At 6/5/10 01:50 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 6/4/10 02:28 PM, Ytaker wrote: Yeah. Which is why people do those things. The problem is god intervening with miracles regularly, not people acting on rules from god.

You said prison's would require continual intervention.
I asked you where God's continual intervention was to end murder.

Does God continualy intervene to end murder or not?

Obviously not.

Because that's what they thought about animals. They had narrow definitions of animals, unlike us.

Were there actually less animals because people thought there were?

It just depends on how much you care about genetic diversity. You can have 125 species of monkey. Or just monkeys.

You need people to run that prison. And food to help them. And their families will need food too. And water. Maybe some irrigation. Repairs, as well. Some sort of aid, to help them sane.

Why are all of these things God's responsibility, when all God had to say regarding murder was, "thou shall not kill."?

Because, you suggested we have a prison? People chose not to obey "thou shall not kill" and so one solution is to imprison them. If you wanted that back then, you'd need all those things.

It doesn't particularly matter what the method of execution is.

Why not?

Why would it? End result is the same.

Why is a prison system "implicit"?

No. You said, "it would require hundreds of thousands of people to police each other, judge each other," which is implicit in any society.

We're talking about crimes? If someone has a weapon, or is stronger, then they can do whatever they want. If they get together with their family, they can do whatever they want, against other people's will. It's not implicit in any society that crimes will be policed.

And no, I made an argument that God shouldn't continually do supernatural things in the world.

Which isn't necessary for it to be reasonable to order people to be more humane in dealing 'punishments'.

There are lots of commands to be kind to your neighbour, and such. And earlier, I cited evidence that they were quite humane, and rarely dealt punishments.

Offering us commands, and guidelines doesn't require the same amount of expenditure. The laws are things people can do on a personal basis.

Yes. There's a difference. But why does that difference necessitate divine micromanagement? Why is no less than perfection allowable for social commandments, but far less than perfection allowable for personal commandments?

Prison is a long way from perfection. It's more humane than a system of punishment on the spot for crimes, though. It's not physically possible, however, for a society with low agricultural yields, extremely involved labor forces and such, to do something like that. There simply isn't enough food or excess labor.

I don't think they'd invented cement back then. And it helps. It depends on how many miracles you want.

Seems more like you want enough miracles to say it's too many.

And yes, they had cement.

How would you propose making a prison system when you had very little excess food or labor without miracles?

Wasn't cement of decent quality a greek invention? You can use clay, but it's not especially long lasting.

To reduce the incident of murder. Not to stop all of it. I'm not sure what point you're making. Because God desires some goal, and completing that goal would require enormous numbers of miracles, it's reasonable that he intervene continually in our world to correct social wrongs?

I'm making the point that: you deem it reasonable that he command us not to murder, but offer no continued aid, or much of any at all - then deem it unreasonable that command humane punishments, but offer no continual aid, or much of any at all, instead opting to explicitly command inhumane punishments.

People can generally ignore humane punishments quite easily. More effective humane punishments, like mentoring, training, prison, and such, require enormous investiture of resources. Execution, for crimes like murdering, is necessary since otherwise the person will just go on murdering. You could cut off their hands, but that punishment misses the point, I think.

And, lesser, humane punishments, like social stigmatisation, beatings, commands, they already exist.

Again...

You said prison's would require continual intervention.
I asked you where God's continual intervention was to end murder.
You told me our consciences (among other things).

Yeah, but, we have free will, so, that's not sufficient.

Well, actually, I said that the people who ran the prisons would be responsible for policing criminals (and thus, their families would need food).

No. You were clearly talking about divine mind control.

Among other things. People probably wouldn't want to do it.

"At no point in the bible does God mind control any humans to do something they don't want to do. That also makes this inherently harder, since a lot of the people wouldn't want to leave their families."

Do you think it's unreasonable for me to assume you need prison guards at a prison, to prevent people from escaping? You said we should have a prison, I assumed you meant a functioning one.

We're not arguing whether prisons need guards. We're arguing whether its God's responsibility to supply them.

I'm really not sure what we're arguing about.

I return to my earlier point. To enact social change on that scale would require continuous intervention in the world, in a host of ways.

[...]

...why? All it requires is for people to love God, and want to follow his commandments, to not murder? A commandment to not mudrer doesn't require completion of it. It's perfectly feasible for people to self police.

But social change requires that God do everything. Why?

Because prison is extremely expensive? I'm not sure what social change you're proposing that doesn't require enormous amounts of resources. He could command them to build prisons, but there would be mass starvation, if they even obeyed him, because large numbers of people would have to leave their farms. We manage it with advanced knowledge of mendelian genetics, fertilisers, oil, and mass production.

I'm cutting some tangential stuff. If you feel I cut something unfairly, say so.

At 6/6/10 05:32 PM, Ytaker wrote: Because, you suggested we have a prison? People chose not to obey "thou shall not kill" and so one solution is to imprison them. If you wanted that back then, you'd need all those things.

Want what back?

Why would it? End result is the same.

Lethal injection is the same as stone throwing... because the end result is the same. Seriously?

And where does God or Jesus establish this? How do you arrive at this conclusion, not just for yourself, but to the extent that it is meant likewise by God/ Jesus?

We're talking about crimes? If someone has a weapon, or is stronger, then they can do whatever they want. If they get together with their family, they can do whatever they want, against other people's will. It's not implicit in any society that crimes will be policed.

So... barring a dictatorship in which the dictator is a megalomaniac without any sense of self-righteousness, people judging each other and policing each other is implicit to society - especially one made of hundreds of thousands of people, in which people are already judging and policing each other.

There are lots of commands to be kind to your neighbour, and [...]

... stone the neighbors that sin. You don't need continual intervention for it to be reasonable to command something more humane than stoning. And where does it explain the priority of particular commands?

Wasn't cement of decent quality a greek invention? You can use clay, but it's not especially long lasting.
[...]
Prison is a long way from perfection.

But to even concieve of an imperfect prison, you need more than rudimentary cement?

People can generally ignore humane punishments quite easily.

So, God shouldn't order it because people can disobey?

It's more humane than a system of punishment on the spot for crimes, though. It's not physically possible, however, for a society with low agricultural yields, extremely involved labor forces and such, to do something like that. There simply isn't enough food or excess labor.
[...]
More effective humane punishments, like mentoring, training, prison, and such, require enormous investiture of resources. Execution, for crimes like murdering, is necessary since otherwise the person will just go on murdering. You could cut off their hands, but that punishment misses the point, I think.
[...]
How would you propose making a prison system when you had very little excess food or labor without miracles?

Miracles aren't totally out of the question.

How about some exceptionally fertile land?
How about, rather than prison, a sustainable means to humane execution?
How about, rather than commanding prison, provide a long-term goal for prison?
How about, command a prison, and don't intervene when people stone each other?
How about, don't command stonings at all? As you've been quick to explain, people went and did what they wanted anyway.

And, lesser, humane punishments, like social stigmatisation, beatings, commands, they already exist.

So did less humane punishments, like stoning, right?

Yeah, but, we have free will, so, that's not sufficient.

And people murder. But God doesn't continualy intervene to stop them.

Among other things. People probably wouldn't want to do it.

There's free will putting a crimp in those commands again.

I'm really not sure what we're arguing about.

1) Why it's reasonable to command stonings, without the slightest push (whether miraculous or not) to pursue more humane punishments or correctional models. 2) Why there isn't a follow-up to adapt to an apparently distinctly different society.

Because prison is extremely expensive? I'm not sure what social change you're proposing that doesn't require enormous amounts of resources. He could command them to build prisons, but there would be mass starvation, if they even obeyed him [...]

"And earlier, I cited evidence that they were quite humane, and rarely dealt punishments."

At 6/6/10 10:03 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'm cutting some tangential stuff. If you feel I cut something unfairly, say so.

At 6/6/10 05:32 PM, Ytaker wrote: Because, you suggested we have a prison? People chose not to obey "thou shall not kill" and so one solution is to imprison them. If you wanted that back then, you'd need all those things.

Want what back?

Prison.

Lethal injection is the same as stone throwing... because the end result is the same. Seriously?

It was a fairly fast method of killing someone. You may be thinking of throwing stones at someone till they die. This was, throwing them from a great height onto a stone floor. It's one of the faster ways to kill someone. Humans do not die easily. Most execution methods have the problem of severe pain. Lethal injection does as well. Asphyxiation induced by the muscle paralysis caused by pancuronium is, according to medical studies, a common way to die in execution.

And where does God or Jesus establish this? How do you arrive at this conclusion, not just for yourself, but to the extent that it is meant likewise by God/ Jesus?

I use logic, and scientific facts.

So... barring a dictatorship in which the dictator is a megalomaniac without any sense of self-righteousness, people judging each other and policing each other is implicit to society - especially one made of hundreds of thousands of people, in which people are already judging and policing each other.

No, barring someone decides to not let others judge and police them, and gets together a group of people. Family feuds, and extreme violence, they are the norm.

... stone the neighbors that sin. You don't need continual intervention for it to be reasonable to command something more humane than stoning. And where does it explain the priority of particular commands?

Well, no, capital punishment was an extrodinarily rare punishment. Sometimes it's the only option. Rarely. But sometimes. I remember a statement, that a court that executed more than one person in seventy years was seen as a bloody court.

You use logic. Not having sex with a woman is obviously less bad than castrating a man, say.

But to even concieve of an imperfect prison, you need more than rudimentary cement?

It helps. It depends on how much work you want them to do.

So, God shouldn't order it because people can disobey?

Because it would be pointless?

How would you propose making a prison system when you had very little excess food or labor without miracles?

Miracles aren't totally out of the question.

How about some exceptionally fertile land?
How about, rather than prison, a sustainable means to humane execution?
How about, rather than commanding prison, provide a long-term goal for prison?
How about, command a prison, and don't intervene when people stone each other?
How about, don't command stonings at all? As you've been quick to explain, people went and did what they wanted anyway.

A sustainable means to humane execution? So, like, chemical knowledge more advanced than ours, and biological knowledge more advanced than ours? You can't see any problems with that? You don't think they might use whatever as a weapon to mass murder people they didn't like?

Miracles are to be avoided, since they limit human freedom and the reality of the world. This is a fairly longstanding principle. God shouldn't be continually altering the soil content of the land. And then, of course, enhancing their military skill when people came to invade and get that land.

Well, stonings are a more extreme punishment, and a more extreme way to prevent people from doing whatever they want.

So did less humane punishments, like stoning, right?

Yeah. Better if authorities do it. Less likely to be the rather brutal form of stoning, where people are slowly ripped to shreds by stones.

And people murder. But God doesn't continualy intervene to stop them.

Yes, but he was making laws for that society. Execution was the norm back then. It was a common punishment.

1) Why it's reasonable to command stonings, without the slightest push (whether miraculous or not) to pursue more humane punishments or correctional models. 2) Why there isn't a follow-up to adapt to an apparently distinctly different society.

Er, they did. Stonings were extremely rare. They normally used other methods. The method they chose was the lash.

That's what human logic is for.

Because prison is extremely expensive? I'm not sure what social change you're proposing that doesn't require enormous amounts of resources. He could command them to build prisons, but there would be mass starvation, if they even obeyed him [...]

"And earlier, I cited evidence that they were quite humane, and rarely dealt punishments."

They'd see that as deeply immoral. I was going for some sort of corrective model, but if you're only going to imprison the worst offenders, that would be a lot of life sentences, if just about doable. They believed that a quick death was better than a long time in suffering, which is what prison is. Even a suicide. We hold a higher value of life than they did.

You also have a problem that you're concentrating the worst sort of people together- a lot of people wouldn't want to be in the company of murderers and thieves, since they'd likely be murdered. Which compounds the problem.

At 6/9/10 12:07 PM, Ytaker wrote: [...] Lethal injection [...]

I mistakenly took lethal injection for a humane form of execution. Ah well.

And where does God or Jesus establish this? How do you arrive at this conclusion, not just for yourself, but to the extent that it is meant likewise by God/ Jesus?

I use logic, and scientific facts.

The question was with respect to the issue of execution.

Please explain to me why the method of execution doesn't matter in light of the end result - and what about God and Jesus suggest they feel the same as you.

No, barring someone decides to not let others judge and police them, and gets together a group of people. Family feuds, and extreme violence, they are the norm.

... wait for it...

Well, no, capital punishment was an extrodinarily rare punishment. Sometimes it's the only option. Rarely. But sometimes. I remember a statement, that a court that executed more than one person in seventy years was seen as a bloody court.

Yet, the prisons required to rehabilitate or hold these 1 per 70 year convicts would be massive infastructural undertakings, the likes of which would destroy its respective community.

It helps. It depends on how much work you want them to do.

You keep switching back and forth between "God would have to do x" to "well it would help."

Because it would be pointless?

You said, "People can generally ignore humane punishments quite easily."
I asked, "So, God shouldn't order it because people can disobey?"

Are you saying that it would be pointless to order something that people can disobey? Or are you saying God shouldn't order it because it's pointless for other reasons?

If the former, then sorry. That's backwards. It would be pointless to order something that people can't disobey. If the latter, try answering the question at hand. I'll be more explicit... Does that fact that "people can generally ignore [x command] quite easily" render the action of commanding it pointless/unreasonable/wrong?

A sustainable means to humane execution? So, like, chemical knowledge more advanced than ours, and biological knowledge more advanced than ours? You can't see any problems with that? You don't think they might use whatever as a weapon to mass murder people they didn't like?

Like the Canaanites maybe?

God gave us the means to develop and use automatic weapons, atomic bombs, and anthrax. Sure, he didn't hand them to us in finished form, but he sure as hell didn't set up a system in which those things couldn't be developed or used.

If we use his magic elixir for 'evil' that's us acting on our free will.

And he has a commandment for this... Thou shall not kill.

Miracles are to be avoided, since they limit human freedom and the reality of the world. This is a fairly longstanding principle.

I didn't realize the line was so clearly drawn as to how many miracles are enough.

God shouldn't be continually altering the soil content of the land. And then, of course, enhancing their military skill when people came to invade and get that land.

How about... plants of bounty, across the world?

It's alittle ironic we should be talking about God setting things up so that people wouldn't be constantly fighting over 'that land'.

Yeah. Better if authorities do it. Less likely to be the rather brutal form of stoning, where people are slowly ripped to shreds by stones.

Both humane and inhumane punishments existed already. God ordered stoning, with no further allowances for softer punishments. Why does it matter that they already existed?

Yes, but he was making laws for that society. Execution was the norm back then. It was a common punishment.

"Well, no, capital punishment was an extrodinarily rare punishment. Sometimes it's the only option. Rarely. But sometimes. I remember a statement, that a court that executed more than one person in seventy years was seen as a bloody court."

And...

"Family feuds, and extreme violence, they are the norm [in place of a self-policing society]."

Where are God's orders advocating anarchy?

1) Why it's reasonable to command stonings, without the slightest push (whether miraculous or not) to pursue more humane punishments or correctional models.

Er, they did.

You like to keep switching between what people did and what God said alot - as if I shouldn't notice - or as if it doesn't make a difference.

"Why [is it] reasonable [for God] to command stonings, without the slightest push (whether miraculous or not) to pursue more humane punishments or correctional models."

2) Why there isn't a follow-up to adapt to an apparently distinctly different society.

That's what human logic is for.

Then why are there commands to stone?

"And earlier, I cited evidence that they were quite humane, and rarely dealt punishments."

They'd see that as deeply immoral.

The point was that, you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

We hold a higher value of life than they did.

It's great to know how the people felt about life. Did God feel similarly? Does God care more about life now?

You also have a problem that you're concentrating the worst sort of people together- a lot of people wouldn't want to be in the company of murderers and thieves, since they'd likely be murdered. Which compounds the problem.

Well that's what the really strong cement is for I guess.

At 6/9/10 05:16 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 6/9/10 12:07 PM, Ytaker wrote: [...] Lethal injection [...]

I mistakenly took lethal injection for a humane form of execution. Ah well.

People have varying genetic qualities. Some are resistant to drugs.

And where does God or Jesus establish this? How do you arrive at this conclusion, not just for yourself, but to the extent that it is meant likewise by God/ Jesus?

I use logic, and scientific facts.

The question was with respect to the issue of execution.

Please explain to me why the method of execution doesn't matter in light of the end result - and what about God and Jesus suggest they feel the same as you.

There's no particular reason why a mild difference in pain should make any difference.

No, barring someone decides to not let others judge and police them, and gets together a group of people. Family feuds, and extreme violence, they are the norm.

... wait for it...

Well, no, capital punishment was an extrodinarily rare punishment. Sometimes it's the only option. Rarely. But sometimes. I remember a statement, that a court that executed more than one person in seventy years was seen as a bloody court.

Yet, the prisons required to rehabilitate or hold these 1 per 70 year convicts would be massive infastructural undertakings, the likes of which would destroy its respective community.

