Is it OK to make fun of religions?

[CynthiaCypher]

How did that work for your victims? Did you have the courage to try to make good the harm you caused them? Or did you merely repent in private? Just curious.

No it's not private, what I did was horrid. I still have to work out many things with those I can do so with. I am trying but it just doesn't always work out for me, in fact this issue in my life isn't about me at all, it is about those I injured.

To those I can offer repentance to, I do. To those I can't, I leave at peace.

 

[Sunstone]

Eye for an eye. You take my eye, I demand yours. And if I can take it, I will.

Again, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's not what I'm asking about; I'm asking whether you believe this



applies to all situations in which justice needs to be served. From what you've said here, it doesn't like anyone tried to retaliate against you by doing you equal harm for bullying people, but you still seem to believe justice was served. Is it possible for justice to be served without retaliation, then, or do you only apply that principle to other people?

Can you reiterate that again please? I am not getting what you mean by " it doesn't like anyone tried to retaliate against you by doing you equal harm for bullying people"

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can you reiterate that again please? I am not getting what you mean by " it doesn't like anyone tried to retaliate against you by doing you equal harm for bullying people"

I edited the post to add the missing word.

Now, would you mind answering the question?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Again, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Would you allow those who take eyes in the first place to do so freely?

There comes a point when you have to stop people who are going to take an eye period, I don't believe that it means you should kill them, but you let the punishment fit the crime. If a person steal from my neighbor I don't believe in cutting that person's hand off is just, I believe in restitution. You have to pay for your crimes, we all have to face the consequence of our choices. If you cause pain, you will feel pain.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's not what I'm asking about; I'm asking whether you believe this



applies to all situations in which justice needs to be served. From what you've said here, it doesn't sound like anyone tried to retaliate against you by doing you equal harm for bullying people, but you still seem to believe justice was served. Is it possible for justice to be served without retaliation, then, or do you only apply that principle to other people?

Well in my case, equal justice was well served, once my father knew I was a bully, he sent me away. He put me in a boarding school where I would experience the exact same experience I gave to others.

I know what you are saying though, sometimes we need to temper justice with mercy and we can only do that by understanding.

 

[Sunstone]

Would you allow those who take eyes in the first place to do so freely?

Nope. But your sense of justice strikes me as primitive, even childish. There can be any number of purposes to justice. Simply to cause someone pain in exchange for their having caused someone else pain might satisfy a sense of outrage at the offense or the offender, but it doesn't have a great track record when it comes to recidivism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well in my case, equal justice was well served, once my father knew I was a bully, he sent me away. He put me in a boarding school where I would experience the exact same experience I gave to others.

I know what you are saying though, sometimes we need to temper justice with mercy and we can only do that by understanding.

I agree. Upholding retaliation as a universal form of serving justice certainly doesn't seem very merciful or understanding, though.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I agree. Upholding retaliation as a universal form of serving justice certainly doesn't seem very merciful or understanding, though.

Sometimes an eye for an eye can be a prevention against further injustice. Force is sometimes necessary not to harm but to prevent further harm. It is not necessary to murder a murderer but it is necessary to lock them away and keep them from murdering again.

 

[Sunstone]

Sometimes an eye for an eye can be a prevention against further injustice. Force is sometimes necessary not to harm but to prevent further harm. It is not necessary to murder a murderer but it is necessary to lock them away and keep them from murdering again.

You seem to be confused. An eye for an eye speaks of retribution. But now you're talking as if it speaks of prevention or perhaps deterrence. Those are separate things. See the confusion?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You seem to be confused. An eye for an eye speaks of retribution. But now you're talking as if it speaks of prevention or perhaps deterrence. Those are separate things. See the confusion?

No it doesn't. It speaks of justice. You reap whatsover you sow, if you live by the sword you shall be punished by the sword. If you use use force unjustly upon others then you shall be justly punished with force. That's not retribution, that's "karma"

 

[LuisDantas]

No it doesn't. It speaks of justice. You reap whatsover you sow, if you live by the sword you shall be punished by the sword. If you use use force unjustly upon others then you shall be justly punished with force. That's not retribution, that's "karma"

A caricatural representation of karma, perhaps.

Even then, it is still retribution, and only justice by a very generous (and myopic) definition of the word.

 

[SoulDaemon]

When will you apply this "eye for an eye"? , when a starving man steals to live, you lock him up or perhaps take something of equal value he owns?

If you always go by with this "justice", it seems pretty poor.

And if you only apply it to some people, you are a hypocrite.

There are places in the world, you can't apply these rules so straightforwardly.

And even justice sometimes becomes oppression. Because in the end it's men who are the judges.

 

[LuisDantas]

And even justice sometimes becomes oppression. Because in the end it's men who are the judges.

Justice, it must be pointed out often and emphatically, is essentially, even necessarily at odds with the efforts of laws and of magistrates.

That is a pet peeve of mine, because in Brazilian Portuguese people chose to (mis)translate Law as "Direito", which means "Right". As if somehow laws empowered people instead of selectively harming them.

Justice is something else entirely, and laws and magistrates are only useful to the extent that justice can't always be attained and must therefore give way for damage control instead.

 

[SoulDaemon]

Justice can't be attained because there are men who are not willing to do so.

The laws people have made can only be applied to some percentage of the population. The percentage that goes under it, uses corruption, extortion and murder, but legally runs business under our laws. Nobody's even talking about damage control. True damage control can't be seen thru with law and justice.

 

[Sunstone]

No it doesn't. It speaks of justice. You reap whatsover you sow, if you live by the sword you shall be punished by the sword. If you use use force unjustly upon others then you shall be justly punished with force. That's not retribution, that's "karma"

OK, so you're using "an eye for an eye" as meaning proportional retribution here. My mistake then. It seemed to me from your earlier statements that you were using it as meaning retaliation or retribution period, regardless of proportion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, so you're using "an eye for an eye" as meaning proportional retribution here. My mistake then. It seemed to me from your earlier statements that you were using it as meaning retaliation or retribution period, regardless of proportion.

Actually, I would argue that the principle - particularly as interpreted Oral Law - served to constrain/mitigate retribution.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, I would argue that the principle - particularly as interpreted Oral Law - served to constrain/mitigate retribution.

So I've heard (actually, I think it was you who pointed it out to me some years ago -- because I still recall the sense of a light bulb clicking on when you explained it). Yet, I've often heard it used in a different sense -- as a justification or rationalization for retribution, with no reference to imposing constraints on retribution. So far as I know or can guess, this is mainly done by some people who may not be familiar with how it is interpreted otherwise. So, for me, the phrase can be ambiguous. In this case, I misunderstood how Cynthia was using it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I would argue that the principle - particularly as interpreted Oral Law - served to constrain/mitigate retribution.

Oral tradition is so dramatically undervalued. It is still strongly valued in Jewish communities, isn't it?

 

[steeltoes]

Is this OK?



Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


Emo Philips