# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Revenge: good or bad?

## absurda

Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve? 

Or do you think that we should be forgiving, that revenge only causes the perpetration of violence in society? If you think so, can you actually forgive everyone that harms you or your loved ones?

Is death penalty about justice, revenge or prevention?

And as we are in a literature forum, what was the best revenge story you've ever read?

----------


## Virgil

> Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve?


Revenge is a dark emotion. But I think you need to define what you mean by revenge. If someone jumps ahead of you on a line, and then another day you jump ahead of that person on another line, would that be revenge? I don't really have a problem with that. But if you stab that person that jumped ahead of you in line, then i do have a problem with that. So I think you would be best served if you set some sort of boundaires to your question.




> Or do you think that we should be forgiving, that revenge only causes the perpetration of violence in society? If you think so, can you actually forgive everyone that harms you or your loved ones?


Forgiveness is different than revenge. I don't think I could forgive someone that did violence to me or a loved one. I may not however take revenge. 




> Is death penalty about justice, revenge or prevention?


The death penality is justice. When a death penalty is established through legislation - the will of the people - carried out by an arrest from legal authorities (police), tried fairly in a court of law, held up for review by supeioir courts, and then carried out government officials, that is not revenge. That is justice.




> And as we are in a literature forum, what was the best revenge story you've ever read?


Hamlet.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dark Muse

> Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve?


I am a strong believer in an Eye for an Eye, I have no problem with revenge I think a person has the right to retaliate against someone who has wronged them. But I do believe that the punishment has to meet the crime as it where. Much like *Virgil's*  example about the line. I do not think it is justified to do something more severe then the thing which has been done to you. 




> Or do you think that we should be forgiving, that revenge only causes the perpetration of violence in society? If you think so, can you actually forgive everyone that harms you or your loved ones?


I have a great deal of respect for those who can be forgiving and for those who choose peaceful means over violence, but I myself am no true pacifist. I know it is probably not a good thing, but I hold grudges. If someone wrongs me I am not capable of forgiving them until I think they have paid for their actions. Then once they get what they deserve I can put the whole thing behind me. 




> Is death penalty about justice, revenge or prevention?


I think the death penalty is justified and I am all for it. Why should the criminals have more of a right to live then the victims they have stolen life from.

----------


## papayahed

> I have a great deal of respect for those who can be forgiving and for those who choose peaceful means over violence, but I myself am no true pacifist. I know it is probably not a good thing, but I hold grudges. If someone wrongs me I am not capable of forgiving them until I think they have paid for their actions. *Then once they get what they deserve I can put the whole thing behind me.*


That's the bad thing about revenge. You can't move forward until the perpetrator has paid their debt. What if they never pay their debt?

----------


## hoope

> I think the death penalty is justified and I am all for it. Why should the criminals have more of a right to live then the victims they have stolen life from.


Agree in that point 

but for loved ones.. & ppl who hurt us.. i believe that mercy & forgiving is the best way to revenge

----------


## Dark Muse

> That's the bad thing about revenge. You can't move forward until the perpetrator has paid their debt. What if they never pay their debt?


Then I will not forgive them and continue to hate them, and well that is fine with me becasue I don't need to like someone who has wronged me anyway. 

There is this girl who I haven't seen sense I was in elementry school and she was in highschool at the time, and to this day I still hate her for what she did to me. If I were to run into her in public somewhere I would punch her in the face or something.

----------


## hoope

> There is this girl who I haven't seen sense I was in elementry school and she was in highschool at the time, and to this day I still hate her for what she did to me. If I were to run into her in public somewhere I would punch her in the face or something.


Why don't you just let it go .. ? Forgive her not for who she is .. but coz you are greater than a punch on her face..move on in your life & forgive all those who have wronged you .. Then you'll feel happy & pleased inside you.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Why don't you just let it go .. ? Forgive her not for who she is .. but coz you are greater than a punch on her face..move on in your life & forgive all those who have wronged you .. Then you'll feel happy & pleased inside you.


Forgiving someone who does not deserve to be forgived would not make me happy. I am not a warm and fuzzy person and have no wish to be so. 

But well I am a writer, and so when I cannot confront people face to face for whatever reason, well a lot of the characters in my stories are based in varrious ways off of people I know or have known, and so how they fair in the stories or the nature of the characters that are influenced by them, refelcts my personal feelings towrd them.

----------


## papayahed

> Then I will not forgive them and continue to hate them, and well that is fine with me becasue I don't need to like someone who has wronged me anyway. 
> 
> There is this girl who I haven't seen sense I was in elementry school and she was in highschool at the time, and to this day I still hate her for what she did to me. If I were to run into her in public somewhere I would punch her in the face or something.


You punch her in the face then you get arrested for assault, it may make you feel better for about a second but then you're faced with legal bills and perhaps jail time/community service so in fact she's gotten you twice.

----------


## absurda

I don't know how to quote!!! So let's do it manually...

Dark Muse said:
"I am a strong believer in an Eye for an Eye, I have no problem with revenge I think a person has the right to retaliate against someone who has wronged them. But I do believe that the punishment has to meet the crime as it where."

Do you really think that you're wise enough to know exactly what kind of punishment is enough to make "justice"? Who are we to know if we are not being too rough, or not rought enough? Imagine if someone kills your husband, then you go and kill her husband too. However, you work and she doesn't, so her children starve because their father, who used to buy them food, is dead. And the children are innocent. Is it justice? My point is, we never know how our actions will affect the life of others.

There is a song here in my country that says somthing like: My anger is the poison I take trying to kill someone else.

----------


## Mr Hyde

Revenge is pleasurable.

----------


## Dark Muse

> You punch her in the face then you get arrested for assault, it may make you feel better for about a second but then you're faced with legal bills and perhaps jail time/community service so in fact she's gotten you twice.


First of all I did not intend that to be take so litteraly. Just if I happend to run into her, I would not pretend to be all nicey nicey and well I probably would call her a certain unsvaory word.




> Do you really think that you're wise enough to know exactly what kind of punishment is enough to make "justice"? Who are we to know if we are not being too rough, or not rought enough? Imagine if someone kills your husband, then you go and kill her husband too. However, you work and she doesn't, so her children starve because their father, who used to buy them food, is dead. And the children are innocent. Is it justice? My point is, we never know how our actions will affect the life of others.


Well I will decide for myself what I think is deserved. For example, if someone steps on my foot, I am not going to respond by shooting them. That would be extreme. 

Also I would not blame someone innocent for something someone else did to me. If a woman killed my husband then my anger would be directed at her personaly and I would wish bodily harm upon herself not those around her. As far as her family growing up without a mother, guess she should have thought about that before coming after my loved ones.

----------


## absurda

Imagine if everybody retaliated when they felt someone had done them wrong. The world would be chaotic, because making mistakes is part of human nature. We all make mistakes, and many times those mistakes hurt other people. I think that society today (movies, books, politics,...) glamourizes revenge, so people are proud to say they would make someone pay if they did them wrong. And that's one of the reasons why the world is so chaotic today.

----------


## Dark Muse

Well that is why there is a balance, there are people upon both sides. Personally I would not want to live in a world where no one was willing to fight for anything either. But there are people on both sides of the spectrum. 

And revenge is part of my culture. I grew in an Italian family, or half-Italian. And I was raised with the idea that if someone comes after you, or your loved ones, you do not just look away or sit upon your heals. You do have you have to do. 

As well there is a bit of a difference between someone just making a mistake, and someone doing something that is malicious to another person. 

To use your own example, of the woman killing someone's husband, that is more then a mistake. If a person intentionally acts to hurt another person, that is no mistake. 

And when I speak of revenge and being wronged, I am talking of when a person directly and intentionally does something against me, not if they just make a mistake.

----------


## Mr Hyde

In truth there is no such thing as the general good as there is no "real" world.

Man's absurd ingenuousness to regard himself as the sense and measure of all things is the very insanity that takes utility to a whole new extragavance in transformation of what we call morality.

In reality what flies straight into the face of this is that there exists no absolute state of affairs- no "thing-in-itself."

Values are not real and they never shall be beyond the hysteric symptoms of the valuer.

They are but mere simplifications for the abstract mind.

A value may be real enough relatively to the observer by their own will but amongst a objective existence it shall always remain non-existent.


In pragmatism it is obvious that the only way to convince someone of moral propositions one must find common ground, a shared moral belief and thus building the coercive convincing bridge there but alas if we should find ourselves with a man who rejects morality outright that "refuses to see other peoples reasoning" out comes the stabbing spears.

So it appears that morality shows its true meaning as a deceptive form of convincing others.

Why do I have to justify my actions?

Actions are actions they are neither right or wrong.

Killing is killing; whether its done for duty, money, or for fun.

Purpose is not a requisite of nature as such a thing is purely reduced to imagination.

There is no "being" behind doing,working or becoming.

The "doer" is a mere appendage to the action as the action is everything.

There exists no "doing-doing" nor is there a thing-in-itself.

All phenomena extends from homogenuity with moral differentions being reduced to perspective.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve? 
> 
> Or do you think that we should be forgiving, that revenge only causes the perpetration of violence in society? If you think so, can you actually forgive everyone that harms you or your loved ones?
> 
> Is death penalty about justice, revenge or prevention?
> 
> And as we are in a literature forum, what was the best revenge story you've ever read?


This is one of the greatest questions I often ask myself and the rest. In point of fact the idea of revenge is in our blood, and we have genetically inherited and we can not cleanse ourselves of it at any rate. Our very mental or genetic fabrics are woven of it and whatever endeavors we make we can not erase it at all.

In my idyllic moments or when I read great books like the Bible I feel that forgiveness is a panacea, something that help us and I often try to keep to this idea, but our nature does not allow it. We are by nature revengeful. 

Let us not be pretenders. In day to day behavioral patterns of us there are depictions of our real natures which are revengeful and retributive and to say we are forgiving people by nature is a lie, to be dishonest to ourselves, for without taking revenge we can not even survive in this world.

When we become hypocritical or try to teach others we seem against the idea of taking revenges but in real life situations we are very deadly revengeful demons.

----------


## Mr Hyde

What is justice but a crude mask for revenge?  :Wink: 

Justice is nothing beyond revenge carried out by a vindicative creature.

----------


## Lady Marian

I completely agree with you, Blazeofglory. It is the farthest thing from our nature to forgive when we or someone we care about has been wronged. The Bible was not written to be obeyed with no help. Its directions were meant to be followed with assistance...from the one person who has obeyed every single rule in the Bible.

About revenge, if we allow it to take over us, we will destroy ourselves. Literature and history illustrates that plainly. Ask Jean Valjean, Count of Monte Cristo, etc. Would anyone want to be them, when they got what they wanted?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Justice is nothing beyond revenge carried out by a vindicative creature.


You consider Justice/Revenge to be vindictative, as if it is a negative thing. Does that mean you think if someone should rob from you, or harm you, that they ought to just get away with it without any sort of consequence?

----------


## TheKmank

Revenge is a plague, spreading of a emptiness inside that the mind created with hate, hate founded in your own cruelty.

Justice brings equality, for one that deals suffering should reap what he sews.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> Revenge is a plague, spreading of a emptiness inside that the mind created with hate, hate founded in your own cruelty.
> 
> Justice brings equality, for one that deals suffering should reap what he sews.


Justice is revenge. And justice is one man's revenge while being another's damnation all at once simultaneously.




> You consider Justice/Revenge to be vindictative, as if it is a negative thing. Does that mean you think if someone should rob from you, or harm you, that they ought to just get away with it without any sort of consequence?


I don't consider it to be negative but I do consider all forms of justice to be nothing more than revenge.




> Does that mean you think if someone should rob from you, or harm you, that they ought to just get away with it without any sort of consequence?


Only if they can get away it. I don't believe in morality and ethics or any sort of golden rule.

I believe if somthing happens it merely happens and nothing else.

I guess that would make me a social nihilist of sorts. People get what they get and nothing more.

----------


## Scheherazade

Don't know whether it is good or bad... but it is sweet - they say. I wouldn't know.

----------


## remy_duvalle

> Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve? 
> 
> Or do you think that we should be forgiving, that revenge only causes the perpetration of violence in society? If you think so, can you actually forgive everyone that harms you or your loved ones?
> 
> Is death penalty about justice, revenge or prevention?
> 
> And as we are in a literature forum, what was the best revenge story you've ever read?


The death penalty is never necessary, in my opinion. I personally think having such a harsh, definitive, irreversible punishment in our judicial system is completely wrong. Especially after years of knowingly over-turning many cases due to DNA tests... in many cases AFTER the criminal was put to death.

Plus, I just think Life in Prison would be a much harsher sentence for the guilty, knowing they'll have to be stuck there for their whole lives.

And while keeping them in prison for life would cost tax-payers money, I don't see this as a viable argument because we have so many unnecessary people imprisoned for MINOR drug charges.

I'm not really pushing for the legalization of drugs (beyond the medicinal level), I just think throwing someone in jail for smoking weed is a joke. Especially when cost is an actual argument for putting criminals to death rather than sentencing to life in prison.

The death penalty is straight revenge, it seems. Sure, it might give some victims a sense of justice, but it's more fulfilling their desire for revenge, rather than justice. 

And prevention is a bizarre argument to me. Sure, some people get off because doctors say they've been rehabilitated... but in cases of 100%-certainty (or in cases that would have warranted a death penalty) I don't think they'd be as quick to release someone like that. And even then, I'm pretty sure if we got rid of the death penalty, they could adjust rulings so that those that would have been sentenced to death have 0%, even after rehabilitation, of getting out... unless of course new, conclusive evidence came up that got them off the hook.

Anyway..

I think 1-to-1 revenge is usually not a good thing. However, in cases of someone killing another person, I do think the victim (or victim's family) deserves revenge in the form of having the criminal caught and thrown in jail for a period of time (even life in some cases). 

But hurting someone for hurting you or someone you love is uncalled for, unless it's in defense.

----------


## Dark Muse

> The death penalty is straight revenge, it seems. Sure, it might give some victims a sense of justice, but it's more fulfilling their desire for revenge, rather than justice.


If someone takes the life of another person in cold blood (And murder is the only crime in which you can be viable for the death penalty) then I do not have an iota of sympathy. I say fry them! 

I do not buy into bleeding heart nonsense that it is immoral to put a murderer to death, and well often times those who get the death penalty are guilty of multiple murders not just one single incident.

----------


## mangueken

I'm against the death penalty and not because I'm a bleeding heart. I just think it's a contradiction to a society who says that murder is wrong and then organize itself to do what is pre-meditated murder. 
This is totally different from taking someone's life who is trying to hurt or kill your person or people you love and care about. That is about defense and totally justified. But come on all you supporters of an "eye for an eye", if someone raped your mother or sister, would you really rape one of the criminal's family members?
And as far as literature about revenge I would suggest 1001 Arabian Nights, several stories deal this topic and then there is The Stranger by Albert Camus too.

----------


## Dark Muse

> But come on all you supporters of an "eye for an eye", if someone raped your mother or sister, would you really rape one of the criminal's family members?


Well an eye for an eye does not have to be taken quite that litteraly. It just means that under the eye an eye theroy it would not be justifiable to blow somones brians out becasue they cut you off in trafic, because that is a clear over reaction to the offense

But I do think that death is a completely justified punishment for rape.

----------


## Virgil

> Don't know whether it is good or bad... but it is sweet - they say. I wouldn't know.


Wouldn't know? Ha! You've gotten your revenge on me a number of times.  :Tongue:  [only kidding if someone thinks I'm serious.]

----------


## mangueken

Dark Muse
a murder for a rape? Seems like your upping the ante. But that's not my point because the real question is if organized murder somehow satisfies the victim of the crime? The crimes that can get someone the death penalty are arbitrary and I doubt you support 99% of the crimes that can get capital punishment in the world today.

----------


## Dark Muse

I do not think it is upping the ante, I think it is a pefectly legitimate exchange. I have in fact felt for a long time what rape should be added to murder to the crimes which can get one the death penelty in the court of law.

----------


## mangueken

Do you agree with stoning an adulterous woman to death as is practiced in some countries? What about treason? Apostasy? Cowardice or desertion in the military sphere?
What makes these any better or worse as candidates for capital punishment? 
Does capital punishment makes us better or worse as individuals or a society?

----------


## Virgil

> I do not think it is upping the ante, I think it is a pefectly legitimate exchange. I have in fact felt for a long time what rape should be added to murder to the crimes which can get one the death penelty in the court of law.


Certainly the rape of a child. That frankly turns my stomach. But I want to reemphasize. Legally carried out justice as I descrbed up above is not revenge. It is the appropriate execution of societal punishment.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Do you agree with stoning an adulterous woman


While I do not infact belive that adultry should be a legal issue, if a woman was stoned for adultry I cannot say I would feel sorry for her. I have very rigid views about disloyatly.

----------


## mangueken

Well Dark Muse,
I may not agree with your views on this question but I do have to admit you are consistent : )

----------


## Dark Muse

hehe Yes, that is one thing I do try to be.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Wouldn't know? Ha! You've gotten your revenge on me a number of times.


"Revenge", you say?

I say, "divine justice"!  :Wink:

----------


## Mr Hyde

I love the subject of capital murder in that from a hypocritical judgement it comes to be known that people can murder in one way from a legalized standpoint but not in the other. 

Classic do as I say not as I do arguement.

( This is just one of the many reasons why I reject morality, ethics, and golden rules altogether.)

( Only the naive believe this world to be a moral one.)

----------


## Dark Muse

> I love the subject of capital murder in that from a hypocritical judgement it comes to be known that people can murder in one way from a legalized standpoint but not in the other.


Well that depends upon ones definition of murder. I personaly do not beleive that all forms of killing are by defult murder. In my personal opinion murder only applies when a life that is innocent is taken. When a person is killed in cold blood. 

The death penalty is not killing in cold blood. Nor is it taking the life of the innocent. 

I do not consider killing in revenge to truly consitute a murder becasue the person being killed is so as a direct restult of thier own actions.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> Well that depends upon ones definition of murder.


Certainly it does for if you murder for the government on the battlefield it is considered a noble act but should you murder for your own individual pleasure without governmental approval or the permission of society then it becomes known to be a crime.

But what is really interesting is that killing is killing no matter how you define it.




> I personaly do not beleive that all forms of killing are by defult murder.


Please tell me your definitions. 




> In my personal opinion murder only applies when a life that is innocent is taken.


See this is where I disagree with you because to me noone is innocent.

To me innocence doesn't exist.





> When a person is killed in cold blood.


What's the difference?





> The death penalty is not killing in cold blood. Nor is it taking the life of the innocent.


See above posts.




> I do not consider killing in revenge to truly consitute a murder becasue the person being killed is so as a direct restult of thier own actions.


Killing is killing no matter how you define it.

----------


## Dark Muse

> See this is where I disagree with you because to me noone is innocent.


Yes I knew you would say that. But what I meant above is that if a person kills another who has in fact has done nothing to them. Even if the said person may not be "innocent" in the borad sense. If they are killed by some random pyschopath, then that would consittute as murder becasue the person killing them has no justifiable or motive to do so. 

And to me that is a completely seperate thing then if person A kills person B becasue person B directly brought harm to person A.





> Killing is killing no matter how you define it.


Killing is killing but I still do not believe that all killing is murder. I think there is justifiable killing. Though I do not personally believe that only the government is the determinant of what is justifiable or not. I do believe in personal vigilantism and I believe a person should have to right to seek their own revenge.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> But what I meant above is that if a person kills another who has in fact has done nothing to them.


People do bad things to other people all the time even when the person being oppressed, attacked, or insulted did nothing to deserve it.

It simply happens.

Society oppresses individuals everyday into poverty and inequality by forcing them to become indentured servants decrying that is their only worth or value as a human being even when it is done against their own will.

Again it simply just happens.




> Even if the said person may not be "innocent" in the borad sense. If they are killed by some random pyschopath, then that would consittute as murder becasue the person killing them has no justifiable or motive to do so.


Why must somthing be justified? Not everything is justified and I think you know that.




> And to me that is a completely seperate thing then if person A kills person B becasue person B directly brought harm to person A.


For you it may be but for me there is no difference.




> I do believe in personal vigilantism and I believe a person should have to right to seek their own revenge.


Alot of serial killers and criminals see their behavior as personal revenge or vigilantism too.

----------


## Dark Muse

> People do bad things to other people all the time even when the person being oppressed, attacked, or insulted did nothing to deserve it.


I never said they didn't but that was not the point of my argument. The point being, that if a person does something to another person without having a good reason for doing it, they deserve to be punished for it. Either by a court of law or by the wronged party. 




> Society oppresses individuals everyday into poverty and inequality by forcing them to become indentured servants decrying that is their only worth or value as a human being even when it is done against their own will.


That is irrlelevent to this arugment 





> Why must somthing be justified? Not everything is justified and I think you know that.


I never said everything is justified, but there is a differences between something that is justified and something that is not justified. As my above arugment. 

A person who does something which is not justified should be called to account for their actions 

While if a person does something becaue they are righting a wrong which has been done to them they should be excused 





> Alot of serial killers and criminals see their behavior as personal revenge or vigilantism too.


Though I beleive in vigiliantisim, I am not calling for a complete end of the legal system. It is clear to anyone with even an iota of common sense that there is a differnece between a serial killer and someone who was directly and personaly been harmed, or had a loved one harmred, and going after those that are reponseble, then someone just lashing out in general.

----------


## blazeofglory

Revenge is a natural tendency something that is primitively set in our mind and out moral attributes we try to do away with it, but it is always there in full bloom notwithstanding the fact that we try to subdue it. 

Of course revenge is not good,and I am not for it. But human nature is very hard to understand and we hardly keep away from it and there are pinches of it always in our behaviors.

Let us be honest to ourselves that we depict our revengeful demeanor all the time in our tradeoffs with others in day to day affairs.

We simply are pretenders, trying to show what we are not in point of fact.

----------


## weltanschauung

dangerous liaisons -chordelos de laclos
superb.

----------


## Dark Muse

> We simply are pretenders, trying to show what we are not in point of fact.


I am proud of my preadatory side, and I do not try and hide my teeth. I embrace it.

----------


## blazeofglory

> I am proud of my preadatory side, and I do not try and hide my teeth. I embrace it.


The transition to land brought major changes to the faces of our ancestors. They stopped breathing water through gills, and the gill-supporting muscles in the face took on new functions, like controlling the throat to swallow food. At the same time the muscles that moved the jaws became bigger as land vertebrates evolved a more powerful bite.
In point of fact I subscribe to your ideas one hundred percent in point of fact, for today we hide the incisive teeth and nails and clutches and despite the veneer of cultures, morals, ethics and the like we are still the same brutes, and our promitive desires of pouncing, mating, defending and the like are still powerful within us, and these are the givens we can not subdue in point of fact notwithstanding our continuum of endeavors to quell and ttample them out. 

Then tell me wereon earth we are not revengeful?

----------


## Dark Muse

Part of my spiritual beleifs revolve around the idea of embrace and accepting the fact that we are animals, and not viewing humans as some surperio higher being, or loosing touch with the earth. But trying to stay close to nature, and not shunning the animilistic instincts which we posscess.

And part of my own personal philosophy, is that I simply refuse to be "fake" or put on some kind of act. Or try and put on some kind of apperance for the sake of soceity. But I am what I am, and I am going to be up front. I am not going to smile at some one, and tell them it is nice to see them and ask them how there day was, then turn around and talk behind there back. I am going to tell them, don't talk to me, I don't like you.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> Part of my spiritual beleifs revolve around the idea of embrace and accepting the fact that we are animals, and not viewing humans as some surperio higher being, or loosing touch with the earth. But trying to stay close to nature, and not shunning the animilistic instincts which we posscess.


What do you know about nature or primitive animalism? 

Nature along with animalistic instincts can be the most cruelest thing to witness and observe.

( Amongst nature there is no justification for anything along with the total absence of morals.)

( In nature there exists only cruel dominance and submission where anything goes.)




> I never said they didn't but that was not the point of my argument. The point being, that if a person does something to another person without having a good reason for doing it,


And by your definition what is a "good" reason for anything?







> they deserve to be punished for it. Either by a court of law or by the wronged party.


Deserve like how?






> That is irrlelevent to this arugment


If you say so.






> I never said everything is justified, but there is a differences between something that is justified and something that is not justified.


Then please tell me what the difference is as I still don't understand what your trying to correlate here.







> A person who does something which is not justified should be called to account for their actions


Why?






> While if a person does something becaue they are righting a wrong which has been done to them they should be excused


What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is evil?

What is justifiable? What is un-justifiable? 






> Though I beleive in vigiliantisim, I am not calling for a complete end of the legal system.


I am because I view morality, ethics, justice and indeed all of law to be nothing more than a twisted joke built upon hypocrisy or doublestandards of the absurd.




> It is clear to anyone with even an iota of common sense that there is a differnece between a serial killer and someone who was directly and personaly been harmed,


Like what exactly?

----------


## Sin of Red

Revenge comes in all shapes and sizes, though, sadly, people may use revenge to vent feelings that are sudden; and that they cannot control.

If someones wife is murdered, the victims family may go straight for the death penalty allowing their feelings to cloud their judgment, sending a person to hell, who might not of been that person who killed the wife. I'm against the deaht penalty; I say let them be in Hell before they go to _Hell_. But thats just me.

----------


## Dark Muse

> What do you know about nature or primitive animalism? 
> 
> Nature along with animalistic instincts can be the most cruelest thing to witness and observe.
> 
> ( Amongst nature there is no justification for anything along with the total absence of morals.)
> 
> ( In nature there exists only cruel dominance and submission where anything goes.)


There is a sort of justification of nature, animals do not just go aroud killing willy nilly simply becasue they feel like it. They kill to protect thier own, to protect themselves, and to feed themselves. There is a certian justification in that. 

And aniamls which live in pacts, groups, herds, etc.. are capable of great compassion tword each other. 

I do not find the natural order to be cruel, and it is not just "anything goes" Animals have thier own sense or order and hiegharchy and most challenges between animals, eitther for leadership, territory, mating, are not to the death, nor do the aniamls seek to truly kill each other, when one animal shows the signs of submission the other backs down and lets it go, it does not ruthllessly kill it at the moment of its voulrnablity.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> There is a sort of justification of nature, animals do not just go aroud killing willy nilly simply becasue they feel like it.


And what is your deeply narrow description of a specific justification that is right amongst others that you view to be less than?

I would argue that the necessity of killing is entirely subjective and that there is no way to measure it in ideological definitions of righteousness.




> They kill to protect thier own, to protect themselves, and to feed themselves. There is a certian justification in that.


And sometimes killing is done out of pleasure, competition,hate, and spite.




> And aniamls which live in pacts, groups, herds, etc.. are capable of great compassion tword each other.


To speak of other animals in anthropomorphic terms is a bit naive.

It is like painting all other animals with a human brush without considering their individual existential circumstances as a seperate species.




> I do not find the natural order to be cruel, and it is not just "anything goes"


It isn't? Then what is it? 

Is it a picturesque scenery where a lamb lays by a lion in tranquil harmony?




> Animals have thier own sense or order and hiegharchy and most challenges between animals, eitther for leadership, territory, mating, are not to the death, nor do the aniamls seek to truly kill each other


I'm not saying that cruelty prevails all the time amongst nature or other animals but instead I'm merely saying that it is frequent.




> , when one animal shows the signs of submission the other backs down and lets it go, it does not ruthllessly kill it at the moment of its voulrnablity.


Very frequently in a great deal of animal species there is in-fighting that results in death.

----------


## Mr Hyde

Dark Muse I'm going to give you a definition of nature and evolution where afterwards you can tell me what you think of it:

*Nature and evolution is where various individual biological organisms compete amongst each other for survival by consuming and killing one another in order to subsist in being alive.*

Upon understanding that where does justification come into play here?

----------


## Dark Muse

> I would argue that the necessity of killing is entirely subjective and that there is no way to measure it in ideological definitions of righteousness.


Well it is a plain and simple fact that if carnivrous aniamls do not kill they will simply starve to death. I do not think that is in the least subjective. And unless you yourself do not have to take in any substances you haven't the right to be judging. Becasue even eating vegitation is killing some form of life. 





> And sometimes killing is done out of pleasure, competition,hate, and spite.


Read your own argument below. If my atributing compassion to animals is anthropomorphic then so is attributiing hate and spite to aniamls. 





> To speak of other animals in anthropomorphic terms is a bit naive.
> 
> It is like painting all other animal species with a human brush.


You are the one who has outdated primitive views of animals. There is plenty enough research and study done of animals, in the wild, in which displays there very complex behavior, and interaction with each other. And not all of it is just pure survival/instinct based, nor is all of it about fighting and killing. The more that is being learned about animals, the more it is being discovered that they might not be as difference from us as once was thought. Animals have proven to be far less simplistic then had once been thought. If I am naive, then so are a lot of credible scientists, and animal behaviorists. 






> It isn't? Then what is it? 
> 
> Is it a picturesque scenery where a lamb lays by a lion in tranquil harmony?.


Personanly I think it is neutral. The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> Becasue even eating vegitation is killing some form of life.


I know that.







> Read your own argument below. If my atributing compassion to animals is anthropomorphic then so is attributiing hate and spite to aniamls.


Fine.







> You are the one who has outdated primitive views of animals. There is plenty enough research and study done of animals, in the wild, in which displays there very complex behavior, and interaction with each other. And not all of it is just pure survival/instinct based, nor is all of it about fighting and killing.


And not all of it is compassionate or cooperative based either.




> The more that is being learned about animals, the more it is being discovered that they might not be as difference from us as once was thought.


A naive anthropomorphic venture no doubt built upon the biasness of biological researchers who are trying to find the mystic ever so sweeping morality amongst nature to reaffirm their absurd moral beliefs in a human world where morality is becoming so very much criticized for being the crazy religious institution that it is.




> Animals have proven to be far less simplistic then had once been thought. If I am naive, then so are a lot of credible scientists, and animal behaviorists.


They are. Infact these so called credible scientists and animal behaviorists I myself call naive all the time. 







> Personanly I think it is neutral. The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.


If everything is neutral than we have no need for justification which is very un-neutral, no?

There is nothing neutral about morality or justification.

----------


## Dark Muse

> A naive anthropomorphic venture no doubt built upon the biasness of biological researchers who are trying to find the mystic ever so sweeping morality amongst nature to reaffirm their absurd moral beliefs in a human world where morality is becoming so very much criticized for being the crazy religious institution that it is.


It is not all about just simple morality, but some things just are what they are, regardless of your personal feelings about it. 

It has been observed, elephants actually have their own form of "day care" in which each individual mother elephant will get some time off and get to spend some time to herself while the other elephants look after her young for her, and they trade off in shifts so each mother gets some time away from her young. 

It is also known that when Elephants pass by the bones of another elephant, they will stop, and each elephant as it passes by will carefully touch the bones with their trunks, and their feet before continuing on. 

Hippos, actually give vigil's of silence over the dead, including over animals that are not of their own species. If another hippo dies, or if they come across the body of another animal, they will all gather around the body and just lay beside it for several minutes before leaving to go about their business.

It is known that animals that are social in the wild, if they are taken into captivity and doe not have companions of their own kind they will become depressed, lethargic, and grow sick and begin to waste away. 

Wolves will lure hunters away from their pacts 

There are a few different bird species that mate for life, to the extent that if their mate dies they will not take on another, they will remain for the rest of their own life unmated. 

There is a species of crane which once year on the anniversary of when they had first mated, the male crane will repeat the mating dance he first gave.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> It is not all about just simple morality, but some things just are what they are, regardless of your personal feelings about it. 
> 
> It has been observed, elephants actually have their own form of "day care" in which each individual mother elephant will get some time off and get to spend some time to herself while the other elephants look after her young for her, and they trade off in shifts so each mother gets some time away from her young. 
> 
> It is also known that when Elephants pass by the bones of another elephant, they will stop, and each elephant as it passes by will carefully touch the bones with their trunks, and their feet before continuing on. 
> 
> Hippos, actually give vigil's of silence over the dead, including over animals that are not of their own species. If another hippo dies, or if they come across the body of another animal, they will all gather around the body and just lay beside it for several minutes before leaving to go about their business.
> 
> It is known that animals that are social in the wild, if they are taken into captivity and doe not have companions of their own kind they will become depressed, lethargic, and grow sick and begin to waste away. 
> ...


But as I said there is also cruelty, violence, and ruthless behavior amongst nature too.

And you have refrained from talking about those expressions as it exhibits a dilemma to your ideology of social justification and morality.

----------


## Mr Hyde

> The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.


And what about men killing other men? Neutral?

----------


## Dark Muse

> But as I said there is also cruelty, violence, and ruthless behavior amongst nature too.
> 
> And you have refrained from talking about those expressions as it exhibits a dilemma to your ideology of social justification and morality.


Honestly I was not truly trying to make some sort of cliam to justification and morality. 

I just got on my animal crudsade about how animals are more complex, emotional, intelligent, aware, then humans give them cridit for. 

And that they are not in fact just these simple minded "killing machines" or beasts which are capable of doing nothing but directly responding to instincts.

----------


## Dark Muse

> And what about men killing other men? Neutral?


If a man killed another man for his own survivail then yes I would say it is nuetral. 

I did not say that all killing ever was neutral. But killing becasue you need to feed upon the flesh of another in order to sustain yourself I do not think is cruel. 

I have no qualms with cannibilisim.

----------


## PierreGringoire

The mind of man can adapt through abstractions.

The mind of animals (as far as I'm concerned) can only adapt from trial and error and mutation.

This distinction gives man a certain responsibility unknown to animals.

Resorting to cannabalism is easy to call "neutral," but first think about the implications of giving this the OK.

Killing one's child or good friend, (or fellow man if you will), in a time of immense struggle-- lets say, stuck in the middle of the rainforest--is cowardly beyond measure-- even an abomination.--how does the human part of you respond to this?

Our minds are capable of making machines-- and of deductive reasoning.

I could forgive a mentally retarded person for killing someone because they were starving in this situation-- because of their inability to think abstractly. (Note that mentally retarded people's ability to think abstractly to a lower degree does not make them less human)--perhaps this implies leniency to them when they are on trial--no?

Since man has a "religious mind"-- I believe it best make use of it. If it is a part of what drives us to excel (in combination with hope) why make no use of it?
Why have the ideology that we are *directly relative* to animals? And whatever observations you make of them you encrust onto our vast magnitude?
If a man was to live a thousand years--think of how much more great his accomplishments and adaptations would (could) be than a dog that lived the same?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Killing one's child or good friend, (or fellow man if you will), in a time of immense struggle-- lets say, stuck in the middle of the rainforest--is cowardly beyond measure-- even an abomination.--how does the human part of you respond to this?


Not even most animals kill their own young for food, or members of thier own family group. And I did say "most" yes I know there are some that will eat thier own offspring, but it is not widespread, only in some speicies. 

But to canniablisim in general, I do not view human beings as surperior, or higher beings, thus I see no differences in killing a man and killing an animal. Thus if humans can kill other animals to eat, for me it would be no better or worse for a man to kill another man to eat. 

I do not view human life as having more vaule then animal life.

----------


## PierreGringoire

It would still be wrong to kill your fellow man in order to eat him even in desperation. :Yawnb:  
But you said some animals _would_ kill their young others would not.
You are able to see an *inconsistency* here between two species of animals.
The alligator would kill his young, the wolf would not.
Are you saying the wolf becomes the standard for the human?
I would argue wolfish characheristics and human characheristics are too inconsistent to compare.

----------


## Dark Muse

Sense I do not see human life being worth more then animal life, I do not see it as wrong for one man to kill another. 

As to your example, while I understand what you are saying, I have to point out, that in fact Alligators are known to be some of the best parents in the reptile world. Allagotors are very loving and protective mothers in fact. 

I am not trying to point out any particular standanrd in animals for humans to follow.

----------


## JohnAvg

Aristotle gives a nice answer for that..
"We should erupt/rage at the right TIME,
against the right PERSON,
for the right REASON,
and with the right WAY..."

----------


## muazjalil

I will start with few quotes: 

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
Having said that let me analyze the first statement by Absurda "Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve? "

Your question has two component "Moral Component" and "Social Component" (lack of better word). Whether its good or bad (moral), i will leave aside for the moment. But to the more important component of whether people who do bad things should get what they deserve, I wholeheartedly approve. And to be honest its not only bad people but all people "should" get what they deserve. Reward and punishment seems to be in our blood, how he administer them is a different issue.

Evolutionary biology, so far i know, teaches us that human beings are conditional cooperators and altruistic punisher and it has served us well. We will cooperate with other individuals but if only they reciprocate. If we do not have a mechanism to retaliate in face of deception then free rider problem becomes rampant. It is only when we cannot monitor or effectively retaliate that we have such problem. So from societal point of view "they should get what they deserve". So its a good thing to do, if by good we mean beneficial for the society at large.

Now the question is how do you measure "what they deserve". Till date the best mechanism seems to be our current legislative process, i mean its better than king's decree or some body of intellectuals laying those laws down. However there may be scope for improvement and i am sure as human being progress we will move in that direction.

Therefore Death Penalty is Justice & prevention where it still exists and Revenge where it has been abolished (i mean those people have abolished it precisely because they thought it was revenge and not justice :-P)

----------


## armenian

> Sense I do not see human life being worth more then animal life, I do not see it as wrong for one man to kill another. 
> 
> As to your example, while I understand what you are saying, I have to point out, that in fact Alligators are known to be some of the best parents in the reptile world. Allagotors are very loving and protective mothers in fact. 
> 
> I am not trying to point out any particular standanrd in animals for humans to follow.


i respect rational life in general, so i dont see more value in human then in animal life, but i wont go as far as to say it is not wrong for one man to kill another
i dont think killing an animal is right, neither is it right to kill a man. i beleive, in general killing something with understanding, is wrong. but i wont let others exceptions to it make me ignore my core belief (i.e. to respect rational life(human + animal).

----------


## neelambari

We r human being .....the extra ordinary creation of god .killing our fello beings is not the answer for anythig...