Per community with a court. They had multiple courts. As I said though, if you focused exclusively on them- presumably taking them to a special prison area- you'd be creating a hell hole that would likely lead to a lot of horrible deaths. You'd also be dealing a lot in life sentences, which wouldn't be viewed as moral. And it wouldn't be too hard to escape from this jail.

Hell is people, and all.

You keep switching back and forth between "God would have to do x" to "well it would help."

It'd be doable to have a purely worst criminal prison- you'd presumably get a few guys with big muscles and have them transfer the accused to the nearest jail, just extremely inhumane. For a large scale prison, though, which deals more in prevention- you could either have technology, or continuous miracles.

Because it would be pointless?

You said, "People can generally ignore humane punishments quite easily."
I asked, "So, God shouldn't order it because people can disobey?"

Are you saying that it would be pointless to order something that people can disobey? Or are you saying God shouldn't order it because it's pointless for other reasons?

It's a matter of practicallity. If the punishments don't work, because they disobey, they're rather pointless punishments.

If the former, then sorry. That's backwards. It would be pointless to order something that people can't disobey. If the latter, try answering the question at hand. I'll be more explicit... Does that fact that "people can generally ignore [x command] quite easily" render the action of commanding it pointless/unreasonable/wrong?

There's some benefit in having clear morals, but for the more extreme individuals, who don't like obeying the law, you need some method of handling them. If people ignore the law, then you have the problem that people are continually commiting crimes.

A sustainable means to humane execution? So, like, chemical knowledge more advanced than ours, and biological knowledge more advanced than ours? You can't see any problems with that? You don't think they might use whatever as a weapon to mass murder people they didn't like?

Like the Canaanites maybe?

Yeah. The israelites were adopting some of their more questionable rituals, like burning children alive to please the gods. Plus, they'd been murdering and enslaving the israelites for a long time. They'd been making unprovoked attacks on them for a while (Numbers 21.21ff, say.)

They didn't mass murder them, however. They only attacked the walled cities, with an aim to driving them out of their land. They also gave them a warning, so hopefully any good individuals who disliked warfare escaped.

If they had knowledge of biological warfare, they could have, at no risk to themselves (they thought), spread a deadly disease and killed a high number of them, and quite possibly several other nations as well.

God gave us the means to develop and use automatic weapons, atomic bombs, and anthrax. Sure, he didn't hand them to us in finished form, but he sure as hell didn't set up a system in which those things couldn't be developed or used.

If we use his magic elixir for 'evil' that's us acting on our free will.

It's better those technologies develop slowly rather than fast. Extremely different levels of technology mean very brutal wars. We've seen this in the modern world, with guns vs spears. It'd be even worse back then.

God shouldn't be continually altering the soil content of the land. And then, of course, enhancing their military skill when people came to invade and get that land.

How about... plants of bounty, across the world?

That would be an extreme step. An enormous, and continuous miracle.

There are many things god could do. Just, they'd have consequences, as well as benefits.

It's alittle ironic we should be talking about God setting things up so that people wouldn't be constantly fighting over 'that land'.

It would make it worse if they possessed the best land in the world.

Both humane and inhumane punishments existed already. God ordered stoning, with no further allowances for softer punishments. Why does it matter that they already existed?

He gave lots of commandments on kindness. As such, softer punishments were the norm. It matters they existed because authorities tend to be nicer than people.

"Well, no, capital punishment was an extrodinarily rare punishment. Sometimes it's the only option. Rarely. But sometimes. I remember a statement, that a court that executed more than one person in seventy years was seen as a bloody court."

I meant, as a law in the general region. But yeah, it was a rare punishment.

"Family feuds, and extreme violence, they are the norm [in place of a self-policing society]."

Where are God's orders advocating anarchy?

I really have no idea what point you're making.

You like to keep switching between what people did and what God said alot - as if I shouldn't notice - or as if it doesn't make a difference.

It's because I'm too lazy to develop a holistic view of their culture. A lot of executions were the norm back then, in other nearbu cultures. Heavy punishments. They had less executions and punishments. There's a reason. It could be something random, but more likely it's their biblical and cultural traditions.

Understanding how God's commands were actually carried out is a good step towards understanding the commands.

Then why are there commands to stone?

To stop extreme individuals, maintain cultural stability?

The point was that, you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

I suppose we could go into statistics about the effectiveness or lack of capital punishments relative to corporal and verbal punishments. That's a dull and long debate, though. It's all a matter of gradients. Less murder, not none.

It's great to know how the people felt about life. Did God feel similarly? Does God care more about life now?

Main thing is he wouldn't want to impose a long term cruel and inhumane punishment on them.

You also have a problem that you're concentrating the worst sort of people together- a lot of people wouldn't want to be in the company of murderers and thieves, since they'd likely be murdered. Which compounds the problem.

Well that's what the really strong cement is for I guess.

Helps stop them getting out.

At 6/10/10 08:28 AM, Ytaker wrote:

At 6/9/10 05:16 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

People have varying genetic qualities. Some are resistant to drugs.

How many people have genetic qualities that makes them totally resistant to Sodium Pentathlon, Pandemonium Bromide and Potassium Chloride? Which is the standard for US executions.

Bare in mind, the person who is getting the execution has more than one IV line going into the body "just in case" and these people would have to be resistant to all 3 drugs (primarily the Chloride).

I don't believe such a person exists.

At 6/10/10 03:32 PM, The-universe wrote: I don't believe such a person exists.

I think he was saying that some were more resistant (not immune) and thus it caused them more pain.

At 6/10/10 03:38 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/10/10 03:32 PM, The-universe wrote: I don't believe such a person exists.

I think he was saying that some were more resistant (not immune) and thus it caused them more pain.

