Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(26-05-2016 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(25-05-2016 07:01 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A judge can grant mercy based on the available facts and abilities of the guilty party to either recognize what he or she did wrong or based on their financial ability to be able to pay the money owed.

Within the confines of a justice system, fines or penalties can be reduced, leniency given as a way to make the verdict more just and not simply an arbitrary amount set for all cases.

If the judge has no reason to reduce or eliminate the fine, then it becomes a case of injustice. A judge "feeling merciful" is not a good reason to drop everything. There needs to be some set of circumstances from which mercy is given.

It's all about finding a balance and not applying the same hammer to every nail.

Let's look at two people who steal a piece of fruit from the store. Same crime, so you might think justice is served by giving both people the same penalty for the same crime.

First person is homeless, has no money and hasn't eaten in over a day.
Second person has a rap sheet with thefts going back for years, in and out of prison. Currently has a job and could have paid for the fruit, but didn't want to.

A judge must deal out justice that applies to the person and not just to the crime. Mercy can be given to the homeless man and within justice his penalty lessened or perhaps forgiven.

This is a perfect example of the effects of religion on society. These ideas are a direct result of the teaching of the morality of sacrifice. In the first example mercy or leniency is given on the basis that the person is unable to pay, so the innocent (the car owner) are sacrificed for the good of the guilty. That's right out of Christianity. Jesus was the ideal man supposedly and what did they do, sacrificed the ideal for the non-ideal, the innocent for the guilty, the pure for the un-pure.

The reason that you cite for the judge to be lenient is the guilty party's need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is again based on the premise that the person's lack of ability, to pay or to think or to get food places some obligation on the person who does not lack the ability to pay or think or produce the values needed to take care of himself. The fruit vendor is out the fruit which he worked for and earned no matter the circumstances of the one who stole it. Again it is sacrifice of the innocent for the good of the guilty, the able to the unable.

Let's take this idea that the judge should weigh all this when deciding punishment or restitution to its logical consequences. You are advocating unequal treatment before the law. The proper purpose of the law and government is to protect the rights of individuals. So under the kind of system of justice you advocate for here, the more retched and pathetic you are the more rights you have. This can only mean that the more able you are and good, the less rights you have. So if a person is able enough and good enough he becomes a rightless creature to be sacrificed and if you become retched enough you get away with murder. This is the kind of system we have today and people wonder why crime is on the rise. What's needed is a system which punishes evil for being evil not a system that rewards it and punishes the good for being the good. For the guilty to be given leniency the innocent must be wronged and denied justice.

This is why our world is the way it is, why there's so much war and violence and injustice because we sacrifice justice in the name of mercy. They are opposites. To say that mercy can be given in the "confines of justice" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying poison can be eaten within the confines of nourishment.

If you look at the world and are saddened by the state of it, look to the dominant moral ideas and you will see that they are all premised on the morality of sacrifice. What's needed is a new morality which celebrates, supports and rewards the good for being the good.
There is no morality in sacrifice.

Self sacrifice for a greater good maybe, but not just sacrifice as in someone or something being sacrificed for the pleasure or appeasement of another.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes popsthebuilder's post
31-05-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(26-05-2016 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is a perfect example of the effects of religion on society. These ideas are a direct result of the teaching of the morality of sacrifice. In the first example mercy or leniency is given on the basis that the person is unable to pay, so the innocent (the car owner) are sacrificed for the good of the guilty. That's right out of Christianity. Jesus was the ideal man supposedly and what did they do, sacrificed the ideal for the non-ideal, the innocent for the guilty, the pure for the un-pure.

The reason that you cite for the judge to be lenient is the guilty party's need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is again based on the premise that the person's lack of ability, to pay or to think or to get food places some obligation on the person who does not lack the ability to pay or think or produce the values needed to take care of himself. The fruit vendor is out the fruit which he worked for and earned no matter the circumstances of the one who stole it. Again it is sacrifice of the innocent for the good of the guilty, the able to the unable.

Let's take this idea that the judge should weigh all this when deciding punishment or restitution to its logical consequences. You are advocating unequal treatment before the law. The proper purpose of the law and government is to protect the rights of individuals. So under the kind of system of justice you advocate for here, the more retched and pathetic you are the more rights you have. This can only mean that the more able you are and good, the less rights you have. So if a person is able enough and good enough he becomes a rightless creature to be sacrificed and if you become retched enough you get away with murder. This is the kind of system we have today and people wonder why crime is on the rise. What's needed is a system which punishes evil for being evil not a system that rewards it and punishes the good for being the good. For the guilty to be given leniency the innocent must be wronged and denied justice.

This is why our world is the way it is, why there's so much war and violence and injustice because we sacrifice justice in the name of mercy. They are opposites. To say that mercy can be given in the "confines of justice" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying poison can be eaten within the confines of nourishment.

If you look at the world and are saddened by the state of it, look to the dominant moral ideas and you will see that they are all premised on the morality of sacrifice. What's needed is a new morality which celebrates, supports and rewards the good for being the good.
There is no morality in sacrifice.

