Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

[nPeace]

The Psalms were obviously written before the first advent of Christ. Before Christ every soul went to Hades, based in Earth.

That's interesting.
So, you don't believe 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to Psalms?
Was it Jesus that said,
"“Look! We are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things written by means of the prophets about the Son of man will be accomplished." Luke 18:31 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. Luke 21:22
“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

Where do you suppose Lazarus went when he died?

Heaven on the other hand is where God is. The Lord Jesus said He came to set the captives free thereby confirming the prophecy of Isaiah. He also said the following, confirming that Christians and saints will reside with God in heaven:

Yes, the Messiah certainly released captives, fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah 61.
Did Isaiah write his prophesy before "the first advent of Christ"?
Do you think Isaiah and Psalms are both part of "all scripture inspired by God"?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it- Matthew 16:18.

In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?- John 14:2

Certainly, Jesus did promise his faithful apostles that they would be with him, in his heavenly kingdom.
He did say something else though.
Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
Was that a quote from scripture? Yes. Many people do not realize Jesus quoted the Psalms, quite a lot. Psalm 37:11

That's interesting, because while Jesus did speak of heavenly life, he never did deny that God's purpose - his will for the earth, would not be fulfilled. Isaiah 45:18
So, clearly, Jesus was not saying that man belongs in heaven, or that is where God wants them.

A man once told me that God would want all his children where he is, so he thinks we will all go to heaven... if we are "good" that is.
I could certainly understand how that would tug at persons emotions, especially since we were taught it, from the time we had ears - "All good people go to heaven!" All bad people go to hell!"

That's what we were taught.
However, many people are finding out, that's not what the Bible actually teaches.
I am one that found this out, and I can tell you, it was both exciting, and enlightening... not to mention picture perfect beauty.
I now understand what I had been praying for, from childhood. Matthew 9:6, 7

 

[nPeace]

If it can be justified then it's not cruelty

Cruelty is by definition a thing that is done without any justification

Hmm. I like to create challenges. Hope you don't mind.
A man's 5 year old daughter was dragged from her room, into the woods, and the predator was raping her, when the dad caught up with him.
He decides, "You need to learn a lesson, Chump."
So he hogties him, and takes him along the same path, back to his house, where he prepared a special treat."
Justification?

 

[nPeace]

Different vaccines are administered in different ways. Orally (PO), which is what you describe, means that the vaccine can be effective by being introduced into the mouth. Other methods are intramuscular (IM) where the vaccine is inserted into a muscle (COVID is done this way), subcutaneous (subcut) where it is inserted into the fatty tissue just under the skin, and even intranasal (NAS), into the nose. Each vaccine has a correct method.

That's what I was getting at, thanks.
The same method cannot be applied to every situation.

 

[nPeace]

It can be if the doctor deliberately omits possible anesthetic measures. Whether that was true in this case I don't know.

How thankful we are for anesthetic. Oh boy.
The needle still causes damage though, doesn't it?

 

[Eddi]

Hmm. I like to create challenges. Hope you don't mind.
A man's 5 year old daughter was dragged from her room, into the woods, and the predator was raping her, when the dad caught up with him.
He decides, "You need to learn a lesson, Chump."
So he hogties him, and takes him along the same path, back to his house, where he prepared a special treat."
Justification?

Killing and/or causing harm to a man who raped your daughter wouldn't count as cruelty

It would be entirely understandable

 

[Apostle John]

That's interesting.
So, you don't believe 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to Psalms?
Was it Jesus that said,
"“Look! We are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things written by means of the prophets about the Son of man will be accomplished." Luke 18:31 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. Luke 21:22
“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

Where do you suppose Lazarus went when he died?


Yes, the Messiah certainly released captives, fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah 61.
Did Isaiah write his prophesy before "the first advent of Christ"?
Do you think Isaiah and Psalms are both part of "all scripture inspired by God"?


Certainly, Jesus did promise his faithful apostles that they would be with him, in his heavenly kingdom.
He did say something else though.
Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
Was that a quote from scripture? Yes. Many people do not realize Jesus quoted the Psalms, quite a lot. Psalm 37:11

That's interesting, because while Jesus did speak of heavenly life, he never did deny that God's purpose - his will for the earth, would not be fulfilled. Isaiah 45:18
So, clearly, Jesus was not saying that man belongs in heaven, or that is where God wants them.

A man once told me that God would want all his children where he is, so he thinks we will all go to heaven... if we are "good" that is.
I could certainly understand how that would tug at persons emotions, especially since we were taught it, from the time we had ears - "All good people go to heaven!" All bad people go to hell!"

That's what we were taught.
However, many people are finding out, that's not what the Bible actually teaches.
I am one that found this out, and I can tell you, it was both exciting, and enlightening... not to mention picture perfect beauty.
I now understand what I had been praying for, from childhood. Matthew 9:6, 7

I think you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote as I don’t see how this corresponds to it.

 

[nPeace]

Turn your head towards the attacker's elbow to relieve pressure on the windpipe. Bend the knees to drop your body and cause him to bend forward. Move your hips to one side and strike backwards with the elbow into the abdomen, then up over your shoulder with your fist into his face, then down again into the testicle area. Do all this as quickly as possible, preferably before he tightens his arm.

Ouch. Taekwondo?
Well, being that I do not want to go brutal on the guy, since he might have just "picked the wrong guy...", how about a less painful technique.

 

[nPeace]

Killing and/or causing harm to a man who raped your daughter wouldn't count as cruelty

It would be entirely understandable

Even if I enjoyed torturing the guy to death?

 

[Eddi]

I'm sorry. Would you mind explaining what I misunderstood?

in response to the OP I said that if there is a justification then it's not cruelty no matter what actually happens, hence by definition cruelty can never be justified. If a brutal act has a justification then it cannot also be considered cruel. Brutal, yes. Cruel, no.

Cruelty is brutality without a legitimate reason.

In response, you gave a scenario in which a father brutally kills a person who raped his daughter

And in response to that I said that I wouldn't count the father doing so as cruel as he would have an understandable justification, a legitimate desire to inflict pain and harm on the person who harmed his daughter

My point being: If it can be justified then it's not cruelty

Which was my answer to the title of this thread's OP

 

[Alien826]

Ouch. Taekwondo?
Well, being that I do not want to go brutal on the guy, since he might have just "picked the wrong guy...", how about a less painful technique.

From my Karate days, but basically self defense.

Less painful technique? Say "Please let me go".

 

[Eddi]

Even if I enjoyed torturing the guy to death?

Depends what you mean by "enjoy"

If you'd always wanted to do so and were just looking for an excuse that's one thing

But having no prior interest in inflicting harm and violence and then enjoying exacting revenge on a person who harmed a loved one is different

 

[nPeace]

in response to the OP I said that if there is a justification then it's not cruelty no matter what actually happens, hence by definition cruelty can never be justified. If a brutal act has a justification then it cannot also be considered cruel. Brutal, yes. Cruel, no.

Cruelty is brutality without a legitimate reason.

In response, you gave a scenario in which a father brutally kills a person who raped his daughter

And in response to that I said that I wouldn't count the father doing so as cruel as he would have an understandable justification, a legitimate desire to inflict pain and harm on the person who harmed his daughter

My point being: If it can be justified then it's not cruelty

Which was my answer to the title of this thread's OP

I'm sorry Eddi. That post was meant for someone else. I'll delete it. Sorry about that.

 

[nPeace]

I think you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote as I don’t see how this corresponds to it.

I'm sorry. Would you mind explaining what I misunderstood?

 

[Alien826]

Hmm. I like to create challenges. Hope you don't mind.
A man's 5 year old daughter was dragged from her room, into the woods, and the predator was raping her, when the dad caught up with him.
He decides, "You need to learn a lesson, Chump."
So he hogties him, and takes him along the same path, back to his house, where he prepared a special treat."
Justification?

I have to disagree with Eddi here.

Under the law he would be guilty of assault right up to manslaughter or murder, depending on what he did. And rightly so.

He would only be justified in hurting the rapist if it was necessary to save his daughter from further harm. Once he has subdued him and prevented further harm, his next action should be to call the police. (That's not counting whatever he does to comfort his daughter and take her somewhere safe). It's tough emotionally I know, and most people would understand how he felt, but we can't have people administering their own version of justice. Why is a much longer explanation, which I hope is obvious.

Now whether his actions would be cruel is another question. I'm inclined to say "yes", understandable though it may be.

 

[Eddi]

I have to disagree with Eddi here.

Under the law he would be guilty of assault right up to manslaughter or murder, depending on what he did. And rightly so.

He would only be justified in hurting the rapist if it was necessary to save his daughter from further harm. Once he has subdued him and prevented further harm, his next action should be to call the police. (That's not counting whatever he does to comfort his daughter and take her somewhere safe). It's tough emotionally I know, and most people would understand how he felt, but we can't have people administering their own version of justice. Why is a much longer explanation, which I hope is obvious.

Now whether his actions would be cruel is another question. I'm inclined to say "yes", understandable though it may be.

I'm not saying he wouldn't be guilty of murder, of breaking the law

I said that he would have an understandable reason for killing the man who raped his daughter

Which obviously would be a case of murder, legalistically

Although in such a case I would imagine that there'd be mitigating circumstances, from a judicial perspective

 

[nPeace]

Depends what you mean by "enjoy"

If you'd always wanted to do so and were just looking for an excuse that's one thing

But having no prior interest in inflicting harm and violence and then enjoying exacting revenge on a person who harmed a loved one is different

Then you are of the opinion that cruelty is justified, if one is taking revenge for a cruel act.
I'll like to get a second, or third, or forth, or even fifth opinion on this.
For everyone... Is cruelty justified under certain circumstances, like taking revenge for a vile act?

 

[Alien826]

That's true. My only point is that cruelty is a specific motivation to harm resulting in certain actions.

Yes, I agree.

The whole story is what's needed. I thought his example was his whole story.

OK.

 

[nPeace]

I have to disagree with Eddi here.

Under the law he would be guilty of assault right up to manslaughter or murder, depending on what he did. And rightly so.

He would only be justified in hurting the rapist if it was necessary to save his daughter from further harm. Once he has subdued him and prevented further harm, his next action should be to call the police. (That's not counting whatever he does to comfort his daughter and take her somewhere safe). It's tough emotionally I know, and most people would understand how he felt, but we can't have people administering their own version of justice. Why is a much longer explanation, which I hope is obvious.

Now whether his actions would be cruel is another question. I'm inclined to say "yes", understandable though it may be.

Sounds like you are sticking to the law, which is good, I think.
After all, there must be a law that even the law goes by. Sounds just.

 

[Eddi]

Then you are of the opinion that cruelty is justified, if one is taking revenge for a cruel act.

To an extent...

The thing is, the cruelty involved in the revenge is a different kind of cruelty to that involved in the original act (raping the daughter)

Even though both acts are acts of brutal violence

Let's call the rapist's act Cruelty1

And the brutal vengeance from the father Cruelty2

I would then say: an act of Cruelty2 is justified and understandable in response to an act of Cruelty1

I believe that the OP was asking about Cruelty2, not Cruelty1

Cruelty1 is brutality that is unjustified

Whereas Cruelty2 is brutality that can be justified

So, in answer to the OP: Cruelty2 can be justified

However, I would call Cruelty2 something other than "cruelty" - perhaps a better name for Cruelty2 would be "justified brutality"? Or something like that?

 

[Alien826]

I'm not saying he wouldn't be guilty of murder, of breaking the law

I said that he would have an understandable reason for killing the man who raped his daughter

Which obviously would be a case of murder, legalistically

Although in such a case I would imagine that there'd be mitigating circumstances, from a judicial perspective

Understandable, of course.

These moral questions have to be considered from an ideal perspective though. He has a helpless man at his mercy, and goes ahead to torture and/or kill him. That's wrong, I feel, no matter how understandable it may be. And the practical reason (I'm talking generally here) also exists, in that it could lead to a "tit for tat" succession of revenge. I believe that was what Jesus was getting at when he talked about "turning the other cheek".

I'll add that in a lawless society with no police to call on, it might be justified (simple execution, not torture) to protect future victims.