Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sin is Good; Or "Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age"
Topic Started: Sep 28 2009, 07:28 AM (402 Views)
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

"The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these "sins" as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification. A Satanist knows there is nothing wrong with being greedy, as it only means that he wants more than he already has. Envy means to look with favor upon the possessions of others, and to be desirous of obtaining similar things for oneself. Envy and greed are the motivating forces of ambition-- and without ambition, very little of any impottance would be accomplished.

Gluttony is simply eating more than you need to keep yourself alive. When you have overeaten to the point of obesity, another sin--pride--will motivate you to regain an appearance that will renew your self-respect.

Anyone who buys an article of clothing for a purpose other than covering his body and protecting it from the elements is guilty of pride. Satanists often encounter scoffers who maintain that labels are not necessary. It must be pointed out to these destroyers of labels that one or many articles they themselves are wearing are not necessary to keep them warm. There is not a person on this earth who is completely devoid of ornamentation. The Satanist points out that any ornamentation of the scoffer's body shows that he, too, is guilty of pride. Regardless of how verbose the cynic may be in his intellectual description of how free he is, he is still wearing the elements of pride.

Being reluctant to get up in the morning is to be guilty of sloth, and if you lie in bed long enough you may find yourself committing yet another sin-lust. To have the faintest stirring of sexual desire is to be guilty of lust. In order to insure the propagation of humanity, nature made lust the second most powerful instinct, the first being self-preservation. Realizing this, the Christian Church made fornication the "Original Sin." In this way they made sure no one would escape sin. Your very state of being is as a result of sin--the Original sin!

The strongest instinct in every living thing is self-preservation, which brings us to the last of the seven deadly sim--anger. Is it not our instinct for self-preservation that is aroused when someone harms us, when we become angry enough to protect ourselves from further attack? A Satanist practices the motto, "If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Let no wrong go unredressed. Be as a lion in the path--be dangerous even in defeat!

Since man's natural instincts lead him to sin, all men are sinners; and all sinners go to hell. If everyone goes to hell, then you will meet all your friends there. Heaven must be populated with some rather strange creatures if all they lived for was to go to a place where thy can strum harps for eternity." - Anton LaVey (1969), reproduced with express permission for the purpose of critical review (not intended as a challenge to the copyright holders who reserve all rights)

****

Seeing as we've been happily discussing this and that for a while I thought I'd give everyone shooting practice on a new topic.

Go nuts guys. Hope Sed can drop it despite his internet troubles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Yes, we are all sinners, but through the Grace of God, we are forgiven and will not live eternally in "The grave".

Did you forget about that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

New Harumf
Sep 28 2009, 08:50 AM
Yes, we are all sinners, but through the Grace of God, we are forgiven and will not live eternally in "The grave".

Did you forget about that?
Omit might be a better way of putting it.

But that's the crux of the matter: everyone's a sinner, ergo everyone needs god, ergo DO AS WE SAY!

I was simply thinking about how Sed likes to say that atheists/agnostics are amoral people who don't follow god because that would mean they wouldn't get to do the things they like doing.

Is there anything wrong with being amoral - choosing not to believe in god so that you can do whatever the hell you like.

I don't think so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 28 2009, 03:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Nag
 
"The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these "sins" as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.


Indulging in sin corrupts the soul. I eventually drags us down to such a level that we care only for ourselves. We will care nothing for others, hence we will not care what of our actions affects them, unless such action promotes our own well being. Such is the selfish evil, and given time this will lead to the diabolical evil, for too much indulgence will lead us to tire of lesser sins and indulge in greater sins. The indulgence takes us down to such a level that we enjoy making others suffer, that we enjoy conventionally evil acts. Such is the diabolical evil. True evil, this diabolical evil, is terrible to behold, and no one should want to be that way.

Quote:
 
A Satanist knows there is nothing wrong with being greedy, as it only means that he wants more than he already has.


Untrue. Greed is a matter of amounts. Not only does one greedy want more, but one greedy is unwilling to part with what one already has. Greed keeps one from helping others, and drives one to trample over others to gain more. It puts one's interests into material goods, things that ultimately do not matter. Greed is countered by largesse, being generous in so far as your resources allow.

Quote:
 
Envy means to look with favor upon the possessions of others, and to be desirous of obtaining similar things for oneself. Envy and greed are the motivating forces of ambition-- and without ambition, very little of any impottance would be accomplished.


Envy is the cause of greed. Once more, the interest in material goods is a worthless pursuit. Envy and greed are unneeded in ambition, for ambition needs only a worthy cause. Envy is countered by humility, for one who strives to be humble will see themselves free of the shackles of covetous envy.

Quote:
 
Gluttony is simply eating more than you need to keep yourself alive. When you have overeaten to the point of obesity, another sin--pride--will motivate you to regain an appearance that will renew your self-respect.


Gluttony is overindulging in anything. Largesse also encounters gluttony, for being generous as far as your resources allow stays you from overindulging.

Quote:
 
Anyone who buys an article of clothing for a purpose other than covering his body and protecting it from the elements is guilty of pride. Satanists often encounter scoffers who maintain that labels are not necessary. It must be pointed out to these destroyers of labels that one or many articles they themselves are wearing are not necessary to keep them warm. There is not a person on this earth who is completely devoid of ornamentation. The Satanist points out that any ornamentation of the scoffer's body shows that he, too, is guilty of pride. Regardless of how verbose the cynic may be in his intellectual description of how free he is, he is still wearing the elements of pride.


I buy clothing for its comfort and if I like its look. I care not what others think for the most part, though I will admit I am somewhat vain, which troubles me. Pride is not a matter of clothing. Pride is a matter of being self-absorbed to the point where one thinks themselves superior to others. Pride is the deadliest sin because it leads to all others. One is greedy because one wishes to make themselves superior in material over others. One is envious because another is superior to them, and they wish to become superior. One is wrathful because one is angered when others would question their superiority. One is a glutton, a luster, and a sloth because one thinks themselves so superior that these things committed by them are acceptable, that they do not need to be bound by such rules. Pride is the root of all sin and evil, a sin we are all guilty of, myself especially. It is hard to not be prideful when one finds oneself superior in so many ways. This is why I emphasize humility so much. Humility is the ultimate counter to pride and thus all sin, for humility reminds us who we are. We are insignificant in the overall scheme of things, and any amount of superiority we gain means nothing.

Quote:
 
Being reluctant to get up in the morning is to be guilty of sloth, and if you lie in bed long enough you may find yourself committing yet another sin-lust. To have the faintest stirring of sexual desire is to be guilty of lust. In order to insure the propagation of humanity, nature made lust the second most powerful instinct, the first being self-preservation.


Sloth and lust are sin of inefficiency. They waste time that could be better spent. They are countered by prowess, which encourages one to excel in all endeavors honorable, hence sloth has no place for one seeking to better oneself. Furthermore, indulgence in lust further corrupts the soul. It can make one obsessed with sex. Obsession with sex is unhealthy for obvious reasons. Many feel naturally ashamed after a sin of lust. It does not feel right. Hence, lust, or any sin for that matter, is also countered by justice, which would have us always seek the path of right. If something does not seem right, it probably isn't. This is conventionally called our conscience. It is designed to show us what is right and what is wrong so we may live in harmony with our fellow man, and hence stay out of trouble.

Quote:
 
Realizing this, the Christian Church made fornication the "Original Sin." In this way they made sure no one would escape sin. Your very state of being is as a result of sin--the Original sin!


You entirely misinterpret and give misinformation on the concept of Original Sin. The Original Sin was that of Adam and Eve disobeying God and consuming the Fruit. Original Sin is misinterpreted by many Christians as the reason for our damnation since our birth. This is untrue. God is not so cruel. Original Sin is rather something that has been passed down through mankind. It is the reason we feel the need to sin. Such is the Orthodox holding.

Quote:
 
The strongest instinct in every living thing is self-preservation, which brings us to the last of the seven deadly sim--anger. Is it not our instinct for self-preservation that is aroused when someone harms us, when we become angry enough to protect ourselves from further attack? A Satanist practices the motto, "If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Let no wrong go unredressed. Be as a lion in the path--be dangerous even in defeat!


You wrongly term this sin, Nag. Anger is not a sin, but a natural emotion. Wrath is the sin, for wrath is acting on the emotion of anger. It is fine to be angry so long as one does not let it turn into hatred or a wish to cause suffering. Wrath is a sin for obvious reasons: it causes harm to others. There is nothing wrong with self-defense, but there to defeat an opponent an needlessly beat or kill them afterward is wrong. To strike another simply because they displease you, even if they did not mean to, is wrong. The list could go on endlessly. Wrath is, of course, countered best by justice, which by its very nature shows us how wrong wrath is.

Quote:
 
Since man's natural instincts lead him to sin, all men are sinners; and all sinners go to hell. If everyone goes to hell, then you will meet all your friends there. Heaven must be populated with some rather strange creatures if all they lived for was to go to a place where thy can strum harps for eternity." - Anton LaVey (1969), reproduced with express permission for the purpose of critical review (not intended as a challenge to the copyright holders who reserve all rights)


It is not a natural instinct to sin, for when the soul is pure, there is no wish to sin. Sin is the result of our corruption. All people are sinners, but all sinners that will recognize that Jesus Christ took on their sins and sacrificed himself for them to save them are saved. Hell in the conventional sense does not exist. The original translations speak only of a place of holding and a place of destruction. As I believe, after death, if we understand the truth, we will enter heaven. If we do not understand, but are of a good soul, we will be taught the truth, and once we understand we will enter heaven. If we are wholly evil and truly irredeemable, we will have no place with the others, no place anywhere, and God will have no choice but to destroy us completely, a second, permanent death.

Quote:
 
****

Seeing as we've been happily discussing this and that for a while I thought I'd give everyone shooting practice on a new topic.

Go nuts guys. Hope Sed can drop it despite his internet troubles.


Had to counter this one. "Satanic" logic is truly flawed. "Satanism" is a joke. It uses Satan as a figure while not really believing in anything. They might as well call themselves atheists than condone selfish behavior. Atheists are better than Satanists in that they at least openly say they have no religion, and many at least attempt to have some morality. Satan is laughing at the Satanists for being such fools, yet he is somewhat insulted that they won't actually recognize him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
That sounds barbaric and nihilistic. I can't join you in admiring that episode.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I think relatives should always be given the option of forgiving a transgressor or murdere.

The discussion on pride and ornamentation also reminds me of another story I encountered, a Muslim Berber man born with a harelip and whose mother refused to have the disfigurement fixed by surgery because she thought it was God's will. The man never had it fixed either. That is admirable in its humility though I personally would be unable to do the same if I were in that situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Sedulius
Sep 28 2009, 02:34 PM
Indulging in sin corrupts the soul. I eventually drags us down to such a level that we care only for ourselves. We will care nothing for others, hence we will not care what of our actions affects them, unless such action promotes our own well being. Such is the selfish evil, and given time this will lead to the diabolical evil, for too much indulgence will lead us to tire of lesser sins and indulge in greater sins. The indulgence takes us down to such a level that we enjoy making others suffer, that we enjoy conventionally evil acts. Such is the diabolical evil. True evil, this diabolical evil, is terrible to behold, and no one should want to be that way.
Does it?

By which I mean:

Does indulging in sin corrupt the soul? If you commit minor sins does that lead you on to commit greater sins?

How many people in the world don't give to charity? How many are over-weight, easily provoked fornicators? Many.

How many people are serial killers?

I propose that the idea of a Slippery Sin Slope is a bugbear and nothing more.

Quote:
 
Greed keeps one from helping others, and drives one to trample over others to gain more. It puts one's interests into material goods, things that ultimately do not matter.

And why should one help others?

If I work hard and am successful, why should I give to someone who can't be bothered to go out and better themselves?
Why shouldn't I go up for a promotion, knowing that if I get it my hard-working colleague wont? Society is a rat race: you need to trample others to succeed.

The majority of Americans don't want to live in a welfare state. They don't want their money taken and given to the unwashed "needy". What's wrong with that.

Quote:
 
Gluttony is overindulging in anything.

Actually, gluttony (particularly biblical gluttony specifically refers to food - put into a historical context this makes a lot of sense as bread wasn't three loaves a dollar at Wallmart).

Quote:
 
Largesse also encounters gluttony, for being generous as far as your resources allow stays you from overindulging.

Ah, but what's wrong with a little indulgence. Makes life enjoyable. What was Jesus's first miracle? Providing wine for a wedding feast.

Quote:
 
I buy clothing for its comfort and if I like its look. I care not what others think for the most part, though I will admit I am somewhat vain, which troubles me. Pride is not a matter of clothing. Pride is a matter of being self-absorbed to the point where one thinks themselves superior to others. Pride is the deadliest sin because it leads to all others. One is greedy because one wishes to make themselves superior in material over others. One is envious because another is superior to them, and they wish to become superior. One is wrathful because one is angered when others would question their superiority. One is a glutton, a luster, and a sloth because one thinks themselves so superior that these things committed by them are acceptable, that they do not need to be bound by such rules. Pride is the root of all sin and evil, a sin we are all guilty of, myself especially. It is hard to not be prideful when one finds oneself superior in so many ways. This is why I emphasize humility so much. Humility is the ultimate counter to pride and thus all sin, for humility reminds us who we are. We are insignificant in the overall scheme of things, and any amount of superiority we gain means nothing.


Pride, also known as Confidence, is also the reason that anything ever gets done. Pride is what keeps people going in the face of overwhelming odds. Pride is what pushes people to get out there and do something.

People aren't equal. Self awareness of who you are, what you can do, what you should be able to do is a good thing.

Thinking yourself better than the slum you come from so you get out there and become successful is good.
Seeing someone else's success and wanting that for yourself is good.
Eating what you want because you don't feel shackled by thousand year old rules is empowering.
Asking a girl out because you know you're God's Gift is gratifying.
Giving yourself a hard earned rest is just fine in my book.

Quote:
 
Sloth and lust are sin of inefficiency. They waste time that could be better spent.

If there's a better use of time than an act of lust then I've yet to find it.

Quote:
 
Furthermore, indulgence in lust further corrupts the soul. It can make one obsessed with sex.

What was the first thing god ever asked man to do?

Shag.

Quote:
 
Obsession with sex is unhealthy for obvious reasons.

Sorry, you're going to have to dumb this down for me. I think about sex a lot. Like most young males, sex motivates me a lot. I don't really see the downside though.

Quote:
 
Many feel naturally ashamed after a sin of lust. It does not feel right.

Social conditioning.

Man is a sexual animal. Sexual hang ups are a result of social inhibition. Pick a primitive (or not so primitive - like the Ancient Greeks') culture of your choice. Guilt free.

Buy a Christian Missionary, get your sexual guilt trip for free!

Quote:
 
You entirely misinterpret and give misinformation on the concept of Original Sin.

The notion of what Original Sin is and what Original Sin isn't is a complex matter deserving it's own thread. Sed's closer than Anton, but neither of them are right.

Quote:
 
You wrongly term this sin, Nag. Anger is not a sin, but a natural emotion. Wrath is the sin, for wrath is acting on the emotion of anger. It is fine to be angry so long as one does not let it turn into hatred or a wish to cause suffering. Wrath is a sin for obvious reasons: it causes harm to others.

And what's wrong with that?

Would anyone object to me causing harm to Hitler? To someone trying to rape you?

The desire to protect is a strong one. So is the urge for revenge when we are wronged. There's few things more immediately gratifying than punching someone who deserves it.

Quote:
 
There is nothing wrong with self-defense, but there to defeat an opponent an needlessly beat or kill them afterward is wrong.

Why?

I beat up a rapist. Then what? Just walk away?

Quote:
 
To strike another simply because they displease you, even if they did not mean to, is wrong.

I come to your house. I insult you. I insult your friends. I make an ass of myself. I refuse to leave or be reasoned with.

If you did that to me I'd strike you.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Since man's natural instincts lead him to sin, all men are sinners; and all sinners go to hell. If everyone goes to hell, then you will meet all your friends there. Heaven must be populated with some rather strange creatures if all they lived for was to go to a place where thy can strum harps for eternity." - Anton LaVey (1969), reproduced with express permission for the purpose of critical review (not intended as a challenge to the copyright holders who reserve all rights)


It is not a natural instinct to sin, for when the soul is pure, there is no wish to sin.

You yourself admit that you are Proud.

If you have to work to "purify" your soul then that's not a natural state. Again I say to look to the un-socialised and to the primitive cultures. You will see lust and wrath. And you will also see selective compassion and co-operation. Because man is an animal with natural instincts.

Quote:
 
The original translations speak only of a place of holding and a place of destruction.

Actually we have:

The Place of Waiting.
The Place of the Death.
The Place of Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth. (Which could mean either Death or Destruction)
The Place of Destruction.
The Home of Fallen Angels.

Not that it's relevant to the topic at hand.

Quote:
 
Had to counter this one. "Satanic" logic is truly flawed. "Satanism" is a joke. It uses Satan as a figure while not really believing in anything.

Actually it uses "Satan" exactly as Jesus used the term. Very different to how the Christian Church use the term.

Quote:
 
They might as well call themselves atheists than condone selfish behavior.

Anton LaVey actually explains at length in the Satanic Bible why it's called Satanism rather than atheism (or humanism).

Satanism makes no secret of deliberately disobeying the teachings of the Christian Church "because it's fun". I would have thought you'd have at least respected the honesty behind that given your opinion of atheists hiding behind clever reasons to disobey god.

Quote:
 
Satan is laughing at the Satanists for being such fools, yet he is somewhat insulted that they won't actually recognize him.

I think the Orthodox line is that Satan just hates humanity in general.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 04:18 PM
I think relatives should always be given the option of forgiving a transgressor or murdere.
I can see some value in that, but it strikes me as abominable to see murderers let off without punishment, and essentially rewarded. And how do we recognize and distinguish forgiveness, as opposed to indifference?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 04:11 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
That sounds barbaric and nihilistic. I can't join you in admiring that episode.
I don't know RD.

The point of this thread was so that I could play Devil's Advocate - so no-one accuse me of flip flopping just because I want to argue this tangent.

What is the point of punishment?

Our entire criminal justice system is based on the idea that a man can change. The point of punishment is to stop people from committing that crime again so they can be productive members of society.

Giving people jobs where they help others is productive to society.
Having society pay for these people to go to prison and become more violent and less productive doesn't seem like what the victim would have wanted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Nag Ehgoeg
Sep 28 2009, 04:31 PM
Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 04:11 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
That sounds barbaric and nihilistic. I can't join you in admiring that episode.
I don't know RD.

The point of this thread was so that I could play Devil's Advocate - so no-one accuse me of flip flopping just because I want to argue this tangent.

What is the point of punishment?

Our entire criminal justice system is based on the idea that a man can change. The point of punishment is to stop people from committing that crime again so they can be productive members of society.

Giving people jobs where they help others is productive to society.
Having society pay for these people to go to prison and become more violent and less productive doesn't seem like what the victim would have wanted.
I would have just had the murderers shot.

To me the point of punishment should be 1) to compensate the victim or the victim's heirs, 2) to minimize any future chance of the offender committing a similar offense, and 3) to render justice. The parents had the right, perhaps, to forego the first. I think it is debateable to what extent employment will reduce the murderous potential, but I will certainly conceded that it could have an effect and even a large one. But is it just? I'll admit that I'm not in a position to define justice here, and its possible that others don't find their intuitive sense of justice offended when they see murderers not only walking free, but being rewarded with jobs - but it offends mine.

But isn't there more to it than just the effect on the criminal, or even the victim and the victim's family? What about, for example, the parents who will send their children to a school where murderers will teach them? Will they be assured of their child's safety attending such a school? To what extent can people change? Have these men shown any commitment to changing? Are they even qualified to teach?

To me, what I see in that episode is a young girl, full of progressive idealism, goes off to help some people in a dangerous place. She is brutally murdered by some of the people she sought to help, and her family not only wants to see the murderers pardoned, but turns out to be even more aggressively and progressively idealistic than she. Now, for the record, the building of the school is a positive thing, and I hope that the students' lives will be improved by this, so I'm not against that part.

You point out though, that giving them jobs where they can help others is productive to society, but is it really? Is it really productive to society to let murderers go unpunished? What does that say, for example, about the rule of law? What good is making these men teachers, if they and others around them believe they can kill with impunity?

Sorry - that is really disorganized and not very rigorous. Its mostly a stream of thoughts that I'm hammering out as it comes to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 05:17 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Sep 28 2009, 04:31 PM
Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 04:11 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
That sounds barbaric and nihilistic. I can't join you in admiring that episode.
I don't know RD.

The point of this thread was so that I could play Devil's Advocate - so no-one accuse me of flip flopping just because I want to argue this tangent.

What is the point of punishment?

Our entire criminal justice system is based on the idea that a man can change. The point of punishment is to stop people from committing that crime again so they can be productive members of society.

Giving people jobs where they help others is productive to society.
Having society pay for these people to go to prison and become more violent and less productive doesn't seem like what the victim would have wanted.
I would have just had the murderers shot.

