Re: Punishment - why?
- From: Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:44:16 +0100
In message <15f17cf6-4d30-4802-81bb-3cd36e875b69@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, claire.easthope@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes
On 2 Apr, 22:45, Michael J Davis <?...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:ThanksIn message
<1712d3aa-ef2f-440e-8ddd-1a13a2001...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
claire.easth...@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes
>On 2 Apr, 12:12, Michael J Davis <?...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Claire, it would be helpful if you could include the attributions at the
>> top of your posting. Snip content by all means, but I keep wondering if
>> specific quotes were me or another!! (Here' I think it's just us two
>Noted
MD:
>the point I am making is that civilisation (and morallaw) is about laying down limits of what might otherwise be done were
those limits not there.
Yes?
We tend not to have laws restricting how high
people can fly,
I'm sure there are!!!
because on the whole our natural ability has alreadyErrr? The whole concept of temptation presupposes a choice between the
limited us. So even when we are tempted, we cannot!
possible, aside from that .... what on earth are you going on about???
Simply that we don't need laws if we are not tempted or able to transgress them. Punishment (and all the associated sanctions) is intended to discourage and reform us.
[snips]
>How can you be sure our actions are not God's will? I don't want to
>get into the George Bush logic "God told me to" here because it is
>probably impssible and arragant to say that God agrees with you. But
>it is at least a possibility I would have thought. All we can do is
>follow our own consciences I guess.
After my conversion, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my will
was not *always* opposed to God's! However, your point is, I guess,
that our civil courts carry out God's will.
Nope. I was not claiming that at all - just that you were very sure
that you know the will of God on this issue! ;-)
We have a close relationship! ;-)
Mmm. Years of church history
makes me very dubious about that. (Note, that God can use evil to bring
out good is not in question.)
Agreed
>>But if we are to act
>> *like* God, then perhaps we should consider "Forgive us our trespasses
>> as we forgive those who trespass against us".
>Indeed, but we don't have the right to forgive sins committed against
>somebody ele - only Christ can do that. We can however ensure that
>society treats those who have committed injustice with humanity.
I think that's closer to what my line of enquiry is about.
>> Or are we (as Christians) saying that punishment is part of forgiveness?
>Repentance is part of forgiveness.
Oh, I missed that first time round! Disagree. Before we can *accept* forgiveness, we may have to a) acknowledge that we were at fault, b) recognise our need, and that may take the form of repentance (which means 'turning around'), but we may just accept it and then repeat the offence elsewhere.
However, offering forgiveness is free and doesn't make any demands on the one who we are forgiving. It is part of freeing ourselves from the wrong done to us.
You may have a significant point here, of relevance to this thread, but I'm not sure if we can handle it in the context of the question I'm asking.
>I don't think somebody can be
>rehabilitated until they realise that they were wrong and want to
>change. Part of the reason for punishment is to make it clear who is
>in the wrong.
Surely declaring someone guilty, and proposing actions for
rehabilitation and restraint is enough for that, why *punish* as well?
Depends on the offence but using rehabilitation alone would be like
treating
the person who has committed the injustice as the victim requiring
support, attention and resources and ignoring the needs of the victim.
(I hadn't omitted restitution - which means making good in every sense that which the victim was deprived of - you seem to have done. Mind you that's difficult in a case of, say, murder!)
OK - explain to me why the victim *requires*, let's say, "revenge". (That's what it seems like to me.)
That does not seem very fair. Of course the sentence passed as to be
for the wider public's good (i.e. most likley to protect them and
reduce reoffending) but just as the offender has a need for personal
consideration so does the victim.
Given restitution - why does adding more 'pain' to the situation enhance the 'good'?
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
.
- References:
- Re: Punishment - why?
- From: Michael J Davis
- Re: Punishment - why?
- From: claire . easthope
- Re: Punishment - why?
- From: Michael J Davis
- Re: Punishment - why?
- From: claire . easthope
- Re: Punishment - why?
- Prev by Date: Re: Genesis and the Holy Spirit
- Next by Date: Re: BBC's 'The Passion'
- Previous by thread: Re: Punishment - why?
- Next by thread: Re: Punishment - why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading