Joy to the world

[Winstonm]

Since our basic philosophy is similar, (except for the religious/spiritual notions) just what exactly do you consider to be "God"?

 

Simple - a power that is greater than ourselves, created from our own ideas of a power we would trust to act in our best interest at all times.

 

If this sounds a bit like Harvey, the 6-foot rabbit, it is. It is not the creation but the results from following actions based on this premise that creates belief.

 

Example: A Day in the Life

 

I do what I can today but no more. Any problem too great for me alone I simply turn over to this higher power to solve and I forget it and start all over the next day to do what I can that day.

 

If you want to call this power Harvey, I'm sure he wouldn't object - he has a sense of humor - if that's what you think.

 

But it has nothing to do with faith - it is totally about acting like you have faith.

[helene_t]

It is (IMO) a psychological fact that a sociopath is created by his environment - is this person in need of salvation for horrible acts he may commit?  After all, it was not a choice to be a sociopath.

Whether sociopaths are as they are due to genes, teaching or whatever, one could argue that they did not "chose" to commit and therefore do not "deserve" to be punished. That one can "deserve" punishment is the theory of the free will. Nature vs. nurture is irrelevant.

 

I had a friend who was strongly opposed to religious belief and at the same time strongly believed in the free will. As the opposite, I believe there is a branch of Islam that is build on fatalism. But generally, it seems that believers of the Abrahamic religions also believe in the free will while many atheist philosophers do not.

 

Maybe the clue is this: free will is needed to "justify" punishment at a more fundamental level than merely the pragmatic notion that the thread of punishment will prevent others from committing crime. For punishment to be a religious necessity, it must be justified on more than a pragmatic basis.

 

Another clue is the common objection against the Abrahamic religions: since there is evil in the World, God is either evil or he's not omnipotent. To some, free will resolves this problem.

 

But ultimately, I think that the theory of the free will is a corollary to the theory of the mind, which is a fundamental psychological phenomena, probably not related to religious belief and certainly not related to any particular religion. While the idea of the "justice" of punishment is a post-hoc justification of the tid-for-tad strategy which is well accounted for by evolutionary psychology. In the medieval, animals were frequently put on trial and convicted. This makes sense if the criterion for accountability is free will. Today we don't put animals on trial. Not because we don't believe they have free will, but because the tid-for-tad strategy does not apply to our relations to animals, at least not in the same way as to inter-human relations.

[mike777]

Reading these last 40 posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.

 

 

Your neighbor kills and kills and rapes and rapes..he goes to prison and continues to kill and kill..rape and rape out of compulsion.....

 

This happens in real life everyday.....

 

It is called LIfe.

 

So someone breaks this moral code and your solution to this everyday problem is what.......

 

What does "Justice" demand.

 

If no punishment because it is a compulsion then what?

 

 

If nature compells mankind to be immoral than what? medicine...supernatural...ethical training,......other?

 

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

[hrothgar]

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

I was very careful to distinguish between a personal code of morals and civil law.

The two are very different.

[pbleighton]

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

 

Some posters seem to resent any good behavior by any human being, as it conflicts with their self-hating view of human nature.

 

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

Reading these last 40  posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.

 

<snip>

 

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

Hi,

 

So what? Did you expect, that those issues can be resolved? They cant.

 

You cant convince someone that his core believes are wrong.

And if you discuss this with someone, who treats the subject

only as a theoretical problem, the discussion is useless. (*)

 

I did not read most of the posts, because this is one of my core

believes.

 

To answer your question:

 

"Give Cesar, what belongs to Cesar, and give the Lord, what belongs

to the Lord." (Not sure, if I got this right, I just translated the german

words.)

 

And if you have a conflict between the demands made by Ceasar

and made by the Lord, you have to decide for your own, if you fight

for your believes or not. And if you are lucky, you will be able to

convince "Cesar" that he has to change his demands.

And if not, you dont live forever, maybe someone else will continue

the fight.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

Reading these last 40  posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.

 

 

Your neighbor kills and kills and rapes and rapes..he goes to prison and continues to kill and kill..rape and rape out of compulsion.....

 

This happens in real life everyday.....

 

It is called LIfe.

 

So someone breaks this moral code and your solution to this everyday problem is what.......

 

What does "Justice" demand.

 

If no punishment because it is a compulsion then what?

 

 

If nature compells mankind to be immoral than what? medicine...supernatural...ethical training,......other?

 

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

Mike, I didn't go into depth to answer but stated that there is a difference between societal rules and justice and some type of universal justice.

 

Societies can certainly create laws and punishments. The dangerous sociopath is best locked up in order to protect the greater society; however, that is not to say the sociopath should be judged evil and condemned to eternal punishment.

[mike777]

I just wonder how families get Justice?

 

If your family breaks your moral code and hurts my family somehow, note this need not be a legal crime, how do families get Justice for the hurt your family caused? What are your ethical obligations to snitch on your family? Civil courts cannot always bring Justice in these cases of hurt.

 

Note even in crime only about 20%(guess) of murders or rapes result in jail time for the offender. Note this 20% is just a guess and is not the same thing as the "Police solve rate". And this is in a modern country I bet it is even less in poor countries.

 

How do families get Justice for Rawanda or Dafur? For Stalin or Mao?

Where do Native Americans go for justice against invading Europeans?

 

I just wonder how families get Justice in a world without a Just God and a broken legal system? Not all poor immoral behavior(however you define it ) that crys out for Justice can be solved in the legal or civil courts.

 

Someone killed Robert Blake's wife, etc........

 

To say society meets out even a fraction of the Justice that immoral behavior calls for seems extreme at the least. OTOH perhaps Justice for your family just has not been an issue for some people.

[luke warm]

Jimmy, ~~~ I am not asking for a biblical reason.  I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

is it possible for me to answer this from the perspective of my worldview, when that perspective exists because i am convinced of the truthfulness found in scripture?

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.

i don't believe this to be the case... i can fully understand the concept of God's justice, although my understanding is limited by the fact that i am human and he is God... i don't have to have God's intelligence to understand the things he teaches, imo

The nature of man.

I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

i didn't mean to imply that your statement had no value, merely that it isn't very illuminating... i believe mike was asking for an opinion as to the nature of man, whether it is in general good, in general evil, or in general a combination of the two... it was a good question and the answer tells a lot

Some of the most profound wisdom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

 

Time takes time.

Live and let live.

One day at a time.

 

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

again, i won't dispute the profundity of your statement, or of those others

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?

Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?

Would you curse man for human frailty?

 

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

this goes back to my earlier post, but the answer lies even further back... you are what you are because one man, on your behalf, made a decision that resulted in a legal transfer of ownership from God to satan... Christ's death redeemed you, purchased you, from your previous servitude... all who believe are now free to serve whom they will whereas previously they had no such choice

[Winstonm]

I just wonder how families get Justice?

 

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

 

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

 

This concept of judgment to me is simply a method for the downtrodden over history to facilitate hope - a hope that someday the great avenger will come down and punish all the schoolyard bullies who pushed them around. Very much in keeping with the "opiate of the masses" concept.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

I appreciate that you attempted an answer.

 

As to Mike's question, he makes an assumption by the question that man is either black or white, good or bad.

 

I made the simple case that man is man; gray; imperfect; fallible.

[hrothgar]

How do families get Justice for Rawanda or Dafur? For Stalin or Mao?

Where do Native Americans go for justice against invading Europeans?

 

I just wonder how families get Justice in a world without a Just God and a broken legal system? Not all poor immoral behavior(however you define it ) that crys out for Justice can be solved in the legal or civil courts.

 

Someone killed Robert Blake's wife, etc........

 

To say society meets out even a fraction of the Justice that immoral behavior calls for seems extreme at the least. OTOH perhaps Justice for your family just has not been an issue for some people.

Some of us recognize that this is an imperfect world, but strive to make the best of things none-the-less. ***** happens. So be it.

 

As for this concept of requiring "Justice for your family"....

 

If you're living here in the US, you don't get to extract "justice" for perceived wrong doings (at least not in any meaningful way). That power is reserved for the State. If you do resort to vigilantism, you're breaking the law and should be punished.

 

I agree that the legal system is far from perfect, however, I thing that we are better off as a society relying on this than any alternative that I've seen.

 

Perhaps you require the fiction that some all powerful being will even the score in some future life. If you take comfort in this fine. However, I find the whole notion completely incomprehensible.

[Codo]

Jimmy,

 

I appreciate that you attempted an answer.

 

As to Mike's question, he makes an assumption by the question that man is either black or white, good or bad.

 

I made the simple case that man is man; gray; imperfect; fallible.

You should become a protestrant christian, because this is exactly what is said in the bible: We are gray. We all are gray. There is good and bad in everyone.

 

For the guys who don´t believe this: Read the bible and show me one man in that book who is perfect and without a sin. Even the "real heroes" like Moses and David had been described with some major faults. There is a reason for this.

[Codo]

I just wonder how families get Justice?

 

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

 

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

 

This concept of judgment to me is simply a method for the downtrodden over history to facilitate hope - a hope that someday the great avenger will come down and punish all the schoolyard bullies who pushed them around. Very much in keeping with the "opiate of the masses" concept.

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?

I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

 

So yes one part of religion is to be opium for the people. But what is wrong with this? If your life is poor, but you believe that you will be rewarded in the future, you gain hopes and confidence. This must be good, not bad.

