Was the execution of Jesus unjust?

Originally posted by Scriabin
<Difficulty in communication is not necessarily an epistemic fault, even with a common language.>

Let me ask if anyone on this forum posting in this thread comes from a nation or a linguistic tradition that has no system of laws, no lawyers, no judges, no courts, or any other way in which questions of justice and injustice are advocated and adjudicated? ...[text shortened]... hether we can arrive at an answer to the OP question posed -- which is an interesting question.

But I really would settle for a straightforward discussion of what the consensus is on this thread of what the word Justice means. At least then we may find out whether we can arrive at an answer to the OP question posed -- which is an interesting question.

Agreed. Forgive my meandering pedantry. (Or not&hellip😉

Originally posted by Scriabin
<Some people do not think in language, and yet can still presumably arrive at justified true beliefs about the world they inhabit. >

"presumably?"

True beliefs?

would you care to clarify these terms? I do not recognize any referrant in the world in which I live.

I suppose the most extreme example would be people with synesthesia. Some people with autism, too, I think, do not think in language (I’ll double check that). Are they in your world?

I say “presumably” because I do not know how everyone thinks. I think in language, generally English.

The person with synesthesia who says something like: “In my mind I multiplied the orange by the chartreuse: the answer is the magenta”—I actually came across something very close to that, in Discover or Scientific American—may be arriving at a true belief that simply needs to be translated into mathematical language to be seen as such.

Now, all of that is—as I noted above—perhaps dismally pedantic. But the fact remains that one may know something (hold a justified true belief) and still have difficulty communicating it. Even in cases less extreme that the ones I mention, which may be just on the tail of a statistical distribution (normal, bimodal, whatever).

To say to someone: “You obviously don’t know what you think, since you can’t communicate it to me”—rather than, perhaps, just “I don’t even know if you know what you think, since you can’t communicate it to me”—is just hubris.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But I really would settle for a straightforward discussion of what the consensus is on this thread of what the word Justice means. At least then we may find out whether we can arrive at an answer to the OP question posed -- which is an interesting question.

Agreed. Forgive my meandering pedantry. (Or not&hellip😉[/b]

so you had an academic sneeze? bless you ....😀

Originally posted by vistesd
I suppose the most extreme example would be people with synesthesia. Some people with autism, too, I think, do not think in language (I’ll double check that). Are they in your world?

I say “presumably” because I do not know how everyone thinks. I think in language, generally English.

The person with synesthesia who says something like: “In my mind ...[text shortened]... on’t even know if you know what you think, since you can’t communicate it to me”—is just hubris.

I'm not asking about what or how you think.

I'm asking for a written answer to the question, what does the word Justice mean to you when you use it?

How you get there is your business.

I don't need or want to know.

Once I have some answers we can see if there is consensus, if we are singing from the same sheet of music, etc. If not, we try to get in tune. If we're in tune, then we try to finish the song.

Originally posted by Scriabin
I'm not asking about what or how you think.

I'm asking for a written answer to the question, what does the word Justice mean to you when you use it?

How you get there is your business.

I don't need or want to know.

Once I have some answers we can see if there is consensus, if we are singing from the same sheet of music, etc. If not, we try to get in tune. If we're in tune, then we try to finish the song.

Okay, okay. (academic sneeze...)

I am asking the same question--in part because I don't have a satisfactorily (to me) well-formed answer. All I have are some intuitive notions of such things as preponderance of evidence, the penalty being commensurate with the (harm caused by) the crime, mitigating circumstances, and the like.

When theists claim that God is just, I ask them what they mean by that (esp[ecially when some claim that eternal torment is consistent with God's justness).

I am laying the burden of proof on thiose who make the claim, but not just as a debating tactic--I hope to learn something. If you have a well-formed notion of justice, I'll consider that, certainly.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, okay. (academic sneeze...)

I am asking the same question--in part because I don't have a satisfactorily (to me) well-formed answer. All I have are some intuitive notions of such things as preponderance of evidence, the penalty being commensurate with the (harm caused by) the crime, mitigating circumstances, and the like.

When theists claim tha ...[text shortened]... learn something. If you have a well-formed notion of justice, I'll consider that, certainly.

Well, I'm a lawyer, and a law enforcement official in a Federal regulatory agency, at that. If I don't have a well-formed idea of justice by now, some folks had better be concerned.

I follow Toullier's concept and use the word justice as that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, but when considered relatively and with respect to others, has the name of justice.

Justice, in practice, to me, means doing what is fair. morally right. To do these things, justice, to be effective, exists within a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.

Toullier exposed the want of utility and exactness in the division of justice into what is called distributive and commutative justice, as adopted in the European compendium or abridgments of the ancient judges, called doctors. The Common Law tradition of both Britain and the USA are descended from these same precepts. But our system and that of Europe has evolved.

Toulier preferred the division of internal and external justice; the first being a conformity of our will, and the latter a conformity of our actions to the law: their union making perfect justice. Exterior justice is the object of jurisprudence; interior justice is the object of morality.

The older tradition held that distributive justice is that virtue whose object is to distribute rewards and punishments to each one according to his merits, observing a just proportion by comparing one person or fact with another, so that neither equal persons have unequal things, nor unequal persons things equal.

Commutative justice is that virtue whose object it is to render to every one what belongs to him, as nearly as may be, or that which governs contracts. To render commutative justice, the judge must make an equality between the parties, that no one may be a gainer by another's loss. This is from whence the eye for an eye concept is derived. To see just how absurd and outmoded this concept has become, look at this (you have to see the photo to get the full impact):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29509977/

<<An Iranian woman living in Spain said Wednesday she welcomed a Tehran court ruling that awards her eye-for-an-eye justice against a suitor who blinded her with acid.

<<Ameneh Bahrami, 30, told Cadena SER radio, "I am not doing this out of revenge, but rather so that the suffering I went through is not repeated."

<<Late last year an Iranian court ruled that the man — identified only as Majid — who blinded Bahrami in 2004 after she spurned him, should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of "qisas," or eye for an eye retribution, according to Iranian newspaper reports from November.>>

As a related point, if you are looking for a way to top this, the case contains its own topper:

<<But Bahrami, who moved to Spain after the attack to get medical treatment, said Wednesday that under Iranian law, she is entitled to blind him in only one eye, unless she pays $25,110, because in Iran women are not considered equal to men.

<<"They have told us that my two eyes are equal to one of his because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she said.>>

Originally posted by Scriabin
Well, I'm a lawyer, and a law enforcement official in a Federal regulatory agency, at that. If I don't have a well-formed idea of justice by now, some folks had better be concerned.

I follow Toullier's concept and use the word justice as that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, but when considered relatively and with respect to ...[text shortened]... because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she said.>>

Thank you. Now that gives me something to work on...

Re, "eye for eye": is that not why the rabbis long ago eschewed a literal interpretation of that?

Originally posted by whodey
" I sometimes wish someone had so we could hear his reasonings. I don't view it as a mandate across the boards to show mercy to everyone that violates the law, otherwise you would have lawlessness. In fact, why have any laws at all? Why have prisons? Why have judges and lawyers......wait.....no lawyers? That's it!!! We would all be so much happier without them. Now why didn't I think of that before!!

"If I recall he did not condemn the Mosaic law, rather, he merely offerred a different alternative which no one dare contest at the time."

Doesn't seem that Jesus is merely throwing out ideas here. Do you believe that He didn't mean His caution against "idle talk" in Matthew 12:36 to apply to himself?
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "[b[But I say to you,[/b] do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

"I don't view it as a mandate across the boards to show mercy to everyone that violates the law, otherwise you would have lawlessness. In fact, why have any laws at all? Why have prisons? Why have judges and lawyers......wait.....no lawyers? That's it!!! We would all be so much happier without them. Now why didn't I think of that before!!"

Neither did I. However, the concept of "an eye for an eye" and "a death for a death" are barbaric. "A death for a death" is particularly heinous. Jesus spoke against man levying the "ultimate" judgement. Jesus also spoke often about repentance and redemption. Dead men can do neither. Do you have any regard for the teachings of Jesus?

Originally posted by whodey
I don't offer a definition, rather, I only bring it up as an example of an attempt at justice. An eye for an eye all sounds rather simplistic does it not? You know there is something to be said for that. In fact, no lawyers are needed, no prisons, just a judge to hear the case. Then when someone rails that what is being done is "unjust" all you say is, "B e TOO's position and show mercy to them all and release everyone in our prisons!!! 😛

"I guess the only other route would be to take TOO's position and show mercy to them all and release everyone in our prisons!!!

I never advocated or even hinted at any such thing. I have no idea how you managed to infer such a thing. With such a poor level of discernment is there any wonder that you manage to comprehend so little of the teachings of Jesus?