To me the point of punishment should be 1) to compensate the victim or the victim's heirs, 2) to minimize any future chance of the offender committing a similar offense, and 3) to render justice. The parents had the right, perhaps, to forego the first. I think it is debateable to what extent employment will reduce the murderous potential, but I will certainly conceded that it could have an effect and even a large one. But is it just? I'll admit that I'm not in a position to define justice here, and its possible that others don't find their intuitive sense of justice offended when they see murderers not only walking free, but being rewarded with jobs - but it offends mine.

But isn't there more to it than just the effect on the criminal, or even the victim and the victim's family? What about, for example, the parents who will send their children to a school where murderers will teach them? Will they be assured of their child's safety attending such a school? To what extent can people change? Have these men shown any commitment to changing? Are they even qualified to teach?

To me, what I see in that episode is a young girl, full of progressive idealism, goes off to help some people in a dangerous place. She is brutally murdered by some of the people she sought to help, and her family not only wants to see the murderers pardoned, but turns out to be even more aggressively and progressively idealistic than she. Now, for the record, the building of the school is a positive thing, and I hope that the students' lives will be improved by this, so I'm not against that part.

You point out though, that giving them jobs where they can help others is productive to society, but is it really? Is it really productive to society to let murderers go unpunished? What does that say, for example, about the rule of law? What good is making these men teachers, if they and others around them believe they can kill with impunity?

Sorry - that is really disorganized and not very rigorous. Its mostly a stream of thoughts that I'm hammering out as it comes to me.
Welcome to the Dark Side RD. :evil:

I've been keeping this chair warm for you. Always knew you were one of us.

I promised myself I wouldn't cry. :sad:


****

As RD has just demonstrated, the idea of "justice" is just a sugar coating for Wrath. As I was pointing out in my argument to Sed, some people, some times, deserve to have violence piled on them. Punishing those who turn on the pact, self preservation, the desire to avenge runs deep in us all. It's natural. It's part of what makes us human.

****

Let's not forget that these are seriously underprivileged people who killed someone trying to help them. Now education is being provided.

It's not like they went out and killed someone for a gram of crack - they killed someone reaching out to them.

As deplorable as that seems, that is a cry for help. It says something about the people the woman was trying to reach out to.

And think about the kids they're working with. These aren't middle class white kids wanting to be doctors and lawyers, these are kids from the street who are being raised the same way as these murderers. These murderers have the same trails and troubles as the kids they're now helping. And they're an example. They're proof that you can pull yourself out of the gutter. They're a testament to the fact that real people are out there who care. That compassion and opportunity aren't just words that only apply in the suburbs of the first world.

Plus, you know, it's a South African slum. Being able to read, write and not get shot are all the qualifications a teacher needs.

Personally, if I lived in a slum, I'd be glad that the person looking after my kids was a killer - means they're better able to handle themselves and protect the kids.

And have these men shown commitment to changing? If they were honestly repentant and fully acclimatised with society would you still hold the opinion that they should be shot?

You also mentioned the rule of law. Well I've got news for you, the law stinks! That's why we have protests, and reforms, and changes to the law. That's why we have pardons and juries of peers. The authority of the law is already a joke - and rightly so. Humans are individuals, circumstances are unique. Yes, this case is holding up a double standard - but so is every case where an innocent is punished or the guilty are set free.

Seeing as we haven't seen a total decline in the rule of law in South Africa, I don't think that this case has told people they can kill with impunity.

Sorry - my post is even more disorganised. Insomnia.
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Sep 28 2009, 05:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I'll assume that I'm supposed to address the regular text and not the struck-out text :lol:

1. Biting the hand that feeds you may be a cry for help, but there are many ways to cry for help. And if one kills those who try to help him, why on earth would we seek to help them further? Once again, if we can help others before they reach that stage, than that is a good thing. But cry for help or not, helping murderers is still allowing them to profit by their crime.

2. They are an example of how to raise oneself out of the gutter. They killed a young lady who sought to help them, and this way they raised themselves out of the gutter. That's hardly something I would want the children to be learning. And who knows when they might decide to cry out for help again.

3. I do not know if they have shown any committment to changing. At least, if they had, I could take solace that some good had been accomplished, and I would be pleased to see men truely capable of changing. But how likely is that? Is it even worth taking the risk?

4. The "rule of law" is not to be identified with any particular law. The fact that people seek to have law changed and reformed does not invalidate the principle, but rather affirms it, because "protests, and reforms, and changes to the law" are all attempts to uphold the principle of law as the basis for a just society. They are not seeking to cast out the rule of law in general, but only to modify the particular law that is being applied. We use pardons and juries, within the law, because our system believes that they lead to more just outcomes. But when someone is pardoned unjustly, people rightly see it as an outrage and a betrayal of the rule of law.

5. Every case where the guilty are let free or the innocent punished is an injustice. I don't defend any of them, and that is exactly why I was outraged by this event to begin with. But we can distinguish between two cases: 1) the case where the injustice is done through ignorance or error, and 2) the case where the injustice is done with full knowledge. I would say the latter is worse because we are capable of preventing it.

6. I don't know enough about South Africa's current direction of development to say what effect this has had. But, I would point out that one event can be a precedent for later events, and it is the aggregate of individual events that causes a trend. Its unlikely to me that any given event will flip a switch and suddenly everyone will think they can kill, but each event would likely influence people's behavior at the margins. Our behavior is all interconnected - as social animals, we are influence by what others around us do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Sep 28 2009, 05:36 PM
Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 05:17 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Sep 28 2009, 04:31 PM
Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 04:11 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the "turn the other cheek" ethos, I admire the story of the white American woman who was an anti-apartheid activist but was brutally attacked and murdered in the 90s by a racial mob of black youths when she visited South Africa. Her parents requested that her murderers be acquitted, and also immediately established a charitable school in her memory for downtrodden black youth in a South African slum. IIRC her murderers (who were pardoned by the court) were actually hired as teachers in that school.
That sounds barbaric and nihilistic. I can't join you in admiring that episode.
I don't know RD.

The point of this thread was so that I could play Devil's Advocate - so no-one accuse me of flip flopping just because I want to argue this tangent.

What is the point of punishment?

Our entire criminal justice system is based on the idea that a man can change. The point of punishment is to stop people from committing that crime again so they can be productive members of society.

Giving people jobs where they help others is productive to society.
Having society pay for these people to go to prison and become more violent and less productive doesn't seem like what the victim would have wanted.
I would have just had the murderers shot.

To me the point of punishment should be 1) to compensate the victim or the victim's heirs, 2) to minimize any future chance of the offender committing a similar offense, and 3) to render justice. The parents had the right, perhaps, to forego the first. I think it is debateable to what extent employment will reduce the murderous potential, but I will certainly conceded that it could have an effect and even a large one. But is it just? I'll admit that I'm not in a position to define justice here, and its possible that others don't find their intuitive sense of justice offended when they see murderers not only walking free, but being rewarded with jobs - but it offends mine.

But isn't there more to it than just the effect on the criminal, or even the victim and the victim's family? What about, for example, the parents who will send their children to a school where murderers will teach them? Will they be assured of their child's safety attending such a school? To what extent can people change? Have these men shown any commitment to changing? Are they even qualified to teach?

To me, what I see in that episode is a young girl, full of progressive idealism, goes off to help some people in a dangerous place. She is brutally murdered by some of the people she sought to help, and her family not only wants to see the murderers pardoned, but turns out to be even more aggressively and progressively idealistic than she. Now, for the record, the building of the school is a positive thing, and I hope that the students' lives will be improved by this, so I'm not against that part.

You point out though, that giving them jobs where they can help others is productive to society, but is it really? Is it really productive to society to let murderers go unpunished? What does that say, for example, about the rule of law? What good is making these men teachers, if they and others around them believe they can kill with impunity?

Sorry - that is really disorganized and not very rigorous. Its mostly a stream of thoughts that I'm hammering out as it comes to me.
Welcome to the Dark Side RD. :evil:

I've been keeping this chair warm for you. Always knew you were one of us.

I promised myself I wouldn't cry. :sad:


****

As RD has just demonstrated, the idea of "justice" is just a sugar coating for Wrath. As I was pointing out in my argument to Sed, some people, some times, deserve to have violence piled on them. Punishing those who turn on the pact, self preservation, the desire to avenge runs deep in us all. It's natural. It's part of what makes us human.

****

Let's not forget that these are seriously underprivileged people who killed someone trying to help them. Now education is being provided.

It's not like they went out and killed someone for a gram of crack - they killed someone reaching out to them.

As deplorable as that seems, that is a cry for help. It says something about the people the woman was trying to reach out to.

And think about the kids they're working with. These aren't middle class white kids wanting to be doctors and lawyers, these are kids from the street who are being raised the same way as these murderers. These murderers have the same trails and troubles as the kids they're now helping. And they're an example. They're proof that you can pull yourself out of the gutter. They're a testament to the fact that real people are out there who care. That compassion and opportunity aren't just words that only apply in the suburbs of the first world.

Plus, you know, it's a South African slum. Being able to read, write and not get shot are all the qualifications a teacher needs.

Personally, if I lived in a slum, I'd be glad that the person looking after my kids was a killer - means they're better able to handle themselves and protect the kids.

And have these men shown commitment to changing? If they were honestly repentant and fully acclimatised with society would you still hold the opinion that they should be shot?

You also mentioned the rule of law. Well I've got news for you, the law stinks! That's why we have protests, and reforms, and changes to the law. That's why we have pardons and juries of peers. The authority of the law is already a joke - and rightly so. Humans are individuals, circumstances are unique. Yes, this case is holding up a double standard - but so is every case where an innocent is punished or the guilty are set free.

Seeing as we haven't seen a total decline in the rule of law in South Africa, I don't think that this case has told people they can kill with impunity.

Sorry - my post is even more disorganised. Insomnia.
I like the Amish view. Shun the sinner, but welcome them with open arms if they wish to repent.

Anyone remember the movie "The Shoes of the Fisherman" with Antony Quinn?? I love the message of that film.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

I don't know whether to respond to NH seriously, quote Witness or make a joke.

Every time I try to make a serious reply I'm reminded of Dead Monkey Comics' "Email!!".

"Hey Unrepentant Sinners, guess what? SHUN!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kiensland
Member Avatar
Apathetic Lizardman
 *  *  *  *  *
I am a very angry person.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Kiensland
Sep 28 2009, 06:43 PM
I am a very angry person.
Me too. I'm angry that my fingers now hurt from scrolling through all the long winded religious crap.

How about you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Telosan
Sep 28 2009, 06:59 PM
Kiensland
Sep 28 2009, 06:43 PM
I am a very angry person.
Me too. I'm angry that my fingers now hurt from scrolling through all the long winded religious crap.

How about you?
You came to one of my threads that has "Sin" in the title and didn't expect long winded crap? No sympathy.

Hey Tony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Rhadamanthus
Sep 28 2009, 04:26 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 28 2009, 04:18 PM
I think relatives should always be given the option of forgiving a transgressor or murdere.
I can see some value in that, but it strikes me as abominable to see murderers let off without punishment, and essentially rewarded. And how do we recognize and distinguish forgiveness, as opposed to indifference?
I think that is something not easily reckoned with and must be a mutually profound experience between both the criminal and the relatives, and which may not always result in a successful outcome. The act of forgiveness may itself initiate a path of transformation on the criminal, or the forgiveness may be extended only after relatives accept a criminal's repentence, or there may be a more extensive interplay between repentance, acceptance, and forgiveness but in any case such an occurrence can only accurately be described as exceptional; an exception.

I saw an interview with one of the South African murderers where he appeared (in my eyes) to have been profoundly changed and influenced by his sin and the subsequent act of forgiveness, but of course I could be totally wrong and he may have been deceiving.

Rhadamanthus
 
1. Biting the hand that feeds you may be a cry for help, but there are many ways to cry for help. And if one kills those who try to help him, why on earth would we seek to help them further? Once again, if we can help others before they reach that stage, than that is a good thing. But cry for help or not, helping murderers is still allowing them to profit by their crime.

2. They are an example of how to raise oneself out of the gutter. They killed a young lady who sought to help them, and this way they raised themselves out of the gutter. That's hardly something I would want the children to be learning. And who knows when they might decide to cry out for help again.


On one level the murdered victim's life and impact could be compared to a Christ-like experience, who continues to help others even though one is killed by the very people who one attempted to help. I do admire the principle of transcending the "golden rule of reciprocity" (which is a Satanic rule :P Nag) but I also do find fault with the particular situatin of a woman dedicating her life to some social cause and not to domestic matters.

Rhadamanthus
 
3. I do not know if they have shown any committment to changing. At least, if they had, I could take solace that some good had been accomplished, and I would be pleased to see men truely capable of changing. But how likely is that? Is it even worth taking the risk?


Those are questions, I think, that must be considered with deep reflection and certainly pardon should not be considered the "norm". The factor of "statistical risk" should be considered of course, but any such situation must also be reflected upon holistically/universally with a weighing of statistics in addition to other factors, possibly ALL other factors in the entire universe. Whether a human being is capable of making such a decision on these grounds is of course another topic of debate.

Rhadamanthus
 
5. Every case where the guilty are let free or the innocent punished is an injustice. I don't defend any of them, and that is exactly why I was outraged by this event to begin with. But we can distinguish between two cases: 1) the case where the injustice is done through ignorance or error, and 2) the case where the injustice is done with full knowledge. I would say the latter is worse because we are capable of preventing it.


A situation that successfully leads to a transformation for the guilty and the sinner is a triumph and does not necessarily need to be affected by the previous punishment imo. Of course I don't know if the murderers have been truly transformed and that is a knowledge outside the mortal realm.

Rhadamanthus
 
6. I don't know enough about South Africa's current direction of development to say what effect this has had. But, I would point out that one event can be a precedent for later events, and it is the aggregate of individual events that causes a trend. Its unlikely to me that any given event will flip a switch and suddenly everyone will think they can kill, but each event would likely influence people's behavior at the margins. Our behavior is all interconnected - as social animals, we are influence by what others around us do.


It is also possible this type of event can have a positive influence and affect individuals in South Africa positively, and inspire some to search for the meaning of death, sin, and forgiveness. Not all individuals will be affected of course, and some individuals may be inspired to violence, but I'm also of the belief "the arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" even if it must take eternities, and each occurrence of justice and injustice contributes to that.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 28 2009, 07:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I think the ideal outcome is one where the criminal is forgiven and reformed, and then accepts his just punishment entirely willingly. But your points are certainly to be considered.


edit: In fact, I think that I would not consider any rehabilitation sincere unless the person was willing to go through the lawful punishment for their crimes anyway after the rehabilitation.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Sep 28 2009, 09:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
As an addendum, theoretically I think it's better to execute an unrepentant heretic than to execute a repentant murderer.

Of course, I think the heretic must be given many chances to repent, he must be plead with and exhorted heroically, including under the most gruesome torture if necessary, to avoid the sentence of the timbers.

This is speaking theoretically.

(This one's for Nag especially)

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Sorry, you're going to have to dumb this down for me. I think about sex a lot. Like most young males, sex motivates me a lot. I don't really see the downside though.


Lust is an unambiguous sin I think. The downside is that lust and carnality are impediments to enlightenment (for reasons that I'm unable to access right now). Unfortunately this is the only, and amorphous, statement I can give right now. This also raises the issue of 'what is enlightenment'... I cannot say as I'm not "enlightened" but the best description I've heard is that it is "bliss"... not a sexual or carnal bliss nor fleeting emotions of happiness, but a theotic, infinite, and universal bliss of understanding.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 29 2009, 07:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
Sep 29 2009, 06:49 AM
As an addendum, theoretically I think it's better to execute an unrepentant heretic than to execute a repentant murderer.

Of course, I think the heretic must be given many chances to repent, he must be plead with and exhorted heroically, including under the most gruesome torture if necessary, to avoid the sentence of the timbers.

