First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last

What do you think is your equivalent punishment to your sin?

Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/5/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

whatsome wrote:


^ What happened to the creativity? I expect more from this thread from you guys because it's in the extended discussion.

Are the so-called great CR debate users full of themselves?


You forget most of the users of this forum seem to be under 16.

I know about that. That's why I made a general version and extended version of it.

I was hoping that guys and gals in the "2008 Presidential Hopefuls" thread would participate in this thread too. For example, guys like seraphalford. He's a religion-fanatic which you can easily based on his own username.

So far, I only got mauz15 and digs to share their views.

Can you blame me for being a little suspicious whether the people, I hoped for to participate, might be escaping this subject or not?
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/5/08
Eternity in Hell
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / New York
Posted 11/5/08 , edited 11/5/08

mauz15 wrote:

Unless the form of punishment is "deterrent of reformatory" then this idea of keeping the sinner out of eternal life sounds primitive at best.

I'm basing this idea out of some philosophers that I have read. The most influential in my thought is Bertrand Russell and this is one of the things he said that is basically the point I was trying to get across.

The agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the Government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation.As for 'sin,' he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of 'sin.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court majority rulers in Gregg v. Georgia wrote that retribution is one of the two principal social purposes of punishment and that it is actually necessary to a society in that it provides an outlet for "moral outrage" and affirms the dignity of the criminal. For offenses of, say, a sexual nature, the social sanctions very often extend past the legal ones. Students are given assigments like that mentioned in the original post, where they are required to develop methods of punishment for criminals/sinners (a blurred distinction, of course). The list goes on.

Clearly, we continue to hold the ethical view that it is "a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer," and most of those who claim to think otherwise only do so abstractly. Give them a criminal who had a negative impact on their own lives and they would jump on the opportunity to punish him. We very easily change ethical systems when it is most convenient or in line with our emotions at the moment, but that fluidity cannot provide a basis for government.

I simply cannot understand the idea of eternal suffering, since it has neither reformative nor deterrent power and far exceeds any rational justice of retribution. If, for some reason, God cannot tolerate our presence, why does it not simply end our existence or give us a world away from all the "good guys?"

A lot of people read something and think they understand its content without even asking themselves if they know what the concepts written mean. People say 'oh that is a sin" well what is a sin exactly? then some say "when you break a moral law" well what is a moral law, and what is morality? I think ethics is something that needs to be taken with serious consideration, things are not as simple as

-dont do this
-you can do that
-if you do this you get this if you dont then you get that.
Sorry but it sounds like a child game.

Perhaps the best question to ask is: why? Why do I hold these beliefs, take these rules for granted, hold these concepts to be absolute? Why is this good and that bad? I think people are more willing to accept that they don't know all of the whats, assuming that the system works out even if they can't put it into words, than they are willing to accept that they don't even know why they are who they are. We like to think we determine our identities absolutely.

As for my answer to the thread's question, I would also choose reformatory over retributive methods to "punish" the offenders. As for judging myself, I don't think I deserve punishment at all for the things that I've done, probably since I don't let a "holy book" tell me that I'm inherently flawed and sinning just by thinking something or doing something that harms no one.
Posted 11/13/08 , edited 11/13/08
public speaking or handling a riot in a customer service area
99581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Charlotte
Posted 12/30/08 , edited 12/30/08
You can't really atone punishment for your own sins, not on your own. its god's duty to do that and if u don't believe in god, your shiz outta luck. so don't do anything bad. beside if a guy killed another guy (sinning of course) if he kills himself that's just another sin. he diddn't really atone for anything
Posted 1/3/10 , edited 1/4/10
User has nuked, but anyone is welcomed to recreate.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.