To misrepresent my position like that is exceedingly dishonest, though quite common amongst the "Christians" on this site.

Originally posted by FMF
Was Jesus executed unjustly?

Yes. He was the second-to-last prophet, unless I'm mistaken. The execution of any prophet is fundamentally unjust. At least Mohammed died naturally.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you. Now that gives me something to work on...

Re, "eye for eye": is that not why the rabbis long ago eschewed a literal interpretation of that?

don't know about "the rabbis." put two of them in a room and you get five different interpretations, about 9 arguments among 3 or 4 different views, and endless recitations and citations to any number of long dead rebbes (of blessed memory) etc.

just between us, I think Judaism in its most traditional and strongest form has never been about a literal interpretation of anything. The tradition of the shtetl and the black hats is not to be mistaken for those who in wiser times and sunnier climes opined. I think of Maimonides, for example.

all this talk of God's law, of the Word of God, is just what Marx said it was -- the means by which to guide the uneducated and the mentally incapacitated toward a decent standard of living in a reasonably civilized community.

The holiness thing really creeps me out -- I have a really hard time believing any of it. Ask yourself this: do any of the world's most powerful people care if you, individually, praise them hours on end? Is it reasonable to believe that which created the entire universe, and possibly an infinity of quantum realities, would?

Must have a lot of time on His hands -- if you'll pardon the expression.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"I guess the only other route would be to take TOO's position and show mercy to them all and release everyone in our prisons!!!

I never advocated or even hinted at any such thing. I have no idea how you managed to infer such a thing. With such a poor level of discernment is there any wonder that you manage to comprehend so little of the teaching ...[text shortened]... ke that is exceedingly dishonest, though quite common amongst the "Christians" on this site.[/b]

forgive them, for they are generally too dim to know what they do

most of them need a plate glass window installed in their navels just to see where they are going, so far up their behind are their heads ....

Originally posted by scherzo
Yes. He was the second-to-last prophet, unless I'm mistaken. The execution of any prophet is fundamentally unjust. At least Mohammed died naturally.

Jesus and Mohammad were not equal. Jesus was God incarnate; Muhammad was simply a man who devised a religion based on visions and dreams. Christianity's foundation rests on the fact that Jesus died on the cross, was entombed, and rose from the dead and defeated death. Mohammad simply died. Where he went afterwards....only God knows.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Jesus was God incarnate

Only Christians believe this. No other religions subscribe to this theory. Many Muslims find it rather belittling of God, as they see him. Some indeed find it blasphemous albeit tollerable, and one can see their theological point, regardles of whether one agrees with it.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Well, I'm a lawyer, and a law enforcement official in a Federal regulatory agency, at that. If I don't have a well-formed idea of justice by now, some folks had better be concerned.

I follow Toullier's concept and use the word justice as that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, but when considered relatively and with respect to ...[text shortened]... because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she said.>>

I like this post🙂


Leaving aside the interpretation of yours, which is accurate, maybe it would be useful to go a bit back; the main Problem that the Human had to solve by means of the invention of the Justice, it was murder within the bounds of society. Murder is the major agent of social decomposition, therefore it was necessary for the Human to establish from the very first point a plexus of laws in order to overcome it and secure her/ his society; the ancient laws are as cruel as the societies from which they evolved.
Nowdays, as the societies are more complicated, the Problem is more complicated too, thus the plexus of the laws is by far more complicated also.

The laws are all man-made. And nobody can insist that they have anyway to remain for ever as they are, because they have to change in accordance with the social standarts ect.

For starters, just check Shariah -it is supposed to be a complex of laws, however the people that they practice it are a flock of morons that they are living in the past. I decided to oppose Shariah in my country by any means, for I have evaluated this system as a product of inner ignorance; I would do the same if I were living in a country that is ruled under Shariah "law", therefore I would disobey that "law" if I could not escape from there and go elsewhere. In this case, I care not whether or not I would be found "guilty" or "not guilty" according to Sharyah. All I know is that I will never do whatever destroys my Intelligence, and thanks to my Intelligence I refuse to accept that all this big time BS is the "word of god". It is just an horrific Human invention.

Morality, Justice and the rest Human virtues are the product of our process and our evolution within society. It seems to me that, the idea that all these Tools we need in order to cultivate our environment and to secure our society are "the word of god", is a delusion that serves fanaticism big time.

Nothing Holy😵