Following Jesus Means Opposing Torture

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not saying "beat people to death" but are you arguing that the OT laws were never actually supposed to be enforced?

Maybe some of them sometimes, sure. That an infraction justified such punishment was a given in the paradigm, so anyone who did something was acknowledged to be subject to such punishment.

If someone was a repeat aggressive offender who was basically spitting in the face of repentance, wreaking all kinds of havoc and such, I can imagine the community elders getting together and saying, "the next time he does whatever he's not making it to the feast." And I think that such a thing could be appropropriate. Not as good as Judges, but better than what we have now.

People in Christiandom largely have the wrong idea of what "The Law" was all about. For a point of fact if the Law was actually what Christians think it was today, then none of the children of Israel would have survived it except for a handful of hypocrite Priests.

 

[jmdrake]

Not necessarily. "Sin" means "to miss the mark". Hence, there are "degrees" of sin (i.e. blasphemy is not on par with murder, etc).

I'm not sure what your disagreement is. I didn't say all sin was weighed the same. I said sin involves a lack of faith. Can you think of any sin that doesn't involve a lack of faith? Blasphemy certain stems from a lack of faith. I would say murder does too. When David murdered Uriah the Hittite he showed a lack of faith in God's mercy and felt he needed to cover up for his sin with Bathsheba. In fact the first murder ever sprang from Cain's lack of faith. The Bible says "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain."

 

[Brett85]

So, in your mind, a system that says it is never OK to initiate force, but only to use force in self-defense or defense of other people, is equally as immoral as a system that says its OK to bomb innocent people in other countries and destroy people's live for breaking arbitrary government edicts?

Wow...

There is no way to punish the initiation of force in your ideal society, so realistically people would just be able to do whatever they want to do, including infringing on the rights of others.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Not necessarily. "Sin" means "to miss the mark". Hence, there are "degrees" of sin (i.e. blasphemy is not on par with murder, etc).

Actually, it depends on the passage. there are a whole bunch of different Greek and Hebrew words, some with subtly different, others with more dramatically different meanings, that all get translated into "sin" in the English. It is completely true that "to miss the mark" covers the 'word tree' for the most common and voluminous use of the word 'sin,' but this is one area where a good lexicon will add a whole bunch of light for English readers.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Does it REALLY take 85 posts to sort this one out? SHEESH!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Does it REALLY take 85 posts to sort this one out? SHEESH!

rabbit trails. threads wander

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe some of them sometimes, sure. That an infraction justified such punishment was a given in the paradigm, so anyone who did something was acknowledged to be subject to such punishment.

If someone was a repeat aggressive offender who was basically spitting in the face of repentance, wreaking all kinds of havoc and such, I can imagine the community elders getting together and saying, "the next time he does whatever he's not making it to the feast." And I think that such a thing could be appropropriate. Not as good as Judges, but better than what we have now.

People in Christiandom largely have the wrong idea of what "The Law" was all about. For a point of fact if the Law was actually what Christians think it was today, then none of the children of Israel would have survived it except for a handful of hypocrite Priests.

OK, so can you expound on this? For instance, the OT says "if a man lies with another man, both shall be put to death" (this is an "off the cuff" rendering, by flawed memory, I didn't look it up.) Now, I don't think that's a law that's still in effect today. But I would think it would have been enforced in Israel any time two witnesses saw such an event (which wouldn't be that often, I am not saying they were looking for people to kill.) Are you disagreeing with this?

There is no way to punish the initiation of force in your ideal society, so realistically people would just be able to do whatever they want to do, including infringing on the rights of others.

This isn't true, but even if it were, why does that make it immoral? Wouldn't that be a pragmatic error rather than a sin?

 

[Brett85]

This isn't true, but even if it were, why does that make it immoral? Wouldn't that be a pragmatic error rather than a sin?