----------


## Dark Muse

I do not see it that way. I do not find anything speical about human life compared to any other life, and I do not beleive we are the creation of God

----------


## NikolaiI

> In truth there is no such thing as the general good as there is no "real" world.
> 
> Man's absurd ingenuousness to regard himself as the sense and measure of all things is the very insanity that takes utility to a whole new extragavance in transformation of what we call morality.
> 
> In reality what flies straight into the face of this is that there exists no absolute state of affairs- no "thing-in-itself."
> 
> Values are not real and they never shall be beyond the hysteric symptoms of the valuer.
> 
> They are but mere simplifications for the abstract mind.
> ...


What you say is true, but still empathy leads to understanding. Anyone who's been pricked with a pin, immediately knows they don't want others to feel the same thing. 

As to the original question, my answer is yes but not that we should take revenge upon ourselves. Forgiveness is the correct answer; but people should get what they deserve and they do- this is the law of karma or cause and effect. If we hurt others continually we create an aura of negativity which is continually turning back on ourselves. As you sow, so shall you reap.

----------


## skasian

My opinion: Revenge is bad.
Revenge implies you are giving damage to an opposition.
The bottom line is damage given: causing pain and all other negative aspects that follows damage.
Causing such damage is equally just as bad as the opposition no matter how much injury you have been afflicted by them. Forgive and forget. Love your enemies and take pitty on them.

----------


## V.Jayalakshmi

Dear Members,
It is a difficult question and so the answers are varied.I want to point out the following.
1)Mankind evolves.....This evolution is not only with regard to physical traits but also with regard to mental traits.Man killed in ancient days but only for keeping away hunger.Then the killing came to be for protecting territory.But in the present world where Man is a global entity, narrow considerations are out.Hence mind should rule over better things.You did have one Florence Nightingale walking amidst misery.You did have one Mother Thresa trying to give shelter to the downtrodden and the sick.

2)Also one of the definite change that occurs has been in thoughts.So religion too changes, adopts, absorbs and grows.From worshipping nature as Gods you have evolved to woshipping precepts that are moral and applicable to all.

So my answer is killing is not correct.

----------


## weltanschauung

revenge = good
specially when it comes naturally and you didnt even have to put a lot of effort into it.

----------


## Dark Muse

Nah, it is less fullfilling when you do not have a personal hand in it

----------


## NikolaiI

Best thing is never to have to need revenge.

----------


## Dark Muse

Well since one cannot control the actions of others, revenge cannot be helped, as it is not within my nature to be a pacifist. I will strike those who strike at me.

----------


## skasian

Would you strike back even if murder plays a part? Exactly to what extent are you prepared to avenge yourself? 
I am reminded of Hamlet, where practically most characters unnecessarily paid their lives for the sake of Hamlet's plot to avenge his father's death. Obviously, Shakespeare puts his vote that revenge is bad, but really, its just logical that revenge is bad. If you do avenge yourself, do you really think that the opposition will pull out and end your little war with a shake of hands? It aggravates the ugly state altogether and its highly likely that the opposition will strike back with a stronger force. Unless you quit, this would go on forever, causing so much more damage when you could minimise it by not avenging yourself from the start. Back to Shakespeare, if Hamlet just excused his mental illness of seeing his father’s ghost and never plot to avenge him, he would of saved the royal family altogether. Please dont forget that there is a high possibility that revenge does not solve a problem with an opposition. They inevitably come back stronger. And with a greater damage. Like I mentioned before, why not avoid this by forgiving and forgetting?

----------


## weltanschauung

> Nah, it is less fullfilling when you do not have a personal hand in it


sometimes, the fool walks into his own trap, and although you might have helped just a little bit, its just as rewarding :Biggrin:

----------


## Dark Muse

> And with a greater damage. Like I mentioned before, why not avoid this by forgiving and forgetting?


I do not forgive those who offend me, nor do I forget the offence. I am not saying my way is good, but I am just not the turn the other cheek kind of person. I have choosen my own path, not out of ignorance of possible consequence, but it is the way which is within my nature. Could I make an effort to change that nature? Probably, but I am content however flawed others might view my apporoach.

----------


## skasian

> I have choosen my own path, not out of ignorance of possible consequence, but it is the way which is within my nature.



I respect your views and your nature and many people in the world do hold the same idea of revenge. I am just making an attempt to promote minimum conflict in the world - our world's conflicts sometimes are triggered from revenge, for example the on-going war between bloods and crips in America.. Just imagine with more forgiving and forgetting how LA can be a safer and peaceful place.

----------


## Dark Muse

I do not disagree with that philosophy. I happen to have a great deal of admiration for Gondi, and a great resepct for peaceful non-jugemental religions such as Buddisim. Even though I know I myself would not personally choose that path. 

Oddly though I do not consider myself a pacifist I am more often then not anti-war and I am in fact not truly a violent person unless I feel forced by a situation. I will fight back if I feel I have to. 

There is a time and a place, and though perosnally I will hold a grudge against a person, I do not support on going conflicts which just lead to constant blood shed.

----------


## PierreGringoire

no title 

when you see someone smile you thought you didn’t like 
because someone was nice to them, you see inside 

to that grey small place inside their face, the hollowness
that makes them someone, not a thing to be despised,

that forlornness that can always be woken to pleasure
from contact, that was always rent, necessarily, with 

openness and yearning, soft, blinking eyes that always
remain vacant for kindnesses, their own and those that

appear out of nowhere, but never did from you who now
sucks sourly in a sudden dry, solitary shame, remember

only that the neglect you enacted was born of another, 
of your own soft eyes, emptiness and imagining mind.

This poem is by our very own blp (who is a member for Litnet). It provides interesting and useful insight

I think most of the time being offended is totally irrational (as in that famous quote by Dostervosky from Brother's Karamazov) 

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness." 

and revenge is even more irrational.

I also like the poster who quoted Aristotle on the last page

"We should erupt/rage at the right TIME,
against the right PERSON,
for the right REASON,
and with the right WAY..."

----------


## skasian

> I will fight back if I feel I have to.


Couple of posts back, you have said "I will strike those who strike at me." But your statement contradicts this, if you do fight back only if you feel you have the necessity to, does this mean you have a limitation of when to avenge yourself? If you believe that revenge is good/acceptable, then there is no reason to not to strike in any situation.

Back to the question whether revenge is good or bad, if the acts of revenge does lead to constant blood shed, which it usually does, do you support that revenge is indeed bad?

----------


## Dori

Personally, I am not the type of person to seek revenge. If someone hits me, I will in all probability just take the hit without retaliating. I've been like this all my life. And I don't think I've ever hit anyone earnestly, that is not in jest. Okay, that's a lie. But shortly after striking, I felt deeply sorry and guilty for my actions. 

Seriously, what's the point of revenge?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Couple of posts back, you have said "I will strike those who strike at me." But your statement contradicts this, if you do fight back only if you feel you have the necessity to, does this mean you have a limitation of when to avenge yourself? If you believe that revenge is good/acceptable, then there is no reason to not to strike in any situation.
> 
> Back to the question whether revenge is good or bad, if the acts of revenge does lead to constant blood shed, which it usually does, do you support that revenge is indeed bad?


I only meant that I am not going to do anything illegal becasue I have no desire to go to jail. But on priciple I have no qulams with revegnge in any situation, but I know soceity and the law does not share my personal code and I am not going to get myself in trouble, so I do act within the limitiations that the legal system has placed upon me. 

I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Seriously, what's the point of revenge?


The plain and simple truth is, it is satisfying to me, and gives me pleasure to retaliate against someone who has acted against me. 

For me if someone hit me and hit them back, then I can put the matter completely behind me and be done with it. But if someone got away with hitting me, I would hold the grudge against them until I was able to settle the score.

----------


## Dori

> The plain and simple truth is, it is satisfying to me, and gives me pleasure to retaliate against someone who has acted against me. 
> 
> For me if someone hit me and hit them back, then I can put the matter completely behind me and be done with it. But if someone got away with hitting me, I would hold the grudge against them until I was able to settle the score.


Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!

