Question for Christians who believe that non-Christians go to hell

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Removing the excess (which is vigilantism) doesn't removing the source of the excess. And that source, wrongdoing should be punished, lies in people at large and people at large determine the justice system.

That is some rather shocking daisy chain logic there antiskeptic.

You can see how much a difference there is between how people are large acting based on their instincts and modern justice systems by looking at things like the identification of pedophiles in local news papers, or the mob justice surrounding drug dealers.

People at large following their gut instincts about justice have a quite removed sense of the right way to deal with people than our justice institutions.

Eye for an eye is a subjective interpretation of our evolutionary instinct for revenge, given that our instincts are not nearly as precise as our reasoning. I've seen honor kills being justified under the eye for an eye concept, the daughter insulted the family so we killed her to return our honor. We all scream that isn't justice because a life is not equal to honor, but they disagree. Who is right?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The concept of an eye for eye is what we are dealing with - not the problems that might be encountered whilst applying it.

Don't be silly. You are looking for an explanation for why an eye for an eye isn't used in our modern justice systems. It isn't used because of the problems with it. You cannot divorce the problems from the concept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing subjective about an eye lost and if it was lost by a wrongdoing of yours in fact then extraction of same in return is my entitlement.

"The same in return" is a subjective concept. Say a blind man stabs you in the eye. What do you take from him? Someone steals your car. The person who stole your car doesn't have a car, so you can steal his car. So you chop off his hand, because that is "same in return" in your mind. A woman is raped by a man, so in return she cuts out his eyes because she feels that that is the equivalent of the suffering she has had at his hands.

One of the reasons an eye for an eye was abandoned years ago in most modern justice systems is because the concept of "same in return" is so ridiculously subjective as to be unworkable.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I acknowledge the effects of moral relativism. But if we were to look back over the history of mankind - rather than narrow the focus to today uber alles we find as I've pointed out.

I'm sure we do. Eye for an eye was practiced throughout human history, and up through the middle ages. I'm not saying it was never practiced. I'm saying it is not practiced now.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, we're dealing with the justness of i4i - not the problems associated with people wanting their cake and eating it.

No we aren't actually, since justice is quite subjective and your sense of justice and my sense of justice are quite different so such a discussion would be rather pointless.

We are dealing with why i4i isn't used in modern justice systems. And you can't discuss that without discussing all the problems associated with i4i.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What funny creatures we are: getting caught in wrongdoing then demanding we be rehabilitated and deterred.

Not really funny, just realistic. This is my over aching point, concepts like i4i are short term. Short term satisfaction from inflicting suffering on those who have hurt you.

But long term, as a way of structuring society, it is a terrible idea because it ignores that the person you harm has the same instinct for revenge as you do.

It is like the troubles in the North. The UVF shoot an IRA man. So the IRA enact revenge for this and shoot a UVF man. Nice little i4i there. Surely the UVF will realise that justice has been served and that balance has been returned. But of course they don't. The UVF want revenge for the shooting of the UVF man. They don't think "But we shot the IRA man first, and the IRA were just enacting fair retribution"

antiskeptic wrote: »

We should remind ourselves that i4i will be the form of justice extracted at Judgement. There will be no chance of the re-reaction along the lines of our bike thief friend. Bound up and helpless, full punishment will be extracted with such distractions.

Well so long as you keep i4i in heaven and not on Earth I've no issue.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

No, it is wholly fair and balanced, that if you pluck out my eye, I can pluck out yours. You raise a good point too in saying 'how much you've been wronged.' You acknowledge that there is a balance.

What gets balanced? Considering no two people are exactly the same or find themselves in the exact same situation the idea of this balance you guys like to talk about is rather ridiculous.

I'm out one night and someone starts a fight with me and breaks my foot. I'm wronged and to enact "justice" I'm entitled to break his foot, which I do.

I then find out that he is a football player and I've effectively ended his career.

Balance? Not really, my foot heals in a few weeks and it is a bit stiff, but it has no lasting effect on my life. His broken foot ends his career.

You guys talk about balance as if everything happens in a vacuum.

