The Law of Destruction

728. Is destruction a law of nature?

728. Is destruction a law of nature?

"It is necessary that all things should be destroyed that they may be re-born and regenerated; for what you call destruction is only a transformation, the aim of which is the renewing and amelioration of living beings."

"All things must be destroyed so they can be reborn and regenerated. For what you call destruction is only a transformation meant to renew and improve living beings."

—The instinct of destruction would seem, then, to have been given to living beings for providential purposes?

So, it seems that living beings were given the instinct to destroy for a divine purpose?

"God's creatures are the instruments which He uses for working out His ends. Living beings destroy each other for food; thus maintaining equilibrium in reproduction, which might otherwise become excessive, and also utilising the materials of their external envelopes. But it is only this envelope that is ever destroyed, and this envelope is only the accessory, and not the essential part, of a thinking being; the essential part is the intelligent principle which is indestructible, and which is elaborated in the course of the various metamorphoses that it undergoes."

"God's creatures are the instruments he uses to carry out his purposes. Living beings destroy each other for food. This keeps reproduction in balance, since it might otherwise become excessive. It also makes use of the materials of their outer coverings. But only the outer covering is ever destroyed. It is not the essential part of a thinking being, but only an accessory. The essential part is the intelligent principle, which cannot be destroyed. It develops through the various transformations it undergoes."

729. If destruction be necessary for the regeneration of beings, why does nature surround them with the means of self-preservation?

729. If destruction is necessary for beings to regenerate, why does nature surround them with the means to preserve themselves?

"In order that their destruction may not take place before the proper time. Destruction that occurs too soon retards the development of the intelligent principle. It is for this reason that God has given to each being the desire to live and to reproduce itself."

"So that they are not destroyed before the proper time. Destruction that happens too soon slows the development of the intelligent principle. That is why God has given each being the desire to live and reproduce."

730. Since death is to lead us to a better life, and since it delivers us from the ills of our present existence, and is therefore to be rather desired than dreaded, why has man the instinctive horror of death which causes him to shrink from it?

730. Death leads us to a better life and frees us from the troubles of our present existence. We should therefore desire death rather than fear it. Why, then, do people have an instinctive horror of death that makes them shrink from it?

"We have said that man should seek to prolong his life in order to accomplish his task. To this end God has given him the instinct of self-preservation, and this instinct sustains him under all his trials; but for it, he would too often abandon himself to discouragement. The inner voice, which tells him to repel death, tells him also that he may yet do something more for his advancement. Every danger that threatens him is a warning that bids him make a profitable use of the respite granted to him by God; but he, ungrateful, gives thanks more often to his 'star' than to his Creator."

"We have said that people should try to prolong their lives so they can accomplish their task. For this purpose, God has given them the instinct to preserve their lives. This instinct sustains them through all their trials. Without it, they would too often give in to discouragement. The inner voice that tells them to resist death also tells them they can still do more to advance. Every danger that threatens them is a warning. It tells them to make good use of the extra time God has granted them. But instead of being grateful, they thank their 'star' more often than their Creator."

731. Why has nature placed agents of destruction side by side with the means of preservation?

731. Why has nature placed forces of destruction alongside the means of preservation?

"We have already told you that it is in order to maintain equilibrium, and to serve as a counterpoise. The malady and the remedy are placed side by side."

"We have already told you that it is meant to maintain balance and act as a counterweight. The illness and the remedy are placed side by side."

732. Is the need of destruction the same in all worlds?

732. Is the need for destruction the same in all worlds?

"It is proportioned to the more or less material state of each world; it ceases altogether in worlds of higher physical and moral purity. In worlds more advanced than yours, the conditions of existence are altogether different."

"It varies according to how material each world is. It ceases entirely in worlds of greater physical and moral purity. In worlds more advanced than yours, the conditions of life are entirely different."

733. Will the necessity of destruction always exist for the human race of this earth?

733. Will destruction always be necessary for humanity on Earth?

"The need of destruction diminishes in man in proportion as his spirit obtains ascendancy over matter. Consequently, you see that intellectual and moral development is always accompanied by a horror of destruction."

"The more a person's spirit gains control over matter, the less they need to destroy. As a result, intellectual and moral development is always accompanied by a horror of destruction."

