Was the execution of Jesus unjust?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes. As it was the opinion of Jesus.

Do you disagree with this teaching of Jesus?

If I recall he did not condemn the Mosaic law, rather, he merely offerred a different alternative which no one dare contest at the time. I sometimes wish someone had so we could hear his reasonings. I don't view it as a mandate across the boards to show mercy to everyone that violates the law, otherwise you would have lawlessness. In fact, why have any laws at all? Why have prisons? Why have judges and lawyers......wait.....no lawyers? That's it!!! We would all be so much happier without them. Now why didn't I think of that before!!

Originally posted by vistesd

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.]

All I am trying to get at is that none of us have the "big picture", therefore, all we can do is guess what is proper justice. From our skewed vantage point such punishments seem excessive and unjust, however, from God's vantage point it apparantly fits the crime. I am not pretending to know his reasonings just as Job could not even begin to guess. I guess SwissGambit will just have to charge me with bizzaro speech. If I demanded to know all the reasonings of God and all the mysteries then I would be equal to him, but I am not. I therefore, have a choice. I can either accept him on faith that he is just and merciful with a vantage point that is not skewed or I can say otherwise and reject him altogether. I choose faith and say just as Job said, "Even though he slay me all day yet I will still serve him."

Originally posted by Scriabin
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?

I don't offer a definition, rather, I only bring it up as an example of an attempt at justice. An eye for an eye all sounds rather simplistic does it not? You know there is something to be said for that. In fact, no lawyers are needed, no prisons, just a judge to hear the case. Then when someone rails that what is being done is "unjust" all you say is, "But did you not do this to your fellow neighbor"?

I tried exploring this on a thread about the modern day prison system. Are we better off than in the days of "an eye for an eye"? Are we better off keeping them locked up in a system that is over crowded which means nine times out of ten they will not be able to serve out their full sentence and at the tax payers expence? Is any one ever "rehabilitated" or does it make people worse in such a crime ridden environment? My point was that it appears the modern day system is broken so perhaps we should return to a more simplistic system in which you immediatly pay for the crime such as a fine, or you loose a limb or even lose your life etc.

Edit: I guess the only other route would be to take TOO's position and show mercy to them all and release everyone in our prisons!!! 😛

Every concept, idea, law, precept, principle, is expressed in words.

We cannot speak about justice without using the word justice.

So the questions remain: what do you mean when you use that word? What does that word mean?

When is that word appropriate to describe what is done to a criminal at the end of a finding of guilty and when isn't it appropriate?

Rather simple questions, really. If one does not know the answers, then how is one at all qualified to opine on the OP question posed?

It isn't good enough, btw, to say "I know it when I see it."

One does NOT know anything unless one also knows how to use the words that express that which one knows.

Otherwise, one is deluded and is misleading others by representing they have knowlege they, in fact, do not have.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Every concept, idea, law, precept, principle, is expressed in words.

We cannot speak about justice without using the word justice.

So the questions remain: what do you mean when you use that word? What does that word mean?

When is that word appropriate to describe what is done to a criminal at the end of a finding of guilty and when isn't it appro ...[text shortened]... uded and is misleading others by representing they have knowlege they, in fact, do not have.

Perhaps justice could be explained by following the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have done to you. I believe even Christ taught this. In effect, what ever wrong you do to another anticipate it being done to you or perhaps you should not engage in such activity.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Every concept, idea, law, precept, principle, is expressed in words.

We cannot speak about justice without using the word justice.

So the questions remain: what do you mean when you use that word? What does that word mean?

When is that word appropriate to describe what is done to a criminal at the end of a finding of guilty and when isn't it appro ...[text shortened]... uded and is misleading others by representing they have knowlege they, in fact, do not have.

One does NOT know anything unless one also knows how to use the words that express that which one knows.

That’s not really accurate. Some people do not think in language, and yet can still presumably arrive at justified true beliefs about the world they inhabit.

Further, it would raise the question of whether—since whole word-concepts (signifieds) rarely translate from one language to another—there is any sense in which two people who speak different languages (have different “language games”, ala Wittgenstein) can be said to have any common knowledge about the world. [I would say they certainly can—but translation, and hence explication, is not a simple process.] Difficulty in communication is not necessarily an epistemic fault, even with a common language.

Nevertheless— If one actually uses a word like “justice”, then one has already ventured into linguistic expression. At that point, one presumably wishes to communicate something, some meaning. At that point one presumably has some sense of what they mean by that word, and can explicate that using other words that they know the meaning of (or at least attempt to: sometimes the purpose of such an attempt in dialogue is to get some help in furthering, or correcting, one’s own understanding). Otherwise, they’re simply echoing word-sounds (signifiers) without regard to meanings (signifieds).

If someone uses a word like “justice”, and cannot tell you what they mean by that, there is no reason to assume that they know what they’re talking about. They might, as you say, be deluding themselves; they might be attempting to mislead others into thinking that they know what they’re talking about.

Originally posted by whodey
I can either accept him on faith that he is just and merciful with a vantage point that is not skewed or I can say otherwise and reject him altogether.

But do you attribute any actual meaning to the words 'just' and 'merciful' or is it simply bizzaro speech? Why would you reject him simply because he is not just when 'just' has no meaning?

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps justice could be explained by following the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have done to you. I believe even Christ taught this. In effect, what ever wrong you do to another anticipate it being done to you or perhaps you should not engage in such activity.

Firstly Christs teaching was not about justice at all, but rather one of empathy. He did not say go and do to others what they do to you, nor did he say what you do to others will be done to you.

If however you do believe that justice is 'an eye for an eye' then how do you deal with equations that are not so easy to value such as an arm for a leg?
If Jesus actually benefited from the crucifixion and if his actions prior to his conviction did in fact affect negatively some of the people that crucified him (as I am sure it did), then could it have been just?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But do you attribute any actual meaning to the words 'just' and 'merciful' or is it simply bizzaro speech? Why would you reject him simply because he is not just when 'just' has no meaning?

I have evidence that my God is an empathetic God through one Jesus Christ. His teachings as well as his mission tell me this. Further, I was made in his own image thus I, as well as yourself, become up in arms when we percieve an "injustice" has occurred. Where did this concern for justice come from if not from God? Why would it be such a concern if God were not also concerned with it? Therefore, even though I may not fully understand his ways, nor can fully understand them, I trust in the God represented by one Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly Christs teaching was not about justice at all, but rather one of empathy. He did not say go and do to others what they do to you, nor did he say what you do to others will be done to you.

If however you do believe that justice is 'an eye for an eye' then how do you deal with equations that are not so easy to value such as an arm for a leg?
If ...[text shortened]... ely some of the people that crucified him (as I am sure it did), then could it have been just?

You are correct, it was about empathy, however, what specifically? Case in point was the woman caught in adultery. Christ was asked if she should be stoned. He then turned to the crowd and asked who among them without sin should cast the first stone. Then when convicted by their own sins the crowd dispersed and let the woman live. Then Christ turned to the woman, cast some demons from her and told her to depart and sin no more. So the general theme here is "sin". This was the target, not the sinner. So how did Jesus target the sin? He did so via his own power and life and death on the cross. Christ said that those who sin become the slave of such sin but through him, we could be free from such sin. This was the empathetic nature of his mission. It was to liberate the slaves of sin, that is, those who felt incarcerated by it and not revel in it.

This is why I say that Christ did not condemn the people for wanting to stone her thus condemning the Mosaic law, rather, he was simply offerring a better alternative in dealing with sin through the power within himself. If the goal of the Mosaic law was to erradicate sin as well as the grace offerred by Christ, then both methods can be shown to accomplish the same goal but by different means. The later, of course, being far superior to the first because the sinner is spared rather then killed.

Conversely, if Christ did not have power within himself to overcome sin, why then did he not abide by the Mosaic law and let them stone her? In effect, if Christ was not defending the spirit of the law, which was to erradicate sin, then he was defying it. He then would have been a law breaker rather than a defender of the spirit of such a law. As a result, if there be those out there that don't believe that Christ had such an authority over sin not seen before or since over sin, why then did he not abide by the Mosaic law and let the woman be stoned? Yoiu must then conclude, as it appears TOO has concluded, that the Mosaic law was not inspired by God, rather, it was unjust to say the least. In fact, Christ would have had to have made a similar conclusion, however, as we have heard him say, he did not come to break the Mosaic law but to fulfill it.

Originally posted by FMF
Was Jesus executed unjustly?

I believe what is or is not “unjust” is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

But, I think it is politically stupid for some rulers to make a martyr out of a person that DOES preach violence let alone somebody who preaches non-violence! I think that was really stupid as WELL as brutal.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I believe what is or is not “unjust” is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

But, I think it is politically stupid for some rulers to make a martyr out of a person that DOES preach violence let alone somebody who preaches non-violence! I think that was really stupid as WELL as brutal.

====================================
I believe what is or is not “unjust” is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

But, I think it is politically stupid for some rulers to make a martyr out of a person that DOES preach violence let alone somebody who preaches non-violence! I think that was really stupid as WELL as brutal.
==============================================

But you must agree, according to your own philosophy, that this opinion of yours is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps justice could be explained by following the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have done to you. I believe even Christ taught this. In effect, what ever wrong you do to another anticipate it being done to you or perhaps you should not engage in such activity.

so we are back to eye for an eye?

why is that just, on the basis of an appeal to authority? that's fallacious.

how about telling us what we mean by a just action. Is it always a reaction to some injustice? What would a just action be that is taken to prevent an injustice that hasn't happened yet?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]One does NOT know anything unless one also knows how to use the words that express that which one knows.

That’s not really accurate. Some people do not think in language, and yet can still presumably arrive at justified true beliefs about the world they inhabit.

Further, it would raise the question of whether—since whole word-concepts (signif ...[text shortened]... y might be attempting to mislead others into thinking that they know what they’re talking about.[/b]

<Some people do not think in language, and yet can still presumably arrive at justified true beliefs about the world they inhabit. >

"presumably?"

True beliefs?

would you care to clarify these terms? I do not recognize any referrant in the world in which I live.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]One does NOT know anything unless one also knows how to use the words that express that which one knows.

That’s not really accurate. Some people do not think in language, and yet can still presumably arrive at justified true beliefs about the world they inhabit.

Further, it would raise the question of whether—since whole word-concepts (signif ...[text shortened]... y might be attempting to mislead others into thinking that they know what they’re talking about.[/b]

<Difficulty in communication is not necessarily an epistemic fault, even with a common language.>

Let me ask if anyone on this forum posting in this thread comes from a nation or a linguistic tradition that has no system of laws, no lawyers, no judges, no courts, or any other way in which questions of justice and injustice are advocated and adjudicated?

Well, you've found me out -- my purpose was, indeed, to discover who is deluding themselves about their own knowlege of what the word Justice means as well as those who seek to mislead the rest of us.

But I really would settle for a straightforward discussion of what the consensus is on this thread of what the word Justice means. At least then we may find out whether we can arrive at an answer to the OP question posed -- which is an interesting question.