Jeciron - 13 August 2012 03:56 AM

Student, I don’t think punishment is something someone “deserves”.  Punishment is pointless unless it has some practical effect, usually as a deterrent.  If I were a sociopath would someone else receiving punishment for my actions do anything but encourage my transgressions?  And, the myth of a God that somehow out of love takes on mortals punishment for their sake is absurd.  If you’re and omniscient, omnipotent being, how can you possible be punished?  If you choose to allow others to cause you pain isn’t that just some kind of masochism? 

The idea that a victim is somehow owed punishment seems faulty to me, too, perhaps because I think the idea of “fairness” is impractical.  When someone is injured by “an act of God”, we carefully make it clear that there is no recourse, (even though omnipotence implies the impossibility of accident).  That doesn’t mean we don’t build sea walls and warning systems for tsunamis, or don’t require buildings to be reinforced for earthquakes, though.  And, at it’s best that is what “punishment” is, a means of preventing additional injury.

I think it can be argued that the Christian idea that, “Christ died for our sins”, is really about inculcating a false sense of guilt into into gullible individuals.  A way of eroding people’s self respect and creating a more submissive population by creating a sense of guilt for purely imaginary sins and requiring submission and atonement to God, ( who is embodied in the form of a religious institution), as a way to expiate those sins.

Well put.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
That doesn’t mean we don’t build sea walls and warning systems for tsunamis, or don’t require buildings to be reinforced for earthquakes, though.  And, at it’s best that is what “punishment” is, a means of preventing additional injury.

By doing these things are we not trying to contain (isolate) the ocean or minimize the effects of earthquakes? IOW we are taking preventive measures and corrective measure to shield society from harm.

In the case of a violent person we contain the violence by incarcerating the person (isolating that individual from society). But sometimes, we prescribe medication which stabilizes the condition, which allows the person to function non-violently. In any case, when we are dealing with destructive forces (natural or human) we must take some action to prevent the recurrence.
In the case of self-defense we allow a person to take immediate action to remove the threat. No remedial action is called for as the threat has been effectively removed.
 
IMO, “just desert” is a result of evaluating the act and coming to agreement on the proper course of preventive action. Forgiveness on religious grounds is a sham and does nothing to prevent further injury.
OTOH, being suspected by the church of practising witchcraft will get you drowning or burning at the stake. Very humanistic.

Write4U - 13 August 2012 01:43 PM

Greatest I am,
That doesn’t mean we don’t build sea walls and warning systems for tsunamis, or don’t require buildings to be reinforced for earthquakes, though.  And, at it’s best that is what “punishment” is, a means of preventing additional injury.

By doing these things are we not trying to contain (isolate) the ocean or minimize the effects of earthquakes? IOW we are taking preventive measures and corrective measure to shield society from harm.

In the case of a violent person we contain the violence by incarcerating the person (isolating that individual from society). But sometimes, we prescribe medication which stabilizes the condition, which allows the person to function non-violently. In any case, when we are dealing with destructive forces (natural or human) we must take some action to prevent the recurrence.
In the case of self-defense we allow a person to take immediate action to remove the threat. No remedial action is called for as the threat has been effectively removed.
 
IMO, “just desert” is a result of evaluating the act and coming to agreement on the proper course of preventive action. Forgiveness on religious grounds is a sham and does nothing to prevent further injury.
OTOH, being suspected by the church of practising witchcraft will get you drowning or burning at the stake. Very humanistic.

I have no argument on your comments but I would point out that that quote was not mine.

Regards
DL

Oops, sorry, the quote was from Jeciron.

But as we seem to agree, all is well…..

I always thought that today’s Christians got it wrong about forgiveness, but for a different reason. Today’s understanding of the idea of the purpose of the savior has changed compared to what they would have originally thought. Nowadays, Christians especially, believe that Jesus died to save humanity from the sins that occur within their lifetimes. The original Christians would have understood it to mean that they were literally being saved or preserved beyond death itself. Original sin was the idea that humanity developed intelligence (wisdom of the gods) in exchange for eternity. At least that was the purpose of the telling of the story of Adam and Eve. It was their rationale for why mankind was intelligent above all other animals and why they die, rather than live forever.

The Jews believed that the Messiah would come at the end of times when all humanity is gone and then their god would bring them all back to life to live an eternal life. Christianity’s original Jesus was to serve this purpose. When he died and humanity on earth still kept on going, there had to be a rationale for this supposed Messiah. The saving or the bringing-people-back-to-life concept was still claimed to have been done—only now, it meant that when you die, you are immediately transposed to the netherworld, namely heaven.

The ‘forgiving of sins’ is a new concept that developed when the Roman Catholic Church first began by selling Indulgences to raise money and to what they may have thought might win some wanderers of the flock. The Protestant Reformation transformed this idea, a major purpose for their protest, into Jesus’ function.

Anyone with me on this?

Sounds good to me.
Perhaps one might mention that intelligence also brought the recognition of our mortality and we set out to solve that little problem. Lo and behold, belief in God is the cure for our fatal affliction of mortality. We can be restored to an “everlasting” life, but not until you tithe to the church… 

Scott Mayers - 14 August 2012 01:34 PM

I always thought that today’s Christians got it wrong about forgiveness, but for a different reason. Today’s understanding of the idea of the purpose of the savior has changed compared to what they would have originally thought. Nowadays, Christians especially, believe that Jesus died to save humanity from the sins that occur within their lifetimes. The original Christians would have understood it to mean that they were literally being saved or preserved beyond death itself. Original sin was the idea that humanity developed intelligence (wisdom of the gods) in exchange for eternity. At least that was the purpose of the telling of the story of Adam and Eve. It was their rationale for why mankind was intelligent above all other animals and why they die, rather than live forever.

The Jews believed that the Messiah would come at the end of times when all humanity is gone and then their god would bring them all back to life to live an eternal life. Christianity’s original Jesus was to serve this purpose. When he died and humanity on earth still kept on going, there had to be a rationale for this supposed Messiah. The saving or the bringing-people-back-to-life concept was still claimed to have been done—only now, it meant that when you die, you are immediately transposed to the netherworld, namely heaven.

The ‘forgiving of sins’ is a new concept that developed when the Roman Catholic Church first began by selling Indulgences to raise money and to what they may have thought might win some wanderers of the flock. The Protestant Reformation transformed this idea, a major purpose for their protest, into Jesus’ function.

Anyone with me on this?

As I understand the Jewish thinking, Jesus was to live and lead. Not die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

That is likely why there are two Jewish factions. One thinks they must rebuild the temple so that God has a place to return to while the other faction waits for their live messiah to be born and build it for himself.

The Christian right is helping fund the faction that wants to build it for God just so that the end time genocide of man can be brought in their lifetime.  FMPOV, the literalists and fundamentals right are traitors to humanity as they sit their wishing and hoping that they see all not of their immoral ilk destroyed.

Regards
DL

“Immortal” Jellyfish Swarm World’s Oceans

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090130-immortal-jellyfish-swarm.html

I wonder if this jellyfish is a particularly favored pet of God. Which would be odd, because it does not seem to worship in any observable way.