Self sacrifice for a greater good maybe, but not just sacrifice as in someone or something being sacrificed for the pleasure or appeasement of another.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Girly got your back brotherman. Thumbsup





Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
31-05-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 08:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There is no morality in sacrifice.

Self sacrifice for a greater good maybe, but not just sacrifice as in someone or something being sacrificed for the pleasure or appeasement of another.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Girly got your back brotherman. Thumbsup





Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Lol, thanks I think.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes popsthebuilder's post
31-05-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 02:00 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  LSD1 - your personal delusions do not count as evidence.

You cannot make imaginary gods real by believing they are real.
It is delusion from your perspective because you don't believe in God in the first place. Is that correct?

If God does live, would He have power to communicate to His children? Or would that be impossible too.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2016 09:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:52 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  It is delusion from your perspective because you don't believe in God in the first place. Is that correct?

I believe I AM GOD.

If you're LDS you see yourself as a god in training. I tested out. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:52 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 02:00 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  LSD1 - your personal delusions do not count as evidence.

You cannot make imaginary gods real by believing they are real.
It is delusion from your perspective because you don't believe in God in the first place. Is that correct?

If God does live, would He have power to communicate to His children? Or would that be impossible too.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

It is not my perspective that makes it delusion.
It is your belief without evidence that makes it delusion.
My lack of belief has no bearing on your delusions.

If I begin to believe that leprechauns are responsible for the creation of the universe, does your lack of belief have any bearing on my delusion.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
31-05-2016, 10:54 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 09:31 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 08:52 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  It is delusion from your perspective because you don't believe in God in the first place. Is that correct?

If God does live, would He have power to communicate to His children? Or would that be impossible too.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

It is not my perspective that makes it delusion.
It is your belief without evidence that makes it delusion.
My lack of belief has no bearing on your delusions.

If I begin to believe that leprechauns are responsible for the creation of the universe, does your lack of belief have any bearing on my delusion.

I have evidence.

Your lack of belief requires you to come to the conclusion that am I delusional. Your lack of faith has everything to do with your conclusions, and says nothing about me in the least.

It is absurd to think leprechauns are responsible for creation. They are too busy mending shoes, creating mischief and hiding gold at the end if rainbows.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 11:44 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 10:47 AM)LDS1 Wrote:  Writen works (scriptures), especially The Book of Mormon, are sufficient information and data for grounds of belief.

Belief of what? Belief of that someone wrote something at some point?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
01-06-2016, 12:53 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:52 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  If God does live, would He have power to communicate to His children? Or would that be impossible too.
Who knows?

How many gods are there? What gender are they?
What are they made of?
What are they capable of?
Where do they reside?

How can we find them?
How can we verify that they are gods?


At this point, any definition of a god is indistinguishable from an imaginary friend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 01:02 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2016 01:09 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 10:54 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 09:31 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  It is not my perspective that makes it delusion.
It is your belief without evidence that makes it delusion.
My lack of belief has no bearing on your delusions.

If I begin to believe that leprechauns are responsible for the creation of the universe, does your lack of belief have any bearing on my delusion.

I have evidence.

Your lack of belief requires you to come to the conclusion that am I delusional. Your lack of faith has everything to do with your conclusions, and says nothing about me in the least.

It is absurd to think leprechauns are responsible for creation. They are too busy mending shoes, creating mischief and hiding gold at the end if rainbows.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

Well you have a great sense of humor, I'll grant you that. Smile

A lack of belief does not "require" a person to do anything, because it isn't a thing. You lack a belief in leprechauns-- oh, you know what they are, according to the stories, but you don't really think they're real.

The lack of actual belief in their existence (at least, as depicted in the various stories you've heard) imparts no obligation of thought upon you, except that you simply don't buy the stories. They don't comport to your ideas about reality, there is no good scientific evidence for them, and they seem to you to be the simple product of human myth-making. (We, too, feel that way about leprechauns.) Your lack of belief in them could be altered at any time by good evidence. If you discovered something tomorrow that suggested to you that leprechauns might be real, you're perfectly free to change your mind.

So, ironically, your stories about "gold at the end of the rainbow" highlights exactly why we don't believe in your god-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow stories. We now know what rainbows are, and that they're actually circles which have no end, only a place where they seem to cross the distant horizon because of the perspective of a person standing at a given point. There LITERALLY IS NO END to the rainbow-- shift the observer's POV, and the rainbow "moves". So when someone comes along and tells me that they've seen a vision granted to them by a leprechaun of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that if I just believe really hard then I'll get my pot of gold, too, I'm pretty skeptical of that claim, to put it nicely.

In other words, I disbelieve in the leprechaun (and your God) because empirical testing of and knowledge about reality has intervened, and your stories about mythological beings seem... unlikely, to put it politely. But my disbelief, in and of itself, does not impart upon me any requirement, and it is dishonest of you to assert that this is the case.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: