Human Sacrifice & Scapegoating, Easter's questionable morals

[Faithofchristian]

Without going much into it, I experienced sexual assault when I was growing up. I'm all too used to the 'the perpetrator should be killed' type of mentality and how toxic it can be for the victims. Becoming obsessed with revenge actually blocks healing because it hinges personal resolution on external effect instead of internal circumspection, and it dehumanizes the assailant and makes the victim as likely towards irrational response as the assailant was.
Once again, revenge isn't the answer.

Statistics already show us that capitol punishment doesn't work as a crime deterrent. There’s still no evidence that executions deter criminals
The vast majority of murders are crimes of passion, or where drugs and alcohol are involved. In neither case is the person thinking rationally. And, in fact, in situations where there's a standoff with officers, the criminal is MORE likely to murder officers when there is a death penalty than when there isn't.
https://www.aclu-de.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Death-Penalty-Doesnt-Deter-Crime.pdf

So what we have is that neither the death penalty nor imprisonment is a guarantee to deter anyone from doing things.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, she didn't say that. She said that--including as someone who has been grievously wronged--that acting on a desire for revenge doesn't work. And it doesn't. Hate never fixes or solves hatred. Hate that is returned with hate will bring more hate.

How do you know this?

Back when it was more accepted and common to be even brutally harsh on criminals, crime was never stopped, and while the means of torture and execution grew ever more sophisticated and gruesome, people still attempted to assassinate kings and monarchs. But the further we removed ourselves from such silly and petty notions of revenge and being as harsh as we can on criminals, the less criminal and violent significant portions of the world became. At no other point in history has your chances of being violently killed, or killed in an act of war, been lower.

How do I know this, that now he's afraid for his life, By watching his attorney saying on the news that how he's afraid of having his life taken by the death penalty, That now he's afraid of not having a fair trial.
Well it looks like he knew before he did anything, That he would be facing the death penalty and now he's afraid of not having a fair trial, he didn't give those kids no fair trial before he executed them.

By the way if the death penalty is not a deterrent from stopping crimes, Well neither does not having the death penalty is a deterrent from stopping crimes either.

Look at Chicago Illinois, there's no death penalty there, So not having the death penalty is not a deterrent either.

So whether there is a death penalty or not, crimes will go on.

Let's for say, You take a person and put in their face the death penalty or going to prison for their crime, and you say to them, if you do this, now pick which one you want.
How many do you think would pick the death penalty over going to prison for life being able to watch TV and eating and sleeping, going for walks, going to the gym, swimming, going to the prisons Library ?

But if you were to put in their face the death penalty, Bam, this is what your facing with no questions asked.

Hey don't worry if you do a crime, well just send you to prison where we'll feed you and take care of you, You just relax and take it easy. Watching TV and in the gym, and who knows you might can get out of prison on good behavior and then if you want, you can do it again and come back and we'll just take care of you and all you have to do is relax take it easy. And if your good you might get it out for good behavior again.

The only advantage of having the death penalty, is that, That person is not there to get out of prison and do the crime again, Their gone.

Where as they can get out of prison and do the crime again and again and ect-----------?

Look I am not totally for the death penalty nor am I totally against the death penalty.

All I'm saying is that whether you have the death penalty or you don't have the death penalty.
Well not be a deterrent for crimes.

If having no death penalty is a deterrent against crimes, why is there still crimes going on ?

If having the death penalty is a deterrent against crimes, why is there still crimes going
on ?
So either way there's no deterrent against crimes.
So there's advantage of having the death penalty and not having the death penalty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By watching his attorney saying on the news that how he's afraid of having his life taken by the death penalty

Since when have lawyers been known to honestly and accurately portray their clients? His lawyer's job is to defend him, and that is a part of it.

By the way if the death penalty is not a deterrent from stopping crimes, Well neither does not having the death penalty is a deterrent from stopping crimes either.

You were provided support that the death penalty increases the chance of someone killing a cop. Someone who has nothing to lose is going to fight like they have nothing to lose - they become more dangerous, because now they know they are fighting for their life.
And, of course, when we look at a place like Norway, it is considered pretty safe and has low crime, and they have no death penalty.

How many do you think would pick the death penalty over going to prison for life being able to watch TV and eating and sleeping, going for walks, going to the gym, swimming, going to the prisons Library ?

You don't know what prison is like, do you? Watching TV even nobody agrees on what to watch, eating high-carb low quality meals, and always being told when to sleep and doing so with one eye open, and being under constant armed surveillance. The way some people talk you'd think prison is stroll through the park. It's not.

The only advantage of having the death penalty, is that, That person is not there to get out of prison and do the crime again, Their gone.

Anders Breivik is out of prison, he is not able to repeat his crime, and he will not be killed by the Norwegian state.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Without going much into it, I experienced sexual assault when I was growing up. I'm all too used to the 'the perpetrator should be killed' type of mentality and how toxic it can be for the victims. Becoming obsessed with revenge actually blocks healing because it hinges personal resolution on external effect instead of internal circumspection, and it dehumanizes the assailant and makes the victim as likely towards irrational response as the assailant was.
Once again, revenge isn't the answer.

Statistics already show us that capitol punishment doesn't work as a crime deterrent. There’s still no evidence that executions deter criminals
The vast majority of murders are crimes of passion, or where drugs and alcohol are involved. In neither case is the person thinking rationally. And, in fact, in situations where there's a standoff with officers, the criminal is MORE likely to murder officers when there is a death penalty than when there isn't.
https://www.aclu-de.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Death-Penalty-Doesnt-Deter-Crime.pdf

Look I understand what your saying.

Look theres advantage and the disadvantage. Of the death penalty

The only advantage the death penalty has, is that person is not in prison to get out on good behavior and commit a crime again.
Their are gone.

Where as there is no death penalty, a person goes to prison and then on good behavior they get out to do a crime again.

So I can see the Advantage and the disadvantage of the death penalty.

That's all I'm saying.
Am I for the death penalty no.
Am I against the death penalty,no.

Look we both may know there has been people put in prison that have been found innocent after spending many years in prison. Where would they be had they been sent to the death penalty.
Some people are just to eager to build a reputation for themselves, instead of doing their jobs, of finding whether a person is guilty of a crime or not.

No I want to build my reputation, of sending them to prison or the death penalty, I have my reputation to think about regardless of what will happen to them.

For this cause, I would say I'm against the death penalty, all because of idiots like this.that cares nothing about a person, only building their reputation, at someone else's expense.

Now if someone is caught red handed in committing a crime in taking someone life, like the person who took 17 kids lives, then I would be for the death penalty.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Since when have lawyers been known to honestly and accurately portray their clients? His lawyer's job is to defend him, and that is a part of it.

You were provided support that the death penalty increases the chance of someone killing a cop. Someone who has nothing to lose is going to fight like they have nothing to lose - they become more dangerous, because now they know they are fighting for their life.
And, of course, when we look at a place like Norway, it is considered pretty safe and has low crime, and they have no death penalty.

You don't know what prison is like, do you? Watching TV even nobody agrees on what to watch, eating high-carb low quality meals, and always being told when to sleep and doing so with one eye open, and being under constant armed surveillance. The way some people talk you'd think prison is stroll through the park. It's not.

Anders Breivik is out of prison, he is not able to repeat his crime, and he will not be killed by the Norwegian state.

Whether you have the death penalty or not will not deterrent anyone from doing a crime.
So you have the death penalty and people are committing crimes.
So you do have the death penalty in places and people are still committing crimes.

So it doesn't matter whether there is the death penalty or not have the death penalty people will still commit crimes.

I am not against the death penalty Nor am I for the death penalty.
It all depends on the situation.

Like the person who was caught red handed in the taking those 17 kids lives, Now this is where the death penalty can be and should take place.

But for an attorney who cares nothing about someone else, but only for building their reputation, at someone else's expense.of sending them to prison only to find out after many years in prison that they were innocent.What if that person was sent to the death penalty. And then after they are died, to find out that they were innocent.

All because of some idiot could not do their job right at the expense of someone's else's life.
All because they wanted to build themselves a reputation at someone else's expense.

For this reason I stand against the death penalty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now this is where the death penalty can be and should take place.

Why should we sink down to their level? Why should we condemn their killing, only to kill them?

sending them to prison only to find out after many years in prison that they were innocent.What if that person was sent to the death penalty. And then after they are died

That is reason enough to abolish the death penalty outright.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why should we sink down to their level? Why should we condemn their killing, only to kill them?

That is reason enough to abolish the death penalty outright.

You call it sinking down to their level, will if they can do the crime, Then let them pay the price for their crime.
If they are taking out of the way, You wouldn't have to worry about them ever being set free, to kill again now would you.

Well lets see, if someone holding a knife to your throat, and tells you, if you ever kill someone, I will take your life.

So now you know what will happen.and the full choice is in your hand. So you knew what would happen, so if you take a life you pay with your life.

So you said you're only buffing right,
you don't actually mean it do you,
Oh Waite I thought you were only kidding.

Now there are other people watching this all unfold, Hey they were not kidding after all, I better think twice on this one, before I think I can take someone life.

 

[Trackdayguy]

Been there, believed that. Its pretty hard to escape once your in it. pretty soon your whole identity is wrapped up in it. Once you claim the Bible is the word of God there is no room to debate or disagree as one is now disagreeing with God. OUCH....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well lets see, if someone holding a knife to your throat, and tells you, if you ever kill someone, I will take your life.

So now you know what will happen.and the full choice is in your hand. So you knew what would happen, so if you take a life you pay with your life.

If only life and humans were that simple.

 

[Faithofchristian]

If only life and humans were that simple.

Well who ever takes a life, knew exactly the consequences of what will happen to them.

Tell you what, if someone ever comes at you to take your life, You just tell them, that your not stooping down to their level.
Are you sure that will stop them, Well good luck on that one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well who ever takes a life, knew exactly the consequences of what will happen to them.

People still tend to know the consequences, even if it doesn't include death.

Tell you what, if someone ever comes at you to take your life, You just tell them, that your not stooping down to their level.

Defending yourself and killing someone over a notion of revenge and "blood for blood/life for life/eye for an eye" long after the fact are two completely different things.

 

[Faithofchristian]

People still tend to know the consequences, even if it doesn't include death.

Defending yourself and killing someone over a notion of revenge and "blood for blood/life for life/eye for an eye" long after the fact are two completely different things.

Not when that person who taken lives, was caught in the very act of it and you have died bodies laying around, so there's no questions.
Your kind of attitude is what promotes people to go out and take innocent lives.

And those people who take innocent lives knows there's people like you that will have sympathy pating them on the back for what they done.

 

[Glaurung]

I'd say the phrase "he died for your sins" is neither vague, nor contrived. It is textbook scapegoating.

"Textbook scapegoating" is to deflect blame upon a group or person. What blame is at all being laid unto Jesus in regards to the sins for which he accepted the crucifixion?

 

[Glaurung]

The problem is that I see it as stepping in between a victim and a shooter, dying to protect the person behind me, and the shooter simply has another bullet and kills the victim anyway.

This has no logical or contextual relation to anything I've said.

I don't believe everyone has "sin nature." I see all life forms with certain instincts bred into them and when those instincts are inappropriate for the situation: BOOM ... "sin".

As G.K. Chesterton puts it most eloquently. You deny the cat.

How is moral reasoning designed to get you into heaven NOT self-interest?

You don't even understand the question. The question is whether or not a worldview which rejects anything transcendent of material reality can coherently justify any claim of moral oughts. (I don't think it can). Pointing out that (if Christianity is true) God ultimately rewards virtuous lives (and thus it is in one's self-interest to live virtuously) misses the whole point of the discussion. It is not whether one personally benefits by virtue in a Christian universe but whether a materialistic universe has any grounding for objective moral justification. My assertion is that assuming materialism all we have is subjective opinion.

Jesus said God thinks of you as little more than sparrows or flowers. Given how often God sees fit to wipe out individuals or groups or entire populations, clearly God isn't "pro-life".

That's a rather disingenuous reading.

Matthew 6:25-30, Matthew 10:29-31

Given how often God sees fit to wipe out individuals or groups or entire populations, clearly God isn't "pro-life".

Which is to take nothing which didn't already belong to him. All life is given by and belongs to God. Not a single breath you have ever drawn was owed to you, neither is tomorrow owed or promised to you. Your time here on earth is a gift from the author of life. As is the immortal life that awaits all human beings.

Calling something moral just because God preferred it IS subjectivism.

No it's not since God is the author of creation. Nothing exists beyond God. The divine law reflects the goodness of God, which (assuming God exists) is objective reality because there is no reality beyond God.

How bees treat each other means nothing to YOU, but it means life or death to THEM.

I acknowledged that even in a materialist universe moral conduct is beneficial. But again, that is not the question.

Remember that when that star is a big rock flying towards you to wipe out a city block, the block you're in.

Rocks flying towards me aren't stars. Regardless, This is meaningless snark. It means nothing as far as actual discussion goes.

Secondly, the universe is awe inspiring.

I believe divine reality is omnipresent (more or less). "Separation" is impossible.

Often words can have differing levels of meaning based on the context. Ontological separation (or rather independence) from God is not possible as God is the source of all being. That would be non-existence. Nonetheless we can by willful sin and the rejection of grace 'distance' ourselves from God. We can choose to oppose God, which if obstinately maintained until death results in irrevocable spiritual ruin.

It can according to the society. Hateful values promote social disruptions that are not healthy in short-term or long-term.

Again, that's not the question.

Why would an evil person care about hell? You're essentially grounding them to a place that caters to their every viewpoint.

Because hell is his eternal misery. In hell, the seductive wrapping paper that so often garbs evil in this world is stripped away and it is exposed in all its vileness. (A vileness the damned can never escape). It's an incomprehensibly terrible fate and no Christian has any right to wish it upon anyone. But alas, God gives every person the dignity to decide his own eternity. And if being cut of from enjoying the sight of God is what the dying obstinate wants, then that is what God will grant him.

 

[icehorse]

"Textbook scapegoating" is to deflect blame upon a group or person. What blame is at all being laid unto Jesus in regards to the sins for which he accepted the crucifixion?

Um, "our sins" are the blame "being laid unto Jesus".

 

[pearl]

Scapegoating is to divert blame onto a person or group unfairly.

I think the term 'scapegoating' goes back to the observance of Yom Kippur and the atonement for the sins of Israel in which two goats, one sacrificed, one led onto the wilderness carried the sins of Israel. Later theology rejects the idea that Jesus' sole purpose was a sin offering.

Millions of kids will likely hear the phrase: "Jesus died for our sins". Is it your contention that this is a positive, meaningful message for children?

Easter is a celebration of life and joy. What children, those old enough to pay any attention, will hear is Alleluia, He is risen. And through age appropriate religious education they familiar with what is meant by unconditional love.

Try telling to those who lost family members

I'm remembering the church killing spree in SC, and how the survivors forgave the killer.

Where as there is no death penalty, a person goes to prison and then on good behavior they get out to do a crime again.

Supposedly, the purpose of prison is to reform, to rehabilitate one, not simply revenge or punishment.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think the term 'scapegoating' goes back to the observance of Yom Kippur and the atonement for the sins of Israel in which two goats, one sacrificed, one led onto the wilderness carried the sins of Israel. Later theology rejects the idea that Jesus' sole purpose was a sin offering.



Easter is a celebration of life and joy. What children, those old enough to pay any attention, will hear is Alleluia, He is risen. And through age appropriate religious education they familiar with what is meant by unconditional love.



I'm remembering the church killing spree in SC, and how the survivors forgave the killer.



Supposedly, the purpose of prison is to reform, to rehabilitate one, not simply revenge or punishment.

Well seeing it doesn't work, there are many who have gone to prison a number of times, So rehabilitation does not work.

 

[icehorse]

Later theology rejects the idea that Jesus' sole purpose was a sin offering.

The phrase "jesus died for our sins" is very current.

Easter is a celebration of life and joy. What children, those old enough to pay any attention, will hear is Alleluia, He is risen. And through age appropriate religious education they familiar with what is meant by unconditional love.

I think you're trying to distract us from the OP.

 

[pearl]

The phrase "jesus died for our sins" is very current.

Yes it is. Self sacrifice, a total giving of self, unconditional love. Jesus gave his life, no one took it from him.

I think you're trying to distract us from the OP.

How? I addressed the idea of human sacrifice where Jesus is concerned.

 

[icehorse]

Yes it is. Self sacrifice, a total giving of self, unconditional love. Jesus gave his life, no one took it from him.

Even if - for the sake of discussion - I grant you that point, the crux is that, as the story goes, he took our punishment for us. As scapegoats do.