----------


## muazjalil

If revenge implies getting back on someone for the wrongs that they have done then revenge is good. Here the word "good" implies it promotes cooperation and "wrong" means acting contrary to a promise/contract made previously. I had to define them as precisely as i could to avoid misinterpretation. 

Now based on the aforesaid definitions let me show how it benefits the society. Written laws cover very few human interactions and mostly they deal with commercial and formal interactions. However outside the purview of our legal system there lie many human interactions which are indispensable for the well functioning of a society. e.g You dont expect a person hitting you on the face because you asked for direction!! Therefore trust and common values are very important. 

Human beings are conditional cooperator (they cooperate as long as others cooperate) and altruistic punisher (if the other person breaks a promise they will go out of their way to punish that person in essence revenge). This is an evolutionary concept and it has served us well. If most people cooperated no matter what the other did then free rider problem would have crept up in the system, in the end flooding the system with free riders. Current research in evolutionary economics suggests that society where trust have flourished are usually the society where people tend to based their action on “reciprocation” . Revenge or the more technical term of altruistic punisher helps us make sure that there is a high cost for going back on one's promise. Death Penalty/Prison Sentence is I guess a kind of societal revenge but the essence is the same.

----------


## skasian

> I only meant that I am not going to do anything illegal becasue I have no desire to go to jail. But on priciple I have no qulams with revegnge in any situation, but I know soceity and the law does not share my personal code and I am not going to get myself in trouble, so I do act within the limitiations that the legal system has placed upon me. 
> 
> I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.


Yes, I am sure that in reality you will not cause such malice that will throw you in jail. My point is, when revenging, why is there a chance that we are breaking the law? This means that the act of revenge is sometimes illegal. Even the most intellectually challenged being will be able to point out that ILLEGAL=BAD. So, ACT OF REVENGE=BAD.
Because you have claimed yourself that some acts of revenge are infact illegal therefore you have just supported that revenge is bad.

----------


## skasian

> Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!


There is a significant difference between supporting why revenge is good/bad and trying to convert a specific person to turn from their views on revenge. I believe that arguing about Dark Muse's own responsive nature about revenge is unnecessary. Dori, why dont you express your view whether revenge is good or bad and elaborate it why you support it so. :Smile:

----------


## Dark Muse

> Yes, I am sure that in reality you will not cause such malice that will throw you in jail. My point is, when revenging, why is there a chance that we are breaking the law? This means that the act of revenge is sometimes illegal. Even the most intellectually challenged being will be able to point out that ILLEGAL=BAD. So, ACT OF REVENGE=BAD.
> Because you have claimed yourself that some acts of revenge are infact illegal therefore you have just supported that revenge is bad.


That depends on how you look at it. I have my own personal code of ethics and mortality which I believe in, but it is not always the same as the legal system and what society accepts. I believe my own personal code is right, and that the legal system and society is not always correct. 

I believe in personal vigilantism , but I know the law frowns on it. That does not mean I admit that it is bad, just that society has chosen to make laws against it. I do not agree with this law, but I obey because it is beneficial to myself to do so.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!


Because in my own way, being wrathful is acutally more satisfactory to me then being happy go lucky.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind!

The more you hurt other people, the more you stain yourself. I find that hurting other people makes me just as unhappy as them, in fact much more, so inflicting pain upon others is something I avoid.

Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.

Revenge is a childish way of venting frustration.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.


By that logic no one should be held accountable for anything they do, and anything should be considered a perfectly acceptable action. And a person should not be held responsible for the choices they make and how they choose to act, and the actions they commit 

I just do not by into that kind of crap.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

They should be held accountable, but not by you (remember, you are no better than them). If I were as faithful a Christian as I would like to be, I would say only God can judge them, but I am not so I will say this: the only person who may judge them is themself. Leave it to their conscience.

Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?


Acutally I do not agree with that. To be quite honest unleashing my wrath upon someone who has wronged me does give me pleasure. 

I am a vengeful person, but I am not an unhappy one. 

I happen to throughly enjoy being myself. 

If someone wrongs me I will personally hold them accountable for doing so. And under my own perosnal code there is nothing wrong in doing so as long as I act within the limits of the law to avoid getting myself in trouble.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

You see people and their actions inherently. Nothing is independent from anything else. There is never one "bad guy" in a situation, and until you see that you will always be a fool (no offence intended). 

Why do you keep speaking of your "wrath"? You are not some supreme deity.

----------


## Dark Muse

It is just a fun word I like to use. You will learn not to take me quite so seriosuly. 

While my views upon regenve are sincere not everything I say is meant to be taken completely litteraly. 

You are welcome to call me a fool for I do not judge myself based upon the opinons of others. I may equally think you a fool

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

You said it!

But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them _through your own eyes_. There are no impartial judges.

----------


## Dark Muse

> You said it!
> 
> But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them _through your own eyes_. There are no impartial judges.


If someone does something that wrongs me in someway, if someone tries to hurt me of someone I care about, or offends me. 

I do not care why they did it, though I do hold people directly responsible for the choices the make. I believe in free will and the fact that everything a person does they do because they choose to take that action. 

Why they choose that action is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same. 

And I will retaliate as I see fit. Because whatever the reasons for what they did, does not alter what happened, and they are the ones that physically caused it to happen.

----------


## skasian

> That depends on how you look at it. I have my own personal code of ethics and mortality which I believe in, but it is not always the same as the legal system and what society accepts. I believe my own personal code is right, and that the legal system and society is not always correct.
> 
> I believe in personal vigilantism , but I know the law frowns on it. That does not mean I admit that it is bad, just that society has chosen to make laws against it. I do not agree with this law, but I obey because it is beneficial to myself to do so.


I do not mind about your own personal codes that may be against the law but lets not get too general about law and order itself. Lets look at only the result of revenge and the law that acts against it. 

I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.


Anything is bad if taken to the extreme no matter what it is. If a person shoots someone because they stepped on their shoe, that is obviously not acceptable, but that does not mean revenge in itself is bad, because one person acted in a way that was clearly extreme. 

I would excuse murder if I felt the offence was strong enough.

In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.

----------


## dramasnot6

I like to think of revenge in terms of risk and reward. In my experience of revenge, most of the reward lies in the motive and planning of the revenge, it is a psychological reward for he/she who wants and executes the vendetta. However, revenge,in addition to having an absolute risk for the person being revenged upon (if successful), is almost always also risky for many other people. For the person executing a vendetta, there can be legal,moral,social,political and economic risks that have various internal and external consequences, depending on the nature of the revenge. 
Aside from the moral implications of revenge, the practical consequences and risks of most vengeance make it seem very unappealing to me as any means of productivity. Psychological gratification for a wrongdoing can be gained in ways much more productive and less risky than setting out to hurt someone else. I forget who first said it but I have always been fond of the expression "The best vengeance is to lead a good life." 
Life is short. If someone has already spent part of yours hurting you, why waste more of your life hurting them?

----------


## skasian

> In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.


Actually, your quote "but the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views" supports the idea that revenge is indeed unjust and bad. A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.
The word revenge defines as to inflict harm in return for as an injury insult etc. I have searched and searched however there is no statement supporting the meaning of revenge as the idea of returning the precise amount of harm to the offender. Therefore revenge is evil.

----------


## Dark Muse

[QUOTE=skasian;650721] A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.[QUOTE]

This logic can be applied to many other things in life. 

Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion. 

So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad. 

Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.

----------


## skasian

> This logic can be applied to many other things in life. 
> 
> Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion. 
> 
> So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad. 
> 
> Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.


