Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[Serious]

Put it thus way - people choose the risk, and so when they are caught and put in jail no-one finds it particularly unfair unless they consider the person to be innocent or their punishment is wildly different to punishments imposed by the same or similar judges on people in the same or similar circumstances.

Only if they are aware that the actions carry a punishment.

There was a case (a long time ago) when the law said that one cannot speak in a derogatory way about public officials, even if the the charges were true (actually especially not then). It was a criminal offense to say about public offical “X” that he is a crook, even if he was a crook. Actually if he was a crook, the penalty for the “crime” of saying so was even more severe. Now, fortunately for all of us, a brave newspaper editor took the challenge, and he printed that public official “X” was a crook. He was duly arrested and brought to court. Also fortunately for all of us, the jury was composed of smart people who brought the verdict: “Yes, he violated the law, BUT the law should not have been on the books in the first place”, so the editor was acquitted. This was a case of “jury annullment” which is still a valid procedure (in the US, of course) but the judges are explicitly forbidden to reveal this fact.

Now in this case the editor was aware of the risks, and he also chose to face those risks and chose to follow through the procedure. But these cases happen only once in a century.

Now how much injury do you think you can do to an eternal being?

None, whatsoever. You cannot cause injury to God. God is immune to injury.

The answer is an eternal injury. How can a finite temporary punishment atone for an injury that is eternal? It cannot. So the appropriate punishment can only be an eternal one.

Such nonsense. Oh, well…

 

[Serious]

You deny them because you are ignorant of Catholic moral theology and your ignorance is culpable because it is not invincible. That’s it.

You have Catechism at your fingertips. You have the witness of a hundred generations of Christians, including thousands of philosophical and theological works and the daily testimony of preachers, homilists, missionaries, and lay Christians. If you are ignorant of basic theological principles, the fault is yours.

Sorry, I read it. It is not acceptable as an authoritative writ. You keep denying the simple fact: I am aware of what the Church says, and I am denying its validity. Furthermore I have very good reasons to do so. Those reasons might not be valid in your eyes, but they are valid for me.

I act in accordance with my conscience, and I read in the catechism that one must follow one’s own conscience. Of course, true to form, it immediately refutes (and contradicts) its own word, and says that one is only allowed to follow one’s conscience if it is “well-formed”, in other words, if it follows what the church teaches. A typical Henry Ford-like statement: “you can have a car of any color, provided that it is black”. Do you understand now why your word (or the catechism) is of no value at all? It would be nice if you understood, but I will not hold my breath.

You know this now. Your ignorance is gone. If you persist in error it will only be because of your own obstinacy.

You are wrong. I only know that you say it. And since your word is not acceptable, I do NOT know what you claim I know. I wish it would be allowed under the forum rules to express just “how” unacceptable your word is. Since it is not, I will leave it to your imagination.

So don’t take my word for it. Use your head. Read a book. Think about the claims within it. It’s hard but worthwhile. Feser’s *Aquinas *is a good place to start.

I read quite a few books written by noted apologists. In my opinion, none were worth the price of paper they were printed upon.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

If I go to Hell it will be because I have refused and rejected the love, grace, and knowledge God has given me to do what was right. Do I want to go to Hell? No; but did I chose to reject God and the many ways in which He as tried to help me? Yes.

As for the OP; I would say yes and no. Some people actually do commit crimes so they can be put back in prison because they cannot function in society.

 

[davidv]

It is only a possible consequence of doing something prohibited. If they are not caught, there is no consequence, is there? Even if they are caught, but they can substanitate that they did not know that the act was forbidden, then a just judge will not impose a penalty.

Just one example: many years ago there was a segment of 60 minutes. There was a guy whose business was burglarized many times, and every time the criminal got access to his property through the roof. Eventually, he rigged up a metal wire mesh under the ceiling, and connected it to the electric outlet. The criminal got electrocuted. The owner was prosecuted for setting a deadly trap. Fortunately the judge exercised common sense, when the guy could substantiate that he did not know that the trap was lethal.

The usual phrase: “ignorance of the law excuses nothing” is not absolute. If the person can substantiate that he was ignorant of the law, a just judge will not impose a sentence.

