[Cody Dawg]

Read this story.

If they catch the person who did this, and know that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, what is just punishment for him or her?

Sometimes I think the Bible's adage of an eye for an eye is justified.

[Mastrap]

You're confusing retribution with justice.

Our entire justice system rests on the foundation that we do not lower ourselves to the level of those perpetuating crimes, no matter how abhorrent. Does whoever did this deserve punishment? Without a doubt and withing the law.

[Cody Dawg]

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

Just wondering. Because how can this guy ever really receive retribution for what he's done? He's ruined an entire family, disfigured and maimed and irreparably damaged a young person, and I don't see how this person can ever be truly held to justice.

Besides that he or she is a coward because he or she ran off.

[sek929]

An eye for an eye will only leave us blind.

[Cody Dawg]

Or burned? (In your case, "Boo-urned?")

[sek929]

Then lets take our animal anger out upon those who have wronged us by being violent towards them.

Then we can be no better than those we kill.

[tooki]

The bible is wrong all over the place. But that's beside the point.

In cases like this, I do think tit-for-tat might be appropriate. Jail time can't do the crime justice.

tooki

[sek929]

Perhaps instead of jail they can be forced into labor for the rest of their lives, instead of leeching they can wear their bodies out being a part of society...kinda like we all have to.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

Those who are sinless.. cast the first stone. And stuff.

I believe the J.Diddy came and redid those lyrics.

[Kevin]

Echo...

[Mastrap]

1. We don't know what happened there. Chances are that whoever did this might be mentally ill. Let's wait for the facts before sending out the dogs.

2.

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

Huh? What's that supposed to mean? Since when do we have religious law in the US? I am confused.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Sometimes I think the Bible's adage of an eye for an eye is justified.

um...

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for an eye, and tooh for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also...." -Matthew 5:43.

Now, before you chew me out, let me finish... I for one do not think I would be capable of forgiveness if I were in the position of the victim or family. I would want the guy who did this dead.

But let us assume that the victim and family (by whatever miracle) have the ability to forgive this person. Then do we let him off? Most certainly not. He STILL would need to die (or at the very least be SEVERELY punsihed) because he is a danger to society. I think there is also something in the Bible abuout governments' obligations to protect their people--this would fall under that category, IMO.

So if we are to hold true to Biblical teachings, we would not have eye for an eye, but we would have the death penalty (or life in prison, if we want to be like that...) for this person.

(of course, all IMO)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

1. We don't know what happened there. Chances are that whoever did this might be mentally ill. Let's wait for the facts before sending out the dogs.

I've never really understood why people use this defense. Even if a person is mentally ill they still need to be able to follow the rules of the society they live in. Mentally ill people are people too, and they should be treated as such. Someone who is incapable of following the rules is no better or worse than someone who is unwilling to follow the rules.

Although I'm not really a big fan of retribution. What good does it do? If someone destroys something that is mine, hurting them isn't going to bring it back.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Although I'm not really a big fan of retribution. What good does it do? If someone destroys something that is mine, hurting them isn't going to bring it back.

Exactly, it only quells one's own thirst for vengance. No good comes out of hurting someone who has hurt you.

[waxcrash]

"We need to find this despicable human being," she said. "We need to get him before he attacks someone else..

How do they know a man did this? A female could have done this.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I've never really understood why people use this defense. Even if a person is mentally ill they still need to be able to follow the rules of the society they live in. Mentally ill people are people too, and they should be treated as such. Someone who is incapable of following the rules is no better or worse than someone who is unwilling to follow the rules.

It's a question of responsibility. A crime is only a crime if the person committed is knew what he/she was doing. Otherwise it might well be a tragedy, but it won't be a crime. That's the very reason animals cannot commit crimes - they are not responsible for their actions.

If a person is not capable of following the rules of society we normally take them out of society for their own, and our, protection. That's why we have mental health care.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

It's a question of responsibility. A crime is only a crime if the person committed is knew what he/she was doing. Otherwise it might well be a tragedy, but it won't be a crime. That's the very reason animals cannot commit crimes - they are not responsible for their actions.

If a person is not capable of following the rules of society we normally take them out of society for their own, and our, protection. That's why we have mental health care.

But we still put animals down then they become a danger to people.

It's not crime that people need to be protected from, it's harm. I don't care if people go out and break the law as they please. I do care if people hurt me or others whether it's a crime or not.

[Salty]

Lex Talianos was a requirement of the Mosaic law. This is not the Bible's take. That's the Old Testament's take if we were living under the Theocracy of OT Israel. Today we are told to turn the other cheek. To be wronged and not fight back. I believe this is far more difficult.

That said, this is a very sick act. And I think the person who did it should be locked away indefinitely.

[meelk]

to quote MC Hawking (lolz), "you take an eye and i'll take your m#therf#ck#ng head."

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

What does God have to do with a person killing another person?

While I believe in God, I live in a very real world. A world of laws. Please show one example of where religion and laws mixed well. I hope they find that guy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I've never really understood why people use this defense.

It wasn't being used to defend the perpetrator's actions, it was being used to defend against a particular punishment, i.e. being burned alive.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Even if a person is mentally ill they still need to be able to follow the rules of the society they live in. Mentally ill people are people too, and they should be treated as such.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Someone who is incapable of following the rules is no better or worse than someone who is unwilling to follow the rules.

But different though, requiring different types of rehabilitation if rehabilitation is your goal.

I don't know if there have been studies, but I think being burned alive has a pretty low rehabilitation success rate.

Of course, if rehabilitation isn't your goal...

[Salty]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

What does God have to do with a person killing another person?

While I believe in God, I live in a very real world. A world of laws. Please show one example of where religion and laws mixed well. I hope they find that guy.

News flash sparky, religious beliefs are where we GET our laws from! Now follow me if you can.

Something bad happens. We know it is "wrong". Why do we know it's wrong? Because it goes against what we believe is right. A belief that fundamentally goes to how we believe our world is supposed to be. This is an aspect of religious belief. But wait you thought religion just had to do with God. What about religions that don't even believe in a single God? Or any gods?
So anyway, now that we know that something is wrong, we make a law so that it isn't supposed to happen. We are not allowed to do this because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? It goes against our higher sense of morality. This is one of the reasons why moral relativism is such a scary prospect. When nobody's sure what's wrong and right, who's to make laws so that what someone knows is wrong won't happen to them.
Then punishment comes in to detour people from breaking the laws.

As to what does killing someone have to do with God? All humans are made in the image of God. Snuffing out that image in anyone else is a sin against God.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Salty

News flash sparky, religious beliefs are where we GET our laws from! Now follow me if you can.

Were we GOT our laws from, and yes, but you are going to find it hard to get anyone to agree with this. Not that I am saying it's not true, because it is.

But some people don't like that fact, and try to spin it otherwise.

It also makes me laugh at those that think the world would be a better place without religion.

[production_coordinator]

News flash sparky, no they aren't...

It's no secret our laws have religious roots, but you don't see the bible being used and quoted in legal text. Just look at the United States. Of the ten commandments, only 3 are enforced. Killing and stealing are enforced... and bearing false witness has varying levels of being enforced.

As to what does killing someone have to do with God? All humans are made in the image of God. Snuffing out that image in anyone else is a sin against God.

You sound like a religious zealot. I think killing is wrong, but it has little to do with God.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It also makes me laugh at those that think the world would be a better place without religion.

I would NEVER say the world would be a better place without religion, but religious fanaticism has NO PLACE in this world.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

News flash sparky, no they aren't...

It's no secret our laws have religious roots, but you don't see the bible being used and quoted in legal text. Just look at the United States. Of the ten commandments, only 3 are enforced. Killing and stealing are enforced... and bearing false witness has varying levels of being enforced.



You sound like a religious zealot. I think killing is wrong, but it has little to do with God.

No I sound like someone who actually understands the theological concepts presented in scripture. Instead of someone who simply would like to pretend as if the Bible should be shoved in a closet while he goes on with his life.
As well building on your lack of understanding with the ten commandments. Not all of them were meant to be enforced, they go from being completely unenforceable to being entirely things that need to be prevented.
As well news flash again, the ten commandments are not the basis of a whole lot. If you honestly think that they are some how some sort of cornerstone to Christian or Jewish belief you're even more ignorant than you've already let on.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

News flash sparky, no they aren't...

It's no secret our laws have religious roots,

You just contradicted yourself. That is EXACTLY what he said. Laws have religious roots.

You sound like a religious zealot. I think killing is wrong, but it has little to do with God.

You sound like a secular zealot.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I would NEVER say the world would be a better place without religion, but religious fanaticism has NO PLACE in this world.

What one person calls fanaticism, another calls being true to ones religion.

I know non-religious people like the Sunday only believers, or those that don't take it seriously, and I understand why those not-religious feel "threatened" by those that are.

But this "fanaticism" seems to be labeled to anyone that believes and takes it seriously.

Which is silly.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Salty

News flash sparky, religious beliefs are where we GET our laws from! Now follow me if you can.

--a lot of stuff--

Equating religion with morals is a bit of a weird and scary concept. People can be atheists in the true sense and still have morals.

Also, Kevin and Salty, most laws actually do not originate from religion at all. Wikipedia has a really interesting article about this. The foundations of UK law, which was in turn the foundation to US law, date back to Roman times, who's law had little, if anything, to do with religion. French law dates back to the Code Napoleon and in turn has been used to define much of German law. No religion in any of these.

The core of English law, and in turn US law, is formed by the common law. The essence of common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent to the fact before them.

Precedent
Because common law consisted of using what had gone before as a guide, common law places great emphasis on precedents. Thus a decision of the highest court in England and Wales, the House of Lords (the judicial members of which are referred to as Law Lords) is binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow its directions. Precedent continues to be applied to this day allowing for decisions made in one Court regarding a set of facts and their interpretation in law to be applied to like circumstances in the future. It is also for this reason that there is no Act of Parliament making murder illegal. It is still a common law crime. It is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by British Parliament, for example, murder carries a mandatory life sentence today, but previously was punished by the death penalty.

Influences overseas
This practice of the common law (as opposed to civil law) was exported to Commonwealth countries while the British Empire was established and maintained, and persisted after the British withdrew or were expelled, to form the basis of the jurisprudence of many of those countries. English law prior to the Wars of Independence is still an influence on United States law, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies.
Many jurisdictions which were formerly subject to English law (such as Hong Kong) continue to recognize the common law of England as their own - subject, of course, to statutory modification and judicial revision - and decisions from the English Reports continue to be cited from time to time as persuasive authority in present day judicial opinions.


What you're talking about (I think) is ecclesiastical law:

In Western culture, canon law is the law of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. The Eastern Orthodox concept of canon law is similar to but not identical to the more legislative and juridical model of the West. In both traditions, a canon is a rule adopted by a council (From Greek kanon / κανών, for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

In the official Anglican Church of England, the ecclesiastical courts that formerly decided many matters such as disputes relating to marriage, divorce, wills, and defamation, still have jurisdiction of certain church-related matters (e.g., discipline of clergy, alteration of church property, and issues related to churchyards). Their separate status dates back to the 12th century when the Normans split them off from the mixed secular/religious county and local courts used by the Saxons. In contrast to the other courts of England the law used in ecclesiastical matters is at least partially a civil law system, not common law, although heavily governed by parliamentary statutes. Since the Reformation, ecclesiastical courts in England have been royal courts. The teaching of canon law at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was abrogated by Henry VIII; thereafter practitioners in the ecclesiastical courts were trained in civil law, receiving a Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.) degree from Oxford, or an LL.D. from Cambridge. Such lawyers (called "doctors" and "civilians") were centered at "Doctors Commons," a few blocks south of St Paul's Cathedral in London, where they monopolized probate, matrimonial, and admiralty cases until their jurisdiction was removed to the common law courts in the mid-19th century. (Admiralty law was also based on civil law instead of common law, thus was handled by the civilians too.)

Other churches in the Anglican Communion around the word (e.g., the Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican Church of Canada) still function under their own private systems of canon law.
In the Roman Catholic church, the canons of the councils were supplemented with decretals of the Popes, which were gathered together into collections such as the Liber Extra (1234), the Liber Sextus (1298) and the Clementines (1317).

In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church began attempting to codify canon law, which two millennia of development had become a complex and difficult system of interpretation and cross-referencing. The first code of canon law was published in 1917. A revised code, the Codex Iuris Canonici (Code of Canon Law, CIC) was published in 1983. Canon law within the Catholic Church is a fully developed legal system, with all the familiar trappings of courts (including lawyers); the highest degree of education in canon law is the J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor, Doctor of Canon Law).

The Eastern Catholic Churches have a separate code of canon law. The first attempt to codify Eastern law under the name Codex Iuris Canonici Orientalis (Code of Eastern Canon Law) was partially completed when Pope Pius XII promulgated portions of the canons in 1948. However, when the project neared completion in 1959, Pope John XXIII suspended work as the expected conciliar reforms would affect the code. The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, CCEO) was promulgated in November 1990. The majority of canons correspond closely to the Roman code, but incorporates certain differences in the hierarchy, administration and other areas.

The Orthodox Christian tradition is generally much less legalistic, and treats many of the canons more as guidelines than as absolute laws, adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nomoi/νομοι (laws) rather than kanones/κανονες (standards).
Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentary upon them in a work known as the Pedalion/Πεδαλιον (rudder--so called because it is meant to "steer" the Church). However, this is not a codification, but simply a compilation of one tradition of interpretation of the canons.

[nonhuman]

Our laws may have originally been rooted in religious beliefs (edit: although as mastrap has pointed out that is up for debate), but that doesn't mean that it's only through religion that we can have a concept of right and wrong or that religion is a necessary prerequisite of law and order.

A complete and consistent moral and/or legal code can be derived simply from basic desires such as the desire to live unmolested.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Our laws may have originally been rooted in religious beliefs

They are not. Read above.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Equating religion with morals is a bit off a weird and scary concept.

Only to those that think religion is weird and scary.

People can be atheists in the true sense and still have morals.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

Also, Kevin, most laws actually do not originate from religion at all.

The laws in our country do indeed. Most stem from a religious belief.

Wikipedia has a really interesting article about this. The foundations of UK law, which was in turn the foundation to US law, actually dates back to Roman times, who's law had little, if anything, to do with religion. French law dates back to the Code Napoleon and in turn has been used to define much of German law. No religion in any of these.

WOW that far back? What about even farther? Laws existed before then Mastrap.

The core of English law, and in turn US law, is formed by the common law. The essence of common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent to the fact before them.

And where does "common sense" or your 'Inner voice" come from?

And yes, I have read TONS about this and argued for years about this as well.

There is really no substantial proof either way, but it is known that such ideals about treating others how we wish to be treated does stem back alot further than the Roman empire.

Laws of the land have been practiced longer than we have records of.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Our laws may have originally been rooted in religious beliefs (edit: although as mastrap has pointed out that is up for debate), but that doesn't mean that it's only through religion that we can have a concept of right and wrong or that religion is a necessary prerequisite of law and order.

One could argue that without religion from the start, such laws may have not been even came up with.

A complete and consistent moral and/or legal code can be derived simply from basic desires such as the desire to live unmolested.

Where did said idea or desire stem from? And how come humans are the only ones that live by this code?

[Mastrap]

I'd argue that your insistence that 'an inner voice' is something that we need a deity for is a flawed argument.

But I don't argue on the internet. So, whatever floats your boat.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I'd argue that your insistence that 'an inner voice' is something that we need a deity for is a flawed argument.

I never said that.. I asked where we got such a thing from.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

They are not. Read above.

That's why I said 'may have been' not 'were'.

But I do agree with Kevin to the extent that the 'common sense' that went into the establishment of English common law was undoubtedly heavily influenced by Christian values. Like it or not, I'd say religion has definitely played an (unnecessary) role in the establishment of our modern legal system.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I never said that.. I asked where we got such a thing from.

I have no idea. But it might not be from a deity. It might just be a part of the human condition. Who knows, eh?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I have no idea. But it might not be from a deity. It might just be a part of the human condition. Who knows, eh?

I always wonder why we were the only beings to "evolve" with this feature.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

But I do agree with Kevin to the extent that the 'common sense' that went into the establishment of English common law was undoubtedly heavily influenced by Christian values.

See, I am pretty sure it wasn't. 'You shall not kill' is not a command that is unique to the Christian world. In pre-Christian England, for example, the same command applied. You find it in pretty much every single religion. You also find it as one of the moral codes of people who are atheists.

I'd argue that killing might be naturally abhorrent to us.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where did said idea or desire stem from? And how come humans are the only ones that live by this code?

Biology?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I always wonder why we were the only beings to "evolve" with this feature.

Yes, I was thinking about the same this weekend. What's the big idea behind self awareness?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

See, I am pretty sure it wasn't.

I think you mean, you don't WANT IT to be the case. So you believe it's not.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One could argue that without religion from the start, such laws may have not been even came up with.

One could argue many things, but unless you have supporting evidence it's worthless to do so.

I'd say it's more likely that religious beliefs arose as a way to support the ideas of right and wrong held by early humans rather than the other way around. The ruling/priest class needed a reason for people to do what they said so they came up with the idea of a god or gods to give them the force of authority.

Where did said idea or desire stem from? And how come humans are the only ones that live by this code?

Are you seriously trying to say that it is only because of God that people have the desire to continue living? To avoid being hurt? Every time I feel an aversion to something that would cause me to suffer it's because of God's intervention? It couldn't possibly be because I'm able to recognize certain sensations as unpleasant and learn from my past experience to avoid the things that cause those sensations?

Humans are the only ones that live by this code because humans are the only ones who have the faculty of logic which is necessary to build a consistent set of rules.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego

Biology?

That doesn't answer my question. That is just answering a question with another question. :/

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think you mean, you don't WANT IT to be the case. So you believe it's not.

No, I am pretty open minded about this. Seriously.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

See, I am pretty sure it wasn't. 'You shall not kill' is not a command that is unique to the Christian world. In pre-Christian England, for example, the same command applied. You find it in pretty much every single religion. You also find it as one of the moral codes of people who are atheists.

I'd argue that killing might be naturally abhorrent to us.

But even in pre-Christian England, as you say, there would still likely have been religious beliefs stating that killing was wrong, and back then, as now, most people probably would have thought that morality arises from religion and so the judges would have relied on their religious beliefs to guide their judgments.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

One could argue many things, but unless you have supporting evidence it's worthless to do so.

I'd say it's more likely that religious beliefs arose as a way to support the ideas of right and wrong held by early humans rather than the other way around. The ruling/priest class needed a reason for people to do what they said so they came up with the idea of a god or gods to give them the force of authority.

Or that God himself gave mankind rules to live by and they passed them down. Not that there is any proof of either happening.

Are you seriously trying to say that it is only because of God that people have the desire to continue living? To avoid being hurt?

No, to know the difference between right and wrong without having to be "taught a lesson" We have an inner voice that tells us we did something wrong when we do it. We don't even need taught that this thing is wrong. We have that knowledge. Other animals do not. They just survive. Just like there is no murder in the wild.

Every time I feel an aversion to something that would cause me to suffer it's because of God's intervention? It couldn't possibly be because I'm able to recognize certain sensations as unpleasant and learn from my past experience to avoid the things that cause those sensations?

I am asking how come you have this ability?

Humans are the only ones that live by this code because humans are the only ones who have the faculty of logic which is necessary to build a consistent set of rules.

And why are we the only ones on this planet that can do such a thing?

Was evolution just kinder to us? Why did it single us out, And what purpose does it serve?

It doesn't follow along with the normal rules of nature. Survival of the fittest.

[Doofy]

I agree with Salty as far as what should happen to the perp. I'm into punishment for punishment's sake. But I'm into removing certain people from society permanently (jail, not death) so they can't do it again.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or that God himself gave mankind rules to live by and they passed them down. Not that there is any proof of either happening.

Exactly, there's no proof of either so there's no part in arguing about it. Any position on the matter is as good or as bad as any other.

No, to know the difference between right and wrong without having to be "taught a lesson" We have an inner voice that tells us we did something wrong when we do it. We don't even need taught that this thing is wrong. We have that knowledge. Other animals do not. They just survive. Just like there is no murder in the wild.

Don't we need to be taught? There are certainly people that don't have that 'inner voice' that tells them what they are doing is wrong.

And one isn't necessary. If you don't want to get hurt because getting hurt is painful, all you need to do is reason out what sort of conditions are necessary to minimize the chance of you getting hurt. It turns out that being nice to other people and not hurting them is one of those conditions. So, without the help from any god, we've now established that being nice to people is 'good' and hurting them is 'bad'.

I am asking how come you have this ability?

And why are we the only ones on this planet that can do such a thing?

Was evolution just kinder to us? Why did it single us out, And what purpose does it serve?

It doesn't follow along with the normal rules of nature. Survival of the fittest.

It's not an issue of kindness or rules or singling us out. Why did nature single out giraffes to have long necks to reach the leaves on the tops of trees?

It is survival of the fittest. Proto-giraffes with longer necks were better able to feed themselves and so were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time all proto-giraffes had long necks until eventually they became the giraffes we know today.

The same thing happened with humans and the capacity for rational thought. Some proto-humans were more intelligent and rational than other and that helped them survive because they were able to out smart their opponents, and devise tools to serve their needs. Over time all proto-humans became more intelligent and rational until eventually we arrived on the scene. And yes, some of the things we do with our intelligence and rationality doesn't really help us to survive, but that's only because we've been so successful in the past that we no longer need to concern ourselves constantly with survival but we still have the same instincts to create and experiment and learn and so we continue to do so.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That doesn't answer my question. That is just answering a question with another question. :/

It was phrased as a question to indicate my willingness to discuss.

A slightly more detailed response

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where did said idea or desire stem from?

I'd say mammals as a group have a desire to live unmolested, borne out of the biology of pain.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And how come humans are the only ones that live by this code?

I think I know what you're going for here, and I will admit it's curious, but to me, "dumb luck" remains more plausible.