To muscle relaxants and knock out drugs on a procedure that (evidently) accounts for error so they'll be pretty much comatose when they die?

At 6/10/10 08:28 AM, Ytaker wrote: I use logic, and scientific facts.

You also use heresay, by which contradicting statements are reconciled by assuming both are valid.

There's no particular reason why a mild difference in pain should make any difference.

"Better if authorities do it. Less likely to be the rather brutal form of stoning, where people are slowly ripped to shreds by stones."

That doesn't strike me as a mild difference in pain.

Per community with a court. They had multiple courts.

And now we're back to representing it as common.

As I said though, if you focused exclusively on them- presumably taking them to a special prison area- you'd be creating a hell hole that would likely lead to a lot of horrible deaths. You'd also be dealing a lot in life sentences, which wouldn't be viewed as moral. And it wouldn't be too hard to escape from this jail.

Does God disapprove of modern prisons?

It'd be doable to have a purely worst criminal prison- you'd presumably get a few guys with big muscles and have them transfer the accused to the nearest jail, just extremely inhumane. For a large scale prison, though, which deals more in prevention- you could either have technology, or continuous miracles.

So if God bestowed one he wouldn't have to bestow the other?

It's a matter of practicallity. If the punishments don't work, because they disobey, they're rather pointless punishments.

Who is disobeying in the above sentence? The convict or the punisher?

There's some benefit in having clear morals, but for the more extreme individuals, who don't like obeying the law, you need some method of handling them. If people ignore the law, then you have the problem that people are continually commiting crimes.

I don't know how to respond to this until previous question is answered.

They didn't mass murder them, however. They only attacked the walled cities, with an aim to driving them out of their land. They also gave them a warning, so hopefully any good individuals who disliked warfare escaped.

In other words, their goal was to not mass murder?

If they had knowledge of biological warfare, they could have, at no risk to themselves (they thought), spread a deadly disease and killed a high number of them, and quite possibly several other nations as well.

Doesn't that also depend on the limitations of how the chemical can be delivered?

It's better those technologies develop slowly rather than fast. Extremely different levels of technology mean very brutal wars. We've seen this in the modern world [...]

So it could be worse and it could be better. How do you establish the current threshold as the allowable/reasonable/right one?

That would be an extreme step. An enormous, and continuous miracle.

How?

And define extreme.

There are many things god could do. Just, they'd have consequences, as well as benefits.

That's a good generalization. And it's good for generalizing God's involvement. But it does not answer to specific instances.

It would make it worse if they possessed the best land in the world.

Are you intentionally missing the irony or ignoring it?

Both humane and inhumane punishments existed already. God ordered stoning, with no further allowances for softer punishments. Why does it matter that they already existed?

It matters they existed because authorities tend to be nicer than people.

Are the authorities not people?

I meant, as a law in the general region. But yeah, it was a rare punishment.

No. "It was a common punishment."

I really have no idea what point you're making.

I'm making the point that God clearly doesn't adhere to or foster the norm.

Understanding how God's commands were actually carried out is a good step towards understanding the commands.

But people have free will.

To stop extreme individuals, maintain cultural stability?

Human logic isn't for that?

The point was that, you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

I suppose we could go into statistics about the effectiveness or lack of capital punishments relative to corporal and verbal punishments. That's a dull and long debate

It also wouldn't address the argument.

Main thing is he wouldn't want to impose a long term cruel and inhumane punishment on them.

He should have killed Adam and Eve then.

At 6/10/10 06:26 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 6/10/10 08:28 AM, Ytaker wrote: I use logic, and scientific facts.

You also use heresay, by which contradicting statements are reconciled by assuming both are valid.

Well, this accusation is especially vague.

There's no particular reason why a mild difference in pain should make any difference.

"Better if authorities do it. Less likely to be the rather brutal form of stoning, where people are slowly ripped to shreds by stones."

That doesn't strike me as a mild difference in pain.

I wasn't sure what point you were making. I suggested it was better that the authorities deal out some sort of punishment than leave justice up to the people- the people are more likely to be brutal. But I really have no idea if I answered your point because I'm not sure what your point was.

Per community with a court. They had multiple courts.

And now we're back to representing it as common.

I'm not sure how common it was. You'd probably have a reasonable number of individuals.

As I said though, if you focused exclusively on them- presumably taking them to a special prison area- you'd be creating a hell hole that would likely lead to a lot of horrible deaths. You'd also be dealing a lot in life sentences, which wouldn't be viewed as moral. And it wouldn't be too hard to escape from this jail.

Does God disapprove of modern prisons?

Like I know. All I can do is point to injustices. I believe, say, that we shouldn't imprison mild drug users in prison, and instead favour community service/ drug abuse aid. That would make smaller the number of people in it, and be more compassionant.

It'd be doable to have a purely worst criminal prison- you'd presumably get a few guys with big muscles and have them transfer the accused to the nearest jail, just extremely inhumane. For a large scale prison, though, which deals more in prevention- you could either have technology, or continuous miracles.

So if God bestowed one he wouldn't have to bestow the other?

Or a mix. For a full scale prison, dealing with large numbers of people.

Who is disobeying in the above sentence? The convict or the punisher?

The convict disobeys the purpose of the punishment if they ignore it.

There's some benefit in having clear morals, but for the more extreme individuals, who don't like obeying the law, you need some method of handling them. If people ignore the law, then you have the problem that people are continually commiting crimes.

I don't know how to respond to this until previous question is answered.

I'm assuming the judges obey the law. If they change it, or purposely violate it (although they have a large degree of latitude) then the situation becomes ever more complicated.

In other words, their goal was to not mass murder?

Their goal was to mass murder a small, select population. It was risky, however. They could have lost. Making it much easier would make it easier for them to declare war on a host of people.