 

You may argue whether religion was invented for these people or whether religion was just there. But you cannot dispute the fact that religion helped and helps many people in difficult situations. (It won´t help Peter or you, but there are people there who had this experience, you cannot disagree on this point).

[helene_t]

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

 

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?

I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

 

I cannot speak for Winston but personally I don't deny the revenge instinct by myself, nor do I deny that it can be practical. Locking up a criminal to prevent him from committing again is not revenge, but publicly punishing criminals in order to motivate other people not to commit crime, is revenge. I'm not necessarily against it.

 

But those are practical considerations. Our revenge instinct evolved because of its practical value. Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) made the mistake of calling revenge "justice" which implies that it's an end in itself, while in fact it is a mean to an end. The distinction is of practical use to people who live in a modern society in which revenge has partly been delegated to government. Citizens in a modern society should recognize that their revenge instinct is something that evolved during a history with weak, non-existent or non-accountable governments, and now is time to learn to forgive.

 

To err is human, to punish is divine, to forgive is modern.

[Winstonm]

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?

 

No, I really don't. I outgrew the need for this type revenge. Don't get me wrong. I believe in a certain amount of security from attack, etc., but that is different than a thirst for retribution.

 

I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

 

I have seen families of victims also argue for forgiveness of the attacker.

 

So yes one part of religion is to be opium for the people. But what is wrong with this? If your life is poor, but you believe that you will be rewarded in the future, you gain hopes and confidence. This must be good, not bad.

 

I did not say it was bad, and for some it may be necessary. It is simply interesting to me that I can see in the observations about justice the reason for the concept of opium for the masses. Not good or bad - just interesting.

 

You may argue whether religion was invented for these people or whether religion was just there. But you cannot dispute the fact that religion helped and helps many people in difficult situations. (It won´t help Peter or you, but there are people there who had this experience, you cannot disagree on this point).

 

I have no dispute with an organized religion until that religion loses its ability to be self-critical and begins to try to influence others to adopt their thinking and beliefs.

 

No doubt religion has helped some. There is also no doubt that guilt-driven religions have caused devastating psychological harm, as well.

[Winstonm]

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

 

Helene:

I'm not so sure that revenge isn't a misplacement of shame. Shame is brought about by a low self-image; revenge restores that image; if the self image is sound, there is no need for this restorative process.

[helene_t]

Helene:

I'm not so sure that revenge isn't a misplacement of shame. Shame is brought about by a low self-image; revenge restores that image; if the self image is sound, there is no need for this restorative process.

This could be the case sometimes. But people seek revenge for other acts than attacks on their self-image. Besides, how would it be rational to attack someone who has lowered your self-esteem? Publicly smashing someone who has deliberately done something against your interests serves an obvious purpose: you build a reputation as someone who seeks revenge, hence other people will be reluctant to act against your interests.

[Codo]

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

 

I cannot speak for Winston but personally I don't deny the revenge instinct by myself, nor do I deny that it can be practical. Locking up a criminal to prevent him from committing again is not revenge, but publicly punishing criminals in order to motivate other people not to commit crime, is revenge. I'm not necessarily against it.

 

But those are practical considerations. Our revenge instinct evolved because of its practical value. Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) made the mistake of calling revenge "justice" which implies that it's an end in itself, while in fact it is a mean to an end. The distinction is of practical use to people who live in a modern society in which revenge has partly been delegated to government. Citizens in a modern society should recognize that their revenge instinct is something that evolved during a history with weak, non-existent or non-accountable governments, and now is time to learn to forgive.

 

To err is human, to punish is divine, to forgive is modern.

Hi Helene,

 

not all abrahamic religions search revenge. You are clearly wrong with this.

 

In the old part of the bible it says: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. This part is correctly interpreted as: You should punish an attack as strong as he attacked you.

This is revenge or "justice".

 

In the new part, Jesus said: "If someone strikes you on the left cheek, give him him the right cheek too."

This is the "end" of the revenge thoughts in the bible. You should not commit revenge. This is not justice. So, if you take his words serious (and christians should do so) then revenge and the old thought about the eye and the tooth are simply wrong. You should forgive. And your god will forgive you your mistakes too. So, nice to hear that this is modern. :P

 

And at least the protestant church here does not support any ideas of revenge.

Still it is human to have these thoughts. It may be an human error, but it is quite normal to have these thoughts.

[pbleighton]

In the new part, Jesus said: "If someone strikes you on the left cheek, give him him the right cheek too."

This is the "end" of the revenge thoughts in the bible. You should not commit revenge. This is not justice. So, if you take his words serious (and christians should do so) then revenge and the old thought about the eye and the tooth are simply wrong. You should forgive. And your god will forgive you your mistakes too. So, nice to hear that this is modern.

