Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

[nPeace]

That was the plot of the movie Minority Report. Three people had the ability to predict murders. They would inform a special police unit who would try to prevent the crime before it happened. Murders were reduced to close to zero, as the murderers were stopped before the crime was committed. They were then imprisoned, which was the moral dilemma raised. Was it right to punish someone for something he hadn't actually done?

I could see how that would cause a problem.
Imagine your dad, the most loving person anyone could want, being dragged off to prison, for something he never did.

That's just something raised by the movie, and you reminded me of it.

The answer to your question is obvious. Yes, we should stop crime before it happens if we can. In fact we already do. And we have the crime of "conspiracy" to charge them with, if appropriate. But if the way we stop them is wholesale killing of all potential criminals it opens a whole other can of worms.

Agreed. A can of worms that won't go away.

I think the reference is to the flood. I don't see how your response holds up with babies, who are incapable of most actions, let alone understanding morality in any form.

I think the reference was to the firstborn children in Egypt, but I think the children in Noah's day fit here as well.
I was not saying that God knew what they would become, and slaughtered them for this reason. the Bible does not say that.
My point was, what made them innocent. Who determined that they were innocent.
So, my question was at what point did they become, not innocent.

No one was innocent, in Egypt, nor in Noah's day.
No one actually was not guilty of the death penalty.
It was only the mercy on God's part that allowed Noah to live.
Mercy, in allowing the human race to exist... despite their condition.

 

[danieldemol]

Of course he could... Wipe them out... but then, you and I would not have been born.
How is that even a better choice?

As I see it you are falsely limiting the options of your allegedly *All* Powerful God to just one. You completely ignore that it is within your God's power to rehabilitate humans without wiping them out.

Really? Not having humans? How is that merciful?

Strawman.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Curing the wicked, depraved and perverse doesn’t show up anywhere in the Ministry of Christ.

All that proves is that Jesus was not All Merciful in my view.

Also the Beatitudes do not say we Christians are cruel longing for justice.

I believe hell is not just, because it is punishment in excess to the proportion of the alleged crime, and because it is vengeance based serving no other purpose, and because it is unjust to create things a certain way then punish them for being that way.

Therefore the Beatitudes are not an accurate reflection of the attitude on display for all to see in post #70.

In my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

As I see it you are falsely limiting the options of your allegedly *All* Powerful God to just one. You completely ignore that it is within your God's power to rehabilitate humans without wiping them out.

Strawman.

In my opinion.

"Falsely limiting"?
What were you thinking of... Hollywood?

We are talking about the God as described in the Bible. Not the movies.

 

[danieldemol]

"Falsely limiting"?
What were you thinking of... Hollywood?

No, I was thinking of your actions in attempting to limit the ability of an allegedly All-powerful God

We are talking about the God as described in the Bible. Not the movies.

Sure, and God as described in the Bible cannot be both of limited power and All-powerful, or of limited mercy and All merciful - it is a contradiction in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[Apostle John]

I believe hell is not just, because it is punishment in excess to the proportion of the alleged crime, and because it is vengeance based serving no other purpose, and because it is unjust to create things a certain way then punish them for being that way.

Therefore the Beatitudes are not an accurate reflection of the attitude on display for all to see in post #70.

In my opinion.

Crime isn’t a Biblical word. That is to do with human law which is full of unfairness and miscarriages. We Christians can be sure God will be just. The account of the rich man and Lazarus is very fair to me.

 

[nPeace]

No, I was thinking of your actions in attempting to limit the ability of an allegedly All-powerful God

Sure, and God as described in the Bible cannot be both of limited power and All-powerful, or of limited mercy and All merciful - it is a contradiction in my view.

In my opinion.

Sorry, but being powerful does not mean being stupid. God does not have to do anything because he is all-powerful... including whatever stupid things we think he should do.

Besides, you did not mention how God would go about changing people's minds.... Make them zombies, robots, air heads. What?
Why the silence.

I believe, it's because you have no idea, but just want to point a finger.
Am I correct?

 

[danieldemol]

Crime isn’t a Biblical word. That is to do with human law which is full of unfairness and miscarriages. We Christians can be sure God will be just. The account of the rich man and Lazarus is very fair to me.

It doesn't seem just to me because God is the creator of Lazarus.
Since God made Lazarus a sinner, punishing Lazarus for that would be no different in my view from a human being creating a black pot then destroying it for being black - i see the line of reasoning as identical in either case.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Sorry, but being powerful does not mean being stupid. God does not have to do anything because he is all-powerful... including whatever stupid things we think he should do.

Again merely labelling something stupid without providing any line of reasoning for how it is stupid is simply an ad-hominem attack.

Besides, you did not mention how God would go about changing people's minds.... Make them zombies, robots, air heads. What?
Why the silence.

I believe humans *are* the biological equivalent of automatons, so to me it would only require the creation of a more functional automaton - something easily within the power of an All-powerful God.

I believe, it's because you have no idea, but just want to point a finger.
Am I correct?

No, your ad-hominem is not correct.