So, I agree with you. People do not choose to go to prison, the judicial system catches them (if they can) and throw the criminals into jail.

Whether the criminal is caught is not relevant. If the criminal is not caught, temporal justice is not served. Nor is the legitimacy of a potential jail sentence called into question by this injustice.
Also, what others do to the criminal is also irrelevant to the OP.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is only a possible consequence of doing something prohibited. If they are not caught, there is no consequence, is there? Even if they are caught, but they can substanitate that they did not know that the act was forbidden, then a just judge will not impose a penalty.

This is just semantics, but I think you meant to say a “merciful” judge. A nice way to tell a judge to “throw the book” at some one is to ask the judge to do what ever is just according to the word of the law (‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ are almost opposing concepts).

Being able to prove that you didn’t know an action was a crime doesn’t get you out of trouble per se. While state of mind is a factor, and showing some one has a malicious state of mind can result in a worst punishment than non-malicious.
Wiki:

“Ignorantia juris non excusat”
is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content…]The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state’s activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation…]

There’s a lot of actions that constitute white collar crime that come across as rather innocent. See the above link for the wiki entry.

 

[danserr]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

If I am a diver and I cut my own breathing tube, thereby choosing to separate my self from oxygen, have I been punished, or am I merely suffering the natural consequences of my actions?

I think it depends which view of hell we find more appropriate, the penal view or the natural consequences view. I incline toward the latter, though, I think the penal view is more defensible than many people take it to be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

God’s all merciful nature comes into play only when we plead for his mercy; but even then only if we have asked Him to forgive us our sins.

If God is all just, would a just God take into His presence for all eternity a man who had done terrible deeds all his life and never repented of a single one of them?

This is why atheism is such a dreadful choice.

 

[LilyM]

None, whatsoever. You cannot cause injury to God. God is immune to injury.

Such nonsense. Oh, well…

Those two statement - that we cannot cause injury to God and that He is immune to injury - are every bit as nonsensical and unfounded as you allege my statements about Hell and God to be. The irony is gobsmacking.

Now the Christian view of God is that He is all-loving. Essential aspects of love - or at least love of other than oneself - are a) that one is selfless in regard to the beloved (the more perfect the love, the more selfless) and b) that love means one is vulnerable to be hurt by the beloved, say if the beloved rejects or takes for granted that love.

If God IS love, then He surely is both selfless and vulnerable to hurt by us, His beloved. If that were not possible, then it would be impossible for God to love. And since we do, in fact, reject and take for granted His love in many different ways (which is something we do to each other as well, we never being perfect lovers) it stands to reason that He IS hurt by us, by that rejection etc.

You of course probably do not even agree that God exists, let alone that He is loving or the rest of it, but you must see that the Christian view is at least consistent within itself - ie it is consistent with Christian theology that God loves us, therefore He can be hurt by us, and that we do act in ways that hurt Him.

 

[Serious]

If I go to Hell it will be because I have refused and rejected the love, grace, and knowledge God has given me to do what was right. Do I want to go to Hell? No; but did I chose to reject God and the many ways in which He as tried to help me? Yes.

It would be nice to see and experience that love and grace. No I did not reject God, but I do not believe that God exists. However I cwertainlyreject what many people SAY about God.

As for the OP; I would say yes and no. Some people actually do commit crimes so they can be put back in prison because they cannot function in society.

Well, yes, a handful. A few more may commit minor crimes to get warm food and shelter for the winter.

 

[Serious]

Whether the criminal is caught is not relevant.

Since you argued that the deed has consequences, if the perp is not caught, there are no consequences.

 

[Serious]

This is just semantics, but I think you meant to say a “merciful” judge. A nice way to tell a judge to “throw the book” at some one is to ask the judge to do what ever is just according to the word of the law (‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ are almost opposing concepts).

I actually meant “just”. I would also say that “justice” and “mercy” are not just “almost” opposing concepts, they are contradictory.

Being able to prove that you didn’t know an action was a crime doesn’t get you out of trouble per se.

The concept of “ignorance of law excuses nothing” is only applicable if the person could have reasonably expected to know about that law.

 

[Serious]

If I am a diver and I cut my own breathing tube, thereby choosing to separate my self from oxygen, have I been punished, or am I merely suffering the natural consequences of my actions?