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally think a justice 'system' should be about prevention first, protection second, rehabilitation third and puishment last. Punishment however, can be a part of the first three.

And what purpose does punishment serve?

JimiTime wrote: »

You are mixing up what is Just, with what is the best course of action to take is in the society we live and the ethics one has.

I'm not mixing them up, I'm ignoring that you guys call justice because it has no purpose other than revenge and causes detrimental problems for society.

JimiTime wrote: »

As much as I agree with your reasoning about not going and stabbing him back, it still does not contradict that my action would be just.

See above about the subjective nature of justice and balance.

These concepts, justice and balance are so subjective and unknowable as to be useless. An eye for an eye ignores all context and circumstance. Is assumes everything takes place in a vacuum where everyone is equal and then assumes we have the ability to judge equal suffering and hurt.

Say someone crushes my foot and I then crush his foot back exact this guy has some medical problem that causes him to bleed out and he dies.

Justice? Balance?

Surely now to remain justice and balance I have to be killed? Correct? But I'm innocent right?

There is no way to objectively measure suffering and there is no way to objectively inflict equal retribution. As such these concepts are meaningless.

Justice as you guys call it has not tangable meaning. It is just a fancy name for revenge.

Soul Winner

StormWarrior wrote: »

This doesn't answer the question I asked. My question is about why non-believers are sent to spend an eternity in conscious suffering rather than simply being destroyed.

That's the deal simple as. Why is this so hard to understand?

StormWarrior wrote: »

If they are destroyed, how does that hurt the Christians who inherit eternal life?

It doesn't. What makes you think it does?

StormWarrior wrote: »

Does it serve some purpose keeping them in tormented existence forever?

I don't know, but I doubt it very much. Maybe it's purpose might be to get it into the minds of those who end up there that without God they can do absolutely nothing at all and if they want to be in a place where He's not at, then so be it, but that this particular penny will never drop with them is probably why it lasts forever. God is to be worshiped, thanked and praised for all eternity. If you don't agree then enjoy the other place.

StormWarrior wrote: »

I never said I haven't "sinned," as a Christian would understand it.

The word Paul used which is translated 'sin' in the New Testament is 'Harmatia', which simply means to fall short of the mark, the mark in this case being God's standard of perfection - The Law, and not just the ten commandments but whole law of the Old Testament. To be justified by this law you must first know every single little part of it, and then to keep it both personally, and perpetually your whole life. If you can do this then you will be justified by the law. If you miss one jot or tittle of it then you have fallen short and are under the curse of the law which is death. God in His goodness has provided a way of escape out from under this impossible standard through Christ. He came and kept the law for us and then nailed it to a tree freeing us from its yoke of bondage over us. If you think that you have kept this standard and can stand before God to be justified by it then be my guest. But if you know who haven't kept it and recognize your need of God's mercy then you need Jesus. All God's wants is an asking mouth and He will give you mercy and place you in Christ judicially and view you as just like Jesus in performance because of your simple act of faith in His death as your covering. You can't get a simpler religion than Christianity, this is what it is at its most basic level, even a baby can understand this. If when you stand before God claiming ignorance on this subject then you've got serious problems.

StormWarrior wrote: »

As we have heard in this thread, to the Christian way of thinking it is impossible for anyone not to "sin." By "I don't deserve it," I meant that I don't deserve to be tortured for eternity because I told a few lies or had pre-marital sex. I know you will say that what I think on the matter doesn't count,

God is a God of mercy but He is also a God of justice. For God to be faithful to His Word i.e. 'for sin comes death', death must befall the sinner, or faller shorter for want of a better phrase. I'm sorry but God has spoken on this and it is final. Now He has also spoken of a way out from this predicament which means that the curse of death need not hold sway over you. But in order to avail of this mercy from God you must first recognize your need of it and then ask God for it. Again, childishly simple really.

StormWarrior wrote: »

but:
a - If we are made in God's image then I assume that means we must have a similar sense of justice to God? It seems very few people, even Christians, like the idea of non-believers spending eternity in torment, so why would God think this is an appropriate punishment?

