3DOP Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) And disagreeing with what one believes to be appropriate consequences is not grounds for others to assert that it is vengeance, which is the point I was making. Furthermore, it is the right of a person to kill an assailant who is attempting grievous harm, and thus reasonable justification for that as the punishment if there is sufficient evidence.Capital punishment is thus more reasonably linked to natural law than putting someone in a cage for some arbitrary time. It may not be grounds by itself but it can be a strong hint.I deny your proposition that because something is permissible in extreme circumstances of self-defense it becomes permissible when the extreme circumstances go away.There is no natural law. Even if there was it is probably natural man's law which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. The Nehor, hi. According to Catholic thought, natural law refers to those precepts that are binding universally on everybody, even if they have never heard the Gospel or any other authentic revelations. I would reason that if there is no law except that which comes through religion, those who have never heard the word of God could be moral anarchists in good conscience. It is because of this natural law that God saves those who observe it...even without any religion... "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the (as revealed by the prophets) law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another..." (Rom 2:13-15) Not being Catholic, you are not obliged to believe that there is any law except that which is given through prophets, but I think the natural law, properly understood is compatible with, and complimentary to LDS thought. It is possible that you have well-considered philosophical objections against this concept, and if so, I certainly do not wish to derail the thread or argue philosophy. For the record, I do not necessarily endorse emarkp's conclusions as to how execution seems to follow natural law better than incarceration. But I did want to give a mild objection to your summary dismissal of emarkp's argument because he merely cited the natural law, when it is by no means clear to me that the natural law, as explained above, has been considered as opposed to the Restored Gospel by your own prophets and apostles. Regards, Rory Edited December 2, 2014 by 3DOP
The Nehor Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 The Nehor, hi. According to Catholic thought, natural law refers to those precepts that are binding universally on everybody, even if they have never heard the Gospel or any other authentic revelations. I would reason that if there is no law except that which comes through religion, those who have never heard the word of God could be moral anarchists in good conscience. It is because of this natural law that God saves those who observe it...even without any religion... "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the (as revealed by the prophets) law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another..." (Rom 2:13-15) Not being Catholic, you are not obliged to believe that there is any law except that which is given through prophets, but I think the natural law, properly understood is compatible with, and complimentary to LDS thought. It is possible that you have well-considered philosophical objections against this concept, and if so, I certainly do not wish to derail the thread or argue philosophy. For the record, I do not necessarily endorse emarkp's conclusions as to how execution seems to follow natural law better than incarceration. But I did want to give a mild objection to your summary dismissal of emarkp's argument because he merely cited the natural law, when it is by no means clear to me that the natural law, as explained above, has been considered as opposed to the Restored Gospel by your own prophets and apostles. Regards, Rory The LDS equivalent would be the Light of Christ given to every man....in essence our conscience that already tells right from wrong. I doubt your definition was the one being used. In LDS teaching natural is not usually a good adjective. As our scriptures say: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
Guest Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I believe that it is inconsistent with the gospel.We should never give up on anyone.Alan, even Christ said that those who harm "any one of these little one's" it would be better that they were never born or to have a milestone rapped around their neck and cast into the sea. We also know that such people can never be healed, reformed.
thesometimesaint Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 When the woman was taken in adultery was brought to Jesus he didn't pickup that first stone.
Guest Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Counterpoint: There are societies that avoid it.I know and I was using an example to extend the point of the idea that even God, gives up and gives men over to a reprobate mind. The problem here is the U.S. and min sentence laws, locking everyone up forever would one day have federal prisons in almost every county in the U.S. Other countries seek more for rehabilitation while we focus most of our efforts on pure punishment.
The Nehor Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Alan, even Christ said that those who harm "any one of these little one's" it would be better that they were never born or to have a milestone rapped around their neck and cast into the sea. We also know that such people can never be healed, reformed.There are such people but short of revelation we do not know who they are.
halconero Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) When the woman was taken in adultery was brought to Jesus he didn't pickup that first stone. The same Jesus who swallowed up a whole bunch of rebellious Israelites, struck a couple dead for lying about their monetary donations to the apostles, and who will come again in glory to the destroy the wicked? It was Christ, the Prince of Peace, who once declared that he didn't bring peace to world, but a sword. I don't think we can take a snipped of the Saviour's life and make sweeping generalizations about political and social issues. Edited December 2, 2014 by halconero 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 The same Jesus who swallowed up a whole bunch of rebellious Israelites, struck a couple dead for lying about their monetary donations to the apostles, and who will come again in glory to the destroy the wicked? It was Christ, the Prince of Peace, who once declared that he didn't bring peace to world, but a sword. I don't think we can take a snipped of the Saviour's life and make sweeping generalizations about political and social issues. That was the God of the Old Testament, Jesus was long dead by then, God uses the wicked to punish the wicked. I think that was more philosophical than literal. All we have is snippets, and self contradictory accounts in the Gospels. We are commanded to love all men(women), and forgive constantly that we too may be forgiven. Additionally we are just good men trying to do the best we can to honor our God, and to be just to all mankind.
ERayR Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 The same Jesus who swallowed up a whole bunch of rebellious Israelites, struck a couple dead for lying about their monetary donations to the apostles, and who will come again in glory to the destroy the wicked? It was Christ, the Prince of Peace, who once declared that he didn't bring peace to world, but a sword. I don't think we can take a snipped of the Saviour's life and make sweeping generalizations about political and social issues. Speak softly but carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt
halconero Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 That was the God of the Old Testament, Jesus was long dead by then, God uses the wicked to punish the wicked. I think that was more philosophical than literal. All we have is snippets, and self contradictory accounts in the Gospels. We are commanded to love all men(women), and forgive constantly that we too may be forgiven. Additionally we are just good men trying to do the best we can to honor our God, and to be just to all mankind. Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, he was most certainly not, and your third statement (apart from being only a partial truth) contradicts your first, unless you believe that the God of the Old Testament was wicked. Most likely not, it was probably literal. Our class actually discussed this passage in the context of Matthew and the Gospel of Q the other day (my major is textual criticism of Early Christian Texts). Given the extremely volatile time period it was given, the setting of the Judean war, and inter-Jewish bloodshed a "philosophical" bent is far less likely. More than snippets. I would recommend "Q, the First Gospel" by John Kloppenborg and "The Fifth Gospel" by Patterson. Both are demonstrative of how much we really have given the difficult nature of preserving and deciphering various ancient texts and authenticating the sayings of anyone. Sure, the later redactions of Matthew and Luke contradict each other, but they were written to groups of widely different backgrounds and worldviews. Then you get into the complicated notion that Gospels like John and the extra-biblical Thomas were trying to be purposefully contradictory in line with Greco-Roman schools of philosophy and teaching styles. I agree with you on the commandments.
halconero Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Speak softly but carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt "Theodore Roosevelt. What a Jingoistic child." - halconero 1
The Nehor Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Speak softly but carry a big stick - Theodore RooseveltI just can't see the Savior endorsing that quotation.
emarkp Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 That was the God of the Old Testament, Jesus was long dead by then, God uses the wicked to punish the wicked. Ananias and Sapphira and the apostles were in the time of the Old Testament?
bluebell Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I just can't see the Savior endorsing that quotation.I don't know, we know He used the big stick approach at least once.
halconero Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 They both are NT after Jesus died. And was resurrected.
ERayR Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I just can't see the Savior endorsing that quotation. Ok lets try this. Scene - the Jerusalem Temple. rephrase- Speak softly but carry a big stick whip. Does that make a difference?
Calm Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 He didn't speak all that soft when he felt the need.
The Nehor Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I don't know, we know He used the big stick approach at least once.Yeah, but He does not encourage it much amongst His followers.Ok lets try this. Scene - the Jerusalem Temple. rephrase- Speak softly but carry a big stick whip. Does that make a difference?Not really, the cleansing of the temple was violent but it was nothing like the threat implicit in Roosevelt's quote. Roosevelt was threatening, saying you needed force to back a pleasant demeanor. Jesus was cleansing a religious building. He was not a perpetual threat to the order of the temple. He was not encouraging his apostles to arm themselves and defend himself and the gospel with the sword. So no, nothing like it.
Thinking Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 This is what I believe also. I think that Blood Atonement as Brigham Young taught it has more truth than we realize and it got buried under his fiery rhetoric and the MMM. But the principle is sound. If Christ atoned for all sins, what is the purpose of Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham Young?
The Nehor Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 If Christ atoned for all sins, what is the purpose of Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham Young?To operate your own little mini-atonement to help mitigate your own sins is the explanation I hear and once defended.I now agree with the Church's stance that blood atonement is not a doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) To operate your own little mini-atonement to help mitigate your own sins is the explanation I hear and once defended.I now agree with the Church's stance that blood atonement is not a doctrine. The Church still teaches the necessity of blood atonement, but that only the one that occurred some 2000 years ago counts. Edited December 3, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Calm Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Irrelevant.So you are suggesting because Jesus was dead, he had nothing to do with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira?
Calm Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Ok lets try this. Scene - the Jerusalem Temple. rephrase- Speak softly but carry a big stick whip. Does that make a difference?Did Jesus make a habit of carrying a whip around?Or threatening on the one hand while attempting persuasion on the other?The stick is a constant implied threat of attack if one doesn't respond properly. It may only be used in defense, but its visual presence in one's hand indicates at the very least a willingness for violence...and an assumption that the other won't be similarly prepared, so it may even cross the line into bullying if it is always carried no matter what without regard to circumstance which is what the cliche is presented as....in essence, speak nonviolently but make it clear you are willing to resort to violence to get your way.
Recommended Posts