In this case it is the natural consequence, obviously. Now if someone committed an “intriniscally evil” act of masturbation, and never repented, what kind of “natural consequence” is there between the act and the eternal torture?

I think it depends which view of hell we find more appropriate, the penal view or the natural consequences view. I incline toward the latter, though, I think the penal view is more defensible than many people take it to be.

Agreed. Many people, even believers simply cannot accept the concept of hell. Their sense of justice cannot be reconciled with it.

 

[Serious]

If God is all just, would a just God take into His presence for all eternity a man who had done terrible deeds all his life and never repented of a single one of them?

What a “terrible deed” is to make love to one’s spouse in a way that is not open to conception! One must shiver at the “intrinsically evil”-ness of such an act… Imagine, selflessly concentrating on your spouse to give them maximum pleasure. How “evil” they be?

 

[Serious]

Those two statement - that we cannot cause injury to God and that He is immune to injury - are every bit as nonsensical and unfounded as you allege my statements about Hell and God to be. The irony is gobsmacking.

Now the Christian view of God is that He is all-loving. Essential aspects of love - or at least love of other than oneself - are a) that one is selfless in regard to the beloved (the more perfect the love, the more selfless) and b) that love means one is vulnerable to be hurt by the beloved, say if the beloved rejects or takes for granted that love.

If God IS love, then He surely is both selfless and vulnerable to hurt by us, His beloved. If that were not possible, then it would be impossible for God to love. And since we do, in fact, reject and take for granted His love in many different ways (which is something we do to each other as well, we never being perfect lovers) it stands to reason that He IS hurt by us, by that rejection etc.

You of course probably do not even agree that God exists, let alone that He is loving or the rest of it, but you must see that the Christian view is at least consistent within itself - ie it is consistent with Christian theology that God loves us, therefore He can be hurt by us, and that we do act in ways that hurt Him.

Totally anthropomorphic view. God is not a physical being who could be hurt. And let’s not get into the nonexistent signs of God’s love. This thread is about the contention that people volitionally choose hell.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Then read any of the other thousands of books written on Christianity over the centuries, by men far smarter than you. **

To sw85, who made the above comment, normally I don’t go for even a TAD of ad hominem, even if I agree with your position (and I do in this case, believe me),
but there are times when the modern, pompous, I’ve-got-it-all-figured-out-and-those-dumb-xtians-don’t-know-anything Atheist really does need to be reminded that intellects vastly grander than theirs do, in fact, believe deeply in God and the afterlife. Their silly attempts at slam-dunk “proofs” against the judgment of God, reveal them to be, frankly,
mental dilletantes slouching toward a claim of intellectual superiority.

And one of those men “far smarter than” our detractor, would be the brilliant philospher/theologian, Karol Wojtyla, also known as the late Pope John Paul II.

CONTINUED IMMEDIATELY BELOW… THANKS.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

As for prisons and prisoners, after watching LOCKUP many times on MSNBC and seeing the purely SATANIC conditions and environments of those places, re-reading the teachings of Christ on forgiveness and reconciliaton, and remembering what Secular Society has forgotten, namely, that ALL, note ALL, ACTS of Sin are in fact CRIMES.
It took the spilling of a GOD-MAN, Jesus Christ, to pay the price of these CRIMES.
God did not become man, willingly and lovingly suffer the most horrific humiliation, ripping apart of his divine/human flesh, crowning of his sacred head and face with jagged sharp thorns, be beaten to a living pulp, nailed to a cross like a child killer or some other dreg of humanity, because “Sin” is not criminal and really just a small thing in comparison to say, a white collar executive embezzling $125,000 from his firm, which would be “really” bad and require that “people like THAT person” be locked up for 20 years.
Considering all that, and the fact the ones doing the prosecuting and convicting and sentencing of these nonviolent ones to harsh sentences in rape and sodomy and stabbing and racism and gang violence filled hellholes, are people who, themselves, are guilty of
SINS that God’s LAW, which was the Law of the Land (and God does NOT change His standards, folks) of Israel, required the JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR, “SINS” far worse in Gods’ eyes, according to his Perfect Law given to Moses, than what these men and women are being locked up for, in horrific hell holes, for decades. Which, in fact, in God’s Law, called only for repayment, sometimes several times over, of what was taken. But those sentencing them to these places, such as many modern, in our age often GODLESS, “judges,” are guilty of things which, if God’s Law WERE still enshrined in HUMAN statutes, would require that these JUDGES be publicly executed for these Sins, while these nonviolent offenders would, by contrast, be required to either a) repay what they took, sometimes several times over, or
b) submit to indentured servitude to the person(s) they stole from for a varying period of time, not sentenced to a dangerous, violent place to be raped and stabbed and beaten.
CONTINUED IMMEDIATELY BELOW. MANY THANKS !!

 

[Jaypeeto4]

CONTINUED FROM JUST ABOVE… LAST PART, I PROMISE !!!

See what “Separation of Church and State” has wrought in our minds?
We think of Sin, sometimes, as something almost Innocuous.
The word, Sin, itself, no longer carries any sense of horror to it. It sounds mild.
“Crime” sounds horrific, Evil, terrifying by contrast, when many “crimes” are mild sins compared to the sins/crimes of those prosecuting these “criminals” in our secularized society. There are, for example, still laws on the books in many states criminalizing Adultery. So, those who have committed adultery, did you know that under the Laws of many states, you are not merely a “mere” sinner, but actually a Criminal?
Adultery is a Crime any way, of the worst sort: against God and against chastity and against the innocent partners and the children and wrecks families AND wrecks society, but it will never again be punished legally. It is not politically correct to do so. But under God’s standards, it calls for Judicial Application of the Death Penalty.
If I have committed adultery, do I have the “right” to help throw a repentant drug dealer in prison to be beaten and tortured by violent killers whom they mix with the general population? Before I answer that, I remember the woman caught in Adultery. No merely a mortal sin that will result in hell if unrepented of, but a violation of the Law that, rightfully under the Law, called for her to be publicly executed. Jesus, the very God who GAVE that Perfect Law, STOPPED the lawful execution by pointing out that those about to execute her were just as guilty of Sin/Crime as SHE was.

I am very conflicted about who should or should not be in those hellholes. If they are dangerous killers, rapists, armed robbers, repeat assaulters, home invasionists, kidnappers, etc., then yes, for the safety and decency of society, good people need to be protected from these people running loose. For lesser, not dangerous types of things, I think there should be rehabilitation. Christ, God Himself, died for ALL sinners, not just the ones whose sins are no longer prosecuted today. If His Law were still enforced by Society, I dare say that over 50% or more of practicing Christians would be in jail or executed for their past “crimes,” as they would still be, and once were, recognized as being. I don’t think any of us who have ever committed a mortal sin that calls in the bible for the application, now, of the death penalty, would want that. So I think we should show similar mercy to others. Even praying for the conversion of the dangerous and violent ones that, for decency’s sake, we HAVE to lock up because they will keep hurting people if we don’t. There needs to be more conversions. This can only happen by effectually praying effectual prayers for the conversion of ALL sinners. One such effectual prayer is JESUS, MARY, I LOVE YOU, SAVE SOULS!!, which was given by Christ Himself to the Servant of God, Sister Maria Consolata Betrone.

There is a woman at work who is stealing me blind. And my co-workers, too. I am praying for her repentance and for her to stop it. I will not demand, and beg God to ensure, that she NOT BE arrested and her life destroyed by these thefts of our commission for our work that we did with our own sweat. It is theft, make no mistake, and repeated and habitual and remorseless. But if she can be brought to repentance, then that would delight me no end. I do not want her in jail. I don’t even want her to pay me back the HUNDREDS in commission she has stolen from me over the months. I just want, and pray for, her to knock it off, that’s all. God swears: AS I LIVE, I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED, BUT THAT HE TURN FROM HIS EVIL WAYS AND LIVE. He does not say, “except for thieves, embezzlers, crooked lawyers, welfare queens, killers, and other people who are beyond the pale.” In other words, he does NOT want to bring even their JUST punishment upon them. He wants, delights, in their repentance. We forget that, and talk about society’s RIGHT, SINFUL society’s RIGHT, to take vengeance/retribution on people, even if they are repentant. I think, and the Bishops of USCCB are in agreement, that we really need to re-think this position,which comes not from scripture or the Fathers, but is borrowed from Roman and Greek secular law.
Love to all of you, and God’s richest blessings upon all of you,
Jaypeeto4
( at 3:30 in the morning, exhausted, lost my voice, laryngitis, and rambling. mea culpa,
and many apologies. God bless you all ).