I feel your time would be much better served if you stopped substituting God's judgment on matters for your own and recognize that it is not going to change and to turn to Him before He completely turns His back on you and turns you over to a strong delusion to be dammed forever. Your concern about why there's a hell and not a hell will not hold you in any greater stance with God when it comes to the judgment time. You will either be judged by your performance under His perfect standard or be covered by the atoning work of His Son.

StormWarrior wrote: »

b - If the fact that I have no say in whether I was brought into existence to participate in this little game of God doesn't matter, how can you genuinely love a god who will create unwilling victims knowing full well that many will end up in hell?

I don't love God because He creates unwilling victims knowing full well that many will end up in hell. If they end up in hell its because they have rejected His escape route and His grace. I couldn't care less about idiots like that. The reason I love God is because He loved me first. If you were drowning in a river and knew that you were going to die and somebody at risk to themselves jumps in and brings you safely to the bank, would you have to talk yourself into liking that person? Considering what God has already done for us while we were still in the state of deserving His wrath, I find it mind boggling that anyone can do anything other than joyfully and gladly thank, praise, serve and worship Him every minute of our lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm no perfect saint in this regard either, but I press toward the mark as best I can daily.

StormWarrior wrote: »

His grace hasI can understand how if you believe in this god you would serve it out of fear, but genuinely love it?

You're looking at things all wrong. God is sovereign. If He decides to create you then like or lump it, it becomes fact and tough if you don't agree. He's not asking for your opinion on it. It's just a brute fact and you have two choices in how to deal with it. Surrender to His will for you or be destroyed.

StormWarrior wrote: »

But once again, we come back to the same problem. I have looked at the evidence thoroughly, and I have far more reason to believe that the christian god does not exist. There are many religions to choose from, Christianity is one of the many unproven stories out there. How can I be expected to trust in something that has given me no reason to believe it even exists?

You are going off topic on your own tread. You asked questions for Christians who believe that non Christians go to hell, not about the truthfulness or not of the Christian faith, if you want to debate that then by all means start a new thread about it. But just on that point, if you have been convinced that the Christian faith is not true then why even bother posting in the Christianity forum? You don't see me going into the Islam forum bothering them do you?

StormWarrior wrote: »

And it still leaves the problem of the unfairness of inherited sin.

Where is it written that God has to be fair? To be a just God all He has to be is faithful to His word. And He has been, even to His own hurt. Fair is a man made delusion when it comes to God. Human beings should be fair to each other, referees should be fair in football matches, but God has not bound Himself to be fair to anyone, He has bound Himself by His own Word and He will be faithful to it, the best advice I can give anyone is to get on the right end of that two edge sword.

StormWarrior wrote: »

But firstly humans aren't omnipotent like God supposedly is, we can't help that the junkie's child be born an addict. That's a physical thing out of our control. It's not comparable to God deciding, "I'm going to hold all of Adam and Eve's descendants responsible for Adam and Eve not obeying me.

Before they sinned, death was as abstract to them as eternal life is to us today. They had no concept of death. Life was everywhere but God spoke of death. All of Adam's descendants were still in his loins so when Adam himself was driven from the garden and the tree of life likewise anything that was of Adam after that as it was stained by His sin. So don't blame God, blame Adam. But God did not leave them without a way to commune with Him. God's first act after they sinned was to kill an animal and cover their shame with its skins. This is exactly what happened when Christ bore the wrath of God for us. His death brought about a covering for our shame too. If you do not accept the covering then you are naked and your shame is still exposed.

StormWarrior wrote: »

This is different to you being sent to prison because your great-grandfather robbed a bank, as there is choice involved there for whoever's in charge to decide to send you to prison or not. If God is omnipotent and just, why didn't it throw Adam and Eve out but allow their descendants a clean slate?

Please see reply above. In any case, He did allow their descendants a clean slate, Christ provided it through His death. OK we still have to walk through the door of our physical death but if you are covered by Christ because of your faith in His atoning death, then the promise is that you will enter eternal life, in fact when you have the spirit of Christ in you by faith down here, you have already started your eternal life with Him, physical death down here is just like shedding an old layer of skin.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Or wipe Adam and Eve out and create new ones? It wiped out whole lands who weren't up to scratch at other times.

Yes He could have done that and been justified in doing it, that He didn't is tantamount to His grace yet again.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Also, if one one side of the battle there's our sinful natures which is just the way we are, and we can only be rescued by God, where does human choice even come into it? It sounds like we are just powerless either way. If God doesn't need us, why create us?

I believe that He created us to fill the void in heaven vacated by Satan and his angels. But to fill that void He must have people who will freely give themselves over to Him and trust Him with their lives down here. unfortunately folks like that are very rare indeed and in every generation God is making up this number slowly but surely. Think of this temporal existence as a training ground for eternity. Through life's everyday circumstances God is teaching us how to trust Him. Faith is the currency of heaven and we must attain to a state of total an utter trust in Him in order to fill one of those places in heaven. That's how I see things anyway. We will even be higher than angels, God's showcase for eternity and to put anything before that down here is total insanity IMO.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Now you are spectacularly missing the point. This is just an analogy, showing that it is not fair for one person to be judged and punished for another's actions. I never said his robbing a bank contaminates you, I'm saying it's not fair that you be sent to prison for something that he did.

It a bad analogy.

StormWarrior wrote: »

And how exactly are we "contaminated" by Adam and Eve's actions anyway? Did their actions somehow get into our DNA and change our genes, or what?

Yes I believe it did actually. Death shepherds us down here (or at least it did before Christ came). There is a set time for everyone to die. Our cells seemed to be programed somehow to shut down at a particular point.

StormWarrior wrote: »

But them calling me an a*****e doesn't affect anyone, even me. It certainly does affect people that they are being tormented forever. Of course, you don't have to accept my judgment that god is a bully. I never said that you have to agree, I'm saying that I personally don't understand how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

The point you seem to totally miss is that it doesn't matter what bloody conclusions we come to about God. He's not asking our opinions about His revelation. He is seeking out those who will trust Him in order to save them and the rest is just the trash, why should He be worried about what the trash thinks of Him?

StormWarrior wrote: »

So it's not that spending eternity with God will be brilliant, it's just the lesser of two evils?

Even if it was a choice between the lesser of two evils it would be still pretty stupid to pick the greater one wouldn't it?

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

Even if you sinned for every waking hour of every day of you life, being consigned to hell for eternity is hardly an eye for an eye.

I tend to agree with that.

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think its supposed to be taken literally
(what happens when I pluck the eye from a blind man?)

I agree, its meant to show the concept of judicial balance.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

What gets balanced? Considering no two people are exactly the same or find themselves in the exact same situation the idea of this balance you guys like to talk about is rather ridiculous.

I'm out one night and someone starts a fight with me and breaks my foot. I'm wronged and to enact "justice" I'm entitled to break his foot, which I do.

I then find out that he is a football player and I've effectively ended his career.

Balance? Not really, my foot heals in a few weeks and it is a bit stiff, but it has no lasting effect on my life. His broken foot ends his career.

You guys talk about balance as if everything happens in a vacuum.


And what purpose does punishment serve?


I'm not mixing them up, I'm ignoring that you guys call justice because it has no purpose other than revenge and causes detrimental problems for society.



See above about the subjective nature of justice and balance.

These concepts, justice and balance are so subjective and unknowable as to be useless. An eye for an eye ignores all context and circumstance. Is assumes everything takes place in a vacuum where everyone is equal and then assumes we have the ability to judge equal suffering and hurt.

Say someone crushes my foot and I then crush his foot back exact this guy has some medical problem that causes him to bleed out and he dies.

Justice? Balance?

Surely now to remain justice and balance I have to be killed? Correct? But I'm innocent right?

There is no way to objectively measure suffering and there is no way to objectively inflict equal retribution. As such these concepts are meaningless.

Justice as you guys call it has not tangable meaning. It is just a fancy name for revenge.

Justice is what it is, a balance, but in this imperfect world of imperfect people, an eye for an eye is useless used literally. It is perfect however in showing what justice is, i.e. a balance. 'Justice' does not entitle the perpetrator of a crime to walk free. Mercy along with other factors does. 'Justice' is about balance. Its that simple. The authors of the 'systems' recognise this even.

Recognise this?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Justice is what it is, a balance, but in this imperfect world of imperfect people, an eye for an eye is useless used literally. It is perfect however in showing what justice is, i.e. a balance. 'Justice' does not entitle the perpetrator of a crime to walk free. Mercy along with other factors does. 'Justice' is about balance. Its that simple. The authors of the 'systems' recognise this even.

Recognise this?

Justitia's scales weigh up evidence, not balance.

There are lots of different interpretations of justice, justice as balance is but one. I'm not really interested in debating which system of justice is correct, particularly considering I believe justice is a human concept and you believe it is divine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Understandings_of_justice

I'm more interested in pointing out that a system of justice as retribution (i4i) is not what our modern systems are based around.

StormWarrior

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's the deal simple as. Why is this so hard to understand?

OK, so we both have the understanding that God can do this just because it's bigger and stronger than us, just because it can. In your eyes this somehow doesn't make it a bully.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't know, but I doubt it very much. Maybe it's purpose might be to get it into the minds of those who end up there that without God they can do absolutely nothing at all and if they want to be in a place where He's not at, then so be it, but that this particular penny will never drop with them is probably why it lasts forever. God is to be worshiped, thanked and praised for all eternity. If you don't agree then enjoy the other place.

But if the penny will never drop, what's the point of keeping them there to get it into their minds? And if god is so concerned with people getting what they want and not forcing things on them, as he doesn't want to force his presence on those who don't want him, why keep them in existence if they don't want to be? Before you say, "He's god he can do what he wants," I'm not saying it can't do what it wants, I am asking, why, from a logical point of view, would god do this? What will be achieved by this? Will it benefit god in some way?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Surrender to His will for you or be destroyed.

Now this is confusing again. I thought I was going to be kept in existence and tormented for all of eternity, but now you say I'm going to be destroyed. Which is it?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are going off topic on your own tread. You asked questions for Christians who believe that non Christians go to hell, not about the truthfulness or not of the Christian faith, if you want to debate that then by all means start a new thread about it. But just on that point, if you have been convinced that the Christian faith is not true then why even bother posting in the Christianity forum? You don't see me going into the Islam forum bothering them do you?

I don't think it's off-topic, I think it's the very essence of the debate. The majority of non-christians don't choose hell over god, we simply don't believe that this god exists. You say we have chosen hell because we did not accept the get out jail free card. So then is it ok for someone to think, "I don't believe any of this christianity. But, to be on the safe side, if I'm wrong and you do exist then I accept your offer, Oh Lord." According to christian beliefs, I doubt that person would make it to heaven. So no matter how much christians deny it, the person is being punished for the thought crime of disbelief, something they have no control over, as god has arranged things in such a way (ie no real proof and many other religions around) that the majority of people will fail the test.
I'm posting in this forum as I find people's ability to believe in christianity baffling and I'm trying to understand it from an academic point of view. This forum is for discussing christianity, if I'm bothering you why answer?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The reason I love God is because He loved me first. If you were drowning in a river and knew that you were going to die and somebody at risk to themselves jumps in and brings you safely to the bank, would you have to talk yourself into liking that person?

If that person was the one who threw me into the river in the first place and then yelled, "I will only pull you out if you love me!" Then no I would not like them at all.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe that He created us to fill the void in heaven vacated by Satan and his angels. But to fill that void He must have people who will freely give themselves over to Him and trust Him with their lives down here. unfortunately folks like that are very rare indeed and in every generation God is making up this number slowly but surely.

So when god has filled this void, why keep the rejects in existence?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Justitia's scales weigh up evidence, not balance.

Ooops:o Made this mistake before with the copper serpent and the serpent found on medical stuff. Tut tut, Jimitime, tut tut.

Though in looking it up its not about evidence neither, just so you know. It says its about people being 'equally represented'.

As you alluded to, we are on two different pages. You are discussing systems of justice, whereas I'm getting a base definition of what 'justice' actually is. Though without there being objective justice, justice itself is pretty much an anyuthing the subject wants it to be.

