The Vietnamese Napalm girl

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It depends on the realm.

He would need to face legal justice, and that would not result in happiness for him. Compassion and charity do not mean a person who breaks a law, necessarily escapes the governmental punishment. But it is not my place to implement that punishment. That must be done either according to the rules of war or post-war regulations. Fortunately, I am not involved in that.

However, am I as a Christian allowed to harbor resentment toward him? No. Even he must be forgiven by a believer. Am I or other Christians perfect in achieving this? Not by a long shot. Of the people I harbor, improper resentments toward, he's not high on the list, though I do not think highly of his actions. I do not walk around hating him, as I have better things to do.

Again a model Christian will have already forgiven him in his heart. Judge good Mormons and Christians by this standard, not by the less the good example I may set.

Ofcourse ,its perfect to forgive ,as we are always in mad hope to be forgiven by God..but let me see if i got your statements precisely ..

you are saying "Bin Ladan" or any one else who has done such a crime and a true believer 's forgiveness isnot probably going to make him change his intention/attitude/belief ..is still deserved to recieve pardon?

or you are saying that a true believer ,is supposed to bestow forgiveness just becuase he is God's mirror on earth??

i honestly would like to judge mormons and christians by the offering standards as i hope you would care to do the same.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

Ofcourse ,its perfect to forgive ,as we are always in mad hope to be forgiven by God..but let me see if i got your statements precisely ..

you are saying "Bin Ladan" or any one else who has done such a crime and a true believer 's forgiveness isnot probably going to make him change his intention/attitude/belief ..is still deserved to recieve pardon?

or you are saying that a true believer ,is supposed to bestow forgiveness just becuase he is God's mirror on earth??

i honestly would like to judge mormons and christians by the offering standards as i hope you would care to do the same.

At this point, I don't understand your language.

"Bestow a pardon". This language is not religious, but legalistic in our idiom. Thus, I'm uncertain as to your message.

And because your world operates differently than ours, it is difficult for you to understand the distinctions. Religious authority has no legal authority.

President Bush can bestow a pardon, but our church leaders cannot.

As I understand the ayatollah system in your country, religious and legal authority are one and the same. Thus it must be difficult to distinguish between man's law and the law of religion.

Thus, the land can impose its punishment and the religious people judge a man NOT in their hearts.

Does this make any sense? It might not to me, if I lived where you reside.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

At this point, I don't understand your language.

"Bestow a pardon". This language is not religious, but legalistic in our idiom. Thus, I'm uncertain as to your message.

And because your world operates differently than ours, it is difficult for you to understand the distinctions. Religious authority has no legal authority.

President Bush can bestow a pardon, but our church leaders cannot.

actually i was wondering about your personal opinion ,as some one who would write the law as a MAN..since there are always some men who develop the law and as a human being they are surrounded by thier personal beliefs whether religious or non religious ... and there is no way to prove that those men would totally disregard thier beliefs in writing law.

as side note ..many claim ..president Bush middle east policy ,and particularly iraq war is a preface of what he envisions as his religious beliefs.

turning to the topic ..islam has tremendous teachings which endorse remittal and remission in day to day lives. we have quite alot anecdotal evidences of how forgiving muslims are when it comes to the personal conflicts/attack ...like in murder case ..the parents of the murdered would pardon the murderer ( engaged in a street fight or so ) in terms of divine forgiveness in a hope to recieve mercy from Allah, as we are promised to.

and there arenot even rare ,they just dont catch your cameras for some reasons!!!!!????

As I understand the ayatollah system in your country, religious and legal authority are one and the same. Thus it must be difficult to distinguish between man's law and the law of religion.

Thus, the land can impose its punishment and the religious people judge a man NOT in their hearts.

the law in our theocracy is quite compatible with the intenational law with the exception of that we define man as a part of a whole ..so in order to have an accurate law we would have to consider 1) the man 2) the universe 3) the relation of these two .

so becuase we believe that God ,the creator has the entire knowledge of all three parts,(while the human possess almost no knowlege in these realms) we cannot neglect his role in the law which governs on human.

Does this make any sense? It might not to me, if I lived where you reside.

yes ,your words do make sense to me..what actually doesnt make sense to me ,is what a human being is relying on to write the law ,to forgive or not forgive ,to punish or not to punish . if its not his belief ,so what is it ?? and if there is literally something which influence people 's decision making centres, so why 'shouldnot it be God ?

[Archaea]

I did not understand your post.

In our society, it is easy to disconnect sections, belief from society. We can write laws independent of our laws.

If I were to write a law, I would do so independent of my personal religious beliefs, and do mix the two.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If I were to write a law, I would do so independent of my personal religious beliefs, and do mix the two.

pardon? do mix what ??

i think i need to learn from you ,how you could neglect your beliefs (something you believe its true )..and with ignoring your beliefs ,what might have been replaced ? knowledge?? knowledge for what ? for learning the truth ? but you already knew the truth via your belief.
you might argue that you arenot sure about the truth you are believing in though.

[Mindfulcoug]

in an attempt to free the hijacked thread here comes a very authentic story of prophet mohammad's (PBUH) life ,who is supposed to be followed by muslims.