 

[Serious]

**Then read any of the other thousands of books written on Christianity over the centuries, by men far smarter than you. **

To sw85, who made the above comment, normally I don’t go for even a TAD of ad hominem, even if I agree with your position (and I do in this case, believe me),
but there are times when the modern, pompous, I’ve-got-it-all-figured-out-and-those-dumb-xtians-don’t-know-anything Atheist really does need to be reminded that intellects vastly grander than theirs do, in fact, believe deeply in God and the afterlife.

Typical authoritarian argument. Bow down to others, because they are smarter than you. Bah, humbug! Just because in certain fields they were superior, it does not mean that in every field they must be held up as “authority”.

Aristotele was a genius of his time, and he believed that the brain was simply an organ to cool the blood. If you would follow your own “advice”, you would not dare to question him. But I bet you do. So look into the mirror, and get acquinted with another hypocrite.

 

[LilyM]

Totally anthropomorphic view. God is not a physical being who could be hurt. And let’s not get into the nonexistent signs of God’s love. This thread is about the contention that people volitionally choose hell.

Well we DO believe in a God who not only created humans in His image and likeness (meaning we bear a more-than-passing resemblance to Him physically and/or spiritually, including out capacity to be hurt) but in fact BECAME human and suffered in every way that it is possible for a human to suffer. So a somewhat anthropomorphic conception is perfectly consistent.

Whence comes this unshakeable certainty of yours that God has no physical aspect to Him?

Not to mention this peculiar notion that He cannot be hurt at all if not physically.

I find it passing strange that you totally discount non-physical ways of being hurt, given that both psychology and the law recognize all manner of non-physical injuries and hurts.

And that you discount the idea that non-physical entities can be hurt. Do not people, even corporations which are decidedly non-physical beings, sue for damage to their reputation or good name (eg defamation)? What are these corporations suing for if not a species of injury aka hurt?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Then read any of the other thousands of books written on Christianity over the centuries, by men far smarter than you. **

**To sw85, who made the above comment, normally I don’t go for even a TAD of ad hominem, even if I agree with your position (and I do in this case, believe me),
but there are times when the modern, pompous, I’ve-got-it-all-figured-out-and-those-dumb-xtians-don’t-know-anything Atheist really does need to be reminded that intellects vastly grander than theirs do, in fact, believe deeply in God and the afterlife. **

**Typical authoritarian argument. Bow down to others, because they are smarter than you. Bah, humbug! Just because in certain fields they were superior, it does not mean that in every field they must be held up as “authority”. **

**Aristotele was a genius of his time, and he believed that the brain was simply an organ to cool the blood. If you would follow your own “advice”, you would not dare to question him. But I bet you do. So look into the mirror, and get acquinted with another hypocrite. **

Give me a break, what a ridiculous comparison. Aristotle was a PHILOSOPHER and not an “authority” on the physical organism.
Bah humbug? Authoritarian argument? Please.
Tell us, Serious, if you have cancer, are you going to see both an Oncologist and a
Nutritionist (both are valuable in the case of this illness),
or are you going to go see a person, who may be brilliant at what he does,
gifted even, who is a graduate of Le Cordon Bleu School of Culinary Arts?
A brilliant Oncologist? Or a brilliant Chef?
You know you would see an oncologist and would be a fool not to.

Our point on this matter is simple. These questions, which are very deep, are not reducible to mere slam dunk comparisons to whether or not criminals in this life “choose” to be put in a prison. These things are much more complex than a question like that one.
You DO need to read the books written by men, yes frankly, in these fields of study and reflection, who ARE vastly smarter than you. They have heard, for centuries, EVERY argument that nonBelievers (not merely modern Atheists) have offered against every aspect of the Christian faith. They have heard them from every angle, too. Up, down, sideways, and backwards. They have researched them from every angle. And they have written and answered them from every angle, too: up, down, sideways and backwards.
CONTINUED JUST BELOW. THANKS.