734. Has man, in his present state, an unlimited right of destruction in regard to animals?

734. Do humans, in their present state, have an unlimited right to kill animals?

"That right is limited to providing for his food and his safety; no abuse can be a matter of right."

"That right is limited to providing for his food and safety. No abuse can be a right."

735. What is to be thought of destruction that goes beyond the limits of needs and of safety; of hunting, for instance, when it has no useful aim, and is resorted to from no other motive than the pleasure of killing?

735. What should we think of destruction that goes beyond what is needed for survival and safety? For example, what about hunting that serves no useful purpose and is done solely for the pleasure of killing?

"It is a predominance of bestiality over the spiritual nature. All destruction that goes beyond the limits of your needs is a violation of the law of God. The animals only destroy according to the measure of their necessities; but man, who has free-will, destroys unnecessarily. He will be called to account for thus abusing the freedom accorded to him; for, in so doing, he yields to evil instincts from which he ought to free himself."

"It is the dominance of animal nature over spiritual nature. All destruction beyond what you need violates God's law. Animals destroy only as much as they need to. But humans have free will and destroy unnecessarily. They will be held accountable for abusing the freedom given to them. In doing so, they give in to evil instincts they should free themselves from."

736. Are those peoples especially meritorious who, in regard to the taking of animal life, carry their scrupulousness to excess?

736. Are peoples who are excessively scrupulous about killing animals especially deserving of praise?

"Their sentiment in regard to this matter, though laudable in itself, being carried to excess, becomes an abuse in its turn; and its merit, moreover, is neutralised by abuses of many other sorts. That sentiment, on their part, is the result of superstitious fear, rather than of true gentleness."

"Their feeling about this matter is admirable in itself, but when taken too far, it becomes an abuse. Its value is also canceled out by many other kinds of abuse. Their feeling comes from superstitious fear rather than genuine gentleness."

737. What is the aim of God in visiting mankind with destructive calamities?

737. What is God's purpose in bringing destructive disasters upon humanity?

"To make men advance more quickly. Have we not told you that destruction is necessary to the moral regeneration of spirits, who accomplish a new step of their purification in each new existence? In order to appreciate any process correctly, you must see its results. You judge merely from your personal point of view, and you therefore regard those inflictions as calamities, because of the temporary injury they cause you; but such upsettings are often needed in order to make you reach more quickly a better order of things, and to effect, in a few years, what you would otherwise have taken centuries to accomplish." (744.)

"To make people advance more quickly. Have we not told you that destruction is necessary for the moral regeneration of spirits? In each new existence, they take another step toward purification. To judge any process correctly, you must look at its results. You judge only from your own point of view. So you see these afflictions as calamities because of the temporary harm they cause you. But such disruptions are often needed to bring you more quickly to a better state of things. In a few years, they can accomplish what would otherwise have taken you centuries." (744.)

738. Could not God employ other methods than destructive calamities for effecting the amelioration of mankind?

738. Could God not use methods other than destructive disasters to improve humanity?

"Yes; and He employs them every day, for He has given to each of you the means of progressing through the knowledge of good and evil. It is because man profits so little by those other means, that it becomes necessary to chastise his pride, and to make him feel his weakness."

"Yes, and he uses them every day. For he has given each of you the means to progress through knowledge of good and evil. But people make so little use of those other means that it becomes necessary to humble their pride and make them feel their weakness."

—But the good man succumbs under the action of these scourges, as does the wicked; is this just?

But good people die from these disasters just as wicked people do. Is that fair?

"During his earthly sojourn, man measures everything by the standard of his bodily life; but, after death, he judges differently, and feels that the life of the body, as we have often told you, is a very small matter. A century in your world is but the length of a flash in eternity, and therefore the sufferings of what you call days, months, or years, are of no importance; let this be a lesson for your future use. Spirits are the real world, pre-existent to, and surviving, everything else; they are the children of God, and the object of all His solicitude; and bodies are only the disguises under which they make their appearances in the corporeal world. In the great calamities that decimate the human race, the sufferers are like an army that, in the course of a campaign, sees its clothing tattered, worn out, or lost. The general is more anxious about his soldiers than about their coats."

"During earthly life, people measure everything by the standard of bodily life. But after death, they judge differently. As we have often told you, they realize that bodily life is a very small matter. A century in your world is only the length of a flash in eternity. So suffering for what you call days, months, or years is of no importance. Let this be a lesson for your future use. Spirits are the real world. They existed before everything else and survive everything else. They are the children of God and the object of all his care. Bodies are only the disguises spirits wear when they appear in the physical world. In great disasters that decimate the human race, the sufferers are like an army on a campaign. Its clothes become torn, worn out, or lost. The general is more concerned about his soldiers than about their coats."

—But the victims of those scourges are none the less victims?

But aren't the victims of those disasters still victims?

"If you considered an earthly life as it is in itself, and how small a thing it is in comparison with the life of infinity, you would attach to it much less importance. Those victims will find, in another existence, an ample compensation for their sufferings, if they have borne them without murmuring."

"If you saw earthly life as it really is, you would give it much less importance. It is so small compared with the infinite life. Those victims will be amply compensated for their suffering in another existence, if they have borne it without complaining."

Whether our death be the result of a public calamity or of an ordinary cause, we are none the less compelled to go when the hour of our departure has struck; the only difference is that, in the former case, a greater number go away at the same time.

Whether we die in a public disaster or from an ordinary cause, we must go when our time comes. The only difference is that a public disaster takes more people at the same time.

If we could raise our thoughts sufficiently high to contemplate the human race as a whole, and to take in the whole of its destiny at a glance, the scourges that now seem so terrible would appear to us only as passing storms in the destiny of the globe.

If we could rise above our present view and see the whole human race and its entire destiny at a glance, the disasters that now seem so terrible would appear to be passing storms in the destiny of the world.

739. Are destructive calamities useful physically, notwithstanding the temporary evils occasioned by them?

739. Do destructive disasters have physical benefits, despite the temporary harm they cause?

"Yes, they sometimes change the state of a country, but the good that results from them is often one that will be felt by future generations."

"Yes, they sometimes change a country. But the benefits are often felt by future generations."

740. May not such calamities also constitute for man a moral trial, compelling him to struggle with the hardest necessities of his lot?

740. Could such disasters also be a moral test, forcing people to struggle with life's hardest necessities?

"They are always trials, and, as such, they furnish him with the opportunity of exercising his intelligence, of proving his patience and his resignation to the will of God, and of displaying his sentiments of abnegation, disinterestedness, and love for his neighbour, if he be not under the dominion of selfishness."

"They are always trials. As such, they give him the opportunity to use his intelligence and show his patience and acceptance of God's will. They also give him the opportunity to show self-denial, selflessness, and love for his neighbor, if selfishness does not rule him."

741. Is it in man's power to avert the scourges that now afflict him?

741. Can people prevent the disasters that now afflict them?

"Yes, a part of them; but not as is generally supposed. Many of those scourges are the consequence of his want of foresight; and, in proportion as he acquires knowledge and experience, he becomes able to avert them, that is to say, he can prevent their occurrence when he has ascertained their cause. But, among the ills that afflict humanity, there are some, of a general nature, which are imposed by the decrees of Providence, and the effect of which is felt, more or less sensibly, by each individual.

"Yes, some of them, but not as people generally suppose. Many of those disasters result from his lack of foresight. As he gains knowledge and experience, he becomes able to avoid them. That is, he can prevent them once he has learned their cause. But some of the troubles that afflict humanity are widespread and imposed by Providence. Each person feels their effects to a greater or lesser degree.

"To these, man can oppose nothing but his resignation to the divine will, though he can, and often does, aggravate their painfulness by his negligence."

"People can only accept these as God's will. Yet they can, and often do, make them more painful through their own carelessness."

In the class of destructive calamities, resulting from natural causes, and independently of the action of man, are to be placed pestilence, famine, inundations, and atmospheric influences fatal to the productions of the earth. But has not man already found, in the applications of science, in agricultural improvements, in the rotation of crops, in the study of hygienic conditions, the means of neutralising, or at least of attenuating, many of these disasters? Are not many countries, at the present day, preserved from terrible plagues by which they were formerly ravaged? What, then, may not man accomplish for the advancement of his material well-being, when he shall have learned to make use of all the resources of his intelligence, and when he shall have added, to the care of his personal preservation, the large charity that interests itself in the well-being of the whole human race? (707.)