In my opinion.

 

[Apostle John]

It doesn't seem just to me because God is the creator of Lazarus.
Since God made Lazarus a sinner, punishing Lazarus for that would be no different in my view from a human being creating a black pot then destroying it for being black - i see the line of reasoning as identical in either case.

In my opinion.

Lazarus wasn’t punished.

 

[Nakosis]

Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

History has been marred with many cruel acts.
Scientists believe that there were battles fought by Neanderthals, which lasted 100,000 years, where heads were bashed in with clubs, and where javelins pierced body parts, and many arms were broken.

Spoiler: An Artist's Depiction of Neanderthal Battles

Young ones were also subjected to cruelty, some experts suggest.

Spoiler: Neanderthal Children's Death

Early human ate young Neanderthal
Sometime between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago, an anatomically modern human in what is now France may have eaten a Neanderthal child, according to a new study.
It is the first study to suggest Europe's first humans had a violent relationship with their muscular, big-headed hominid ancestors.

The secret Lives of Neanderthal Children
The Devil's Tower boy, found in 1926 in Gibraltar, died at only around five years old, possibly from skull fractures. But he had already suffered another serious incident earlier in life: as a toddler, his jaw was fractured. It's impossible to say how these injuries happened, but clearly, Neanderthal childhood could be dangerous.

Of course these hypotheses cannot be verified.

Some archaeologists also believe there is evidence of much cruel acts against children, as young as babies.

Spoiler: Cruel Child Sacrifices

Ancient Authorities Reported Child Sacrifice In Carthage
Writing in the 4th century B.C.E, the Greek historian Cleitarchus said of the Carthaginian practice, “There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.” (trans. Paul G. Mosca) “Kronos” was a regional name for Baal Hammon, the chief of Carthage’s gods.

Another Greek historian named Diodorus Siculus writing less than a hundred years after the fall Carthage affirms his countryman’s account. “There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.”

Most scholars agree that the ritual performed at the tophet was child sacrifice
Archaeologists have applied the term "tophet" to large cemeteries of children found at Carthaginian sites that have traditionally been believed to house the victims of child sacrifice, as described by Hellenistic and biblical sources.

However, children are not always the victims of cruelty.
The daughter of Herodias danced for the occasion and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, at her mother’s prompting, said: “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” Grieved though he was, the king, out of regard for his oaths and for those dining with him, commanded it to be given. So he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. Matthew 14:6-11
Salome, (flourished 1st century ce), according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the daughter of Herodias and stepdaughter of Herod Antipas, tetrarch (ruler appointed by Rome) of Galilee, a region in Palestine. In Biblical literature she is remembered as the immediate agent in the execution of John the Baptist.

List of youngest killers
Ziapasa Daughter, 3-Year-Old Murderess – West Virginia, 1906
The youngest murderess in the history of this state is the 3-year-old daughter of Michael Ziapasa, of Benwood, who so badly wounded a 2-months-old baby of a neighbor, Edward Schepech, that it died.
In the absence of the baby’s mother, the Ziapasa child attacked it with a butcher knife, cutting off its nose, stabbing it in the breast in many places and almost severing its arm.

Of particular interest, are the youngest of the murderesses.

Spoiler: List of Murderesses Younger than 10 Years Old

Age 3 – 1906 – Ziapasa daughter
Age 4 – 1885 – Lizzie Lewis
Age 4 – 1897 – Retta McCabe
Age 6 – 1892 – Bottoms Girl
Age 6 – 1899 – Lizzie Cook
Age 7 – 1887 – Virginia (or, Georgiana) Hudson
Age 7 – 1925 – Alsa Thompson
Age 8 – 1867 – Martin Girl
Age 8 – 2001 – Jummai Hassan
Age 8 – 1900 – Valentine Dilly
Age 9 – 1885 – Mary Cooper
Age 9 – 1884 – Annie Bebles
Age 9 – 1902 – Anna Peters
Age 9 – 1896 – Hattie Record
Age 9 – 2005 – “East New York girl”
Age 10 – 1834 – Honorine Pellois
Age 10 – 1873 – Sarah Reeves
Age 10 – 1897 – Geneva Arnold
Age 10 – 1886 – Jane Walker
Age 10 – 2010 – “Sandy Springs girl”
Age 10 – 2012 – Kelli Murphy

Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Murder – The Forgotten “Lizzie Bordens”

I strangled the baby, because I felt they were working me too hard. Laughs I have to laugh, when the impulse comes over me.


Among the public overall, 64% say the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder, while 33% say it is not justified. An overwhelming share of death penalty supporters (90%) say it is morally justified under such circumstances, compared with 25% of death penalty opponents.”​

For discussion...
Are acts against cruelty, in itself, an act of cruelty?

Cruelty is justified by the person who acts on it. Sometimes it is justified by the group one is part of, like during the times of the inquisition.

I would not currently justify it. There was a time I did though. People have a desire to be cruel, they find a way to justify it.

 

[danieldemol]

Lazarus wasn’t punished.

Correct, but the un-named rich man who was also created by God a sinner was punished so my point stands as I see it.

In my opinion.

 

[Apostle John]

Correct, but the un-named rich man who was also created by God a sinner was punished so my point stands as I see it.

In my opinion.

Which goes all the way back to my original point. God will not cure the wicked, depraved and perverted.

 

[danieldemol]

Which goes all the way back to my original point.

It sure does, as it debunks your original point in my view.

 

[Apostle John]

It doesn’t debunk my original point which was answering your question: Why doesn’t God cure the wicked, depraved and perverse to put an end to cruelty?
God will send these souls to hell where they belong, relieving Christians of them.

 

[danieldemol]

It doesn’t debunk my original point which was answering your question: Why doesn’t God cure the wicked, depraved and perverse to put an end to cruelty?
God will send these souls to hell where they belong, relieving Christians of them.

To the contrary I believe it does because it shows their faults are the product of poor design by God, which means the only entity that could have acted differently was God, therefore it is your God who is responsible and blameworthy, therefore if any entity deserves hell it is your God - not its alleged creations which can only act according to their allegedly God given nature.

But feel free to ignore the obvious logic of what im saying.

In my opinion.

 

[Alien826]

I think the reference was to the firstborn children in Egypt, but I think the children in Noah's day fit here as well.
I was not saying that God knew what they would become, and slaughtered them for this reason. the Bible does not say that.
My point was, what made them innocent. Who determined that they were innocent.
So, my question was at what point did they become, not innocent.

No one was innocent, in Egypt, nor in Noah's day.
No one actually was not guilty of the death penalty.
It was only the mercy on God's part that allowed Noah to live.
Mercy, in allowing the human race to exist... despite their condition.

So, are you referring to some version of "original sin"?

I don't want to debate this (again!) as I think I know the arguments on both sides, but I would be interested to know how you see it.

To give you something to address, I don't see how a baby can ever be seen as anything but innocent. It is incapable of committing a crime at that point, and we don't punish people for things they might do in the future. Also, let's say your father was a serial killer, but you have never committed any crime more serious than a parking violation. Should you be executed for what your father did?

 

[nPeace]

Again merely labelling something stupid without providing any line of reasoning for how it is stupid is simply an ad-hominem attack.

I believe humans *are* the biological equivalent of automatons, so to me it would only require the creation of a more functional automaton - something easily within the power of an All-powerful God.

No, your ad-hominem is not correct.

In my opinion.

Well, if you want me to respond differently, perhaps offering more than a belief that humans are like mechanical devices that just need tweaking, might be in order.
That leave nothing to go by, except imagining all sorts of stupid things that can be done to make humans what you think they should be... which we are all still in the dark about.

 

[nPeace]

Cruelty is justified by the person who acts on it. Sometimes it is justified by the group one is part of, like during the times of the inquisition.

I would not currently justify it. There was a time I did though. People have a desire to be cruel, they find a way to justify it.

Like everything else... murder, theft, adultery... and many other vices.

 

[nPeace]

So, are you referring to some version of "original sin"?

There is no other point to begin with.

I don't want to debate this (again!) as I think I know the arguments on both sides, but I would be interested to know how you see it.

Stalemate?

To give you something to address, I don't see how a baby can ever be seen as anything but innocent. It is incapable of committing a crime at that point, and we don't punish people for things they might do in the future. Also, let's say your father was a serial killer, but you have never committed any crime more serious than a parking violation. Should you be executed for what your father did?

I think, why we usually circle this, like the moon circling the earth, is because there is a point that continually gets missed.
Maybe I'm not doing a good job in making that point clear.

I'll try to make it simpler, if I can.
To you, and a whole set of other people... a baby is innocent -> because -> It is incapable of committing a crime at that point.

Question: A crime against whom?
Example:
You are in South Africa, after moving from the U.S. You do what you are accustomed to - that is, driving on the right hand side of the road. The officers stop you, and give you a warning. You insist on doing what you did back home. They charge you for a crime against the law of the state of S.A. Not a crime against the U.S.

This may be a lousy example, but it's just to make a point. I hope you saw it.
What is a crime to God, who set the law, and put the penalties in place, are not dictated by the laws the U.S., S.A., you, I, or anyone else.

The law of God says, sin - missing the mark of God's righteous standards, which he has the right to set - is a crime. The penalty : Death. Romans 6:23 - ...the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, while you can only see crime from the point of view of man, and you are limiting God to that level of crime, you are failing to see the level of crime - a higher one, that for whatever reason, you can't see, and in the case of atheists, would not see, or don't want to see.
Unless one is willing to accept that humans are not the ones with the ultimate right to set the standard of what is good and bad, they will never accept that.

That is why, God has set about settling that issue of universal sovereignty, and establishing his right to rule, and in time bringing an end to those who oppose it.
Based on what that involves, it will be wonderful... for those loving true righteousness, that is.
But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” - Revelation 11:18

Who likes to see the earth ruined anyway.
Hope I was able to be a lot clearer, this time. Did you get the point?