If you believe that intercessory prayer can be effective...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Intercession (see definition inquote) is very safe. Another (Heavenly being) does the prayer for you. And this person is a Saint or deity, who made it already into Heaven, so he acts Dharmic only. Hence no foul play at all. Big difference compared to a hitman. Of course no crime committed

I may have used the wrong terminology. I was talking about the idea of asking God to intervene in human affairs in a particular way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God would only listen to such an imprecatory prayer if such a punishment was well earned. Otherwise the person who prays that prayer is actually committing a sin themselves. People do this all the time and don't realize they're sinning or they don't care. But you can't just pray for someone's death. Jesus said whoever hates his brother has committed murder already. God's not a murderer or a hired killer.

So you disapprove of Person B's actions. That's fine, but the question is whether those actions should be illegal.

So this would be assuming you know God is real I guess.

Well, no. Person A is still guilty of a crime if they're mistaken about believing that their hit man exists.

What matters is whether the expectation that God hears and answers prayers is something a reasonable person might do. Right now, the law implies that it isn't.

The answer is no; because you'd ultimately be putting God on trial and good luck with that. That's hubris.

Again: this isn't about the decisions of the hit man or God. Person A has still committed a crime even if the hit man refuses the assignment.

 

[stvdv]

I may have used the wrong terminology. I was talking about the idea of asking God to intervene in human affairs in a particular way.

Aha

But, thanks for maybe using the wrong word. The first time I read this word, so I learned something new.

Most Christians pray to Jesus, so such a prayer probably is called "intercessory". If so, then I understand why so many prayers are not answered in a way the person desires

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

... how should this be reflected in our laws?

An example:

Person A calls someone they believe to be a hit man. They leave a voice mail message asking for a person to be killed and offering payment.

Person B prays to God asking for a petson to be struck down and offering eternal gratitude and a life of devotion to God in exchange.

Person A has committed a crime; Person B hasn't. What's the difference in their actions?

- neither one is guaranteed to succeed in killing the person.

- in both cases, the desired result requires the actions of another thinking agent who has their own will.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the law assumes that no reasonable person expects prayer to be effective, so Person B hasn't done anything that can be reasonably considered trying to kill someone.

... but if prayer is effective - or even has a reasonable chance of being effective - we should set aside this assumption.

So does this mean we should treat imprecatory prayer the same way we would treat other examples of people trying to arrange harm for others?

This is a very weird post.
I don’t think I’d even class that as a prayer. More like mean wishful thinking.

Even so, are you asking us if we’d like laws against people’s thoughts…? I don’t believe many would say yes to such a question.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Clara Tea]

... how should this be reflected in our laws?

An example:

Person A calls someone they believe to be a hit man. They leave a voice mail message asking for a person to be killed and offering payment.

Person B prays to God asking for a petson to be struck down and offering eternal gratitude and a life of devotion to God in exchange.

Person A has committed a crime; Person B hasn't. What's the difference in their actions?

- neither one is guaranteed to succeed in killing the person.

- in both cases, the desired result requires the actions of another thinking agent who has their own will.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the law assumes that no reasonable person expects prayer to be effective, so Person B hasn't done anything that can be reasonably considered trying to kill someone.

... but if prayer is effective - or even has a reasonable chance of being effective - we should set aside this assumption.

So does this mean we should treat imprecatory prayer the same way we would treat other examples of people trying to arrange harm for others?

You're right. We should pray to God to kill both of them (in painful ways).

Extremists want to kill.

Death to extremists.

 

[Clara Tea]

Ever see the movie where they try to prosecute people before they commit a crime? Very bad idea, even if you could read minds. Also you seem to assume that God is a puppet that is manipulated by prayer instead of the ruler of the universe who can decide whether to act or not.

Captain Brackston commanded a time ship in the future of Star Trek. He was eventually arrested as a miffed young man who didn't commit any crimes (yet).

"Ruler of the universe" (Leave President W. Bush out of it--he didn't succeed in lying us into a war with Niger).

 

[Clara Tea]

I may have used the wrong terminology. I was talking about the idea of asking God to intervene in human affairs in a particular way.

God doesn't answer prayers.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is a very weird post.
I don’t think I’d even class that as a prayer. More like mean wishful thinking.

Even so, are you asking us if we’d like laws against people’s thoughts…? I don’t believe many would say yes to such a question.


Humbly
Hermit

"laws against people’s thoughts…? I don’t believe many would say yes"

Of course not. . . there are laws against thinking "yes."

 

[Clara Tea]

So you disapprove of Person B's actions. That's fine, but the question is whether those actions should be illegal.


Well, no. Person A is still guilty of a crime if they're mistaken about believing that their hit man exists.

What matters is whether the expectation that God hears and answers prayers is something a reasonable person might do. Right now, the law implies that it isn't.


Again: this isn't about the decisions of the hit man or God. Person A has still committed a crime even if the hit man refuses the assignment.

If he's a Mafia hit man, he went to church, and has been pardoned for crimes that he was going to eventually commit. Therefore, even if he dies doing the crimes, his soul will go to heaven for eternity. It is just a matter of counting enough rosary beads and saying enough "hail Mary's."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Captain Brackston commanded a time ship in the future of Star Trek. He was eventually arrested as a miffed young man who didn't commit any crimes (yet).

"Ruler of the universe" (Leave President W. Bush out of it--he didn't succeed in lying us into a war with Niger).

Irrelevant and irrelevant.

 

[George-ananda]

So does this mean we should treat imprecatory prayer the same way we would treat other examples of people trying to arrange harm for others?

I'll go with 'No'. Such things should be outside of our legal system. Bringing non-physical things like that into the legal system would create a hornet's nest of hornet's nests.

 

[74x12]

So you disapprove of Person B's actions. That's fine, but the question is whether those actions should be illegal.


Well, no. Person A is still guilty of a crime if they're mistaken about believing that their hit man exists.

What matters is whether the expectation that God hears and answers prayers is something a reasonable person might do. Right now, the law implies that it isn't.


Again: this isn't about the decisions of the hit man or God. Person A has still committed a crime even if the hit man refuses the assignment.

I think the problem with that is you're talking about punishing thoughts as crimes. So in the case of someone hiring an actual hitman they're a real and present danger to the safety and wellbeing of a person. But in the case of someone praying a prayer that as I've pointed out God is not likely to listen to ... they're only committing a thought crime.

Whereas on the other hand if someone pays a hitman (who isn't a real hitman, but perhaps an undercover investigator) they are still a present danger because they could try again and get it right next time.

So they've gone beyond committing a thought crime and have committed an actual crime.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

"laws against people’s thoughts…? I don’t believe many would say yes"

Of course not. . . there are laws against thinking "yes."

How do you mean @Clara Tea?
Do you live somewhere where there are laws against thinking that “there out to be laws against thinking”? I feel confused. Can you explain what you mean?


Humbly
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll go with 'No'. Such things should be outside of our legal system. Bringing non-physical things like that into the legal system would create a hornet's nest of hornet's nests.

Why would it create a hornet's nest?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the problem with that is you're talking about punishing thoughts as crimes.

Not thoughts; actions.

Unless you're trying to suggest that prayer is nothing more than a person talking to themselves.

So in the case of someone hiring an actual hitman they're a real and present danger to the safety and wellbeing of a person. But in the case of someone praying a prayer that as I've pointed out God is not likely to listen to ... they're only committing a thought crime.

Whereas on the other hand if someone pays a hitman (who isn't a real hitman, but perhaps an undercover investigator) they are still a present danger because they could try again and get it right next time.

So they've gone beyond committing a thought crime and have committed an actual crime.

Trying to hire an acquaintance who isn't a hitman in order to commit a murder is still also a crime, even if the acquaintance is the sort of person who would never agree to do it.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Thoughts can't hurt people...

... at least until Elon Musk's neuralink makes us all psychics.

 

[George-ananda]

Why would it create a hornet's nest?

Just for starters; proving what people prayed for, proving their sincerity, proving a connection between the prayers and the events, etcetera.

A hornet’s nest of hornets nests as I so well put it!!