I would contend, however, that you do hold to the balance idea, you just don't strp what justice is far enough down. You stop at the 'system' and its practice without going to the root.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Removing the excess (which is vigilantism) doesn't removie the source of the excess. And that source, wrongdoing should be punished, lies in people at large and people at large determine the justice system.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some rather shocking daisy chain logic there antiskeptic.

You can see how much a difference there is between how people are large acting based on their instincts and modern justice systems by looking at things like the identification of pedophiles in local news papers, or the mob justice surrounding drug dealers.

People at large following their gut instincts about justice have a quite removed sense of the right way to deal with people than our justice institutions.

Eye for an eye is a subjective interpretation of our evolutionary instinct for revenge, given that our instincts are not nearly as precise as our reasoning. I've seen honor kills being justified under the eye for an eye concept, the daughter insulted the family so we killed her to return our honor. We all scream that isn't justice because a life is not equal to honor, but they disagree. Who is right?

You've sidestepped the point by repeating the very error in thinking the point aimed to dismiss


The point is that people universally respond to i4i in positive fashion. The point is that people universally want to see crime being punished - not just deterred or the criminal rehabilitated. But punished. And because of those that, it is strange to suppose that those same people would develop a justice system devoid of an element of punishement.

It's a misdirection (intended or otherwise) to conflate i4i with vigilantism (in which i4i is but an element - just as it is in our justice systems). It's a misdirection to point to problems of administering i4i as a way of dimishing the justness of i4i. Any justice system faces that problem - it's just that vigilantism represents and extreme example.

This is about the justness of i4i - not about all the unjust cases where i4i isn't what's happening.

Don't be silly. You are looking for an explanation for why an eye for an eye isn't used in our modern justice systems. It isn't used because of the problems with it. You cannot divorce the problems from the concept.

I do think i4i is used in our justice system - it's just that the currency of payback isn't the same as the currency of offence.

Anyway, what problem would there be if our justice system, instead of sending someone to jail for glassing my eye out, took out the eye of the offender? You'd not have the problems of vigilantism where there is no due process or the payback can exceed the offence (+i4i as it were) because people lose the run of themselves.

"The same in return" is a subjective concept. Say a blind man stabs you in the eye. What do you take from him? Someone steals your car. The person who stole your car doesn't have a car, so you can steal his car. So you chop off his hand, because that is "same in return" in your mind. A woman is raped by a man, so in return she cuts out his eyes because she feels that that is the equivalent of the suffering she has had at his hands.

One of the reasons an eye for an eye was abandoned years ago in most modern justice systems is because the concept of "same in return" is so ridiculously subjective as to be unworkable.

Aren't we already capable of deciding that offence x results in jail time y? It's a currency exchange of dis-similarily between offence and punishment. If we can decide one exhange rate we can decide another.

I'm sure we do. Eye for an eye was practiced throughout human history, and up through the middle ages. I'm not saying it was never practiced. I'm saying it is not practiced now.

Indeed. Folk have found it a just method for most of the time man has existed. And although we find it just today, we don't apply it for various reasons.

We can hardly pose our lack of barbarism as the reason for this - what with us being about as barbaric now as man has ever been.

No we aren't actually, since justice is quite subjective and your sense of justice and my sense of justice are quite different so such a discussion would be rather pointless.

We are dealing with why i4i isn't used in modern justice systems. And you can't discuss that without discussing all the problems associated with i4i.

Yes we are actually. What is unjust about i4i? - that is the question.

- vigilantism is misdirection
- there is no problem with a justice system coming up with a suitable exchange in the case of blind men glassing my eye out
- people universally want the offence punished.

Have you got a further category of objection?

Not really funny, just realistic. This is my over aching point, concepts like i4i are short term. Short term satisfaction from inflicting suffering on those who have hurt you.

It's not required that I extract i4i from someone who has offended my. But it is just if that is the route I choose to go. And if I do go that route, then the issue of the offence against me is dealt with justly. If society wants to add something so as to deter/rehabilitate the offender in it's own interest then that is societies affair. After all, it's not good for society that people blind other people whether unjustly or justly

As it is, i4i might well provide deterrence enough. God only knows, it's only hitting the deck a few times and feeling the unrelenting hardness of it that truly brings an unruly young motorcyclist to heel.

