No, I think it creates an unnecessary sense of justice. Punishment for wrong doing.
However, I guess a lot of people need this idea as a deterrent. It's necessity in society shows the sad state of the human psyche.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reciprocity
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
No, I think it creates an unnecessary sense of justice. Punishment for wrong doing.
However, I guess a lot of people need this idea as a deterrent. It's necessity in society shows the sad state of the human psyche.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Its not meant to be punitive its reimbursement for damages. If I break your cup, I need to reimburse you for it. If I break your tooth, I need to reimburse you for it too.
you're not being compensated with a material thing. With reimbursement of a cup, you get a cup. in this case you're simply breaking someone else's cup.
its the negative of the golden rule. don't do unto others that you don't wish done unto you. i seriously doubt anyone wants their eye gouged out, or blinded.
Tumah
Veteran Member
The exact same type of phraseology is used in Lev. 24:18 "you shall pay it, a life for a life" in reference to compensation for killing an animal. There the verse explicitly says, "you shall pay it", its a monetary compensation. The verse makes clear that the phrase "x for x" isn't meant to be understood as a command to reciprocate damage but as an explanation of what item to evaluate in reparations.
Therefore, eye for an eye means: if you poke out someone's eye, you need to reimburse them with the value of an eye.
How would the value be decided?
no one wants a poked out eye; whether it's their's, or someone else's. someone's life is invaluable. you're making this a civil issue and not a criminal one. money can't buy you love. that is prostitution. that is idolatry.
Tumah
Veteran Member
In the time of the Talmud, they evaluated it by slave labor. You calculate the market value of a slave with one eye and subtract it from the market value of a slave with two eyes. I assume today without slavery, we'd value it at human labor, but I didn't learn that tractate yet, so I'm not sure on the specifics.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I have no idea what you're talking about.
tit for tat, or quid pro quo, is not the same thing as love. when one commits a crime against another, a wrong, a hurt, that self has turned away from God. Love doesn't create suffering, or more suffering.
bring me some Light
Tumah
Veteran Member
What are you talking about? If I cause damage to someone I have an obligation to repair the damage that I caused to the best of my ability. That's what the verse is talking about.
I believe Jehovah's qualities of justice and mercy are perfectly balanced. Jehovah followed his own law of equivalence to provide the perfect sacrifice for sin, the human life of his perfect son Jesus. (Matthew 20:28) IMO, the value of Jesus life, given in sacrifice, allows Jehovah the legal basis to forgive repentant sinners for even very serious sins. At the same time, God has promised to bring "vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction." (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9) Justice and mercy, perfectly balanced.
gouging out an eye for someone else, isn't going to help them, or alleviate their loss. taking a life for a life, is not going to alleviate any wrong doing.
love, and only love, will cover the problem
Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs.
No-one is gouging out anyone's eye. Where are you getting this from?
Tumah
Veteran Member
Are you even reading anything I'm writing or just responding with whatever comes to mind?
whether monetary payment, or the literal body member for a member, life for a life, isn't going to assuage the action. some people will cut off their nose to spite their own faces.
for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction. hatred breeds hatred.
cast your bread upon the waters, after many days it will return to you.
yes and you are repeating the same action by simply looking at compensatory damages. try going a bit higher. instead of damaging two people, why not positively reward just ONE. a rich man that can afford to pay the price of an eye; isn't going to have a problem with doing it again. there has to be some corrective measure, for the negative behavior to be modified.
take away someone's freewill. force them to look at the monkey in the mirror of their own private mansion in our father's house. you're doing the rich man a favor. sooner or later, he's going to have recognize himself as God; if he's going to use his power to harm other's not as self.
I AM that i am
Last edited: