In a message dated 1/24/2005 9:07:05 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But that's not even the main issue. The thing I'm having trouble
> seeing from your perspective is why God would have mandated the
> punishment to begin with? Even though I disagree with many of the
> things you mentioned in your list, not one of them would be any less
> true before 1844.
Scott:
> Because then it was appropriate to mark the habitual thief in a way that was
> easy to spot.
Gilberto:
And now we don't want habitual thieves to be easy to spot ?!? You want
stuff stolen from you?
> Punishment for theft nowadays in the west is imprisonment with the hope that
> the perpetrator can be rehabilitated.
Gilberto:
I'm having a hard time taking that as a serious argument. A large
number of people in prison are there for non-violent drug related
offenses. If this is really about rehabilitation and compassion,
certain kinds of behaviors would be decriminalized, and people would
be treated more and prosecuted less.
> Rehabilitation would be more difficult
> if he was branded or mutilated for his crime.
I'm not so sure. Such a person would have definitely paid their debt
and could be more easily forgiven I would think.
I think this is descending to petty quibbles.
Regards,
Scott
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
|