But long term, as a way of structuring society, it is a terrible idea because it ignores that the person you harm has the same instinct for revenge as you do.

There is conflation going on here. Watch...

Revenge centres around paying back for an offence - it's a balancing of accounts. When person A's offence has been balanced by their loss of eye in return, what possible imbalance would they base revenge on? Sure, they can have an unjust sense of being wronged - but that has nothing to do with i4i, which is about balancing an actual unjust offence, not an imagined one.

Can we consider this line of objection dealt with? If so, can I return you to the question at hand: why is i4i unjust.

It is like the troubles in the North. The UVF shoot an IRA man. So the IRA enact revenge for this and shoot a UVF man. Nice little i4i there. Surely the UVF will realise that justice has been served and that balance has been returned. But of course they don't. The UVF want revenge for the shooting of the UVF man. They don't think "But we shot the IRA man first, and the IRA were just enacting fair retribution"

Which is your objection above worked out in practice.

Well so long as you keep i4i in heaven and not on Earth I've no issue.

I'll grant heaven is the place where i4i can be perfectly applied. There is one who can set the exact exchange rate and one who can prevent tit-for-tat.

i4i - why unjust. That is the question.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I would contend, however, that you do hold to the balance idea, you just don't strp what justice is far enough down. You stop at the 'system' and its practice without going to the root.

Me personally? No actually. I don't accept this notion of balance actually exists, though I understand why people do. If I suffer loss I don't think there is anything anyone can do to make my loss balance out.

If someone takes my eye I've lost an eye. Nothing I do to him will bring my eye back. If I take the persons eye then I've still lost an eye and he has lost an eye. I have not gained anything from this, I have just made him suffer. Whether I do this or not I still don't have an eye. I could shoot him in the head I still don't have an eye. I could rape his daughter I still don't have an eye. I could kill his entire family, still don't have an eye.

So when you realize nothing you do will erase what has happened to you the idea of justice as balance just becomes silly. Nothing is balancing out here. Me losing an eye and him losing an eye are not connected events that equal each other out. They are separate events that serve no united purpose. They are just stuff that happens.

And with that the question becomes what goal do I want to come out of my next actions. My goal would be that he never does this to anyone again. Is that goal served by me taking his eye? No. So not only does it not address this notion of balance that I don't think exists, it equally doesn't serve my desired goal.

TravelJunkie

StormWarrior wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that non-christians go to hell, how do you feel about this, considering that some of your friends will probably go there? Also, if you have a non-Christian child, how do you feel about them going there, and do you feel that it's unfair of God? This is a genuinely serious question, I've been wondering about this for a while. Do you feel that you will enjoy your time in heaven knowing that others are suffering?

I didn't read this whole thread so sorry if someone's already said this.

IMO We all get judged on judgement day. Believers and non-believers alike.
Believers (true believers) will have the benefit of having the righteousnous of Christ.

Some non believers seem to feel very righteous in their beliefs (of non belief) and morals in general. so, really, the question is, how will they stand up to God's standard on that Day.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And because of those things, it is strange to suppose that they'd develop a justice system devoid of these things.

Not really. "People" want a lot of things, slaves for example, and did for thousands of years. It took a small band of "intellectuals" to structure laws around outlawing this. And yet people still want slaves (the illegal slave trade is unfortunately still flourishing)

Thankfully we don't always structure society around the more base instincts of the great unwashed masses. Otherwise the tabloid's "Get the Pedophiles" campaign would have resulted in people being thrown in jail.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a misdirection (intended or otherwise) to conflate i4i with vigilantism (in which i4i is but an element just as it is in our justice systems).

I'm not equating i4i with vigilantism, I'm equating vigilantism with what the "people" want, as an example of where our legal system is not based on what the people want.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a misdirection to point to problems of administering i4i as a way of dimishing the justness of i4i.

I'm not, I'm pointing to the problems of i4i as a way of demonstrating why our justice system isn't based around it.

