Jesus - That boy ain't right

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
A system which punishes every transgression with eternal torture is wrong. Eternal torture isn’t “justice”.

Well, you have no proof that there is an afterlife, and I’m sure you acknowlege that people do die in prison. So, you have no problem torturing people for the rest of their existence, right?

If someone is harming other people, that person should be restrained from doing so.

Circular logic. If they are restrained from doing so, then they are not doing so, and therefore by your reasoning should not be restrained.

Torture does not equal Justice

You pretend to know quite a bit about this hell you do not believe in. It may be not so different from the hell you do believe in.

You really can’t see the difference between revenge, and trying to restrain people from continuing to harm others, or teaching them not to harm others in the future?

I don’t find there is anything wrong with teaching people not to harm others, which is, you might notice, what I am doing here. If you don’t think restraint is punishment go lock yourself up since this would not diminish your happiness.

I think, despite my civil libertarian inclinations, that abolishing all restraints against evil will lead to a lot more violence.

Who ever said these things should be abolished? I said the evil take care of their own. It will be this way until the end of the age.

In what way is non-violent resistance not resistance?!?

To resist, in the context of the rest of the passage, implies physical force. You are being overly literal. Please attempt to take into account this has been translated from the greek, antihistemi, basically meaning to stand against.

Jesus is such a great moral teacher, he came up with an ethical system which no human society in history ever has or ever could follow.

Plenty of societies follow his teachings.

Ethics and morals concern the rightness or wrongness of conduct and behavior; coming with a system of “ethics” which it is impossible for humans to follow is a contradiction in terms.

Plenty of humans have followed his teachings.

You will note the quotation marks around “Christian” in that part of my post.

You are right. Sorry! :embarrased:

never an entire social or political order

Well, how do you define that? By your definition, Russia didn’t try communism, since they were just a subculture in a larger capitalist order.

*Originally posted by sojourn26 *
Wars do not start from fist fights. Read a history book. You might find some things insightful.

:rolleyes: Well, lately people have had guns and swords and the like. Are you saying if Archduke Ferdinand have been beaten to death instead of shot, World War I wouldn’t have happened? A war which caused World War II, by the war, which resulted in the holocaust and the developement of nuclear warfare, which lead to the Cold War. How many people were killed because one lone nut didn’t like some minor potentate?

Who is to say that I pissed him off?

I don’t know. How often do people hit you for no reason?

I never said anything about getting my friends.

You said you would call the police. If they are not your friends, why do you think they would help you?

Must’ve been selective sight and reading.

Apparently so.

Once again, did I say anything about hurting others?

You don’t find “knocking out” someone to be hurting them?

The point was not to be shown as weak, so that you are not taken advantage of.

Taken advantage of how?

Do you understand?

Not yet.

[MEBuckner]

Well, you have no proof that there is an afterlife, and I’m sure you acknowlege that people do die in prison. So, you have no problem torturing people for the rest of their existence, right?

There’s a difference between confining someone for a term of years–even the rest of their life–and torturing them in the lake of fire forever and ever. Prison isn’t pleasant, but it’s not “torture”.

If someone is harming other people, that person should be restrained from doing so.

Circular logic. If they are restrained from doing so, then they are not doing so, and therefore by your reasoning should not be restrained.

I know you’ve had some trouble with this concept in the past. I’m going to try to be as clear about this as possible, then I’m going to drop it:

Joe is running around raping and killing people. We lock Joe up in a comfortable cell, where he can’t rape and kill anyone. If we let him out of his cell, he will resume raping and killing people. So we don’t let him out. Because we are civilized, we don’t devise ingenious methods to subject Joe to pain and torture; we just keep him from hurting anyone. If Joe hasn’t done anything too horrible, we may only lock him up for a temporary period; the hope–at least in part–is that this will deter Joe (and others) from continuing to behave that way. We make some attempt at making punishment proportionate to the crime; we don’t burn people at the stake for littering.

You pretend to know quite a bit about this hell you do not believe in. It may be not so different from the hell you do believe in.

