Alex Weaver: I don't personally see them as *moral* issues, but a lot of theists do think these acts are immoral, and even try to use secular reasoning to support their views.

Would I feel just in killing someone's son to avenge a wrong they'd done to me? Well, possibly if that wrong were killing my son. Harsh on the children? Yes. Just to the wrong-doer? Well, that's the question isn't it - do you believe justice should be retributive or restorative?

...that's the sort of response that would seem just to some, but not all, five year olds.

On topic: The claim that someone should deserve forgiveness before he/she should be forgiven seems like a self-evident intuition that's finally been explicitly formed. But that a person shouldn't be forgiven on his/her deathbed when its (external) moral practicality has expired is a real shocker. I'd like to challenge that claim as it stands, under the moral system of UU.

You say forgiveness is futile "when there's no further chance of repairing the harm they caused." True, but everyone's happiness and suffering must be measured equally, and there is still one more variable that can be changed for the better, and that is the suffering or happiness of the dying person. In terms of the happiness and suffering of all those around the person, it may be the case that nothing can be gained or lost by forgiving the soon-to-be-snuffed (if the parties damaged by that lost soul are of good nature and willing to forgive, of course). If it is the case that nothing can be gained nor lost by the people living, then why not forgive that dying person? It can only result in relieving that person's suffering and giving him or her some solace, and maybe even a bit of undeserved joy before returning to non-existence.

"If we lived in an ideal world we would all be free. Great. But we don't and we aren't. Fight for it all you wish. I was simply pointing out that in threatening to kill your opponents in this struggle you had gone just as far down the path as those you were criticizing."

I think you misunderstand me: I'm not threatening to kill anyone, hell - I'd rather not if I can help it. But if anyone attempts to ensure that my whole family will suffer punishment for an action one individual within it, his days are numbered (not a threat - a promise) - I can live with a society that may try to assert itself over me by threatening my person with all manner of punishment, but I won't dare let those bastards in power do a damn thing to my family. I'm not going to just lie down and let me and my whole family be destroyed like the biblical character of Achan did - I will fight (to the death if need be) to ensure that such a day never comes.

Also CS,

"Your libertarian ideals are sweet - but you appear to want to impose them on everyone else too, even if that means killing opponents, which is sort of self-defeating isn't it?"

1. I'm not a Libertarian - I'm a Nihilist.

2. My goal isn't to impose them on anyone - my goal to to ensure that no one else can gain the power to impose their will upon me: be it through such illusions as the concepts of "guilt" and "forgiveness" (which can be beaten by pure force of will) or through collective punishment (which requires more forceful methods to defeat).

Also CS,

"I agree with the first part. Any tyrrant, religious or otherwise would want this. But on the second point, you seem to be getting religion and politics mixed up too much. If you're problem is solely with religion then the proper separation of church and state should solve this, no? If your problem is with any form of anyone telling anyone else what to do then I think you're in the same boat as Rousseau before he thought of his social contract. Anarchy simply isn't a solution to the problem - it'd be worse."

You got the first part correct - any tyrrant would love a strong social order.

As to the second, I'm not talking about anarchy (at least not complete anarchy, anyway) - I'm talking about the ideal of an individual living as a law unto himself. Yes, I acknowledge that some form of government would have to exist to keep the proverbial trains moving on time - but I envision a society that's too weak truly force itself into the affairs beyond what is absolutely necissary to ensure that some semblence of order is preserved.

Such a world doesn't exist today, but I'm doing my part to ensure that at least me and mine can be as independent of this power-drunken social order as possible.

P.S. some people might think that this post is off topic, but I beg to differ: for the whole concept of "forgiveness" is tied directly to the concepts of "guilt" and "punishment" as that's the means society created to to dispose of "guilt" to avoid "punishment." Without a threat of "punishment," "guilt" has little power over an individual and thus eliminates the need for "forgiveness."

Otherwise, why seek "forgiveness" for "guilt" that will yield no consequense (i.e. "punishemnt")?

I still believe the UU interpretation is wrong - to say man can earn forgiveness stll cheapens it.

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the position that something is made more valuable when it's given away for free, and cheapened when you have to work for it and earn it. How is this not the total opposite of the truth?

...who do you think should judge whether or not a person has 'earned' forgiveness? What if I feel I have but you don't feel I have?

That's an important question, but it's no different from how things are now. In our world, God does not descend from the heavens with an illuminated scroll of pardon to announce when someone's sins have been forgiven. And just because someone claims God has forgiven them doesn't mean he actually has, which is a statement I think atheists and Christians alike can agree on. Human beings always have to make judgments about whether to forgive each other, and that's not going to change any time in the foreseeable future.

Would I feel just in killing someone's son to avenge a wrong they'd done to me? Well, possibly if that wrong were killing my son. Harsh on the children? Yes. Just to the wrong-doer? Well, that's the question isn't it - do you believe justice should be retributive or restorative?

Killing someone for the crimes of someone else is not only not restorative, it's not just at all. This hearkens back to the primitive idea of retribution, of revenge - which is not at all the same thing as justice, and which only binds society into an endless, bloody spiral of retaliatory vengeance.

...we can't say we deserve forgiveness.

More of the Xian doctrine of anti-humanism. Why do Xians hate humanity so much?

Would I feel just in killing someone's son to avenge a wrong they'd done to me? Well, possibly if that wrong were killing my son.

You had a point when you chided Christopher for his statement about killing anyone he disagrees with...and then you go and say this. What makes you any better than him if you're willing to kill someone who did no wrong to you simply to avenge the death of your child?

Well, that's the question isn't it - do you believe justice should be retributive or restorative?

True justice would be restorative in the ideal. In practice it should be some of both. Your way is retributive and immoral.

Either way, justice has to be proportionate; but I don't believe anything I'd written implied otherwise.

No, actually it doesn't, and our justice system does not operate that way. Besides, what is proportionate about visiting the sins of one upon their off-spring? That is way out of proportion. For us to suffer because of the actions of our ancestors is immoral and ludicrous.

Group responsibility doesn't blame victims for the wrongs they suffer - it blames the whole group for the wrongs they commit.

Because you can't separate out specific crimes? Well, then you are guilty of murder.

But the blames is placed on the whole group - to pick any 'victim' out for isolated analysis is an error within the framework of the point I was making.

The framework you are using is that we are guilty of being human and that that makes us sinners and worthy of infinite torture, which is vile and disgusting.

I'm not familiar with Xian.

Xian = Christian.

I agrre that religion does appear, for the outside at least, to blame us simply for being human. But that implies acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of doing everything right. Why do you believe that is impossible, even in theory?

Alas, Xianity actually teaches us that we are incapable of doing anything right, not that we sometimes do something wrong. Even then, we are still not deserving of infinite torture/punishment. And, again, why should we be held accountable for being created human?

Finally, I'm not saying we shouldn't try and right our wrongs - who would say that?!?

Why should you? Isn't it that much more glorious (for god) when he can forgive you and you don't give a rat's ass and have made no attempts at atonement? That way, he can be even more magnanimous, right?

I'm pointing out that, from a Christian perspective, particularly with the original/transferrable sin doctrine, it just isn't possible. Of course we should still try to do our best.

If it is impossible to atone, then why try? No matter what you do, you still believe that you are deserving of hell unless god decides to give you grace, so nothing you do will improve your situation or make you any less likely for hell.

On the Omni/max thing, see above.

And I refer you back to the OP where Ebon makes the counter-argument for this...that undeserved forgiveness is cheapening. This is all the more true given that you've already admitted that an omni-max being can't give anything up. Therefore, it is by definition empty and cheap for god to "forgive" you. The waters get even more muddled when you throw in the concept that god is ultimately responsible for all of our sin, etc. Now we get to the part where god throws us in hell for HIS immoral actions, which goes back to blaming the victims. We are humans, so you blame us for being human.