Yes exactly - because justice cannot be dealt with by the person who was harmed - the person's mind is clouded and cannot determine a just punishment.

This is an ethical point. The desire to suffering only heaps more pain and lack of well-being on the world. It clouds judgement. One who seeks to inflict pain and suffering on others is only concerned with their personal vengeance. They put "payment" above all concerns and cannot see how they are damaging the world.

The idea that vengeance is the Lord's becasue of their superior judgement is one of the greatest cases of irony. No-one's mind is more clouded by jealously than the God who thinks transgressors ought to be wiped out of suffer for all eternity.

The fact that they need to pay for their sins isn't to say they don't deserve any sort of existence or happiness - that, at least in most cases, is too extreme of a punishment considering the offence. — Agustino

Oh but it does, for the duration of their suffering, for they are meant to suffer. In this moment, they are meant to lack existence or happiness so we can feel like we have control over what's been lost (despite that being eternal and so their is no control over it). Which is frequently a long time.Or involves sufferings which have a lasting impact-- the inability to grow a new leg of an intimate relationship for example.

Oh but it does, for the duration of their suffering, for they are meant to suffer. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well of course they are meant to suffer if they do wrong - this stems precisely from the definition of justice. As I have defined justice, and as Plato and many other philosophers have defined it, it is giving to each what they deserve. If X deserves his monthly salary, then it should be given to him. If X doesn't deserve his monthly salary, it shouldn't be given to him.

No, it doesn't-- it stems from you definition of justice that suffering is deserved. The point is this is not true. Wrong doers may deserve something (and some suffering ay be a by product), but they don't specifically deserve to suffer. That's just an irrational desire for vengeance.

No, it doesn't-- it stems from you definition of justice that suffering is deserved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Suffering CAN be deserved, of course. So can rewards and goodness.

The point is this is not true — TheWillowOfDarkness

You got any argument for this?

Yes... I talked about it in a previous post. It's just heaps more damage and loss on the world. That is what "deserves suffering" means. For nothing more than a fantasy of control for those who have lost. Precisely the irrational response that makes some victims poor judges of punishment.

It's just heaps more damage and loss on the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No you have just done a sleight of hand here. The person who deserves suffering is not "the world".

Clearly false... the person who (supposedly) deserves suffering is part of the world. Not to mention they have their own social connections, friends, family, etc.,etc.

Others will be hurt by their suffering too.

Beware the tangled roots......

Clearly false... the person who (supposedly) deserves suffering is part of the world. They have their own social connections, friends, family, etc.,etc. Others will be hurt by their suffering to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ehmm so their friends etc. are "the world"? Look, saying that the person deserves to suffer isn't the same as saying that the world deserves to suffer. If he deserves to suffer of course it means putting more harm and suffering on him - that's precisely the point that we're discussing. So you're arguing in a circle - "the person who does wrong deserves to suffer" is wrong because "it just heaps more suffering on him" - of course! That's just the point. If my friend deserves to suffer, then I'll be glad to see him suffer, because justice is more important. Equally, if I deserve to suffer, then I should suffer - this is just what justice is - and I would desire to suffer if that is the case.

Tangled or untangled roots, justice still needs to be done :P

I'm not referring to the substance of the debate, but never mind. I notice the OP has never returned.

For sure, but my point wasn't that you were saying the world needs to suffer. It was that you were putting more loss and suffering in the world, without any outside gain.

The issue is that "deserving suffering" is not justice. My point here is that he does not deserve to suffer. The world doesn't need it and nothing is gained from it.

The issue is that "deserving suffering" is not justice. My point here is that he does not deserve to suffer. The world doesn't need it and nothing is gained from it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So your argument is that because suffering doesn't give a gain to those who have lost, it is henceforth not necessary? I disagree - precisely because I take it as definition that justice is giving to each as they deserve. Do you disagree with that? If you don't, then do you agree that if someone does wrong, then they deserve to suffer for it? If you don't agree, then do you not see that it follows from the definition of justice - namely to each as they deserve - that the one who has done harm deserves precisely harm?