If they had knowledge of biological warfare, they could have, at no risk to themselves (they thought), spread a deadly disease and killed a high number of them, and quite possibly several other nations as well.

Doesn't that also depend on the limitations of how the chemical can be delivered?

Biological agents, once you understand them, are easy enough to deliver. Spread fecal matter in the water supply, food. Trade diseased blankets. The ability to make deadly poisons allows you to coat weapons with them, or, if any of them happen to be flammable, as a lot are, to make a flamethrower. As the byzantine empire did, later.

It's better those technologies develop slowly rather than fast. Extremely different levels of technology mean very brutal wars. We've seen this in the modern world [...]

So it could be worse and it could be better. How do you establish the current threshold as the allowable/reasonable/right one?

I personally trust in God to strike the right balance. I have no particular way to establish any special threshold.

But it's easy to see the problems with the extreme cases of intervention- indeed, israel did, in the bible, manipulate their connection with god to aid them in conquering their foes. And made a lot of enemies. Giving any sort of systematic advantage to israel (swords tipped with Pancuronium bromide), which would remain with it regardless of whether it kept god's favor would have been questionable.

That would be an extreme step. An enormous, and continuous miracle.

How?

Super crops produce super weeds by genetic transfer. And rip minerals out of the soil fast. As such, you'd have to increase the mineral content of the soil for it to be effective. Insects adapt as well. So you'd have to deal with the weeds and genetically resistant pests.

The main contraints on plant growth are soil content and pests.

And define extreme.

One which could have enormous unintended consequences, that could fuck up the world.

It would make it worse if they possessed the best land in the world.

Are you intentionally missing the irony or ignoring it?

These walls of text are mind numbing. My humour is off. Something like, people already fight lots, or israel fought lots? Eh.

Both humane and inhumane punishments existed already. God ordered stoning, with no further allowances for softer punishments. Why does it matter that they already existed?

It matters they existed because authorities tend to be nicer than people.

Are the authorities not people?

They're educated and have a grander perspective on life.

I meant, as a law in the general region. But yeah, it was a rare punishment.

No. "It was a common punishment."

For cultures in the area. I'm not making any sort of comment on it's frequency in Israel, just the existence of capital punishment in that time of the world.

I really have no idea what point you're making.

I'm making the point that God clearly doesn't adhere to or foster the norm.

If you're making the point I think you're making, that just because other cultures were executing people doesn't mean Israel should too...

Their reasons for execution I've detailed- life imprisonment does not solve the problem, it just moves it to a place filled with murderous and brutal individuals, the people of long ago disagree with moderns over what is morally acceptable euthanasia- people in communities beseiged by military forces would often commit mass suicide. The people Xanthus (in Lycia) did it thrice, the Spanish tribe of the Cantabri (22 BC) did it once, by burning, poison, and knives, in response to invasion.

But people have free will.

Yes. yes they do.

Human logic isn't for that?

We have a rich tapestry of helpful traits, including human logic.

The point was that, you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

I suppose we could go into statistics about the effectiveness or lack of capital punishments relative to corporal and verbal punishments. That's a dull and long debate

It also wouldn't address the argument.

Yes it would. It would explain why stonings were or weren't needed to minimize the amount of crime. It's a mathematical issue. Does it work, or not? It's not an absolute issue of whether or not god is obeyed in all things.

Main thing is he wouldn't want to impose a long term cruel and inhumane punishment on them.

He should have killed Adam and Eve then.

Our lives aren't too bad. Lots of intense pleasures, from food, sex, relationships, good air to breath, a pretty world to live in. I like living.

first off christianity is "bashed on" often because it is a religion that condems people to eternal damnation in the agonizing flames of hell, for not believing exactly what it says they should. christianity in all its forms makes it clear that you will not be admitted into heaven without having accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. therefore, all the peace loving buddhists that wont step on an ant because they believe that all life is holy, are going to burn forever in hell, as will all of their children, and the jews, and hindus, and anyone else who doesnt accept Jesus as their savior. there have been more wars in the name of religion (oftentimes christianity) than for any other reason, and it doesnt really help the religion very much that as more and more time goes by, more and more of the bible is being disproven by good science, and only has creationist BAD science defending it. i think that instead of society interpreting organized religion literally we should take the morals and stories and messages that we can, but realize that the events in the holy bible, or any religious text, did not really happen.

~God is Dead~
Nietzsche

I think a better question is why Christians care about what a insignificant minority composed of neck-bearded nihilistic teenagers think about them.

At 6/12/10 04:02 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I think a better question is why Christians care about what a insignificant minority composed of neck-bearded nihilistic teenagers think about them.

You know, Christians are only the majority in America. If you look at the western world as a whole nonbelievers aren't such a insignificant minority.

At 6/11/10 04:59 PM, Ytaker wrote: Well, this accusation is especially vague.

For instance. On one hand God commands kindness to neighbors. On the other, God commands stonings, for ... not resting on the 7th day.

You reconcile this contradiction by assuming both where commanded as non-mutually excluding, to the extent that neither be followed ideally, and that God expects some balance between them.

That is affirming the consequent.

And in the case that we 'know' that it how the rules were meant to be interpreted, by how people of the time interpreted them, you're passing the buck.

I wasn't sure what point you were making.

I'm making the point that in one instance you argue that method of execution doesn't matter, and then argue that it's better that 'authorities' deal punishments because they're likely to be more humane in executing.

And now we're back to representing it as common.

I'm not sure how common it was.

Then don't tell me it was or wasn't common, and don't use it as an argument.

Does God disapprove of modern prisons?

Like I know.

Then don't argue as if you do.

Or a mix. For a full scale prison, dealing with large numbers of people.

I'm asking for confirmation that: if God bestowed one he wouldn't have to bestow the other.

