as something we impose in our legal systems). To say that death is a just punishment for crime x is not the same thing as saying we should go out and implement the death penalty for x.
Whatever the age, do you think that the death penalty is acceptable for any crime other than murder? do you think the death penalty is acceptable for disrespect where the main crime under consideration is the disrespect and not any possible physical or monetary actions due to the disrespect?
Do you think that the death penalty is acceptable for adultery?
In my view, human "justice" systems serve four purposes:
(a) To the extent possible, restitution for loss incurred due to the crime
(b) Protection of the general public from dangerous criminals
(c) Deterring possible future criminals from repeating similar crimes
(d) Rehabilitation of the criminal
Now, (a) can be satisfied for something like theft (the thief has to pay back the value stolen with interest plus any losses incurred). But how does one give restitution for the loss of a life? Does taking the life of the criminal bring the lost one back?
do you think the death penalty is acceptable for disrespect where the main crime under consideration is the disrespect and not any possible physical or monetary actions due to the disrespect?
How do you separate the disrespect from the physical/financial action that signifies it? Just as respect isn't something you do apart from your interactions with the person you respect; disrespect isn't something separate from what you do with that person.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo which of your reasons a) - d) is a good one to justify stoning an adulterer? And is adultery a crime in the first place?
I've not said anything about acceptability of the death penalty (as something we impose in our legal systems). To say that death is a just punishment for crime x is not the same thing as saying we should go out and implement the death penalty for x.
In my view, human "justice" systems serve four purposes:
(a) [b]To the extent possible, resti ...[text shortened]... itution for the loss of a life? Does taking the life of the criminal bring the lost one back?[/b]
How do you separate the disrespect from the physical/financial action that signifies it? Just as respect isn't something you do apart from your interactions with the person you respect; disrespect isn't something separate from what you do with that person.
It is singled out in this thread isn't it?
The punishment being talked about was not for any harm caused to the parent but for the disrespect being shown. No distinction was made or specified between a child who insulted his parent or one who ignored his parents commands or one who physically harmed his parent.
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo which of your reasons a) - d) is a good one to justify stoning an adulterer?
So which of your reasons a) - d) is a good one to justify stoning an adulterer? And is adultery a crime in the first place?
[b]How do you separate the disrespect from the physical/financial action that signifies it? Just as respect isn't something you do apart from your interactions with the person you respect; disrespect isn't something separate from ...[text shortened]... is parent or one who ignored his parents commands or one who physically harmed his parent.[/b]
None.
And is adultery a crime in the first place?
In the human legal system or on the scales of absolute/divine Justice?
It is singled out in this thread isn't it?
The punishment being talked about was not for any harm caused to the parent but for the disrespect being shown. No distinction was made or specified between a child who insulted his parent or one who ignored his parents commands or one who physically harmed his parent.
But I did (implicitly) make that distinction. I said "depending on the nature and severity" etc. Further it's quite clear that the nature and severity of disrespect will also depend on the (other) action that signifies it. Torture and murder of your mum clearly carries with it a greater degree of disrespect than merely stealing £5 from her purse.
Finally, which of the two senses of "child" was your question intended to imply? I've clearly said that that would also be a factor.