I don’t believe in any hell; and all I know about the “hell” we are currently discussing is what Jesus supposedly said about it. We aren’t talking about some other mythology’s hell; we’re talking about Jesus’ hell:

“…hell, where the fire never goes out.” – from Mark 9:43

“…where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’” – Mark 9:48

“…he was in torment…’ I am in agony in this fire.’” – from Luke 16:19-31

“The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” – Matthew 13:41-42

I don’t find there is anything wrong with teaching people not to harm others, which is, you might notice, what I am doing here. If you don’t think restraint is punishment go lock yourself up since this would not diminish your happiness.

Of course restraint is punishment. But it’s not torture. And it should be made proportionate to the crime; we don’t have the death penalty, or imprisonment for life, as the penalty for every crime, whereas according to Jesus all who do evil will be thrown into a fiery furnace to be tortured for ever.

Who ever said these things should be abolished? I said the evil take care of their own. It will be this way until the end of the age.

Everyone who fails to follow the literal word of Jesus’ teachings is not evil. The people who are doing their best to restrain evil–police officers, say–are not themselves evil. They’re imperfect but ordinary and decent people doing their best; that doesn’t make them “evil”.

To resist, in the context of the rest of the passage, implies physical force. You are being overly literal. Please attempt to take into account this has been translated from the greek, antihistemi, basically meaning to stand against.

And therefore Jesus is saying not to “stand against” evil. Just lie down for it and let evil take its course. This is not what Gandhi or Martin Luther King did.

Plenty of societies follow his teachings.

Name a society which has no organized means of standing against evil.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
There’s a difference between confining someone for a term of years–even the rest of their life–and torturing them in the lake of fire forever and ever. Prison isn’t pleasant, but it’s not “torture”.

People are only paid back for the evil they have done. The more evil they have done, the worse the pay back. But the chief punishment of hell is separation from God, which is akin to the chief punishment of prison. You don’t see punishment as a valid deterent against evil?

Joe is running around raping and killing people. We lock Joe up in a comfortable cell, where he can’t rape and kill anyone.

But, of course, innocent people are sent to prison all the time too. You don’t see anything wrong with that though, right?

If we let him out of his cell, he will resume raping and killing people.

How do you know that?

So we don’t let him out.

You don’t let him out until you have had your proper amount of revenge.

we don’t devise ingenious methods to subject Joe to pain and torture;

Oh, right. I’m sure they are no rapes or beatings or stabbings in prison. :rolleyes:

If Joe hasn’t done anything too horrible, we may only lock him up for a temporary period; the hope–at least in part–is that this will deter Joe (and others) from continuing to behave that way.

So now you see punishment as a valid deterent against evil. I’m glad you are coming along.

We make some attempt at making punishment proportionate to the crime

Well, except for the innocent people, you mean.

Of course restraint is punishment. But it’s not torture.

Well, I’m still confused as to what point punishment crosses the line into torture. As far as I am concerned, they are both offenses against human dignity.

it should be made proportionate to the crime; we don’t have the death penalty, or imprisonment for life, as the penalty for every crime, whereas according to Jesus all who do evil will be thrown into a fiery furnace to be tortured for ever.

People will be judged accordng to their works, just like in your system.

Everyone who fails to follow the literal word of Jesus’ teachings is not evil. The people who are doing their best to restrain evil–police officers, say–are not themselves evil.

Perhaps their best is not good enough. Again, if your contention is that no innocent person has ever been mistreated by the justice system, I find such a contention flawed. I maintain that it is morally superior not to participate in such a system nor perform actions which may lead to escalating levels of violence.

And therefore Jesus is saying not to “stand against” evil.

Exactly.

Just lie down for it and let evil take its course.

That does not follow.

This is not what Gandhi or Martin Luther King did.

I don’t recall them going around arresting or restraining people during their periods of passive-resistance, but if you have a cite I will surely believe you.

Name a society which has no organized means of standing against evil.

I suppose the kingdom of god isn’t a good enough answer? Well, how about the rainbow family? No? Well, how many people does it take before you have a “society” anyway? Two or three? If someone shows up at my home tonight with an uzi, I won’t have any organized means of standing against them. Does that qualify?

[MEBuckner]

This line by line format we’ve both been using is giving me a headache, so I’m going to abandon it for this post.

I find the absolutist ethics which the Gospels record Jesus as having literally preached, and which jmullaney claims to follow, to be rather adolescent. “It’s like, man, the System isn’t perfect, so, like, we should just abolish it! I mean, bad things happen to innocent people—so the System is just bad, and we shouldn’t reform it, or try to make it better, because if we do that we’re just buying in to the Establishment—we should just throw it out completely! And like anybody who does ‘evil’—mass murderers and adulterers and litterbugs and child molesters and tax cheats and people who lust in their heart—should be tortured forever and ever, ‘cause that’s, like, Justice, you know? And like, there’s no difference between prisons and burning someone for like trillions of years, ‘cause it’s all just, like, violence.”

One person or one family is not a society, of course. If someone burst into jmullaney’s house waving an Uzi, I wonder if he would call 911? Maybe he wouldn’t. But that wouldn’t stop the neighbors from doing so if they happened to notice this Uzi-waving lunatic breaking in next door, and they wickedly decided to take it upon themselves to resist evil. And then those evil police whom the righteous jmullaney despises would come and risk their lives to try to save his.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
I find the absolutist ethics which the Gospels record Jesus as having literally preached, and which jmullaney claims to follow, to be rather adolescent.

I don’t claim to follow this ethical code.

It’s like, man, the System isn’t perfect, so, like, we should just abolish it!

Jesus was not a revolutionary. (Perhaps MEB has Jesus confused with Barabas.) However, one does not have to particpate in a flawed system, and I still maintain refusing to participate in a flawed system because it is a flawed system is morally superior to supporting the status quo, and I sympathize with people who have chosen the better path.

the System is just bad, and we shouldn’t reform it, or try to make it better, because if we do that we’re just buying in to the Establishment

By not participating, a person is pointing the way towards reform. Why fix a broken society when you can belong to a society which is not broken?

there’s no difference between prisons and burning someone for like trillions of years

You are the one who claimed deterents are important to prevent immoral behavior. Don’t get mad at God because he agrees with you.

One person or one family is not a society, of course.

So what is your definition of a society? A companionship or association with one’s fellows? A voluntary association of individuals for common ends? An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships? A broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests? A part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct?

None of those? That is how I am familiar with the word being used. I really think Christendom fits every one of those definitions.

If someone burst into jmullaney’s house waving an Uzi, I wonder if he would call 911?

Yeah, I’m sure he’ll just put down the gun while I dial 911. :rolleyes: But I am not so dumb as to not be able to talk myself out of such a situation. Calling the police would only create a hostage situation (another escalation) with me as a prisoner of the Uzer. Which would probably result in one or both of us getting killed, or at least 30 years in prison for the guy. Trespassing is only a small fine here, on the other hand. So again, why escalate?

[Fleejagoob]

I think that some light can be shed on this debate by going back to the original material that much of the discussion has been centered on, namely Matthew 5:38-42 (the turn the other cheek passage). In this passage, the “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” passage is a quote from several places in the Old Testament giving judges a guide on how to sentence crimes. The Jews of Jesus’s day were apparantly taking the quote out of context (go figure :rolleyes: ) and using it not as a means of judicial guidlines, but as an excuse for personal revenge. So the idea here is not abandonment of a justice system, but refusal to take personal revenge. The specific examples that he gives were taken from his time period, and I know that at least some of them deal with the relationship between the Jews and their Roman opressors of the time. (i.e. the Romans could require a Jew to carry their burden for a distance of one mile, but Jesus said offer more) The message here is not that you will be better protected or more likely to avoid injury by following this advice, but that you will be more likely to inspire change in the benefactors of your actions. It remains consistent with his philosophy of love towards all- including those who hate you. And I have heard tales of people applying this philosophy successfully under extreme conditions with amazing success.

The other previous point that didn’t seem resolved was the issue of the quote in which Jesus said “this generation will not pass away…” The Greek word used in the passage, genea, did not necessarily mean “the people living in the current 30 or 40 years” as we think about it. In fact, my bibles have the word footnoted as ‘or race’.