Destructive disasters caused by nature, independently of human action, include epidemics, famine, floods, and weather conditions that destroy crops. But haven't people already found ways to prevent or at least lessen many of these disasters? They have done so through science, better farming, crop rotation, and the study of hygiene. Aren't many countries now protected from terrible epidemics that once devastated them? What, then, might people accomplish for their material well-being when they learn to use all their intelligence? And what might they accomplish when, alongside caring for their own survival, they embrace a broad compassion for the well-being of the whole human race? (707.)

742. What is the cause that impels man to war?

742. What drives people to war?

"The predominance of the animal nature over the spiritual nature, and the desire of satisfying his passions. In the barbaric state, the various peoples know no other right than that of the strongest; and their normal condition is, therefore, that of war. As men progress, war becomes less frequent, through their avoidance of the causes which lead to it; and when it becomes inevitable, they wage it more humanely."

"The dominance of animal nature over spiritual nature, and the desire to satisfy passions. In a barbaric state, different peoples know no right except that of the strongest. War is therefore their normal condition. As people progress, they avoid the causes of war, and war becomes less frequent. When war becomes inevitable, they wage it more humanely."

743. Will wars ever cease in the earth?

743. Will wars ever end on earth?

"Yes; when men comprehend justice, and practise the law of God; all men will then be brothers."

"Yes. When people understand justice and follow God's law, all people will be brothers."

744. What has been the aim of Providence in making war necessary?

744. Why did Providence make war necessary?

"Freedom and progress."

"Freedom and progress."

—If war is destined to bring us freedom, how does it happen that its aim and upshot are so often the subjugation of the people attacked?

If war is meant to bring us freedom, why does it so often aim to conquer the people attacked and end up doing so?

"Such subjugation is only momentary, and is permitted in order to weary the nations of servitude, and thus to urge them forward more rapidly."

"Such subjugation is only temporary. It is allowed to weary nations of servitude and thus urge them forward more quickly."

745. What is to be thought of him who stirs up war for his own profit?

745. What should we think of someone who starts a war for personal gain?

"Such an one is deeply guilty, and will have to undergo many corporeal existences in order to expiate all the murders caused by him; for he will have to answer for every man who has been killed for the satisfaction of his ambition."

"Such a person is deeply guilty. He will have to live many physical lives to atone for all the murders he caused. For he will have to answer for every man killed to satisfy his ambition."

746. Is murder a crime in the sight of God?

746. Does God consider murder a crime?

"Yes, a great crime; for he who takes the life of his fellow-man cuts short an expiation or a mission; hence the heinousness of his offence."

"Yes, a great crime. Anyone who kills another person cuts short that person's atonement or mission. That is why the offense is so heinous."

747. Are all murders equally heinous?

747. Are all murders equally terrible?

"We have said that God is just; He judges the intention rather than the deed."

"We have said that God is just. He judges the intention rather than the action."

748. Does God excuse murder in cases of self-defence?

748. Does God excuse murder in self-defense?

"Only absolute necessity can excuse it; but if a man can only preserve his life by taking that of his aggressor, he ought to do so."

"Only absolute necessity can excuse it. But if a man can save his life only by killing his attacker, he should do so."

749. Is a man answerable for the murders he commits in war?

749. Is a man responsible for the murders he commits in war?

"Not when he is compelled to fight; but he is answerable for the cruelties he commits, and he will be rewarded for his humanity."

"Not when he is forced to fight. But he is responsible for any cruelty he commits, and he will be rewarded for his compassion."

750. Is parricide or infanticide the greater crime in the sight of God?

750. Which is the greater crime in God's eyes, killing a parent or killing an infant?

"They are equally great; for all crime is crime."

"They are equally great, because all crime is crime."

751. How is it that the custom of infanticide prevails among peoples of considerable intellectual advancement, and is even recognised as allowable by their laws?

751. Why is infanticide common among intellectually advanced peoples, and why do their laws even permit it?

"Intellectual development is not always accompanied by moral rectitude. A spirit may advance in intelligence, and yet remain wicked; for he may have lived a long time without having improved morally, and gained knowledge, without acquiring moral purification."

"Intellectual growth does not always come with moral goodness. A spirit may become more intelligent and still be wicked. He may have lived a long time and gained knowledge without improving morally or purifying himself."

752. Is the sentiment of cruelty connected with the instinct of destruction?

752. Is the feeling of cruelty connected to the instinct to destroy?

"It is the instinct of destruction in its worst form, for, though destruction is sometimes necessary, cruelty never is; it is always the result of an evil nature."

"It is the instinct to destroy in its worst form. For although destruction is sometimes necessary, cruelty never is. Cruelty always comes from an evil nature."

753. How comes it that cruelty is the dominant characteristic of the primitive races?

753. Why is cruelty the dominant characteristic of primitive peoples?

"Among the primitive races, as you call them, matter has the ascendancy over spirit. They abandon themselves to the instincts of the brute; and as they care for nothing but the life of the body, they think only of their personal preservation, and this generally renders them cruel. And besides, peoples, whose development is still imperfect, are under the influence of spirits equally imperfect, with whom they are in sympathy, until the coming among them of some other people, more advanced than themselves, destroys or weakens that influence."

“Among the primitive peoples, as you call them, matter dominates spirit. They give in to animal instincts. Because they care only about the life of the body, they think only of their own survival. This generally makes them cruel. Moreover, peoples whose development is still imperfect are influenced by spirits who are equally imperfect and with whom they feel an affinity. This influence lasts until a more advanced people comes among them and destroys or weakens it.”

754. Is cruelty a result of the absence of the moral sense?

754. Does cruelty result from a lack of moral sense?

"Say that the moral sense is not developed, but do not say that it is absent; for its principle exists in every man, and it is this sense which, in course of time, renders beings kind and humane. It exists, therefore, in the savage; but in him it is latent, as the principle of the perfume is in the bud, before it opens into the flower."

"Say that the moral sense is undeveloped, not absent. Its basic principle exists in everyone. In time, this sense makes beings kind and humane. It exists in the savage too, but it lies dormant. It is like the fragrance in a bud before it opens into a flower."

All faculties exist in man in a rudimentary or latent state; they are developed according as circumstances are more or less favourable to them. The excessive development of some of them arrests or neutralises that of others. The undue excitement of the material instincts stifles, so to say, the moral sense; as the development of the moral sense gradually weakens the merely animal-faculties.

All human faculties exist in a rudimentary or latent state. They develop depending on how favorable the circumstances are. The excessive development of some faculties holds back or neutralizes the development of others. Excessive stimulation of material instincts stifles, so to speak, the moral sense. Likewise, the development of the moral sense gradually weakens the purely animal faculties.

755. How is it that, in the midst of the most advanced civilisation, we sometimes find persons as cruel as the savages?

755. Why do we sometimes find people in the most advanced civilizations who are as cruel as people in less developed societies?

"Just as, on a tree laden with healthy fruit, you may find some that are withered. They may be said to be savages who have nothing of civilisation about them but the coat; they are wolves who have strayed into the midst of the sheep. Spirits of low degree, and very backward, may incarnate themselves among men of greater advancement, in the hope of advancing themselves; but, if the trial be too arduous, their primitive nature gets the upper hand."

"Just as a tree full of healthy fruit may have some withered fruit. They may be called savages who have nothing of civilization but its outward appearance. They are wolves who have strayed among the sheep. Low and very backward spirits may be born among more advanced people, hoping to advance themselves. But if the trial is too difficult, their primitive nature takes over."

756. Will the society of the good be one day purged of evil-doers?

756. Will the society of good people one day be free of wrongdoers?

"The human race is progressing. Those who are under the dominion of the instinct of evil, and who are out of place among good people, will gradually disappear, as the faulty grain is separated from the good when the wheat is threshed; but they will be born again under another corporeal envelope, and, as they acquire more experience, they will arrive at a clearer understanding of good and evil. You have an example of this in the plants and animals which man has discovered the art of improving, and in which he develops new qualities. It is only after several generations that the improvement becomes complete. This is a picture of the different existences of each human being."

"Humanity is progressing. Those ruled by the instinct for evil have no place among good people and will gradually disappear. They will disappear just as bad grain is separated from good grain when wheat is threshed. But they will be born again in another body. As they gain experience, they will come to understand good and evil more clearly. You can see an example of this in plants and animals that people have learned to improve by developing new qualities. The improvement is complete only after several generations. This illustrates the different lives of each human being."

757. Can duelling be considered as coming under the head of lawful self-defence?

757. Can dueling be considered lawful self-defense?

"No; it is murder, and an absurdity worthy of barbarians. When civilisation is more advanced and more moral, men will see that duelling is as ridiculous as the combats which were formerly regarded as 'the judgment of God.'"

"No. It is murder, and an absurdity worthy of barbarians. When civilization is more advanced and more moral, people will see that dueling is as ridiculous as the fights once regarded as 'the judgment of God.'"

758. Can duelling be considered as murder on the part of him who, knowing his own weakness, is pretty sure of being killed?

758. Can dueling be considered murder by a man who knows he is weak and is fairly sure he will be killed?

"In such a case it is suicide."

"In that case, it is suicide."

—And when the chances are equal, is it murder or suicide?

And when the chances are equal, is it murder or suicide?

"It is both."

"It is both."

In all cases, even in those in which the chances are equal, the duellist is guilty; in the first place, because he makes a cool and deliberate attack on the life of his fellow-man, and in the second place, because he exposes his own life uselessly, and without benefit to any one.

In every case, even when the chances are equal, the duelist is guilty. First, he calmly and deliberately attacks another person's life. Second, he needlessly risks his own life, without benefiting anyone.

759. What is the real nature of what is called the point of honour in the matter of duels?

759. What is the true nature of what is called the point of honor in duels?

"Pride and vanity; two sores of humanity."

"Pride and vanity are two sores of humanity."

—But are there not cases in which a man's honour is really at stake, and in which a refusal to fight would be an act of cowardice?

But aren't there times when a man's honor is really at stake, and refusing to fight would be cowardly?

"That depends on customs and usages; each country and each century has a different way of regarding such matters. But when men are better, and more advanced morally, they will comprehend that the true point of honour is above the reach of earthly passions, and that it is neither by killing, nor by getting themselves killed, that they can obtain reparation for a wrong."

"That depends on customs and practices. Each country and each century has a different way of viewing such matters. But when people become better and more morally advanced, they will understand that true honor is beyond the reach of earthly passions. They will understand that they cannot make up for a wrong by killing or being killed."

There is more real greatness and honour in confessing our wrong-doing if we are in the wrong, or in forgiving if we are in the right; and, in all cases, in despising insults which cannot touch those who are superior to them.

There is more true greatness and honor in admitting our wrongdoing when we are wrong, or forgiving when we are right. In all cases, there is more greatness and honor in disregarding insults, which cannot hurt those who rise above them.

760. Will capital punishment disappear some day from human legislation?

760. Will the death penalty someday be abolished in all human laws?

"Capital punishment will, most assuredly, disappear in course of time; and its suppression will mark a progress on the part of the human race. When men become more enlightened, the penalty of death will be completely abolished throughout the earth; men will no longer require to be judged by men. I speak of a time which is still a long way ahead of you."

"Capital punishment will certainly disappear in time. Its abolition will mark progress for the human race. When people become more enlightened, the death penalty will be abolished throughout the world. People will no longer need to be judged by other people. I speak of a time that is still a long way off."

The social progress already made leaves much still to be desired, but it would be unjust towards modern society not to recognise a certain amount of progress in the restrictions which, among the most advanced nations, have been successively applied to capital punishment, and to the crimes for which it is inflicted. If we compare the safeguards with which the law, among those nations, surrounds the accused, and the humanity with which he is treated even when found guilty, with the methods of criminal procedure that obtained at a period not very remote from the present, we cannot fail to perceive that the human race is really moving forwards on a path of progress.

Much remains to be desired despite the social progress already made. But it would be unfair not to recognize some progress in modern society. The most advanced nations have gradually restricted capital punishment and reduced the number of crimes punishable by death. Compare the legal safeguards for the accused in those nations with criminal procedures from the not so distant past. Consider, too, how humanely the accused are treated, even when found guilty. We cannot fail to see that the human race is truly moving forward on a path of progress.

761. The law of preservation gives man the right to preserve his own life; does he not make use of that same right when he cuts off a dangerous member from the social body?

761. The law of self-preservation gives people the right to protect their own lives. Aren't they exercising that same right when they remove a dangerous member from society?

