Eye for an Eye

[melon]

Yes, but this isn't about neighbor to neighbor relationships in which you are asked to forgive and to love.

This is more of a father/son (state/person under the law) relationshipl; the kind that Proverbs asked that a Father should be strict in punishing and creating discipline in his child.

You said "an eye for an eye." I found an indisputable quote that revokes it from the NT.

As I've said before, Christians of all stripes pick and choose. Even the "fundamentalists."

Melon

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Why did everybody turn this dicussion into a religious one?

I was talking in the sense of general justice. Why isn't eye for an eye considered fair? If it is, why not institute it today?

You hurt someone, you get hurt right back.

 

[BonosSaint]

I apologize, then. It is your thread. However, an eye for an eye philosophy is Judaic law from the Old Testament, Exodus and Leviticus and Deuteronomy (spelling?), so you kind of asked for a religious discussion.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

and this is why we have separation of church and state and why most of us do not want to live in a theocracy. so that the government doesn't create laws and punishments from the bible. i don't care what the bible thinks the relationship should be between the individual and the state; i simply want the best form of government possible, which does not come from biblical interpretation but from trial and error and respect for law and property and persons and is constantly shifting and changing and that government and law are living, breathing things that humans, and humans alone, create and fashion.

This'll be a tad ironic a response to your post, but...amen .

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

Why did everybody turn this dicussion into a religious one?

I was talking in the sense of general justice. Why isn't eye for an eye considered fair? If it is, why not institute it today?

You hurt someone, you get hurt right back.

you're the one who brought up Proverbs.

 

[melon]

I apologize, then. It is your thread. However, an eye for an eye philosophy is Judaic law from the Old Testament, Exodus and Leviticus and Deuteronomy (spelling?), so you kind of asked for a religious discussion.

Exactly. If you want a modern example of why "an eye for an eye" is wrong, take a look at Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Or, in Islamic countries, "Sharia law."

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

"An eye for an eye" was given as a limitation instead of as a command.

Man's tendency is to escallate and demand more in punishment.

 

[BVS]

Why did everybody turn this dicussion into a religious one?

I was talking in the sense of general justice. Why isn't eye for an eye considered fair? If it is, why not institute it today?

You hurt someone, you get hurt right back.

You brought up religion first.

But please tell me why you haven't responded to my first post, I'm curious.

 

[melon]

"An eye for an eye" was given as a limitation instead of as a command.

Man's tendency is to escallate and demand more in punishment.

It was a revolutionary idea in ancient Babylonia, which is where "an eye for an eye" originated from. However, I'd like to think that civilization has progressed since the 3500 years since it was written. After all, 2000 years ago, "an eye for an eye" was changed to "turn the other cheek." Perhaps that's even a bit too revolutionary for today?

Melon

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

Why did everybody turn this dicussion into a religious one?

I was talking in the sense of general justice. Why isn't eye for an eye considered fair? If it is, why not institute it today?

You hurt someone, you get hurt right back.

i'm not exactly sure if this fits...but, wasn't this nietzche's philosophy? that society started out with justice being handled in a vengeful fashion, and that those who were the most powerful were the ones who imposed their will (which was their justice) on everyone else? i think he goes on to state however, that (he seems pretty anti-semitic) that the jewish faith turned this on its head by saying that the meekest in society are the best, instead of the most powerful...

not that i am a nietzche advocate in the least (i hold the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and ALL the teachings of Christ, even those that melon quoted are ideals that we should strive to live up to) i just thought we could look at this from a different point of view.

 

[BonosSaint]

I don't call myself a Christian because I cannot live up to the principles of it. I could say it was because of how I think some Christians have distorted the Bible to their own ends (which I think is true). But that would all and all be an excuse. It is too hard for me to do. I am not capable of loving my enemy or the enemy of the people I love. And to be honest, I don't think I even want to. But I justify that only by myself and don't try to look for a loophole. I'm guilty of a thousand and one hypocrisies. I try not to be hypocritical for this one.

Do I believe in an eye for an eye personally? I think it is dangerous. We want accountability for everyone else but ourselves. We as a species are so hungry for vengeance, we get sloppy. We don't wait for truth of the circumstance. We want blood. I don't trust the punishers, including me. That being said, I want people who deserve it punished strictly. I want the innocent protected. I want those who hurt other people stopped (even those who hurt other people in ways not considered strictly criminal). How do we merge punishment and mercy without doing theological cartwheels? Maybe we start by admitting our vengeance is human and not divine.

PS Poptart had an interesting observation. Was the NT a way to make the powerless take heart?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

We want accountability for everyone else but ourselves.

That's another interesting thing to consider-some of those in this world who do support the whole "eye for an eye" thing-does this mean that they would fully expect, and feel that they'd fully deserve, to get the same cruel treatment towards them that they inflicted on someone else?

Angela