Is the "eye for and eye" argument a valid one?

1. 69

   danielleantoszposted 14 years ago

   Is the "eye for and eye" argument a valid one?
   
   I recently asked a question about the death penalty and got a lot of "eye for an eye" responses, which is from the old testament (or the Hebrew bible,depending upon your religion) The old testament also requires no work on the sabbath, allows women to sleep with their fathers and promotes a god who tortured a man (Job) for his own glory.  Is this argument still a relevant one?  Or, should we consider the more modern "A eye for an eye leaves us all blind?" (Ghandi, I believe)

   replyreport
2. 61

   raakachiposted 14 years ago

   Nowadays it's not recommended solutions for solving all the  problems;it differs person to person.

   replyreport
3. 62

   Kaddamposted 14 years ago

   You are wrong about fathers sleeping with their own daughters especially if you are pointing out as an example Lot from the bible. Lot's story is "the dangers of being drunk" story like Noah's story was after the flood dealing with his sons which one found him in a drunken stupor doing commando. This is why I hate anyone who isn't a bible scholar trying to explain the bible. Repeated offenses of misinterpretations without studying and research. Only idiots don't research.-As for your questions-The Old Testament reveals the toleration man had for God's laws & comprehensions. -The men of that era only knew harshness and didn't accept softness, therefore God gave them the laws they desired while improving man a little bit at a time for their own salvation from their evilness. Hence why the harsh death penalty attitude in the old testament-Man could not comprehend soft interpretations only harshness. When Jesus was born men accepted softness as an "alternative" means. God never changes-he only seems to change in the eyes of men, but the truth is it is Man who changed-not God. So No, not today-the Eye for an Eye is not for men-only Gods.

   replyreport
4. 60

   secularist10posted 14 years ago

   Seems like you've answered your own question, lol. Kaddam is correct, the OT laws are actually vehemently against incest. But in any case, the ancient Israelites (like almost all peoples of their time) were barbarians who hated cultures and ethnic groups different from them, treated women as property, glorified violence and war and prayed to a tribal god who felt the same way. In such a sociocultural framework, of course an "eye for an eye" makes perfect sense.
   
   Today, as we have replaced superstitious explanations with rational ones, and as we have replaced a bellicose in-group moral ethic with a respect for the rights of all humans, an "eye for an eye" no longer seems as attractive.
   
   Believers can come up with whatever forced and incoherent explanations they want, but the fact remains they are trying to rationalize and make sense of an irrational, backward belief system created by irrational, backward peoples.
   
   Punishment is certainly appropriate and necessary for many types of crimes, but it should be based on a reasonable analysis of what is good for society and human wellbeing.
   
   Casually citing the narrow-minded, psychopathic ramblings of ancient tribes won't cut it.

   replyreport
5. 69

   danielleantoszposted 14 years ago

   fair enough secularist10 , I just meant to state my view.  i obviously do not see it as a valid argument, but I am curious as to how others support their view.  @Kaddam, there is no reason to be rude.  I actually have studied the bible extensively, both in a Christian church and in an accredited university. With that being said, the Lot example was in fact a bad example.  Allow me to try again:  Is taking the advice of a leader who promotes vindictive behavior in one breath and revokes it in another (the new testament, and we won't even touch how the books were put together) the best advice for how we should deal with people in today's society?  I understand that getting into religion is a VERY touchy subject, however we all have different views. I would like to see them expressed in a non confrontational manner. Thank you.

   replyreport
6. 60

   nightwork4posted 14 years ago

   for me it has nothing to do with religion or the bible. i actually believe it should be more like a whole head for an eye. if someone does me seriously wrong, i will pay them back a lot worse then what they did to me.

   replyreport
7. 78

   Seeker7posted 14 years ago

   I think today, although I am an upholder of basic human rights, that the punishment should fit the crime for a pre-meditated action against other life. But to use 'an eye for eye' in all circumstances, for example where pre-meditated actions are not invovled, would indeed, as Ghandi says, 'makes us all blind'.

   replyreport
8. 59

   Sinbadsailormanposted 14 years ago

   A good lesson for those who read and do not discern or test and seek the the truth of the story.
   
   Is to always remember these words and thoughts about
   who's world you are living in.
   who has been given authority over It.
   the Nature of the One who has been given Authority over It.
   the History of the One with the Authority over it. 
   
   Then remember the words of The Owner of the Field
   
   I will never leave or forsake you.
   All things are possible
   I will give you rest
   My Grace is sufficient
   I will direct your steps
   You can do all things
   I am able
   It will be worth it
   I forgive you
   I will supply all your needs (not your wants, but your needs)
   I have Not given you a spirit of fear
   Cast all your cares on Me
   I've given everyone a measure of Faith
   I give you wisdom
   
   The Lord has taught us there is both Good wheat and there is the Tares planted amongst the good Wheat.
   
   Today many still believe the Good Book is a Holy Book as it is written! Which in fact it is, but only unto those who will apply the Knowledge and Wisdom God will supply them, when they come to Him.
   
   Take the good and Leave the bad the Book is maintained by the men of this world. It to is in the field or of the world as well as it to is of the WORD that was Made flesh.
   
   The Book is intermingle with the Dark Prince's Take on things this is why the Book is at time suspect to those who have not Found God and the Comforter or God's Spirit.
   
   An eye for an eye is not what Jesus would have taught.
   But in the spiritual world none are blinded or are made to be blinded.
   
   Render to Cesar that which is his, Jesus was not speaking of the Human King, but about Satan and his physical world vs Jesus  who is God in the Flesh and His spiritual World. And who Satan wants to be or be like.
   
   For he is still in his God Given Spiritual Body and never took on the flesh or repented of His trespasses and Sins and even went as far to Kill the Father's Son or the Son of man or God in the Flesh.
   
   Get to know God, and the discerning ability Shall come to you an it will enlighten you to no end.

   replyreport
9. 71

   Darrell Robertsposted 14 years ago

   I am somewhere in the middle.  Each situation is different, judges should put much reason and thought before handing out their verdicts. I would just comment with so many crimes in the society maybe the punishments given for crimes should be more severe.  My example is how many repeart sex offenders are there in the society. 
   
   Best wishes

   replyreport
10. 60

    ReneeDC1979posted 12 years ago

    If you agree with the revenge argument then yes it's valid.  But, depending on your faith, if you are working to live as God designed, then you forgive and move on so that you can be productive and complete His will.

    replyreport