How "just" i4i is depends on the persons subjective notion of what is justice. I've no problem with you thinking it is just, but as I've pointed out that is only one concept of justice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I do think i4i is used in our justice system - it's just that the currency of payback isn't the same as the currency of offence.

Well I've tried to explain why you are wrong, but you don't seem to be listening, and it really isn't the main topic of the thread, so I guess that is that then.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Aren't we capable of deciding that offence x results in jail time y? It's a currency exchange.

It is not a currency exchange. A rape victim would be quite right in saying that sending a person to jail for 10 years for raping her in no way makes up for the trauma she has suffered. But then that isn't why we put the person in jail for 10 years.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can hardly pose our lack of barbarism as the reason for this - what with us being about as barbaric now as man has ever been.

That is some what of a silly statement to make, given that you are currently living in the safest period of human history. But it is going very off topic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes we are actually. What is unjust about i4i? - that is the question.

It is a bit of a pointless question because to you justice is about balance, and thus i4i isn't unjust at all since your sense of justice basically is i4i.

But as I've already pointed out there are different concepts of justice. i4i is justice to you because your sense of justice is based around the idea of i4i. Arguing based on that why i4i isn't justice would be circularly pointless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Revenge centres around paying back for an offence - it's a balancing of accounts. When person A's offence has been balanced by their loss of eye in return, what possible imbalance would they base revenge on.

Revenge is not a balancing of accounts. These "accounts" you talk about are abstract concepts that don't actually exist.

Revenge is about anger. When we are hurt we get angry and when we get angry we feel better about ourselves by inflicting suffering on those who have hurt us.

Eye for an eye is just a fancy way of dressing that up to make this sound reasonable and civilized. But it is silly to ignore the base instincts at play here.

You can see that clearly from the question what does "balancing" actually do? Does it give you your eye back? Nope. Does it give you something instead of your eye? Nope.

All it does is make you feel better because you have inflicted suffering on those who have hurt you. This instinct exists though in the person who you hurt in revenge. He goes through exactly the same cycle as you do, hurt -> angry -> desire for revenge.

He doesn't think "Well now we are balanced" because balance isn't what it is actually about. Balance doesn't exist. Eye for an eye and balance are just dress up for these concepts of revenge, justification for acting on our instinct for revenge.

We want to hurt those who hurt us. That is all that is going on here.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. "People" want a lot of things, slaves for example, and did for thousands of years. It took a small band of "intellectuals" to structure laws around outlawing this. And yet people still want slaves (the illegal slave trade is unfortunately still flourishing)

I've not got time today to answer your post but..

Your example is a weak example given that the people in your case aren't the people at large in mine. The people in your case are a small group of people who directly benefit(ted) from the slavery. That is not people at large

My claim was that people at large wanted punishment - not just deterrance/rehabilitation - to form a response to crime - with punishment involving, in essence, i4i. And because this is so, it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that the justice systems developed by and for those people doesn't reflect this fact.

Consider one particular person at large - who makes a career out of appealing to people at large.

Dawkins (speaking as part of his campaign to have the Pope arrested), author of The God Delusion, said: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055880582

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've not got time today to answer your post but..

Your example is a weak example given that the people in your case aren't the people at large in mine. The people in your case are a small group of people who directly benefit(ted) from the slavery. That is not people at large

My claim was that people at large wanted punishment - not just deterrance/rehabilitation - to form a response to crime - with punishment involving, in essence, i4i. And because this is so, it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that the justice systems developed by and for those people doesn't reflect this fact.

Consider one particular person at large - who makes a career out of appealing to people at large.





http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055880582

Well that just comes a subjective battle for "people at large". I certainly would not have said that people at large don't want slavery, given how slavery has been a major economic force throughout human history. They had to fight a war in America to outlaw slavery it was so popular and endemic.

But I've already used this "tabloid justice" style of retribution that Dawkins is carrying out as an example of people at least and pointed out that this what are justice system is based upon. The example I used was the name and shame padeophile campaigns in papers.

There is a quite large disconnect between what the great unwashed masses want and how our justice system is structured. To say our just system must follow what they want is incorrect.

But anyway