|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 14, 2012 0:07:42 GMT
Is God’s justice close to an eye for an eye? There are many references in scripture that indicate that an eye for an eye is good justice. This notion that a penalty should fit the crime has even been adopted by most legal system in the world. Leviticus 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. This rather good policy is often contradicted in other scriptures that call for death to sinners who have done much less in terms of harm or sin than causing a death. We are told to stone unruly children, fornicators, witches and so on to a rather long list. God himself has either killed or had killed many, even children and babies who in no way could have killed anyone. Scripture tells us to revere life yet God and many of the laws attributed to him seem to ignore completely any reverence to life. In fact, to me, scriptures seem to make life an extremely cheap commodity even as it shows how important we are supposed to be to God. His greatest achievement in fact that even angels are to bow before. Should an eye for an eye be re-written by God and the bible to read ------ an eye for whatever the hell God, Jesus and the scriptures say? This immoral killing goes right back to Eden with God killing Adam and Eve for following scripture and emulating God. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. When they did as asked, and this was recognized by God himself; Gen 3: 22 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: He killed them by withholding the tree of life. This issue of indiscriminate killing is an important contradiction in scriptures. What do you think God’s law is? An eye for an eye or the punishment should fit the sin; or, kill even if the victim to be has not come anywhere near killing? Regards DL www.youtube.com/user/TurpisHaereticus#p/u/4/0ny-CDU4EFswww.evilbible.com/god%27s%20not%20pro-life.htm
|
|
|
Post by waymarker on Jan 15, 2012 5:38:27 GMT
First of all, Jesus blew the Old T's "eye for eye" out of the water, and replaced it with "forgive" thereby rendering any Old T verses relating to it as totally obsolete.. Secondly re justice, God says he's going to throw out the human trash on judgement day, (Murderers, thieves, rapists, peedos, liars, fundy religionists, false christians, Jesus-rejecters, slave traders, corrupt bankers and politicians, con men etc) and that sounds like good justice to me! He's not a wishy-washy 'tolerant' social worker, he's my kind of tough no-nonsense God and nobody better mess with him! In a sense we're apprentices on Lord Sugar and Donald Trumps shows, tasked with overcoming our human flaws, and Jesus is project manager. And the last thing we want to hear from God in that big boardroom in the sky is-
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Jan 18, 2012 20:10:32 GMT
First of all, Jesus blew the Old T's "eye for eye" out of the water, and replaced it with "forgive" thereby rendering any Old T verses relating to it as totally obsolete.. Secondly re justice, God says he's going to throw out the human trash on judgement day, (Murderers, thieves, rapists, peedos, liars, fundy religionists, false christians, Jesus-rejecters, slave traders, corrupt bankers and politicians, con men etc) and that sounds like good justice to me! He's not a wishy-washy 'tolerant' social worker, he's my kind of tough no-nonsense God and nobody better mess with him! In a sense we're apprentices on Lord Sugar and Donald Trumps shows, tasked with overcoming our human flaws, and Jesus is project manager. And the last thing we want to hear from God in that big boardroom in the sky is- You seem to be espousing dual morality here. Humans should forgive but God should not. Are humans better than God then in that we are more merciful?
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 19, 2012 19:52:42 GMT
First of all, Jesus blew the Old T's "eye for eye" out of the water, and replaced it with "forgive" thereby rendering any Old T verses relating to it as totally obsolete.. Secondly re justice, God says he's going to throw out the human trash on judgement day, (Murderers, thieves, rapists, peedos, liars, fundy religionists, false christians, Jesus-rejecters, slave traders, corrupt bankers and politicians, con men etc) and that sounds like good justice to me! He's not a wishy-washy 'tolerant' social worker, he's my kind of tough no-nonsense God and nobody better mess with him! In a sense we're apprentices on Lord Sugar and Donald Trumps shows, tasked with overcoming our human flaws, and Jesus is project manager. And the last thing we want to hear from God in that big boardroom in the sky is- It is not for any other than the victims to decide who is forgiven or not. If you ignore the victim and their rights, then whatever justice system you follow is not up to scratch. God and or Jesus usurp our duty and pleasure if they stick their noses in our business. Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by rjh01 on Jan 19, 2012 21:33:53 GMT
An eye for an eye is good only when you do not have a good justice system in place. Get police, jails, courts and it ceases to be good policy.
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 20, 2012 17:20:18 GMT
An eye for an eye is good only when you do not have a good justice system in place. Get police, jails, courts and it ceases to be good policy. How so? How does enforcement take away the fairness of the policy of the penalty fitting the infraction? Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by rjh01 on Jan 20, 2012 20:35:25 GMT
Who said anything about it being fair? Such things are extremely primitive and so when you get police and justice they can do a much better job.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Jan 21, 2012 17:33:00 GMT
Who said anything about it being fair? Such things are extremely primitive and so when you get police and justice they can do a much better job. Or they can act in the interests of the powerful, so that taking from the powerful means serious punishment while the powerful taking from the powerless means that the punishment is actually less than was taken.
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 21, 2012 18:59:11 GMT
Who said anything about it being fair? Such things are extremely primitive and so when you get police and justice they can do a much better job. Or they can act in the interests of the powerful, so that taking from the powerful means serious punishment while the powerful taking from the powerless means that the punishment is actually less than was taken. I was looking for the best policy. Not whether it worked or not or whether the rich could circumvent it or not. Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 21, 2012 18:59:57 GMT
Who said anything about it being fair? Such things are extremely primitive and so when you get police and justice they can do a much better job. I must have read you wrong. Regards DL
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Jan 21, 2012 21:49:25 GMT
Or they can act in the interests of the powerful, so that taking from the powerful means serious punishment while the powerful taking from the powerless means that the punishment is actually less than was taken. I was looking for the best policy. Not whether it worked or not or whether the rich could circumvent it or not. Regards DL well, I would say that eye for an eye, primitive frontier style justice has a better record than judges and police, as far as holding people equally accountable.
|
|
|
Post by rjh01 on Jan 22, 2012 2:08:08 GMT
Glad we do not have an eye for an eye now. Imagine due to no fault of my own I injure someone. Think self defence. They then demand "an eye for an eye." On that principle they should be able to get it.
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 22, 2012 21:09:04 GMT
Glad we do not have an eye for an eye now. Imagine due to no fault of my own I injure someone. Think self defence. They then demand "an eye for an eye." On that principle they should be able to get it. We do have a system that follows an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye has nothing to do with eyes friend. It is just a way to state that the penalty should fit the crime. In terms of religion, it is supposed to mean that stoning someone to death for a piece of tail is overkill. If yours was self-defence, even if you took out someones eye, you would be exonerated. Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by rjh01 on Jan 23, 2012 8:38:43 GMT
Glad we do not have an eye for an eye now. Imagine due to no fault of my own I injure someone. Think self defence. They then demand "an eye for an eye." On that principle they should be able to get it. We do have a system that follows an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye has nothing to do with eyes friend. It is just a way to state that the penalty should fit the crime. In terms of religion, it is supposed to mean that stoning someone to death for a piece of tail is overkill. If yours was self-defence, even if you took out someones eye, you would be exonerated. Regards DL It is a pity that is not how many people interpret what it means. However even saying that the penalty should fit the crime is rather basic. If we say that there is a certain penalty for a certain crime then that ignores many other things such as the history of the criminal. Has he committed other crimes before?
|
|
|
Post by Greatestiam on Jan 23, 2012 18:25:47 GMT
We do have a system that follows an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye has nothing to do with eyes friend. It is just a way to state that the penalty should fit the crime. In terms of religion, it is supposed to mean that stoning someone to death for a piece of tail is overkill. If yours was self-defence, even if you took out someones eye, you would be exonerated. Regards DL It is a pity that is not how many people interpret what it means. However even saying that the penalty should fit the crime is rather basic. If we say that there is a certain penalty for a certain crime then that ignores many other things such as the history of the criminal. Has he committed other crimes before? Eye for an eye is the starting point. Mercy from there is where we are to go as our paying in a way for contributing as a society to what who was made by us and not born that way. Unless insane of course. With a habitual sinner or criminal who has already been given his due from society previously, then eye for an eye should likely be exceeded, not for the initial crime or sin, but because the dummy will either not learn or just does not care to change. Regards DL
|
|