uh-huh, so you obviously don't know about the blood covenant. Many people don't understand this. I had trouble with this too, at first, that's the main reason I didn't believe. I'll explain: Before Jesus' death, Jews used to sacrifice animals, mainly lambs, to pay for their sins. The reason? They needed INNOCENT blood to cover their sinful blood. Whether you like it or not, EVERYONE has sinned. Animals are innocent, Therefore they have innocent blood. Now, before Jesus's resurrection, righteous Jews went to a place called 'Paradise' after they died, - which was a wonderful place...right next to hell, they were seperated by a lake. It's also known as "Abraham's Bosom". Paradise was great, but they couldn't be with GOD, since the blood of animals could only cover their sins, not wash them away. Meaning that they were not sinless, but their sins were covered. In order for us to be with God, we must be sinless, perfect, not 'hidden'. That's why we needed innocent human blood, which WASHES AWAY our sins. Jesus never sinned, he was perfect, so innocent human blood was shed, alot of it at that. After his resurrection, paradise was destroyed, and we now can have access to heaven, be with God, and be like him. Hope this cleared things up a bit!
Of course it does, karma is "cause and effect". As it says in the Dhammapada (paraphrase): If a man speaks or acts in evil, pain will follow him, as sure as the cart wheel follows the foot of the ox. (not using scriptural authority here, just a nice way of saying it). But WHY is a sacrifice necessary??? Why does god need "repayment"? It seems a lot like working through your karma, doesn't it? It can't just be taken away, you have to work through it, clear yourself of it. In this sense I understand. I don't see how killing a goat does anything, or even a human/god sacrifice. It's symbolic and all that, but I can't see how someone or something else being sacrificed does anything, nor why god requires it, and is pleased by it. And you call this justice?
And if a good person suffers for no reason? What about Christ? Most people would at least agree that even if He was not perfect, that He was a very good man. What in the idea of karma can address the shame, humiliation, pain, suffering, and death that was inflicted upon him? Karma seems more than just cause and effect because it comes back around to the person who instigated the action/attitude. Am I wrong in this? How does karma account for all the innocent who suffer? Okay, justice requires restitution for wrongs commited. This is true in any system of justice that, to my knowledge, has ever existed. If you wrong someone, the wronged party is entitled to restitution in order to be made whole. It is compensation for the offense committed. This is the foundation of all western concepts of justice. I am not at all experienced with eastern concepts of justice, but I would bet that they fall along similar lines. One of the most important concepts is the idea of the punishment (or restitution) fitting the crime. An "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is a fundamental expression of this concept. The punishment must be equal in magnitude and similar in kind to the offense. If I steal from you, I should give you something of equal value in return. If I maim, I should be maimed in return. If I dishonor you, I should be dishonored in return. If I kill you, then my own life is forfeit. This is very brutal as a legal system, but it is equitable. We like to think that we have moved beyond this concept, but we still require different (and sometimes harsh) punishments for different crimes. The punishment for speeding is a far smaller punishment than that for first degree murder. This is because we realize that fundamentally justice requires punishment to be similar in magnitude to the offense. If I wrong you, then I owe you something to compensate you for the offense. You can completely forgive the offense if you choose, but you have allowed injustice if you do. You have recieved no restitution for the wrong, you have not been made whole. God, however, is perfectly just. He cannot allow injustice. As such, God cannot simply let the offenders walk away. Someone has to pay for the offense against God. God, in His mercy, does not want us to have to pay (since we cannot, we have nothing to offer that can meet the value of the offense), so Christ came as a man to suffer a punishment which would be equal in magnitude to the offense against God. Jesus, as theanthropos, had perfect honor. That perfect honor was destroyed in a status degredation ritual the likes of which have never been equalled in history. This meets the requirements of justice which demands both equity in scope and equity in means or kind. Read over what I wrote regarding justice and see if it makes more sense now. That an innocent suffers instead of a criminal? If punishment is forced upon the innocent, then no. However, an innocent can sacrificially take on the punishment in the criminals stead. This has actually happened in history (and not just with Christ). Karma cannot be satisfied thusly, but justice *can*.