"There are other means of preserving yourselves from a dangerous individual than killing him; and besides, you ought to open the door of repentance for the criminal, and not to close it against him."

"There are other ways to protect yourselves from a dangerous person besides killing him. And you should leave the door open for the criminal to repent, not close it against him."

762. If the penalty of death maybe banished from civilised society, was it not a necessity in times of less advancement?

762. If the death penalty can be abolished in civilized society, was it not necessary in less advanced times?

"Necessity is not the right word. Man always thinks that a thing is necessary when he cannot manage to find anything better. In proportion as he becomes enlightened, he understands more clearly what is just or unjust, and repudiates the excesses committed, in times of ignorance, in the name of justice."

“Necessity is not the right word. People always think something is necessary when they cannot find anything better. As they become more enlightened, they understand more clearly what is just or unjust. They also reject the excesses committed in the name of justice in times of ignorance.”

763. Is the restriction of the number of the cases in which capital punishment is inflicted an indication of progress in civilisation?

763. Is limiting the cases in which the death penalty is used a sign of progress in civilization?

"Can you doubt its being so? Does not your mind revolt on reading the recital of the human butcheries that were formerly perpetrated in the name of justice, and often in honour of the divinity; of the tortures inflicted on the condemned, and even on the accused, in order to wring from him, through the excess of his sufferings, the confession of a crime which, very often, he had not committed? Well, if you had lived in those times, you would have thought all this very natural; and, had you been a judge, you would probably have done the same yourself. It is thus that what seemed to be right at one period seems barbarous at another. The divine laws alone are eternal; human laws change as progress advances; and they will change again and again, until they have been brought into harmony with the laws of God."

“Can you doubt that this is so? Doesn’t your mind recoil when you read about the human slaughter once carried out in the name of justice? It was often done in honour of God. People tortured those who had been condemned, and even those who were only accused. They made them suffer terribly to force them to confess to crimes they often had not committed. Yet if you had lived in those times, you would have thought all this perfectly natural. If you had been a judge, you would probably have done the same yourself. What seemed right in one period can seem barbaric in another. Only divine laws are eternal. Human laws change as progress continues, and they will change again and again. They will keep changing until they are in harmony with the laws of God.”

764. Jesus said, "He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword." Are not these words the consecration of the principle of retaliation? and is not the penalty of death, inflicted on a murderer, an application of this principle?

764. Jesus said, "Whoever takes up the sword will die by the sword." Do these words not endorse the principle of retaliation? And is the death penalty for a murderer not an application of that principle?

"Take care! You have mistaken the meaning of these words, as of many others. The only righteous retaliation is the justice of God; because it is applied by Him. You are all, at every moment, undergoing this retaliation, for you are punished in that wherein you have sinned, in this life or in another one. He who has caused his fellow-men to suffer will be placed in a situation in which he himself will suffer what he caused them to endure. This is the true meaning of the words of Jesus; for has He not also said to you, 'Forgive your enemies,' and has He not taught you to pray that God may forgive you your trespasses as you forgive those who have trespassed against you, that is to say, exactly in proportion as you have forgiven? Try to take in the full meaning of those words."

"Be careful! You have misunderstood these words, as you have misunderstood many others. The only just retaliation is God's justice, because he is the one who applies it. All of you experience this retaliation at every moment. You are punished for your sins through the same things you have done wrong, in this life or in another. Anyone who has caused others to suffer will be placed in a situation where they suffer the same things. This is the true meaning of Jesus's words. For didn't he also say, 'Forgive your enemies'? And didn't he teach you to pray that God would forgive your sins as you forgive those who have sinned against you? That means exactly in proportion to how much you have forgiven. Try to grasp the full meaning of those words."

765. What is to be thought of the infliction of the penalty of death in the name of God?

765. What should we think of imposing the death penalty in God's name?

"It is a usurpation of God's place in the administration of justice. Those who act thus show how far they are from comprehending God, and how much they still have to expiate. Capital punishment is a crime when applied in the name of God, and those who inflict it will have to answer for it as for so many murders."

"It is taking God's place in administering justice. Those who do this show how little they understand God and how much they still have to atone for. The death penalty is a crime when carried out in God's name. Those who carry it out will have to answer for each execution as a murder."