 

I'm aware of this, being raised Christian.

 

It is ironic that, at least in the U.S., the politicians who are the *most Christian*, by their definition, reach out sucessfully to similarly minded voters by preaching the politics of revenge.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

i don't know why so many people seem to think the words justice and revenge are synonymous, they're anything but...

[Winstonm]

i don't know why so many people seem to think the words justice and revenge are synonymous, they're anything but...

What is the motivator of justice? What univeral need is filled by justice? What precondition mandates justice be served? What is justice if not retribution?

[mike777]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm

Here is one definition.

 

 

retribution is an inaccurate synonym for justice.

 

My Thesaurus lists:

fairness, equity, impartiality, vindication, decorous, legitimate, worthy of...etc.......

[mikeh]

I do not conflate 'justice' with 'revenge'.

 

When I studied criminal law, in a 'western' tradition, we were taught that the purpose of state sanctioned punishment was manifold; including as objects:

 

1) personal deterrence (the death penalty being an extreme example of this)

 

2) general deterrence: others will be warned off by the prospect of being similarly punished

 

3) rehabilitation (the death penalty seems to be inconsistent with this): access to treatment, jobskills training, counselling etc to enable a criminal to acquire more useful skills/lessen alcohol or drug dependency, etc

 

4) retribution: the need to afford law-abiding members of society some assurance that any wrongdoing will be punished, and innocent victims avenged.

 

I see no basis for bringing any god into this situation. I do not know enough anthropology to assert, or dispute, that most, if not all, societies tolerate or promote or inculcate the desire for revenge. Certainly the Judeo-Christian world does, as clearly does the Islamic world: note I am NOT saying that revenge is, or is not, part of the religious dogma, but it is undeniable that many within these societies do value vengance as a legitimate goal when one or one's family/tribe/soccer team is injured. And I know from personal exposure that revenge is a valid emotion in the Sikh and Hindu communities, whether officially tolerated or not.

 

We are told, I believe, that at least some versions of the Biblical God is a vengeful God.... not something that makes me think any better of him, btw. I would think that any God would/should be above that kind of primal animalistic reaction.

 

And, for me, I would be more than happy to see the retribution aspect of punishment ignored. In saying that, I recognize that I would likely want, in the short term, to kill anyone who murdered my wife, as an example, but that doesn't mean that I THINK (as opposed to then feeling) that this is a good thing.

 

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that any of the other supposed purposes of the justice system are actually accomplished in most cases.

 

Part of this is the fact that many criminals are either brain-injured (fetal alcohol syndrome is a major element in our prison populations, not to mention borderline mental retardation.. the US is particularly efficient at executing these types of criminals), or addicted to various substances that inhibit any rational cause-and-effect deterrence.

 

Part of it is that some proportion of the criminal population is comprised of sociopaths, who, by definition, do not recognize (indeed, may not understand) societal norms

 

Part of it is lack of resources: instead of offering meaningful treatment or rehab, we all too often simply lock people up in a world of violence, criminal heirarchies and so on, where what is learned is anti-social behaviour, increased drug dependency and the need to affiliate with gangs in order to survive.

 

Part of it that the best deterrence, according to at least some studies I read about (I didn't read the studies themselves) is relative certainty of punishment, not degree or nature of punishment. Most criminals are not really strong on impulse control, and/or engage in crimes where the conviction rate is abysmally low. Heck, report a break and enter and see what the police tell you are the chances of recovery of the stolen items or conviction of the criminal: close to zero in each case. If I could feed my drug habit by stealing, and I knew that the chances of being caught were less than 1%, I don't think the fact that my jail time would be 6 months or 6 years is likely to influence me when my entire skin is itching, my mouth is dry, and I am having shooting pains due to running low. (BTW, I don't actually have a drug habit, altho I have a fondness for some single malts and I really enjoy a wide range of good reds).

 

So when I see the implication that we need God in order to live moral lives, or in order that we can have justice, or any of the other rationalizations.... I am forced to ask: 'why?'

 

I personally don't need a god for these things, and while I recognize that many individuals have real physiological/psychological deficits that make them 'need' some authority figure to keep them on the straight and narrow, I have sufficient regard for the average human that I think that the vast majority of believers would remain law-abiding, moral and just individuals if they became atheists.

 

And for those that need an authority figure, let it be Harvey, or Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill or Lenin etc....

[mike777]

Again if you think living in a world with little Justice is not important this is just not an issue.

 

This is just my opinion.

If you do then where do families go with so little Justice in the world.

It just seems IMHO just as much a delusion to say this world has much Justice or living in a world with little hope ever for Justice for families is not something close to a living hell.