X: Technology.
Y: Continuous miracles.

The convict disobeys the purpose of the punishment if they ignore it.

This reads rather jumbled, and kind of like a truism. Could you try saying it a different way?

I'm assuming the judges obey the law. If they change it, or purposely violate it (although they have a large degree of latitude) then the situation becomes ever more complicated.

Doesn't this also apply without a prison system?

In other words, their goal was to not mass murder?

Their goal was to mass murder a small, select population.

Deuteronomy 20:17
"You must completely destroy[a] the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you."

Joshua 6:21
"They completely destroyed everything in it with their swords-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys."

The only people they made a concerted effort to not kill was a prostitute and her family.

It was risky, however.

Deuteronomy 20:1;4
"When you go out to fight your enemies and you face horses and chariots and an army greater than your own, do not be afraid. The Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, is with you! [...] For the Lord your God is going with you! He will fight for you against your enemies, and he will give you victory!"

They only attacked the walled cities, with an aim to driving them out of their land. They also gave them a warning, so hopefully any good individuals who disliked warfare escaped.

Joshua 6:1
"Now the gates of Jericho were tightly shut because the people were afraid of the Israelites. No one was allowed to go out or in."

Joshua 6:10
""Do not shout; do not even talk," Joshua commanded."

Woulda been nice to let the people know they were allowed to leave.

And obviously, anyone who stayed must have been evil and deserving of God's wrath.

They could have lost. Making it much easier would make it easier for them to declare war on a host of people.

Deuteronomy 20:15-18
"But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of the nations in the land you will enter. 16 In those towns that the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing. 17 You must completely destroy[a] the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 This will prevent the people of the land from teaching you to imitate their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God."

These people really half-assed their obligations to God.

Biological agents, once you understand them, are easy enough to deliver. Spread fecal matter in the water supply, food. Trade diseased blankets. The ability to make deadly poisons allows you to coat weapons with them, or, if any of them happen to be flammable, as a lot are, to make a flamethrower. As the byzantine empire did, later.

Well no matter. God wanted them to exterminate.

I personally trust in God to strike the right balance. I have no particular way to establish any special threshold.

Then don't argue as if there is one.

But it's easy to see the problems with the extreme cases of intervention- indeed, israel did, in the bible, manipulate their connection with god to aid them in conquering their foes. And made a lot of enemies. Giving any sort of systematic advantage to israel (swords tipped with Pancuronium bromide), which would remain with it regardless of whether it kept god's favor would have been questionable.

God's intent is questionable?
The Israelites were the ones being manipulative?

Super crops produce super weeds by genetic transfer. And rip minerals out of the soil fast. As such, you'd have to increase the mineral content of the soil for it to be effective. Insects adapt as well. So you'd have to deal with the weeds and genetically resistant pests.

And what physical laws does a divinely parted sea break?

And define extreme.

One which could have enormous unintended consequences, that could fuck up the world.

Meanwhile you refuse to entertain any means by which God could act in a way other than he did, and actively pursue criticisms of all ideas I bring forth.

These walls of text are mind numbing. My humour is off. Something like, people already fight lots, or israel fought lots? Eh.

The irony is that you argue that it's God's interest to less conflict, when he's the one pointing everyone toward the holy land.

They're educated and have a grander perspective on life.

And they existed at the time?

For cultures in the area. I'm not making any sort of comment on it's frequency in Israel, just the existence of capital punishment in that time of the world.

So was it common or rare?

If you're making the point I think you're making, that just because other cultures were executing people doesn't mean Israel should too...

I'm making the point that you use, on one hand, the concept of the "norm" to justify God's commands. Then, on the other, discuss the "norm" in spite of God's commands.

But people have free will.

Yes. yes they do.

So then how are the actions of people such a reliable guage of what God 'really' wants?

We have a rich tapestry of helpful traits, including human logic.

Then why are there commands to stone?

That sounds familiar.

The point was that, you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

I suppose we could go into statistics about the effectiveness or lack of capital punishments relative to corporal and verbal punishments. That's a dull and long debate

It also wouldn't address the argument.

Yes it would. It would explain why stonings were or weren't needed to minimize the amount of crime.

Which is a sub-argument itself apart from: you make this argument that anything other than ordering stonings wont work because people can disobey God, when people were already disobeying God.

It's not an absolute issue of whether or not god is obeyed in all things.

Then don't argue that it is?

Main thing is he wouldn't want to impose a long term cruel and inhumane punishment on them.

He should have killed Adam and Eve then.

Our lives aren't too bad. Lots of intense pleasures, from food, sex, relationships, good air to breath, a pretty world to live in. I like living.

We're not Adam and Eve.

You're making up thresholds again.

At 6/14/10 04:53 PM, Mr-Miyamoto wrote: that is not true, even if some christians think it is

It isn't? Show me a denomination that clearly makes that point? Because I'm quite certain they all agree on the fundamental point that Heaven is reserved for those who accept Jesus as their savior because the deal with God is only to let the chosen in. Hell, just read the Book of Revelations because it makes it pretty clear that not everybody is getting in.

At 6/14/10 06:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/14/10 04:53 PM, Mr-Miyamoto wrote: that is not true, even if some christians think it is

It isn't? Show me a denomination that clearly makes that point? Because I'm quite certain they all agree on the fundamental point that Heaven is reserved for those who accept Jesus as their savior because the deal with God is only to let the chosen in. Hell, just read the Book of Revelations because it makes it pretty clear that not everybody is getting in.

I'm guessing some Christians consider Jesus to be a prophet but not the divine son of god. Therefor you wouldn't need to believe in his divinity, merely follow his teachings. Though I think that what ever group Mr-Miyamoto is talking about is a minority sect within Christianity.