Karma is not the only reason people suffer. Hurricanes can blow a house down, but that may or may not be an "expression" of karma. It may just as well be bad weather. Also, a person can act evilly towards an innocent, and in that case it wouldn't be the innocent's karma doing the harm, it's another person's freedom of choice. For this reason I try not to get too concerned about karma. I only bring it up in this conversation because it seemed to apply. Strange, because Jesus said if a man steals your coat from you, give him your shirt as well. And the time when the whore was going to be stoned. He declared "he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Then to the woman, "Go in peace and sin no more" (no repayment there, was she not forgiven?) Is Jesus unjust? I have to say, this whole idea of justice-via-repayment seems archaic to me. Eye for an eye went out the door long ago, in my book (didn't Jesus retract that one? I can't remember). We still punish people, but sometimes I think we are wrong to do so, since as we can both agree, we are all wrongdoers. And how can wrongdoers ever set up a good justice system? And here is where I get bothered by this view of God. He seems to behave just like we do, with this need for repayment. Doesn't seem incredibly godlike. Again, I don't see why blood being spilled would please god, nor why it would forgive anyone's sins. The whole idea is archaic. It's a lot like scapegoating (indeed it's where the term came from), where you do something wrong, kill something else, and therefore are forgiven. Huh?
Kill something that's innocent. Man is not innocent. Animals are. ONLY INNOCENT BLOOD CAN COVER SINFUL BLOOD. Adam's sin was passed down, he had free will, he sinned and disobayed God, animals didn't do so, because they don't have free will. Jesus was the ONLY man, EVER, who was completely innocent, since he was a human like us, his sins could completely wash away our's.
Ah. Okay. Well, it looks like we can leave the karma discussion for another day. In a Christian worldview, karma (if it actually exists) is under the direct purview of the Almighty and is not really relevant to the discussion. Good question. The answer is that no, Jesus was not unjust. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." As Christians, we are called to be selfless. We are not to be enraged or angered by injustice that is visited upon ourselves. We are, however, supposed to boldly fight injustice when it is against others. The distinction is between how we should esteem ourselves and how we should esteem others. When Christians suffer injustice, we are to have faith that God will stand by us and will make us whole. God will effect the punishment. This is the ideal which Christ lived. Personal selflessness, but vehement public protection of the innocent (like when Jesus drove the extortioners out of the temple with a whip). Arguments are measured with points and counterpoints, not time. You don't tell time with an argument. The idea that a thought or belief is untrue simply because it is *old* is a fallacious form of reasoning. Again, the "retraction" that you speak of was a distinction that spoke to people's heart. It is an ideal for how we should live. It was NOT a repeal of the law or a statement on governing large bodies of people. Even now, we recognize the difference. I may forgive a theif who steals from me, but the government is still going to punish him for his crimes. What Christ was dealing with was people who held the letter of the law, but did not live the intent of the law. He did not repeal the letter of the law; he clarified and stressed the intent and purpose. While the western world no longer uses an "eye for an eye" type justice, we *do* try to enforce equitable restitution. We try and make the punishment fit the crime. Usually this is through sanctions, fines, and imprisonment. We easily recognize that torturous death for jaywalking is unjust as is a one dollar fine for premeditated murder. Deciding equitable restitution is difficult, but we still try. Why? Because a fundamental concept of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime. We, as moral agents, are capable of recognizing equity and justice. That we can codify it does not, by necessity, imply that the system is inherently flawed. The flaw in the message above is the idea that being wrongdoers eliminates our ability to distinguish right and wrong, fair and unfair. Actually, the reverse is true. We can usually recognize it when we see it. We can set up a good justice system by examining our concepts tried and tested over 2500 years of thought on the subject (as far back a Cicero and Socrates... probably farther). We have a rich history of law and justice upon which we can draw. What about being a wrongdoer specifically precludes a person from setting forth a good justice system? I would argue that we behave similar to Him. Even with concepts of karma that we were talking about... when someone is wronged and recieves no compensation for it, it just doesn't feel right. Something in the back of our minds tells us that something is just not right about the situation. Again, though, it is the understanding of justice that is key. Justice requires restitution. If you deny that, you have pretty much obliterated the basis of all criminal law in the western world for the last two to three thousand years. It is my opinion that God doesn't want us to be condemned, but a just God must allow us to chose our own path. It is *good* that God is just because it means that no one will be sent to heaven who didn't want to go and no one will be forced to love God against their will. Every person who ever lived or lives will get exactly what is coming to them. A God who can tolerate injustice could simply send everyone to Hell arbitrarily. Even the best people could be kicked out of heaven... the people who genuinely earned heaven (if it were possible) could be denied simply because God wanted to. A just God could not do that. Again, an old idea is not necessarily false simply because it is old. That said, I do not think you will understand until you come to grips with how justice works. The key is realizing that justice requires restitution when a wrong is commited. There are many books on the subject of justice and different modes of justice. However, they, to the best of my knowledge, all agree that justice requires restitution for a wrong commited. When you see that and you realize that God is perfectly just, then you will see why He cannot simply let people get away with their sins and still enjoy all the benefits of those who have not sinned (or sinned to a substantially lesser degree).
Of course, but I meant more than just "old" with the use of the word archaic. I mean it's like taking a step backwards, the eye-for-an-eye scheme. Why punish a man if he has been forgiven by the one who was wronged? The government is supposed to do the will of the people. If you forgave him, surely you don't still want him punished, right? This is part of why I'm unsure of the idea of punishment. I'm not sure that it does much to help things, and it goes against the whole "being selfless" idea that Christians (indeed, those of most religions) are supposed to follow. If you are wronged, don't get vengeful, let karma (or god) take care of it; if anything is to be done, let it be forgiveness. I suppose you would say God did take care of it with Jesus' death. I've already said I think that God sacrificing God to God is confusing and in my mind unnecessary. I get the idea of justice, and in fact, I do agree with that form of justice, as karma takes care of that restitution. More importantly though, I don't understand how someone else can make up for my sins. And I surely don't understand how spilling blood is going to make things right, innocent or not. It doesn't make sense.
We see an eye-for-an-eye scheme as savage and uncivilized, true. We still try to be equitable though. So now, instead of losing an hand for cutting off someone's hand, we try to assess monetary worth for the loss of a hand. We then award "damages" which usually take the form of financial restitution. Criminals, on the other hand, have certain aspects of their lives diminished or removed. We take their freedoms, their properties, and sometimes their lives. "Eye for eye" schemas work really well for equity, but they can be pretty brutal. On the other side of it, we work really hard to try and maintain equity simply because we do not want to be uncivilized. You might not want him to be punished, but it really isn't your call. You can forgive the wrong against you. You cannot, however, forgive the wrong against society. In modern courts in the US, it is a difference between civil law and criminal law. You can forgive civil wrongs (called torts). However, only a duly elected representative of the people can forgive the crimes against society. If Joe Blow breaks into my house and steals my TV, he has commited a crime against society and a tort against me. I can forgive him of the tort, but not the crime. The DA can choose to prosecute regardless of my personal feelings though, and, even if found guilty, Joe might still be pardoned (forgiven) for his crime against society. You are correct regarding the Christian attitude (what it *should* be anyway). However, multiple times, Christians are called upon to defend those who cannot defend themselves. To seek justice when injustice occurs. Using the Joe Blow example above, as a Christian, I would be compelled to forgive Joe for stealing my TV. However, if Joe stole *your* TV, I would be compelled to agressively persue him to the full extent of the law for the wrong against you and against society. Love doesn't get angry when it suffers a wrong; however, it gets furious when others do. This is the type of love that Christians are called to have. God took care of the offense against Him, but not against each other. Let's go back to Joe. In stealing my TV, Joe committed three seperate offenses. He offended me personally, he offended society, and he offended God. I can forgive Joe for the crime against me, but not against society and not against God. The same is true for all offended parties. God cannot forgive the offense against me, only the offense against Him. I would agree that God sacrificing God to God could be confusing. However, you have to remember that though they are equal ontologically, Christ and the Father are not the same *person*. It is far less confusing to think of Christ sacrificing Himself (as a man) to the Father in order to make restitution for the sin of man. A lot of people see Christ is God, the Father is God, therefore they are the same. This simply is not accurate. An understanding of the Trinity is absolutely necessary in order to understand the necessity of the crucifixion. It has to do with substitution and justice. Justice demands that *someone* pay. It doesn't require that the offender actually be the one to make the offended person whole. It merely requires that someone makes restitution on behalf of the offender (though the offender CAN make restitution on his own behalf). In law, this is called indemnification. If you are sued and you cannot pay, I can indemnify you. What that means is that I take the responsibility for paying all the damages you owe. In the case of the sin, proper punishment required the spilling of blood (the source of life), and restitution required status degredation to the same extent that we dishonored God with our sin. The crucifixion fulfilled both these requirements. Christ has indemnified us. We simply need to accept His offer. By the way, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. Though we do not see eye to eye, I do appreciate your thoughtful and respectful posts.
If I forgive someone, why would I still want to see him punished? Joe committed a crime against me, not society; it was my TV, not society's. If I pardon him, why should the "system" still punish him? Shouldn't the intentions of the victim be taken into consideration? Otherwise, how can you call it justice? If the victim doesn't need the perpetrator to suffer in order to "be whole" again, then why make him suffer? Understanding the trinity is necessary, but no one understands it. At least I don't, maybe I'm just simple though. But I bet it isn't called a "great mystery" for nothing. Anyways, you say it's easier to think of Jesus the man being sacrificed to God, but that's not the whole picture; jesus IS god (according to christians). The problem is you guys want so bad to be monotheists, but have three gods. So you come up with these riddles to solve the problem. But it doesn't solve anything, it just confuses it. I guess I can see how one can indemnify another with money repayments, even though it seems strange (wouldn't you just owe the guy who paid for you, rather than the original victim? If the guy indemnifying you doesn't need to be repaid, why does the victim? Is the repayment more important than the offender actually coming to justice himself?). Still, it skirts the issue. Money doesn't really buy justice, though for some reason we allow ourselves to think it does. Same with punishment. Punishing does not make the family of a murdered person feel better. It does not bring back the victim and it only maintains this vengeful feeling of "well at least that son of a bitch suffered too". We all know two wrongs don't make a right. The only way to heal such wounds is for the offender to ask forgiveness (and really mean it, in his own heart and mind) and for the victim to forgive. We don't need to kill the offender, or a lamb, or a god. This is the only honest way for such things to be resolved. Justice systems seem to have grown out of this: sort of like the forgiveness-seeking offender giving gifts (money/damages) to the victim as a show of his feelings. But thats the outward sign, things can only really be made right if the intentions are there; all the money in the world won't buy forgiveness unless it's a genuine remorse (even then it's not guaranteed to be given, but at least you did your part). But, I still don't believe anyone can indemnify me for my sin/karma. They are my wrongs to deal with, and it is up to me to come to terms with them and whatever higher authority there may be. Balance must be attained, but it can't be done by anyone other than me. It's like, if Joe steals my TV, and then someone indemnifies him by going to jail for him. That's not justice. By the way...you talk about the victim needing to be made whole again. How can the small actions of a human make God anything less than whole? The assumption that our sins make god a victim and unwhole implies that God is very small. Surely God (whatever that even is) is larger than this, and large enough to give forgiveness if honestly asked for (and certainly not confining it to only those of this one religion...but that's another discussion).
Stupid database crash... I had a response written for you and poof the db crashed when I attempted to post it. Oh well. Let me try again. Crimes, by definition, are offenses against society. Torts are offenses against individuals. This is basic personal injury law. A crime is commited when someone violates a law that a governing body creates. So, when Joe steals my TV, he has commited a crime and a tort. I can sue for the tort, but I cannot send him to jail. I can also forvige the tort, but that doesn't eliminate the debt owed to the society for the violation of its rules that we have all agreed to live under. In the case of Joe stealing the TV, the victims were me AND society. You can understand part of a concept enough to have functional knowledge without being able to completely understand the entirety of the subject. I can do basic calculus and understand what I am doing, but please do not ask me to give a lecture on the intricacies of differential equations. However, just because I do not completely understand differential equations doesn't mean that I cannot use calculus or understand the basics. So, a basic understanding of the trinity is necessary, but a complete and thorough comprehension of every aspect of it is not. Our God is Triune (meaning three in one). I like to think of it as a general partnership. A partnership itself is an distinct entity, but so are the individuals that compose a partnership. A partnership has rights, can sue, be sued, own property, etc. So can the partners. Each partner is distinct, but without the partners, there is no partnership; likewise, without a partnership, there are no partners. In the case of the trinity, "God" is the partnership. All three partners are coequal within the partnership, however, they are distinct. However, they are not three completely separate entities because they have identity only through the partnership. They are completely unified in essence, nature, and character. As such, they can act independently and still have full authority as God because they are always in unity. It is not hard to think about when you think of it that way. As an entity, God can act through any of the partners, and, as partners, all contain the fullness and authority of God. It makes more sense (in my opinion anyway). My analogy is not completely accurate, of course, but it is a far better analogy than the egg or clover analogies. Yes, you would owe the guy that indemnified you. However, the indemnifier can easily forgive the debt and justice has still been served. How? Because the person who was offended has been compensated. That someone *voluntarily* chose to pay of the debt of the offender doesn't somehow mean that the same debt is owed to the indemnifier. This is for several reasons: 1) the indemnifier acted voluntarily (where as the offended party has no choice when the offense occurs), 2) the offender did nothing to the indemnifier, the debt is owed out of equity, not because any offense commited against the indemnifier, and 3) the offender must consent to being indemnified, which is volunarily assuming a debt (as opposed to having one imposed by law). The primary concept of justice is that an offended party recieves a measure of value equal to the value of the offense suffered. It revolves not around the offender but around the offended. The offended party is due something for the offense. Something has been taken from the offended party and justice demands that they recieve some measure of value for the loss. The indemnifier voluntarily pays that debt for the offender, so justice is satisfied. It is important than we say "coming to justice" what we mean is that the offender pays for his crimes. What we would like is for the offender to recieve some loss for the losses he has caused. This would be justice. However, someone sacrificing themselves for the offender is *also* justice. Punishment is a vessel (not necessarily THE vessel) through which justice is attained. If punishment doesn't "buy" justice, then what does? Should "feeling better" be the objective of justice or punishment? I don't think so (and neither do most legal philosophers). Punishment is an equitable means through which an offender makes restitution for the wrongs commited. Even if you disagree, there are well respected legal philosophers who have written treateses where vengeance on behalf of the offended parties is completely reasonable, ethical, and in some cases, mandated. So issuing and/or administrating punishment for offenses is a second wrong? How would you have us handle theives and murderers if we do not punish them for their crimes? Forgiveness is good. However, the purpose of punishment is NOT to heal wounds. It is NOT to make someone feel better. Forgiveness *is* a part of healing. It prevents bitterness, resentment, stress, and several other unhealthy things. However, forgiveness is NOT a part of justice. Yes, it is. Joe offended you, someone else can indemnify Joe. Joe offended society too. Someone can stand in Joe's stead and recieve his punishment so long as society recieves compensation for the offense. Joe then might owe a pretty big debt to the indemnifier, but the debt to society is paid in full. Sorry, I was using a term of art. To be "made whole" is to receive a measure of value equal to the loss suffered. When man fell, we offended God's nature, His character and His honor. We cannot actually diminish any of those things, but we *can* and *do* dishonor God on a regular basis. Honestly, I have not read up on what honor is or how it works. I have been reading up on it, but I do not feel confident enough in it to go really in depth. Needless to say, the offenses sully God's perfect honor. That is why one offense is enough to damn. To say that God cannot suffer loss is inaccurate. His divine characteristics cannot be diminished, but His honor, for example, can be offended. It is possible that He can suffer a loss of honor due to our actions. I want to read up on this more though, so please do not take what I have said regarding honor as a viewpoint that all Christians hold.
This is stupid. Maybe that's how it is, but it's wrong. Laws are, after all, set up to protect people; NOT abstractions like "society," which in the end is just a group of people. If my neighbors TV is stolen, I don't feel victimized (though I would empathize with them for it); my neighbor is the victim, not me or anyone else. That is one of the better explanations I've heard on it. I still don't buy it, though. An appeal to authority is not going to sway my opinion. I don't really care how many philosophers have said it. And it seems clear that "feeling better" is the point, we try to make victims feel better by making offenders pay them or suffer in prisons (and in the past, and some places today, torture or executions). I'm not convinced this is effective. In the end, it is up to the victim whether they feel better, not anything the state does to the offender, or requires the offender to do. And it still seems to ignore the "turn the other cheek" mandate that Jesus himself gave, which amazes me that so many Christians can forget that one (among so many other things Jesus said). Well that's the question, isn't it. I don't know how to answer it. I do know that if you want to make better citizens, negetive reinforcement (punishment) is not the way. Anyone with a brief grasp of behavioral psychology knows that. Children learn far better through positive reinforcement (which differs from rewards, because they grow to WANT to do good simply to do good, rather than for outside rewards), and that applies to all people. The question is whether we want reform or punishment, and which is better for society and for the offender. But no, I don't believe justice requires punishment necessarily. It does seem to be a second wrong. If someone breaks my jaw, is it right for me to break his jaw back? Your "justice" might agree, but to me, all I see is a second wrong being done, more pain and harm being spread around. I'm not a Christian, but Jesus did say some smart things, and his stance on forgiveness is one I can agree with. Why is committing more harm considered justice when it's done by "society" or "the law" but otherwise it's called vengance and it still illegal? If a man sets his dog on my dog and kills it, and I decide to kill his dog in retaliation (justice done, right), I would be a criminal. But if instead I went to the state, sued him, and the courts decided his dog should be put down, it's all good. Huh? No. This is not justice. If someone else goes to jail for another person's wrong, you can't call that justice. Unless your stuck on the part about balancing the scales, but there's more to it than that. What happened to accountability and responsibility for personal actions? I think you (and aparently the legal system) are making justice too abstract a concept, forgetting it has to do with individual people.
BTM, you are wise beyond your years. Punishment is merely fighting hate with hate, it just makes hate grow. Only love can diminish hate. Someday everyone will figure that out, I hope. And also, jail is not really there to punish, it is there to keep these people out of society as long as possible, and not any other reason, not to punish, not to rehab., just to keep harmful people away from their victims as long as the society will allow us to.
Laws are set up to protect both people AND their endeavors. Societies, governments, businesses, these are all endeavors undertaken by people. They are protected by law too. Do you think that they shouldn't be just because they are not individuals? Do you think that it should be legal to steal from the government or from a bank simply because you are not robbing an individual? It seems that you have gone back to "feeling" as a basis for an indication of wrong or guilt. Feeling guilty is NOT an indication of guilt in the legal sense. An innocent person can feel guilty and a guilty person can feel totally innocent (like someone who necessarily speeds to get to the hospital, understandable, but still illegal). Feeling victimized doesn't make you a victim and not feeling victimized doesn't make you any less of one. Thank you for the complement. You may not believe it, but so long as you understand the concept of the God I worship, then you can understand the 'why's. The point of this (for me, anyway) is not to 'win' nor to convince you of anything. I simply wish to help you (and myself) clarify what many Christians believe so that together we might have a more well rounded understanding of the world in which we live. Individually it might help the victims feel better, but I think that 'feeling better' isn't really a good measure for justice. An, as I said above, what about our endeavors that do not *have* feelings? When someone robs a bank, shouldn't the offender be punished for his offense? It is impossible to make the bank feel better though as it is a non-corporeal entity created, most likely, by compliance with state statute. Your arguments have weight if you keep the scope of discussion between individuals; however, *vast* amounts of the law have nothing to do with individuals interrelationships, but deal with taxes, agencies, bankruptcies, etc. These are, by and large, laws dealing with relationships between 'persons' which could be an individual, LP, LLC, corporation, general partnership, government, LLP, or anything recognized by government as being able to enter contracts, have rights, be sued, etc. The point is this, justice is NOT about 'feeling better.' It is about equity and fairness. Justice requires the restitution for wrongs commited not to make the offended party feel better but because that is what is fair. 'Turn the other cheek' is a message consistent with the rest of Christ's teachings. He was telling us how to live our lives. The law (both then and now) governs how large bodies of people shall interact with each other. Christ's message was to turn the other cheek when you have been injured personally, however, do not sit by idly while injustice occurs. Christ certainly didn't turn the other cheek when the priests were running a profiteering racket inside the synagogue. He went after them with a whip and chased them out! Love bears all offenses against itself, but cannot tolerate offenses against another. As Christians, we (should) turn the other cheek to personal offenses. However, if you have been wronged, I would be acting inconsistently if I did not want to see the offender brought to justice. I would be wrong to NOT act so as to protect your person or your property; I would be wrong to NOT attempt to bring the crime to the courts so that the offender might be punished for his crimes. Imagine if a government turned the other cheek... how long would it last? People turn the other cheek, societies, simply due to survival, don't, nor should they. And that is a question legal philosophers have wrestled with for years. Should the goal of 'punishment' be to make beeter citizens of the offenders? I would argue that it is a nice thought, but it doesn't address the issue of equity. If you steal and then are 'rehabilitated', how in the heck does that better or make whole the offended party? Isn't 'rehabilitation' another word for 'forcing you to be something other than what you are so that you can be one of us'? The argument that I would put forth is that the primary reason for punishment is NOT to be a deterrent, nor is it to be a source for rehabilitation, but to act as a method of restitution for the offended party. Let's look at robbery. If you steal something, you have broken the aggreement that you entered into by staying within the society. Hobbes would say that you have given your rights over to the sovereign. However, by breaking the agreement, you have assumed a right that others have given up. In order to balance the scales, your rights are further removed from you in equal proportion to the rights you assumed. In short, you are relieved, temporarily, of your freedom (and rights thereof), i.e. you go to jail. This is just one theory, of course, but it duly addresses that punishment is NOT necessarily about detterance or rehabilitation. I would agree. I would state that justice necessarily requires restitution. If you disagree, please validate your opinion. You have brought up a very important point. There is an issue of justice that so far has not be addressed. The issue of impartiality. The 'eye for an eye' law was still a law. It should have been and should be resolved with an impartial mediator or judge. The problem was (and still is) that people would avenge themselves without an impartial judge to weigh the offenses and balance the scales. That isn't to say that an offended party could not be fair, but the legal system of the time (and ours now) allows for appeal to a neutral third party. As Christians, we are to turn the other cheek for personal offenses, but that doesn't mean that the person cannot be brought to justice for their crime. As I said, though, it is important to note that an interested party (either the offended or offender) *can also* act with clarity and impartiality. Usually though, it passes through a third party. To keep the discussion on track, God is an interested party that also acts as a fair judge with impartiality toward the offenses committed against Him. I get the impression that you see it as "the harm is done, why add more harm now?" Perhaps punishment is there to *minimize* harm. Harm will be done if you let the criminal go free, harm will be done if you don't. What would be your decision? A serial rapist is convicted. If you imprison him for the rest of his life or you kill him, you will commit a greivous harm. If you let him go, not only with those he has offended (including society) recieve no restitution, but he will commit the offense against. Which harm do you choose? It also depends on what you mean by harm. If you mean " loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being" then even imprisonment is harm. Even 'rehabilitation' could be harm. And so again, I ask: How would you have us handle theives and murderers if we do not punish them for their crimes? Really? What else is there to it? What more is to justice than fairness and equity and mainting a balance thereof? You *are* still accountable. However, you are now accountable to the person who was punished in your stead. However, they can forgive you of the offense since they, now, are the only party to have recieved no restitution for your offenses. By the way, I do not mean "BTM" by the word "you", I mean "a general person or persons." But it also has to do with abstract concepts like corporations, businesses, governments, etc. on top of dealing with justice, equity, and fairness. These things are present in our society (and have been for centuries) that must be accounted for in law. This requires a more thourough exaplantion and understanding of justice. I am sorry that you see it as too abstract. How would you have a legal system work? What would you find acceptable?