I just said that the ideology is unbiblical, because the Bible teaches that the government is established by God.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, so can you expound on this? For instance, the OT says "if a man lies with another man, both shall be put to death" (this is an "off the cuff" rendering, by flawed memory, I didn't look it up.) Now, I don't think that's a law that's still in effect today. But I would think it would have been enforced in Israel any time two witnesses saw such an event (which wouldn't be that often, I am not saying they were looking for people to kill.) Are you disagreeing with this?

Yes and no, I'm not really talking about arbitrary enforcement, although I am sure the beloved of the community would have a few more chances to make it to Atonement than the scourges of the community. More community enforcement. Really an evolution of the time of the Judges into neighborhoods in micro-scale. Torah acting as guidelines for committees of community "Judges." Once this system was well and infected with the sins of the judges, then the Law became an instrument of death rather than a lamp of life.

I would argue that in some cases the Law was correctly enforced immediately. In most cases, the law was correctly not 'enforced' per se but passed through the Atonement and forgiven. As time went on more and more cases that should not have been enforced, were. People started taking out their own sins and using community justice as a means to exact personal vengeances and such, sin entered, and the Law became death. The Law was intended to be life, what was intended for life became death.

Were homosexual men put to death? I am sure a lot were. I am also sure that a lot were not. A lot of it depended on whether the person was liked or hated by the community and whether the elders felt like they should make it to the Atonement. As time went on, that process was corrupted "and the Law became death."

 

[Christian Liberty]

This whole idea that you should actually take up big giant stones and actually kill ordinary violators with them was a perversion of the Law.

Romans 7:7-13 NASB


It was in fact, sin itself that converted the Law from a lamp of life into a weapon of death. Mary Magdalene was convicted to death by the sins of rotten people 'wanting to see that wretched whore die.' Without the sinfulness of the stone-throwers, Magdalene would not have been in danger. Which, as it happens, was the point of the story. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Yes and no, I'm not really talking about arbitrary enforcement, although I am sure the beloved of the community would have a few more chances to make it to Atonement than the scourges of the community. More community enforcement. Really an evolution of the time of the Judges into neighborhoods in micro-scale. Torah acting as guidelines for committees of community "Judges." Once this system was well and infected with the sins of the judges, then the Law became an instrument of death rather than a lamp of life.

I would argue that in some cases the Law was correctly enforced immediately. In most cases, the law was correctly not 'enforced' per se but passed through the Atonement and forgiven. As time went on more and more cases that should not have been enforced, were. People started taking out their own sins and using community justice as a means to exact personal vengeances and such, sin entered, and the Law became death. The Law was intended to be life, what was intended for life became death.

Were homosexual men put to death? I am sure a lot were. I am also sure that a lot were not. A lot of it depended on whether the person was liked or hated by the community and whether the elders felt like they should make it to the Atonement. As time went on, that process was corrupted "and the Law became death."

I think I disagree with you on this whole issue, though I understand your point. The Old Testament clearly said that anyone who was caught committing a capital crime with two or three witnesses was to be put to death. I'm not sure what actually happened was relevant. I'm not saying I like this or am enjoying the thought of it happening, but it seems clear that in Israel they were supposed to "pick up big giant stones and throw them" at violators of those crimes. The fear of such a punishment would dissuade one from committing the crime, and if they did the crime, the fear might cause them to repent immediately, lest they die and BE DAMNED.

I have no doubt that some were not put to death like they were supposed to be, but they were still supposed to be.

John 8:1-11 is one of two passages in the NT that is highly questionable in its veracity (the end of Mark 16 is the other.) I'm not convinced that it is actually part of John's gospel. Even if it is, however, I am not sure how that proves that the OT law wasn't supposed to be enforced in Israel.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I just said that the ideology is unbiblical, because the Bible teaches that the government is established by God.

I suppose it would be impossible for an Arminian to take any other position. But from a Calvinistic standpoint God "establishing" the State doesn't mean that the State has a positive moral obligtion to exist.