This story is about the early days of his prophetic mission in Mecca, where he was disliked by some people mostly idolaters ,who were trying to make him awfully embarrassed and miserable to leave his mission.

there was a man who would put lots of trash on prophet's way and hide in a place keep waiting to catch him up ,then throw garbage out to him almost everyday...to the point that prophet would have to take time to get clean or back home to change.

but once prophet noticed that the guy was missing for two or three days.. so he got to ask around to learn about the guy ..then he came to know that he was ill , resting at home..

prophet mohammad asked about where he lived ...then he made his way to the guy's house ... when he arrived ,the guy was speechless ,totally frightened, couldnot find the reason why prophet would want to come to visite him..then prophet smiled at him ..prayed for him to get well and left.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

pardon? do mix what ??

i think i need to learn from you ,how you could neglect your beliefs (something you believe its true )..and with ignoring your beliefs ,what might have been replaced ? knowledge?? knowledge for what ? for learning the truth ? but you already knew the truth via your belief.
you might argue that you arenot sure about the truth you are believing in though.

When one writes laws, one does it in relationship to laws already existing, and does not look to one's beliefs.

One then looks to the scenarios creating the need for new law, and takes what the legislative intent is.

For the most part, most law has NOTHING to do with truth. It is independent of truth.

A law regulating speed is not about truth. Engineers have studies which dictate safe speeds for certain types of routes. No truth here, just empirical observation.

Man's Law and truth are often not related.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When one writes laws, one does it in relationship to laws already existing, and does not look to one's beliefs.

One then looks to the scenarios creating the need for new law, and takes what the legislative intent is.

For the most part, most law has NOTHING to do with truth. It is independent of truth.

A law regulating speed is not about truth. Engineers have studies which dictate safe speeds for certain types of routes. No truth here, just empirical observation.

Man's Law and truth are often not related.

How about the very first men who wrote the laws...what were thier motivation to provide the accurate law ? and to which pre-existed law ,they might have been attached ?

You mentioned about speeding on the road ...good example..why a driver needs to mind his safty ?? or care about others safty and comfort ??
to live more and better? to do what?? to degenerate and become part of the soil after 100 years?? or to be healthy safe person to find out his way toward the truth ??

basically whats the main reason for empirical approaches ??

if in a society, where every individual is supposed to seek for the truth ,how come the laws (which is produced and enforced to manage individula's lives) would have nothing to do with the truth?

as you portray your law system..it seems there is NO place for justice and moral values ,becuase they both acquire thier meaning under the light of the truth.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

How about the very first men who wrote the laws...what were thier motivation to provide the accurate law ? and to which pre-existed law ,they might have been attached ?

You mentioned about speeding on the road ...good example..why a driver needs to mind his safty ?? or care about others safty and comfort ??
to live more and better? to do what?? to degenerate and become part of the soil after 100 years?? or to be healthy safe person to find out his way toward the truth ??

basically whats the main reason for empirical approaches ??

if in a society, where every individual is supposed to seek for the truth ,how come the laws (which is produced and enforced to manage individula's lives) would have nothing to do with the truth?

as you portray your law system..it seems there is NO place for justice and moral values ,becuase they both acquire thier meaning under the light of the truth.

You are now turning the debate to the origin of laws, not their current constructions. That is not the same.

In our country, there is a clear separation between religion and government. Occasionally a religiously minded group may express itself politically, but that is not the norm. That doesn't mean there is no intersection, but it is minimal.

People may advocate for laws based on personal beliefs, but our society by and large does not legislate to comply with religious beliefs.

Speeding and traffic laws are enabling constraints, meaning they are invoked so that people can orderly travel along the roads to enable the motorists. They are constraining because they limit the drivers' options, but enabling because without them chaos would result.

Our law is not about truth but about relative order and protection of the public. There is a place for truth in the lives of each individual. We do not believe governmental discourse is the place for discussion of eternal truth. Governmental discourse is about power and money.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You are now turning the debate to the origin of laws, not their current constructions. That is not the same.

In our country, there is a clear separation between religion and government. Occasionally a religiously minded group may express itself politically, but that is not the norm. That doesn't mean there is no intersection, but it is minimal.

People may advocate for laws based on personal beliefs, but our society by and large does not legislate to comply with religious beliefs.

Speeding and traffic laws are enabling constraints, meaning they are invoked so that people can orderly travel along the roads to enable the motorists. They are constraining because they limit the drivers' options, but enabling because without them chaos would result.

Our law is not about truth but about relative order and protection of the public. There is a place for truth in the lives of each individual. We do not believe governmental discourse is the place for discussion of eternal truth. Governmental discourse is about power and money.

I asked about the original law ,since you pointed out that your law makers mostly rely on the pre-existing law ,so i would like to have your answer about how the very first law makers approaches worked out?

however at each epoch ,there would be some completely new issues to deal with by law makers.

with referring to your description about the secular government ..i think it might be fair to reach out to this conclusion that , "you wouldnot mind to have some faithless/unprincipled law makers and unscrupulous law executors who would oftenly lie to people and mess up with thier lives, as long as they bring you money and power ".

Thanks for guiding me welcome the concept.