I disagree - precisely because I take it as definition that justice is giving to each as they deserve. — Agustino

This definition, though correct in prinicple, is actually an empty generality. Who knows what another or even oneself deserves? Only God, if anyone. It is no good saying the law is just. because the law is made by men, and the law is an ass. Christ came to overturn the Law and substitute Love. Your sentiment of valorizing the enjoyment of suffering is fundamentally un-Christian.

This definition, though correct in prinicple, is actually an empty generality. Who knows what another or even oneself deserves? Only God, if anyone. It is no good saying the law is just. because the law is made by men, and the law is an ass. Christ came to overturn the Law and substitute Love. Your sentiment of valorizing the enjoyment of suffering is fundamentally un-Christian. — John

>:O

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. — I will let you find out who said this

'“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

See - great minds think alike ;)

I am not and don't want to be a Christian apologist, but neither am I atheist. I think Biblical texts need to be interpreted allegorically, but that doesn't mean I think they can simply be thrown out altogether. I think, in keeping with a 'universalist' or perennial philosophical approach, such religious teachings embody principles which may need to be re-intepreted but which can't just be discarded.

I am not and don't want to be a Christian apologist, — Wayfarer

Good, then I have no competition! Perfect, I enjoy monopolies :P

"In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets."

The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I'll let you guys figure out who said that.

Well yeah - if I do something wrong, then I do want myself to suffer. So when my neighbour does something wrong, I do love him as I love myself :) - no less and no more as the heathen do, who love their neighbours more than themselves :P

You're the one that denies, and discards it.

;)

How so, Woz?

@Wayfarer - I might add this one

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery... — Luke 16:16-18

Your interpretations are too black and white. Nowhere have I said that I think Love consists in the annihilation of Law. Love consists in the fulfillment, the completion, of Law, which means overturning it; standing it on its feet instead of its head, so to speak. Enjoyment of the suffering of others is not consistent with either Law or Love, and hence it is un-Christian.

Enjoyment of the suffering of others is not consistent with either Law or Love, and hence it is un-Christian. — John

This is false. If I love myself, then I wish to be set straight when I go wrong. And therefore I wish to be punished - to get what I deserve - for having done wrong. And I wish the same for my neighbour - out of love.

Love consists in the fulfillment, the completion, of Law, which means overturning it — John

Sorry but for common folk, fulfilment is the exact opposite of overturning. Overturning means to replace - fulfilment means to uphold and extend. Those are very very different.

There's a difference between atheism in the sense of the rejection of the spiritual, and the attempt to re-interpret the meaning of spiritual teachings.

The attempts by atheist philosophers to derive naturalistic explanations for life, the universe and everything, don't admit the possibility of what we can only vaguely call 'the transcendent'. They are obliged to assert that the fundamental constituents of life, are physical objects and forces, or cultural and social forces - the laws of physics, evolution, the means of production, so forth and so on. There is a huge range of such explanations, of course, occupying enormous volumes of literature.

All of the spiritual traditions differ greatly, but all of them see the fundamental ground of reality as being in some sense alive, or 'aliveness'. Our ordinary sense of what is normal or real is unavoidably conditioned by our inherent self-concern which conceals or obscures our relationship with that, which is analogous to a 'parent-child' relationship. Spiritual awakening (a term which is not really native to mainstream Christianity) is realising that relationship with the source or ground of being.

So spiritual teachings are generally concerned with elucidating or re-instating this sense of relationship, or relatedness, in my view. But there's also an important sense in which such things can only be learned by doing - they are not conceptual, verbal, or intellectual models, but an actual way-of-being. Again, I think a lot of Biblical metaphors around 'being born of the spirit' are trying to convey that.

So the 'fulfillment of the law' I see as being an allusion to that state of 'divine union' or oneness with God, although I'm now starting to think that there's been a lot of misleading nonsense put about around such ideas by the counter-culture.

The person who started this thread, who doesn't seem to have stuck around, is wrestling with just this kind of question.