 

[Brett85]

I suppose it would be impossible for an Arminian to take any other position. But from a Calvinistic standpoint God "establishing" the State doesn't mean that the State has a positive moral obligtion to exist.

Maybe so. I'm not necessarily completely closed minded to Calvinism. I think there's at least quite a bit more Biblical evidence for that than there is for something like eternal torment.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe so. I'm not necessarily completely closed minded to Calvinism. I think there's at least quite a bit more Biblical evidence for that than there is for something like eternal torment.

Incidentally, I became an ancap shortly after I became a Calvinist, for this reason. I know there are some Arminians who are ancaps but its even harder to deal with Romans 13 than it is for me.

I understand the argument tha Paul is prescribing some kind of ideal government in that passage, but I don't necessarily buy it. And even if that was the case, there is no reason those functions cannot be handled by privatized courts and privatized security. There is simply no need for a State that taxes by force and legally enforces a monopoly.

Am I denying that "chaotic" anarchy is possible? No, of course not. I am just suggesting that ordered anarchism (in the philosophical sense) is possible, and not unbiblical.

There are various degrees of unbiblicality. I'm not really worried about the idea and amount my rights would be violated in a minarchy. I see minarchists as on my side most of the time, though I know many minarchists who do not feel likewise about me. But the current American government is beyond out of control.

Its been awhile since I had a good debate about eternal torment. I'd start another one but I'm leaving day after tomorrow and won't have internet for awhile. But, I'd love to do it eventually.

 

[jmdrake]

I suppose it would be impossible for an Arminian to take any other position. But from a Calvinistic standpoint God "establishing" the State doesn't mean that the State has a positive moral obligtion to exist.

John Calvin was as statist as they come. And "manifest destiny" fits squarely with Calvinism. What is it about Calvinists that cause them to minimize the faults of their own philosophy and maximize the perceived faults of others?

 

[jmdrake]

There is no way to punish the initiation of force in your ideal society, so realistically people would just be able to do whatever they want to do, including infringing on the rights of others.

Ummm....huh? Your claim here is completely without merit.

 

[staerker]

I suppose it would be impossible for an Arminian to take any other position. But from a Calvinistic standpoint God "establishing" the State doesn't mean that the State has a positive moral obligtion to exist.

Exactly. I have found arguments between Christians completely fruitless, unless both sides agree to argue with a Calvinistic (or Arminian) standpoint.

He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.

In the LORD's hand the king's heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.

 

[Christian Liberty]

John Calvin was as statist as they come. And "manifest destiny" fits squarely with Calvinism. What is it about Calvinists that cause them to minimize the faults of their own philosophy and maximize the perceived faults of others?

John Calvin's politics sucked (as I love telling my statist Calvinist friends...) I meant "Calvinism" in the sense of predestination. Saying God "ordained" the government only has to mean he approved of it if we're using a non-predestinarian framework.

Exactly. I have found arguments between Christians completely fruitless, unless both sides agree to argue with a Calvinistic (or Arminian) standpoint.

Indeed.

 

[Brett85]

Ummm....huh? Your claim here is completely without merit.

How would someone who infringed on the rights of others be punished in an anarcho capitalist society? Private arbitration? How do you force the person who committed the crime to participate in the arbitration process?

 

[jmdrake]

How would someone who infringed on the rights of others be punished in an anarcho capitalist society? Private arbitration? How do you force the person who committed the crime to participate in the arbitration process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence

 

[jmdrake]

John Calvin's politics sucked (as I love telling my statist Calvinist friends...) I meant "Calvinism" in the sense of predestination. Saying God "ordained" the government only has to mean he approved of it if we're using a non-predestinarian framework.

One can believe in freewill salvation and still believe in a permissive will of God. The story of Saul and Samuel is a perfect example. Israel sinned in asking for a king. God allowed them to have one and then made them live with their decision.