Was the execution of Jesus unjust?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No executions are "just".

One of the ironies is that so many Christians support the death penalty. Those who do so and purport to believe in compassion, love, forgiveness, redemption, etc. are about as hypocritical as one can get.

For me there is a difference between 'just' and 'right'. I do believe in compassion, love and forgiveness, but I don't necessarily consider punishments that include them to be 'just'. I see the word just as being a punishment that fits the crime. The problem is of course that punishment rarely compensates adequately the aggrieved party and in some cases (such as murder) it is impossible.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I wish I had definitive answers to them. I'll have to think on it.

Me too. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m not sure that I have a particularly well-formed notion of what defines “acting justly” myself. And perhaps Scriabin and others can help out there. I would include such things as the penalty fitting the crime, taking account of mitigating circumstances, etc.

The basic question becomes (to re-word your “why” ): “[b]What makes a just act just? ...[text shortened]... of the divine personage?) And if they are held to be guilty, what is a just punishment?

Of course, Judgement is said that each case is taken by a case by case basis. So, in effect, you are judging Gods justice before the cases are even heard. In addition, you are proporting to even be able to understand it. As Job found out, this is not always possible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]No executions are "just".

So it is of your opinion that the law "an eye for an eye" is unjust?

Originally posted by FMF
Was Jesus executed unjustly?

Of course it was unjust because Jesus was without sin. That said, it was a prophesied event that had to happen in order to save man. In a sense, man saved himself by crucifying the one person who could save man by defeating death. I reckon that makes it an irony, no?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Of course it was unjust, because Jesus was without sin.

One wonders if what you mean here is that it IS just to be executed for sinning!

What was he executed for? Was it indeed a capital crime in those days? Did he get due process?

I personally oppose the death penalty. I was using the words "just" and "unjust" in terms of the 'crime-punishment-process', not in 'moral' terms. Was "justice", as it was framed at that time and in that place, served?

Originally posted by whodey
So it is of your opinion that the law "an eye for an eye" is unjust?

Yes. As it was the opinion of Jesus.

Do you disagree with this teaching of Jesus?

Originally posted by FMF
One wonders if what you mean here is that it IS just to be executed for sinning!

What was he executed for? Was it indeed a capital crime in those days? Did he get due process?

I personally oppose the death penalty. I was using the words "just" and "unjust" in terms of the 'crime-punishment-process', not in 'moral' terms. Was "justice", as it was framed at that time and in that place, served?

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I look like one, so I'll say no it was not justified to execute Christ, and personally, I don't belive in the death penalty; however, if I were the warden of a prison where persons who had committed capital crimes (1st-degree murder) were sentenced, they may wish they were dead after the hard labor I would mete out to them. Jesus was execute as a sacrifice to God for the redemption of man. I know it sounds 'heavy', but a healthy dose of trust and faith preclude understanding this concept. It was a capital crime in those days to claim to be God from both a Jewish and Roman standpoint; it was blasphemous to proclaim such. Yes, justice was served according to Roman law, and at the same time mankind was saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, and as a result, Christians are saved from eternal death by believing that Jesus came to save man and by proclaiming that Jesus is Lord.

Originally posted by whodey
So it is of your opinion that the law "an eye for an eye" is unjust?

It is my opinion, based on law and ethics, not religion.

Defend the "eye for an eye" = justice idea. I'd like to hear the case in favor of it.

I'd also like to ask for a definition of the concept of "justice."

How do you know something is just or not?

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, Judgement is said that each case is taken by a case by case basis. So, in effect, you are judging Gods justice before the cases are even heard. In addition, you are proporting to even be able to understand it. As Job found out, this is not always possible.

Of course, Judgement is said that each case is taken by a case by case basis. So, in effect, you are judging Gods justice before the cases are even heard.

Am I? In what cases is eternal (as opposed to, say, a thousand years or so) torment a just punishment? [Please read my comments above on that, so I don’t have to repeat myself.]

Perhaps the Christian claim that God does and will always judge justly is equally premature?

In addition, you are purporting to even be able to understand it. As Job found out, this is not always possible.

So: What makes a just act just?

If you can’t decide that—at least in rough outline—how can you lay the label “just” on anything? If you want to say that you have no idea what it means to say that God is “just”—you might as well say that God is ishpywitz—then I have no further comment.

It is the unwillingness or inability of Christians to say what they mean by such terms—as well as when they use them in ways that seems contradictory—that leads SwissGambit to level his charges of “bizarro speech”.

I do not claim that the Tao is just (or that nature is just)—or unjust, for that matter. That is simply not a category that I apply there. But if you want to claim that God is just, then the onus is on you to at least explain the reasons that God merits that epithet, and what it even means to you.

By the way, I think you’re a pretty ishpywitz fellow yourself…

I don't really have a good intuitive sense of what "justice" is so I can't answer.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't really have a good intuitive sense of what "justice" is so I can't answer.

“Hey, Diogenes! I think I just found an honest man!”

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't really have a good intuitive sense of what "justice" is so I can't answer.

It seems to me that "justice" is a plexus constructed in order to keep the bonds of the society secured; this opinion offers the reason why each society within Time was based on different systems of "justice". Methinks it is just an invention of the Human.

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by vistesd
“Hey, Diogenes! I think I just found an honest man!”

-- "Methinks honest is the one who admits that he knows what he knows and that he ignores what he ignores, Socrates!"

Originally posted by dystoniac
Of course it was unjust because Jesus was without sin.

And how do you define justice?

To what extent does the fact that Jesus did not cease to exist nor end up in Hell affect the justness of the act? If Jesus benefited from the act and so did mankind, then surely it is a win-win situation?
How does the fact that Jesus knew what would happen, did nothing to prevent it (even though he could easily have done so), and actually wanted it to happen, affect the justice of the situation.

If I am accused of a crime I did not commit, but welcome the punishment then is it still unjust?