Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
God does not seem to think so.
Our standard of justice as shown in the scriptures and in most governments is based on an eye for an eye where the penalty has a relationship to the severity of the offence.
God does not go by this standard.
In his eyes, all sins are the same, in terms of the penalty God planned and will be punished eternally and in the same way.
Is God’s eternal punishment for all sinners, great or small, good justice?
If so, should we scrap an eye for an eye and have the same punishment for all crimes and sins?
Should we follow God’s lead instead of going against it in secular justice?
Is an eye for an eye good justice?
If you think so, please speculate on God’s overkill in terms of punishment.
Regards
DL
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
As it's understood today, it's wrong. If you read the whole chapter and not just he verse you'll find it has nothing to do with 'taking out' someone because someone else did the same.
the chapter and that particular verse means that all are equal. The rich man and slave both.You'll find in todays' world the rich man can do what ever he wants to the poor without recompense.
the chapter and that particular verse means that all are equal. The rich man and slave both.You'll find in todays' world the rich man can do what ever he wants to the poor without recompense.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
fuzzywuzzy;1456432 wrote: As it's understood today, it's wrong. If you read the whole chapter and not just he verse you'll find it has nothing to do with 'taking out' someone because someone else did the same.
the chapter and that particular verse means that all are equal. The rich man and slave both.You'll find in todays' world the rich man can do what ever he wants to the poor without recompense.
Sometimes but mostly not. Do not believe garbage.
Your first is correct.
So are you saying we should demand more or less than an eye for an eye?
If less, how much less (or loss ), should the victim give up to the perpetrator?
Reciprocity is fair play. Why penalize the victim yet again?
Regards
DL
the chapter and that particular verse means that all are equal. The rich man and slave both.You'll find in todays' world the rich man can do what ever he wants to the poor without recompense.
Sometimes but mostly not. Do not believe garbage.
Your first is correct.
So are you saying we should demand more or less than an eye for an eye?
If less, how much less (or loss ), should the victim give up to the perpetrator?
Reciprocity is fair play. Why penalize the victim yet again?
Regards
DL
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
It raises the matter of Capital Punishment. It's a controversial subject. It always has been & always will be, and the same arguments will always apply.
Pros:
The ultimate deterrent.
Closure for the victim's & their families.
Won't do it again.
Cons:
Not really a deterrent. If it was there wouldn't have been so many hangings when we still had it.
Is it really closure - to see the perpetrator escape the remaining years of his life locked in a cell to contemplate the error of his ways?
Won't do it again. Can't argue with that, but what if it's later found that he was innocent all along?
Whether you are for or against the use of Capital Punishment these will always be questions that can never be resolved.
On a much lighter scale, however, I am very much in favour of Corporal Punishment. A clip round the ear, or a caning for misbehaving at school never did anyone any harm. These days we are bound by the EU 'Human Rights' regulations that forbids even the parents to raise a hand against their progeny & as a result, kids being what they are will continue to push the boundaries. Nipping it in the bud & laying down the boundaries before it goes to far is best for all concerned.
Pros:
The ultimate deterrent.
Closure for the victim's & their families.
Won't do it again.
Cons:
Not really a deterrent. If it was there wouldn't have been so many hangings when we still had it.
Is it really closure - to see the perpetrator escape the remaining years of his life locked in a cell to contemplate the error of his ways?
Won't do it again. Can't argue with that, but what if it's later found that he was innocent all along?
Whether you are for or against the use of Capital Punishment these will always be questions that can never be resolved.
On a much lighter scale, however, I am very much in favour of Corporal Punishment. A clip round the ear, or a caning for misbehaving at school never did anyone any harm. These days we are bound by the EU 'Human Rights' regulations that forbids even the parents to raise a hand against their progeny & as a result, kids being what they are will continue to push the boundaries. Nipping it in the bud & laying down the boundaries before it goes to far is best for all concerned.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
You seem to be indicating that an eye for an eye is overkill.
I agree as that does not give any blame to society at large and they are the ones who created or helped create the perpetrator.
But if equal reciprocity is overkill, how much mercy should be shown?
If I steal $1,000.00, is giving it all back and then getting some further penalty still overkill?
Do you see what I mean about society sharing blame?
Regards
DL
I agree as that does not give any blame to society at large and they are the ones who created or helped create the perpetrator.
But if equal reciprocity is overkill, how much mercy should be shown?
If I steal $1,000.00, is giving it all back and then getting some further penalty still overkill?
Do you see what I mean about society sharing blame?
Regards
DL
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456398 wrote: Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Absolutely not. That would leave a cyclops at an unfair disadvantage.
Absolutely not. That would leave a cyclops at an unfair disadvantage.
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456698 wrote: You seem to be indicating that an eye for an eye is overkill.
I agree as that does not give any blame to society at large and they are the ones who created or helped create the perpetrator.
But if equal reciprocity is overkill, how much mercy should be shown?
If I steal $1,000.00, is giving it all back and then getting some further penalty still overkill?
Do you see what I mean about society sharing blame?
Regards
DL
An eye for an eye is a simplification of a concept.
But it is hardly overkill. If you cost me an eye, should it not be on you to pay a price similar to mine? Perhaps loosing your own eye might be a bit harsh in today's world, but the punishment should suit the crime.
In your example of stealing $1000, giving it back to me is not a penalty. That is the minimum required. That means only that you are out the money that is rightfully mine. Now, how shall you pay for the harm you caused me? At the minimum, then you should have to pay me back for any inconveniences you caused me. Like the late fee I incurred because I could not make my car payment in time. and the reconnection fee because my telephone was disconnected. And that is still just setting things right for me.
Now you should face some costs to teach you that stealing my money is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps being locked up in jail for a time? but, of course, the old ways? how about losing a hand because you are a thief? Maybe too extreme? In England in the 18th century, they packed folks off to the colonies because they were thieves or some other types of scoundrels. There's a thought.
Blaming society. Now their is a novel approach. Sure, it's all the fault of society that you have no moral concepts.
Hogwash.
Lots of folks grew up in a less than ideal society. In fact, most of us. We didn't all turn out to be thieves and murderers, though. Something else must be the cause. AH! the parents. There you go. So when you steal from me, the constable can hunt down your father and mother and cane them, because you turned out so rotten. How does THAT sound. Let's blame the parents.
I think that the old hunter-gather societies had the right idea.
If you stole from tribe members, you were publicly called out and humiliated. Perhaps even sent out of the tribe. Forced to get along on your own for a while. Maybe allowed back in after you had time to think about it.
The biblical eye for an eye that God suggested was really not meant to be taken literally, by the way. The Israelites were a communal organization. It was bad enough for the community to lose one guy's contribution when he lost an eye, or a foot. It really made no sense to make two cripples.
None of that stuff was God's ideal.
I agree as that does not give any blame to society at large and they are the ones who created or helped create the perpetrator.
But if equal reciprocity is overkill, how much mercy should be shown?
If I steal $1,000.00, is giving it all back and then getting some further penalty still overkill?
Do you see what I mean about society sharing blame?
Regards
DL
An eye for an eye is a simplification of a concept.
But it is hardly overkill. If you cost me an eye, should it not be on you to pay a price similar to mine? Perhaps loosing your own eye might be a bit harsh in today's world, but the punishment should suit the crime.
In your example of stealing $1000, giving it back to me is not a penalty. That is the minimum required. That means only that you are out the money that is rightfully mine. Now, how shall you pay for the harm you caused me? At the minimum, then you should have to pay me back for any inconveniences you caused me. Like the late fee I incurred because I could not make my car payment in time. and the reconnection fee because my telephone was disconnected. And that is still just setting things right for me.
Now you should face some costs to teach you that stealing my money is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps being locked up in jail for a time? but, of course, the old ways? how about losing a hand because you are a thief? Maybe too extreme? In England in the 18th century, they packed folks off to the colonies because they were thieves or some other types of scoundrels. There's a thought.
Blaming society. Now their is a novel approach. Sure, it's all the fault of society that you have no moral concepts.
Hogwash.
Lots of folks grew up in a less than ideal society. In fact, most of us. We didn't all turn out to be thieves and murderers, though. Something else must be the cause. AH! the parents. There you go. So when you steal from me, the constable can hunt down your father and mother and cane them, because you turned out so rotten. How does THAT sound. Let's blame the parents.
I think that the old hunter-gather societies had the right idea.
If you stole from tribe members, you were publicly called out and humiliated. Perhaps even sent out of the tribe. Forced to get along on your own for a while. Maybe allowed back in after you had time to think about it.
The biblical eye for an eye that God suggested was really not meant to be taken literally, by the way. The Israelites were a communal organization. It was bad enough for the community to lose one guy's contribution when he lost an eye, or a foot. It really made no sense to make two cripples.
None of that stuff was God's ideal.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
High Threshold;1456701 wrote: Absolutely not. That would leave a cyclops at an unfair disadvantage.
If an eye for an eye is overkill, by how much is it overkill?
For instance, if I steal $100,00 form you, what should be my punishment?
Reciprocity would have me paying back the $100.00, --- but would you not add some other punishment that goes past just restitution?
Regards
DL
If an eye for an eye is overkill, by how much is it overkill?
For instance, if I steal $100,00 form you, what should be my punishment?
Reciprocity would have me paying back the $100.00, --- but would you not add some other punishment that goes past just restitution?
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
LarsMac;1456703 wrote: An eye for an eye is a simplification of a concept.
But it is hardly overkill. If you cost me an eye, should it not be on you to pay a price similar to mine? Perhaps loosing your own eye might be a bit harsh in today's world, but the punishment should suit the crime.
In your example of stealing $1000, giving it back to me is not a penalty. That is the minimum required. That means only that you are out the money that is rightfully mine. Now, how shall you pay for the harm you caused me? At the minimum, then you should have to pay me back for any inconveniences you caused me. Like the late fee I incurred because I could not make my car payment in time. and the reconnection fee because my telephone was disconnected. And that is still just setting things right for me.
Now you should face some costs to teach you that stealing my money is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps being locked up in jail for a time? but, of course, the old ways? how about losing a hand because you are a thief? Maybe too extreme? In England in the 18th century, they packed folks off to the colonies because they were thieves or some other types of scoundrels. There's a thought.
Blaming society. Now their is a novel approach. Sure, it's all the fault of society that you have no moral concepts.
Hogwash.
Lots of folks grew up in a less than ideal society. In fact, most of us. We didn't all turn out to be thieves and murderers, though. Something else must be the cause. AH! the parents. There you go. So when you steal from me, the constable can hunt down your father and mother and cane them, because you turned out so rotten. How does THAT sound. Let's blame the parents.
I think that the old hunter-gather societies had the right idea.
If you stole from tribe members, you were publicly called out and humiliated. Perhaps even sent out of the tribe. Forced to get along on your own for a while. Maybe allowed back in after you had time to think about it.
The biblical eye for an eye that God suggested was really not meant to be taken literally, by the way. The Israelites were a communal organization. It was bad enough for the community to lose one guy's contribution when he lost an eye, or a foot. It really made no sense to make two cripples.
None of that stuff was God's ideal.
So you do not think society at large contributes to making criminals criminals then?
They are just born that way. Right?
Regards
DL
But it is hardly overkill. If you cost me an eye, should it not be on you to pay a price similar to mine? Perhaps loosing your own eye might be a bit harsh in today's world, but the punishment should suit the crime.
In your example of stealing $1000, giving it back to me is not a penalty. That is the minimum required. That means only that you are out the money that is rightfully mine. Now, how shall you pay for the harm you caused me? At the minimum, then you should have to pay me back for any inconveniences you caused me. Like the late fee I incurred because I could not make my car payment in time. and the reconnection fee because my telephone was disconnected. And that is still just setting things right for me.
Now you should face some costs to teach you that stealing my money is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps being locked up in jail for a time? but, of course, the old ways? how about losing a hand because you are a thief? Maybe too extreme? In England in the 18th century, they packed folks off to the colonies because they were thieves or some other types of scoundrels. There's a thought.
Blaming society. Now their is a novel approach. Sure, it's all the fault of society that you have no moral concepts.
Hogwash.
Lots of folks grew up in a less than ideal society. In fact, most of us. We didn't all turn out to be thieves and murderers, though. Something else must be the cause. AH! the parents. There you go. So when you steal from me, the constable can hunt down your father and mother and cane them, because you turned out so rotten. How does THAT sound. Let's blame the parents.
I think that the old hunter-gather societies had the right idea.
If you stole from tribe members, you were publicly called out and humiliated. Perhaps even sent out of the tribe. Forced to get along on your own for a while. Maybe allowed back in after you had time to think about it.
The biblical eye for an eye that God suggested was really not meant to be taken literally, by the way. The Israelites were a communal organization. It was bad enough for the community to lose one guy's contribution when he lost an eye, or a foot. It really made no sense to make two cripples.
None of that stuff was God's ideal.
So you do not think society at large contributes to making criminals criminals then?
They are just born that way. Right?
Regards
DL
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456398 wrote: Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
High Threshold;1456701 wrote: Absolutely not. That would leave a cyclops at an unfair disadvantage.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456707 wrote: If an eye for an eye is overkill, by how much is it overkill?
For instance, if I steal $100,00 form you, what should be my punishment?
Regards
DL
If a cyclops took one of your eyes that would be like stealing $100,00 from you. But if you were to take one of his eyes in return that would like taking ALL OF HIS MONEY, even if it's a few gazillion ................. or more.
High Threshold;1456701 wrote: Absolutely not. That would leave a cyclops at an unfair disadvantage.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456707 wrote: If an eye for an eye is overkill, by how much is it overkill?
For instance, if I steal $100,00 form you, what should be my punishment?
Regards
DL
If a cyclops took one of your eyes that would be like stealing $100,00 from you. But if you were to take one of his eyes in return that would like taking ALL OF HIS MONEY, even if it's a few gazillion ................. or more.
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456708 wrote: So you do not think society at large contributes to making criminals criminals then?
I do concede that the many environmental variables that exist within what we refer to as Society can create stimuli that will cause some individuals to express abnormal behavior. But I also know that many individuals, exposed to the same general category of stimuli, will react very differently and develop very different patterns of behavior.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456708 wrote: They are just born that way. Right?
There is definitely evidence to support that genetic variations can govern how individuals will react to given sets of stimuli.
And some behavior patterns are learned responses from observing parents and other adults while growing up.
I do concede that the many environmental variables that exist within what we refer to as Society can create stimuli that will cause some individuals to express abnormal behavior. But I also know that many individuals, exposed to the same general category of stimuli, will react very differently and develop very different patterns of behavior.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1456708 wrote: They are just born that way. Right?
There is definitely evidence to support that genetic variations can govern how individuals will react to given sets of stimuli.
And some behavior patterns are learned responses from observing parents and other adults while growing up.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
Metaphorical or literal?
While we may view it in its metaphorical sense, Sharia Law still holds to its literal sense.
While we may view it in its metaphorical sense, Sharia Law still holds to its literal sense.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
LarsMac;1456715 wrote: I do concede that the many environmental variables that exist within what we refer to as Society can create stimuli that will cause some individuals to express abnormal behavior. But I also know that many individuals, exposed to the same general category of stimuli, will react very differently and develop very different patterns of behavior.
There is definitely evidence to support that genetic variations can govern how individuals will react to given sets of stimuli.
And some behavior patterns are learned responses from observing parents and other adults while growing up.
Some?
Are almost all responses not learned?
I would think so.
Regards
DL
There is definitely evidence to support that genetic variations can govern how individuals will react to given sets of stimuli.
And some behavior patterns are learned responses from observing parents and other adults while growing up.
Some?
Are almost all responses not learned?
I would think so.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Is an eye for an eye a good standard of justice?
FourPart;1456723 wrote: Metaphorical or literal?
While we may view it in its metaphorical sense, Sharia Law still holds to its literal sense.
Sharia law far exceeds an eye for an eye. It is a hand for a loaf of bread is it not?
Is it not also death to gays just for being gay? Or are all gays murderers to Islam?
Regards
DL
While we may view it in its metaphorical sense, Sharia Law still holds to its literal sense.
Sharia law far exceeds an eye for an eye. It is a hand for a loaf of bread is it not?
Is it not also death to gays just for being gay? Or are all gays murderers to Islam?
Regards
DL