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. It's about the intent of the person calling the hit/making the prayer.

It's about the action, not their thoughts and desires. The action of attempting to hire a human being to kill someone, is what is the crime. A prayer to God, while an action, is on the level of wishful thinking or desires. The state would not view that as actually hiring a person to commit a murder.

Praying to God to kill someone, is not recognized in this country as a crime, anymore than sticking pins into a voodoo doll would be considered assault, even if their intention was to inflict harm via magic. It only recognizes actual potentials for actual crimes. It doesn't recognize magic or the supernatural as means to commit crimes. At least not yet while we are still not a theocracy.

In the case of Person A, even if it turned out that Person A was mistaken and the hitman didn't even exist, Person A would still have committed a crime.

I can't see how Person A would be mistaken about the person they were talking to existing. Would they arrest someone with a mental illness who was asking an imaginary person on the street to kill someone? Would pressing charges against them for attempted murder stick in a court of law? I seriously doubt that. The person was speaking to a figment of his imagination. Simply saying, "I wish they would die", is not a crime.

But that's not true.

If, say, a doctor or lawyer violated confidentiality rules in a public prayer (e.g. praying in front of their prayer circle for the welfare of their patient/client, going into more detail than allowed), they'd be liable for that.

That's because they revealed actual private information about actual people in front of actual people. But prayer for God like this, "Lord, I ask that YOU reveal the private information about my patients for me", is not revealing anything at all. It's asking God to commit the crime. Same thing in praying for God to kill someone. Nothing is going to happen. And if it did, there's no way they could link God to the crime.

 

[74x12]

Not thoughts; actions.

Unless you're trying to suggest that prayer is nothing more than a person talking to themselves.

So you are supposing God is real! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either the law officially acknowledges God exists or it does not. In which case it is only a thought crime.

Perhaps we should make wishing someone were dead a crime as well. Who knows if wishing on a star actually works or not. Maybe it will work. Maybe if you wish hard enough someone will just keel over. Maybe if you throw a penny in a lucky fountain and make a wish you can have someone killed.

When does your thought crime policing end?

Is black magic going to be a crime? Should we go back to witch trials? I mean if someone uses magic to try to harm others then perhaps we need witch trials.

Trying to hire an acquaintance who isn't a hitman in order to commit a murder is still also a crime, even if the acquaintance is the sort of person who would never agree to do it.

Of course because it shows intent to cause harm if possible. The person is still dangerous. If they tried once they may try again. The crime is not that they just wish someone dead; it's that they're trying to act on it. They need to be stopped because they pose a clear and present danger.

In the case of God it's different because God is in control of everything anyway. You can pray all you want but God's will is what will happen. Jesus said bless your enemies and curse not. So anyone cursing their enemy to die is committing a sin. The scripture also says the curse (that is) causeless will not come. This was old Testament by the way before Jesus said not to curse your enemies. So what that means is that if you did curse someone in the name of God; then if they didn't deserve it; the curse would not come to them. So even if God did listen to someone's imprecatory prayer. He would only do so after weighing the person's actions and seeing if they were worthy of his punishment or not. So prayer in that sense is not like black magic for example. In black magic you're putting a curse on someone that will happen if they deserve it or not. But God doesn't work that way. Praying a curse on someone is more of a wish than it is magic.

 

[bobhikes]

... how should this be reflected in our laws?

An example:

Person A calls someone they believe to be a hit man. They leave a voice mail message asking for a person to be killed and offering payment.

Person B prays to God asking for a petson to be struck down and offering eternal gratitude and a life of devotion to God in exchange.

Person A has committed a crime; Person B hasn't. What's the difference in their actions?

- neither one is guaranteed to succeed in killing the person.

- in both cases, the desired result requires the actions of another thinking agent who has their own will.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the law assumes that no reasonable person expects prayer to be effective, so Person B hasn't done anything that can be reasonably considered trying to kill someone.

... but if prayer is effective - or even has a reasonable chance of being effective - we should set aside this assumption.

So does this mean we should treat imprecatory prayer the same way we would treat other examples of people trying to arrange harm for others?