An eye for an eye is bad?!?!?

Scary stuff..

'How scary is that?'...Not as scary as your interpetation.

salty.

An eye for a eye is from the Bible. Don't remember were but 2000 years ago that was a very loving statement. People were being sent to prison or worse for stealing bread to feed the family.

While I think the sign is kind of lame -

It also provides the bad people to be the only ones with eyes.

Click to expand...

How did you get this from it?
-

Texas9 said:

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

Click to expand...

I say, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king..."

Context:
1. Like Fastlane said, the original "eye for an eye" law was a law of mercy. Before that is was something like "a life for an eye". Blind somebody, you were executed. BTW, this change in Mid-East jurisprudence came about thousands of years before the common era began (the time of Jesus).
2. Jesus spoke out against an eye for an eye, espousing mercy and forgiveness instead. Most of the Western world has agreed this is a good idea, although people have a hard time living it.
-David

I've always said that if a man takes one of *my* eyes, he's gonna need dentures, a white cane and a seein'-eye dawg...
Biker

I rely on my third eye.

And I keep that one well-hidden.

The quote "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" is on bumperstickers all over my great state. The quote is attributed to the Dali Lama.

So to the peacnicks, that means if a guy kicks you in the balls, you smile and walk away I guess.

Shalako said:

So to the peacnicks, that means if a guy kicks you in the balls, you smile and walk away I guess.

Click to expand...

I don't read it like that. Self-defense is one thing. Revenge is quite another.

An eye for an eye demand proportional justice. In a time when punishment was out of proportion to the nature of the offense the biblical mandate was rational. To this day we here in the west still hold to its intent. Some however get hung up in the phraseology as opposed to its intent.

"Eye for eye" is not a demand for a savage law. It is a demand for punishment proportional to the nature of the offense. For example death for stealing is not proportional. Death for murder is. Restoration and restitution for theft is proportional. Parole for murder is not (IMNSHO). I think we as a society have problems specifically because we have lost a desire for proportional punishment.

I believe what you are referring to is the Code of Hammurabi and it predates the bible. It is believed to be the first codified system of law. Mesopotamia was one of the first civilizations, so humans figured out that codified law let you know what to expect if you commited a crime. It wasn't about revenge or retribution but about a measured response to righting wrongs. Of course, most people today would concider Hammurabi's laws to be barbaric - many of them would immediately condemn a man to death for simple infractions.

You can find the full text of the Code of Hammurabi here - http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM The "Eye for an Eye" edict is #196, FYI.

My point is that the peacenicks that display this bumpersticker espouse non-violence at all times.

The ultimate in DIS-proportional justice. This is very similar to their creed to be the first to lay down their arms, hoping that a chain reaction of peace will ensue.

Therefore, if someone takes your eye, forgive them and break the chain of violence.

I for one don't buy it though.

It wasn't about revenge or retribution but about a measured response to righting wrongs.

Click to expand...

We still haven't figured it out—unless you think all the crimes committed by parolees and probationers are inconsequential.

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

Click to expand...

What an ignorant thing to say. An eye for an eye only leaves specific criminals and victims blind. Since half the world isn't composed of victims having lost one eye to the other half of the human population of one eye pokers, it is mathematically illogical. Besides, if that were to happen, it would not be that everyone is blind, only that everyone has only one eye.

It wasn't about revenge or retribution but about a measured response to righting wrongs.

Click to expand...

I am not sure how poking out somebody's eye will right the wrong of him poking out somebody else's. The original victim with the lost eye will still be blind in that eye, will have suffered the pain of the event, and will continue to suffer via having only one eye.

It is a measured response of punishment, not righting wrongs.

Therefore, if someone takes your eye, forgive them and break the chain of violence.

I for one don't buy it though.

Click to expand...

I don't either. Breaking the metaphorical chain does nothing since it does nothing to curtail the original violent person from continuing violence since he has been allowed to go unpunished, realizing he can commit violence without worry of violence to himself.

The problem is, there is no chain, metaphorical, or real like in the old days, that was shackled to the legs along with a large iron ball.

As noted earlier, this was part of the Code of Hammurabi. Interesting system, but one not without its shortfalls.

For example, under the code, if you built a house for someone, and it collapsed, killing that person's son, the code would require the killing of your son.

Glad we've moved away from that era.

An eye for an eye is a bad way to live. In earlier times, there was no system of justice. People were responsible for defending themselves AND for imposing punishment if they decided to. This didn't work so well because the strong could make up any punishment they wanted to. That's what kings are: strong people who decided that it's a crime to disobey the king, and they punished people for it.

Today, one thing has stayed the same and one has changed. The one that has stayed the same is we are still responsible for our own defense, something which has been true since before we stood on two legs. The one thing that is different is that now the victim doesn't mete out punishment. Punishment is handled through a system. It's not a perfect system but it's better than the way it was before. The system recognizes that it's impossible to get an objective description of what happened, there's no objective way to find out who is guilty, so the system works within those constraints to do the best it can.

I like this way a lot better. If I'm falsely accused of something I can defend myself with facts. I know what the rules are (in broad terms).

Of course, there's that pesky forgiveness thingy in the New Testament.

"You have heard the commanement, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other." (Matt 5:38-39, New American Bible)

><

<>

><

A good thread in the process of going bad.

><

My more devout Christian friends think me a heretic when I respond to their discussions about being good Christians and how Christianity is the way to God, yaddy yaddy yaddy. I usually respond with something lke, "But Christ was a Jew. He never renounced his Jewish faith. He never once attended a Christian church. He died a Jew and as a Jew he went to Heaven to spend eternity with God. Shouldn't we all convert, renouncing Christianity, and following Christ's faith? Maybe this is all a big test to see who is suckered in to Christianity when we should all be following the Jewish route?"

Someday, they will probably burn me as a heretic, and they don't even attempt to actually try to answer my queries.

In regard to and eye for an eye being at a time when there was no justice. There was justice and punish, but not to our modern day liking. There are many kinds of justice, some that punishes the bad, some that rights wrongs by having the guilty restore what they have destroyed or taken from those they victimized, sometimes in excess. It become essential for each culture to work through the variations and combinations of ways in dealing with those who do harm to individuals and to society in order to determine what works best in their society. An eye for an eye concept has its place, but it needs to come with a major compensation package as well.

Without touching on the theological aspects of it, it is my understanding that Jesus--the flesh-and-blood human being--did exist. The Roman records are actually quite good. Jesus of Nazareth, born of Joseph and Mary (obviously there are no records about immaculate conception), a carpenter, crucified by Pilate for heresy. These are all in the Roman records, and can be accepted factually without addressing any theological points, and are generally held to be true.

What else you believe about him is up to you, of course, and I'm not here to preach in any direction, but my understanding is that the existence of Jesus is generally not in question.