At 6/14/10 07:57 PM, MrHero17 wrote: I'm guessing some Christians consider Jesus to be a prophet but not the divine son of god.

So they're sort of like Muslims? Because I was always taught the essential break with Christians and everybody else is they're belief that Jesus was the Divine Son of God who died for our sins and he couldn't have done that without that special connection to God. Never ever heard of a Christian sect currently practicing that doesn't believe in the divinity.

Therefor you wouldn't need to believe in his divinity, merely follow his teachings. Though I think that what ever group Mr-Miyamoto is talking about is a minority sect within Christianity.

I'd like to make sure Mr. Miyamoto is actually talking about a real group he has some knowledge of, or at least knows the name of so I can do a little research on them because I'm honestly intrigued a bit if such a group exists. But the problem is I see so many people come into these topics and make so many vague bullshit claims and then just pray no one is ever going to ask for more information, or is going to do the research for them and go "yup, that's what I meant all along".

Universalist Christians believe that everyone will be saved by God eventually, thus any hell would be temporary. Also, most forms of early Christianity were universalist.

Zoroastrianism is also an universalist religion.

At 6/14/10 08:55 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Universalist Christians believe that everyone will be saved by God eventually, thus any hell would be temporary. Also, most forms of early Christianity were universalist.

They actually don't believe in a hell per se. More like a karma or a purgatory. This is also sort of splitting hairs and doesn't actually jibe with what Mr.Hero claimed because even in a universalist situation the adherents still believe in the divinity of Jesus and that Jesus is ultimately the redeemer and eventually saves all people. So we're still back to a situation where we do not have a Christianity that only sees Jesus as mortal prophet (per my understanding and point, not validating Mr.Hero)

Zoroastrianism is also an universalist religion.

It is, but we were more specifically discussing Christianity here, not universalist religion in general :)

It does back up mr. miyamoto though. So one out of two ain't bad.

It's almost impossible to say "Christians believe" since their fanbase is so wide and retarded that any random Christian will believe whatever random thing he or she wants.

Let's get real here, the vast majority has not read the bible, is not involved in theological discussions and doesn't attend church regularly or seek counsel from religious authorities.

I'm fairly certain a vast number of Christians today are deists or non-specific theists and not really anywhere close to what the bible says they should do, mainly because the bible is fucking retarded and was written by people who's main occupation was trying not to fuck too many of their sheeps on their way to the market.

Most Christians I know actually tend to believe that if you're a good person, you go to heaven.

It's interested how in some cases, Christianity is defined by action despite the Bible... and then in others distanced from action, via the Bible.

I say! That is quite bashable!

At 6/14/10 11:28 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I say! That is quite bashable!

That reminded me of a funny story.

I was speaking to a Christian on youtube.He was desperately trying to convince me that "a" god exists. Primarily his, but eventually just tried to show we were created. It was the usual "the universe is too perfect/beautiful/complex etc to just have popped out of nowhere from nothingness" amongst other well heard remarks.

But in the end we finished talking about the thousands of different interpretations of Religions. I told him (and to this day) when Christians start to actually agree on the things they spout about their religion/god/holy book, I'll believe in it wholeheartedly because if they can't convince each other, they're surely not going to convince me.

At 6/15/10 01:12 PM, The-universe wrote: I told him (and to this day) when Christians start to actually agree on the things they spout about their religion/god/holy book, I'll believe in it wholeheartedly because if they can't convince each other, they're surely not going to convince me.

Well that's a cheap shot at the cost of an actual argument. Keep this argument of yours in the back of your head incase you ever get the urge to call someone out for argumentum ad populum.

I have a rather strange view on religion and in that Christianity. I consider myself a Christian (speifically Methodist, but that is one of the more secular divisions anyway) but I do not believe in God as being an authority figure who has a prescribed set of dogmatic beliefs that everyone must follow or else they will be punished. I do not know what happens after you die, but of all the strange things there are in religion, I would like to say that I believe that atheism is the most strange of all.

At 6/15/10 05:50 PM, Ericho wrote: I have a rather strange view on religion and in that Christianity. I consider myself a Christian (speifically Methodist, but that is one of the more secular divisions anyway) but I do not believe in God as being an authority figure who has a prescribed set of dogmatic beliefs that everyone must follow or else they will be punished.

Then by what criteria does God punish?

Isn't God the greatest authority? If rules are established by the highest authority, thusly unjustifiable by anything but the intent of the authority, and those rules are expected to be followed, how are they not dogmatic?

atheism is the most strange of all.

How do you figure?

God is you from last thursday, and let's just put it this way: he is very disappointed.

At 6/15/10 01:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Well that's a cheap shot at the cost of an actual argument. Keep this argument of yours in the back of your head incase you ever get the urge to call someone out for argumentum ad populum.

It's not an argument but rather a realisation.

Also I'm bored with the no true scotsman fallacy so that does the deed for me.

I'm really getting tired of this trick Ericho. Where in some threads you're hardcore and hateful against atheists like Christopher Hitchens, fairly dogmatic about your religion, but then try to set there and go "but I'm very tolerant and nice...I'm a Christian even you nasty atheists can like!"

It's so played out and I think just about everyone reading this topic knows the jig is up.

I am Catholic; bashing any religion is wrong.
Christianity is the most populated religion of the world(as of now) and has had its problems and stages of extremism.
Christianity is also the largest religion of half-hearted followers or "Cafeteria Christians" they call themselves christian (by whatever denomination) and then pick and choose which aspects of the religion to follow.
Example: John Kerry
He calls himself a "good catholic" but supports abortion which contradicts some of catholicism's core beliefs. So its easy to farce against something that people see as an instintution of hippocrisy

Ericho also appears to be a cafeteria christian, in my oppinion, you can't call youself a believer when you're not