This is speaking theoretically.

(This one's for Nag especially)

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Sorry, you're going to have to dumb this down for me. I think about sex a lot. Like most young males, sex motivates me a lot. I don't really see the downside though.


Lust is an unambiguous sin I think. The downside is that lust and carnality are impediments to enlightenment (for reasons that I'm unable to access right now). Unfortunately this is the only, and amorphous, statement I can give right now. This also raises the issue of 'what is enlightenment'... I cannot say as I'm not "enlightened" but the best description I've heard is that it is "bliss"... not a sexual or carnal bliss nor joy nor rapture, but a theotic, infinite, and universal bliss of understanding.
Damn it TC, stop posting stuff I want to sig! :angry: You're too brilliant a Word-Smith.

....

Or, get In Character and unleash wordy goodness there.

****

Carnal Bliss is Bliss. It's Christianity's great lie that it's not.

Judaism - sex and reproduction are the holiest of acts one can do
Islam - discourages celibacy
Hinduism - Karma Sutra anyone?
Paganism - Paganism.
Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints - Mormons.
Wicca - Do unto others! ;)

The search for enlightenment can take many forms. It can be a search for knowledge and understanding. Or it can be a transcendent realisation of your place in the universe - knowing that you will never know anything. But if you are questing for self awareness, inner peace and bliss then you have a divining rod right there between your legs!

Those who shag (and shag well and shag often) walk round with that look of contented smugness. That's the universal, perpetual bliss of "understanding" my friend.

Carnal Bliss is so much more than the three seconds of "relief".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Bliss is knowing everything; it's nothing short of that and nothing can remotely compare. as Siddartha said, when one has realized Truth one cannot help but tilt one's head back and emit a laugh. That is to say, one knows the universal bliss when one sees it. Of course, there are many varieties of less inclusive knowledge but the ultimate knowledge is just that; ultimate and universal, and incomparably beautiful.

Celibacy definitely isn't for everyone; in this world it's not required, expected, or even desired for everyone. However, the mastery of the sin of lust does not precisely equal celibacy (I think).

Here's a good, instructive story about sex (from Hinduism). It involves the theologian Adi Shankara, who did not know what sex was since he renounced all material pleasures at a young age to pursue a monastic lifestyle. However he was challenged by a rival theologian to debate the Kama Sutra. As he was ignorant of sex, he used his yogic powers to take control of the mental experiences of a king (who was not celibate). Having gained knowledge about sex Adi Shankara thus returned to his own body and defeated his interlocutor in debate.

What was the point of that story? I'm not sure, actually. I'm not sure what was the topic of the debate, but I don't think it was celibacy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
Sep 29 2009, 08:14 AM
Bliss is knowing everything; it's nothing short of that and nothing can remotely compare. as Siddartha said, when one has realized Truth one cannot help but tilt one's head back and emit a laugh. That is to say, one knows the universal bliss when one sees it. Of course, there are many varieties of less inclusive knowledge but the ultimate knowledge is just that; ultimate and universal, and incomparably beautiful.

Celibacy definitely isn't for everyone; in this world it's not required, expected, or even desired for everyone. However, the mastery of the sin of lust does not precisely equal celibacy (I think).

Here's a good, instructive story about sex (from Hinduism). It involves the theologian Adi Shankara, who did not know what sex was since he renounced all material pleasures at a young age to pursue a monastic lifestyle. However he was challenged by a rival theologian to debate the Kama Sutra. As he was ignorant of sex, he used his yogic powers to take control of the mental experiences of a king (who was not celibate). Having gained knowledge about sex Adi Shankara thus returned to his own body and defeated his interlocutor in debate.

What was the point of that story? I'm not sure, actually. I'm not sure what was the topic of the debate, but I don't think it was celibacy.
Philip: Say someone ask you for directions and you don't know. Do you say that? No! You say: 'Go down the block, and make a left, you can't miss it.'
Will: Yeah, I got plenty of dudes out there still looking for places.
Philip: Same guy ask a women and she doesn't know either, she says: 'I don't know.' That's the difference between men and women.
Will: What is it that makes men act like that?
Philip: It's uh, testosterone, a male hormone
Will: And women don't have testosterone.
Philip: I believe they do, but uh, theirs is dormant most of the time.
Will: You don't know the answer to none of the questions I'm asking you do you?
Philip: No I guess I don't.
Will: Then why didn't you just so say!
Philip: Because, I'm a man.
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Sep 29 2009, 09:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
That's the problem and the source of the difficulty. The universal (to be referred to as "God" henceforth as a shorthand) cannot be named. That is to say, God is not thing, God is not nothing, God is not a pair of scissors, God is not... [insert word/concept/thing here until you've exhausted all the infinite words/concepts/things in all the universe].

Names are directions, and if it were so easy to name God, everyone would have the directions and there would be no unenlightened souls left in the universe. Unfortunately that is not the case, and enlightenment is an arduous struggle.

Also, it's why women make for poor philosophers. They rely on the palpable and the limited, like play-doh they can hold in their hands. Without the play-doh they are totally lost.




EDIT: Changed the clause "God is not everything" to "God is not thing", for better clarity. "God is not everything" is true, of course, but "God is not thing" conveys the meaning better here for clarity's sake, because the follow-up clause for comparison is: "God is not nothing".
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 29 2009, 10:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply