ADN

raum got me this idea... I am wondering how you guys feel about it. Why?!

I don't think an eye for an eye is a good approach. It leads to spiraling violence. Better is to "chew it and shut up". Much like Jesus said. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Man, I think that an eye for an eye is appropriate...Why wouldn't it be..? If you do something, you expect to get rewarded...You work, you get a check, it simple...If you wouldn't buckle down and work for free, or, you find it perfectly acceptable to say, "Sure Boss, just pay me when you want," then so be it...

If you play by the rules, this wouldn't ever come into play most of the time...But quite frequently, you work for your check, and someone else decides that they don't want to work, and would rather just take your check, why shouldn't they have the same thing happen to them..?

Why would you oppose the hand of a guilty theif being cut off any more or less than you would applaud the hand of a man doing the cuttin'..?

Take'em to church Jerk.... But dont bring Jesus name into this because he was capable of reaching out without passing judgement and thats what really made him so great and so special.

You have the right ideas or dreams, you just really havent thought about everything as a whole.

But you always get an A for effort....

I dont believe in an eye for an eye but for crime there must be a punishment.

There is a difference between an eye for an eye and punishment for crime. Eye for an eye says do to them what those fuckers did to us. That's not cool. That just puts you down to their level and you've accomplished nothing.

Punishment for crime? Hell ya, but I've been thinking more and more that Restorative Justice is probably the best option

כד עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן, יָד תַּחַת יָד, רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל. is the quote you are looking for.

Eye for Eye
Tooth for Tooth
Hand for Hand
Foot For Foot.

And it is ALWAYS taken out of context.

The whole passage (Englished according to KJV for convenience):

22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. {S}

See? If men hurt pregnant women, and they miscarry, they are fined according to the father-to-be.
If the women is wounded, the man is wounded as the women is accordingly.

So shouldn't your "biblical" debate be about "An eye for a pregnant woman's eye"

Who would disagree with that???

The next passage also deals with eyes and teeth, by the way, but people forget all too often:

26 And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

27 And if he smite out his bondman's tooth, or his bondwoman's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. {P}


So, the passage so claimed is, as you can see, Mother's and worker's protection.

So, go now, and debate.

First off,
Doesn't matter that it taken out of context, it matters that it's practiced out of context. The phrase makes an appearance 2 more times in the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and once more in the New Testament

Yes there's more!
From the relevant sections in the sacred text archive:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/lev024.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu019.htm

Those say:
From Leviticus --
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

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.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

From Deuteronomy --

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Anyways:
Under Judaism -- (This info is taken from wikipedia, as I know nothing about the study of Jewish Code of Laws)
Because the Torah forbids personal retribution (Leviticus 19:18) these passages are usually not be taken literally at all, they are figurative.
Scholars say that the phrase from Exodus (what raum quoted from) and Leviticus is meant in the context of tort cases (civil litigation) which would be what raum suggested. However, don't forget the part that says "he shall pay as the judges determine" that is while the husband may demand just compensation from what is at fault from the defendant a judge gives out what he believes to be fair. While Deuteronomy applies to false testimony against an accused (perjury), or in this case punishment for conspiracy. This is punishment based on intent, not action, again to be applied by a judge or court.

Under Christianity -- (I know a little bit more about this)
Well since Christianity is supposed to listen to the Jesus' own views of "eye for an eye" let's see what he says:
According to Matthew 5:38

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Just to give you the Rest of one of my favorite parts of the bible:

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

So in Christianity, Jesus does not believe in eye for an eye, in fact he says rather explicitly not to challenge violence with violence. Pretty much saying if you're on earth, you are treated equally by God until Judgment comes to past.


My personal Beliefs:

I personally don't believe in an eye for an eye. Then again Buddhists (like me, although not strict, I'm here aren't I?) believe in Karma, which in a basic sense says "Do good and good will happen to you, Do bad and bad will happen to you" from that in a macro-sense is somewhat eye for an eye. We just don't believe in vengeance by our own volition much like what Jesus says in Matthew.

And finally an outside opinion: (You all should have seen this quote coming)

Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

QUOTESo in Christianity, Jesus does not believe in eye for an eye, in fact he says rather explicitly not to challenge violence with violence. Pretty much saying if you're on earth, you are treated equally by God until Judgment comes to past.

The biblical record is pretty clear that there are times that Jesus resorted to violence, but not for retribution sake.

QUOTEMy personal Beliefs:

I personally don't believe in an eye for an eye. Then again Buddhists (like me, although not strict, I'm here aren't I?) believe in Karma, which in a basic sense says "Do good and good will happen to you, Do bad and bad will happen to you" from that in a macro-sense is somewhat eye for an eye. We just don't believe in vengeance by our own volition much like what Jesus says in Matthew.

It depends what school of Buddhism you speak of. Many forms of buddhism pride themselves on harsh punishment of those who do bad. They see themselves as the instruments of Karma, and inflict punishment so it doesn't further disrupt the world. When they "do bad" to others, they try and let the chain stop wit them. Incidentally, the notion of Karma is older than Buddhism. Bodhisattva is the notion behind Buddhism. Karma is from Kriyana Yogini.

QUOTEAnd finally an outside opinion: (You all should have seen this quote coming)

Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"I suppose the whole truth will never be known, but enough comes out to make us see how thin the crust is that keeps our christian civilisation from the old-fashioned savagery: machine-guns and modern rifles against knobsticks and assagais are heavy odds and do not add much to the glory of the superior race." - Mohandas Ghandi on the massacre of the Zulu.

Read about who Ghandi was, and what he wanted : National Socialism based on skin color, with the Superior Race, indicated by the lightness of skin at the top.

There are times to stand up for what's right and times to suck it through a straw. I know, however, that most of the time I am pretty sure if I am reacting to something out of selfish wrath or out of true justice. Doesn't mean I always do the right thing.

QUOTE(raum @ Jan 18 2007, 12:14 PM) The biblical record is pretty clear that there are times that Jesus resorted to violence, but not for retribution sake.

Yes, indeed he didn't take too well with the money changers in temple.

It depends what school of Buddhism you speak of. Many forms of buddhism pride themselves on harsh punishment of those who do bad. They see themselves as the instruments of Karma, and inflict punishment so it doesn't further disrupt the world. When they "do bad" to others, they try and let the chain stop wit them. Incidentally, the notion of Karma is older than Buddhism. Bodhisattva is the notion behind Buddhism. Karma is from Kriyana Yogini.

Like you said it depends on which school of Buddhism, most Buddhists do not see themselves as instruments of Karma. In fact Karma is not the main cause of Buddhist actions, rather the Eightfold Path of "right action" would be the true inspiration. If I were to see a man running in fear, later to see another man running around with a bloodied knife and pointing the man with the knife in the wrong direction; my lie would be justified via "right action" not in "oh I hope good things happen to me now".

Yes, Karma has roots in Hinduism not Buddhism, it is borrowed by the fact that Siddhartha was a Hindu first (it is believed that he tried to reform Hinduism to be more egalitarian and fundamental much like Jesus was to Judaism).

"I suppose the whole truth will never be known, but enough comes out to make us see how thin the crust is that keeps our christian civilisation from the old-fashioned savagery: machine-guns and modern rifles against knobsticks and assagais are heavy odds and do not add much to the glory of the superior race." - Mohandas Ghandi on the massacre of the Zulu.

Read about who Ghandi was, and what he wanted : National Socialism based on skin color, with the Superior Race, indicated by the lightness of skin at the top.

Indeed, Ghandi also let his wife die through negligence too; He also disliked the creation of Israel on grounds of the displacement of Palestinians. However, if you're going to quote the national socialist Ghandi because of some favorable things he's said about Hitler; I'd point out that Churchill said some favorable things about Hitler too in 1937. Now regarding the lightness of skin concept, this is true however many Hindus have this idea too. Knowing one's caste or varna was and still is an important part of Hinduism and lightness of skin was proof if how high in caste you were as it made you more clean and divine. I'd rather think you'd want to critique the religion on that one not the person for believing in it.

Ghandi was a hypocrite, I realize this he preached non-violence to the poorest of the poor and let the main stream do what they wished.

However: Martin Luther King Jr. liked prostitutes; Roosevelt cheated on his wife and drank heavily and probably even let Pearl Harbor happen (I don't believe he did but a sizable few think he did). And while unfortunately the popular views will always prevail, their Flaws don't dispute that they were great men.

You invade someones space, commit violence towards another, take what is not yours. Swift and quick punishment -maybe not eye for an eye.

Hell the bible has god's follwers putting many to the sword for opposing, idolatry, sinning, etc

Your either with god or smited, kiled, dead, etc (or turned into a pillar of salt)

god and his followers punishment fits eye for an eye pretty well - the bible is full of bloodshed (even Moses slaughtered sinners)