To the atheists, the idea you have about religion may be frankly not wrong. However that is not the truth. In religion, people are prepared to do anything that is right in their religion therefore promote goodness in the world. In order to do this, they may indeed afflict harm to another. But it is for good reasons, prevent evil from overcoming the good. Revenge in the other hand, do not have a reason that promotes good over evil, and does not promote good to other people. Thus religion cannot be accounted to be in the same line as revenge. Furthermore, most religion, Christianity in particular advocates that revenge is evil and should not be conducted. The example of Jesus turning the other cheek in fact is a classic example that declares revenge as bad. As we all know Jesus was a man of perfectness, purity and all righteous, in support of religion, revenge is evil.

Your last quote "Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective" also supports the fact that you do believe that revenge cannot be ultimately declared wrong.

----------


## 0=2

Mr.Hyde just about punched this thing in the face on the first page and was just about ignored.

Good and bad are relative terms to end goals. Good and bad pertaining to what desired outcome?

The way I see it, pendulum's swing. Action-reaction. Yes, that is a symplification, for the action and reaction work on multiple different entwining levels at ANY level, but nontheless...

You hurt me or my friends, I hurt you or your friends. Why? Because. My reaction to you punching me is not to cower, that is counter-productive to momentary safety, excluding a few isolated cases of course. You punch me, I am going ot punch you back. Survival mechanisms train us to do this. Morals refine it.

When it come down to it, your morals on the situation are internalized and developed because of your environment. Your "good" or "bad" perception, or rather conception, is a pendulum in and of itself. The clock ticks it's tock, you talk your walk, and then eventually, when presented, do the vice-versa.

But good and bad... I mean define with hwat terms you will, but these are not only vague and relative, but childish, in my eyes.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Your last quote "Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective" also supports the fact that you do believe that revenge cannot be ultimately declared wrong.


Yes I thought I made myself quite clear that in my mind revenge in itself cannot be declared as wrong. That does not mean I support people who take it to the extrme, but the idea of revenge, and the act of getting revenge, I do not see as wrong. 




> In religion, people are prepared to do anything that is right in their religion therefore promote goodness in the world. In order to do this, they may indeed afflict harm to another. But it is for good reasons, prevent evil from overcoming the good.


So in your mind, it is ok to harm another person for thinking differently then you, for worshiping differently then you, and holding a different set of values, because it is "for a greater good" Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good. 

But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you. 

So you are not against revenge because you have moral qualms against hurting other people you just do not agree with the motive of revenge, but in certain circumstances you think it is justifiable to hurt another person.

By your logic, if someone rapes your mother, it would be wrong to kill them, but if your neighbors happen to be Hindu, it would be justifiable to burn their house down, if you happen to believe that their religion is evil.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

> Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good.


If it is not okay for the Christian to attack the Muslim for "stealing" his homeland (Jerusalem), then why is it okay for you to passive-aggressively demonstrate your "wrath" on those that you think have harmed you? You are a hypocrite.

Revenge is the excuse for these horrible crimes that you speak of. Nobody ever says "let's attack the Jew because he's different", they always list ways (false or true) in which the Jew has hurt us. Revenge blinds people and leads to further conflict. Now that you've attacked the Jew, he has a reason for hurting you. Don't you see this endless cycle? Ever heard of the crimes of Atreus? Agamemnon?

----------


## Dark Muse

There is a difference between some sort of generalized revenge, and a direct retaliation for something that was done personally to you. 

slaughtering an entire race, because of something that happened once upon a time ago, before you yourself was even born, is not the same, striking someone because they struck you first. 

And wars started over religion, are never just about "revenge" there is always some other gain to be had from it, some political, or finical advantage. It is more about gaining power, then simply just wanting to avenge yourself because you feel wronged.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

> And wars started over religion, are never just about "revenge" there is always some other gain to be had from it, some political, or finical advantage. It is more about gaining power, then simply just wanting to avenge yourself because you feel wronged.


Tell that to the Israelis and the Palestinians. They feel that their homeland has been taken. 

The state uses the war as a tool to gain power, yes you are right. But the soldier and the citizen support it because they support this notion of revenge. This leads to delusion and allows the state to further blind these people and use them (to gain more power from the other state).

----------


## Dark Muse

There is a difference between using the idea of revenge as a mask for alterior motives and comitting an act of revenge for revenge's sake. 





> The state uses the war as a tool to gain power, yes you are right. But the soldier and the citizen support it because they support this notion of revenge. This leads to delusion and allows the state to further blind these people and use them (to gain more power from the other state).


The exzact same thing can be said about religion. Religion is used in very much the same way. For the corrupt to blind the poeple with something they feel passionate about in order to futher thier own power and ambitions.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

Yes, but instead of enlightenment or spiritual awakening, revenge leads to nothing.

----------


## skasian

> Yes I thought I made myself quite clear that in my mind revenge in itself cannot be declared as wrong. That does not mean I support people who take it to the extrme, but the idea of revenge, and the act of getting revenge, I do not see as wrong. 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your mind, it is ok to harm another person for thinking differently then you, for worshiping differently then you, and holding a different set of values, because it is "for a greater good" Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good. 
> 
> But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you. 
> 
> So you are not against revenge because you have moral qualms against hurting other people you just do not agree with the motive of revenge, but in certain circumstances you think it is justifiable to hurt another person.
> ...



I cannot believe that you just contradicted yourself so obviously! 
"But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you." This is, my friend, the definition of revenge. You said it yourself. Revenge is indeed wrong.

It seems that you have the wrong knowledge of religion, you have gone off in a complete opposite tangent from the truth. Being a Christian, I am advised to commit conflict in minimum amount as much as possible. No matter how the other religion contrasts from Christianity, it is against the Will of God to harm them just because of their non belief in Christianity. Mankind, regardless a Christian or not, are all children of God and God cherishes every single of us with unconditional love. The last thing that God wants to do is hurt us. But it is evident that in the Bible that God did eliminate many people. But that was God, not us. In closer past, there have been ongoing disturbance in civilisation such as the fight between Protestants and Catholics. They argued which of them was the more holy religion and fought to death. This was against God's Will, and it was mankind that was wrong, not religion itself. Therefore you are having the wrong idea about religion and its morality. I believe that most religion promote the idea that injuring an opposition in any way is wrong and therefore promote revenge is bad and should be avoided.

----------


## 0=2

Nothing is only made in context to space and what your moral compass allows for.

Does it lead to an actual nothing, or is this place a blank spot you'd prefer better not to dwell in? Notice, there is a difference, and assuming the doorway itself is or isn't the door can be quite dangerous for those attempting to walk through it.

The nothing is imposed.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I cannot believe that you just contradicted yourself so obviously! 
> "But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you." This is, my friend, the definition of revenge. You said it yourself. Revenge is indeed wrong.


You misunderstood me. I was not stating that as my own personal beleif, sorry if I was unclear, but comparing your thoughts on revenge to your satatment that people who harm others in the name of religion are doing so for good, while those that are getting revenge is bad. 

I was speaking of your own viewpoint on the subject, but not cliaming it as my own view.

----------


## skasian

> You misunderstood me. I was not stating that as my own personal beleif, sorry if I was unclear, but comparing your thoughts on revenge to your satatment that people who harm others in the name of religion are doing so for good, while those that are getting revenge is bad. 
> 
> I was speaking of your own viewpoint on the subject, but not cliaming it as my own view.


Nevertheless, your statement is indeed correct. I hope that your misunderstanding in religion is changed, and that it cannot be compared in the same line as revenge. Mankind acting evil in the name of religion is wrong whereas religion is not. Religion opposes revenge and defines it as evil.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Nevertheless, your statement is indeed correct. I hope that your misunderstanding in religion is changed, and that it cannot be compared in the same line as revenge. Mankind acting evil in the name of religion is wrong whereas religion is not. Religion opposes revenge and defines it as evil.


Followers of a particular faith at times succumb to acts of violence and as today people fight for idealism.

----------


## skasian

> Followers of a particular faith at times succumb to acts of violence and as today people fight for idealism.


Religion promotes the sense of morality, sense of right and wrong. As religion promotes that revenge is a branch of violence, advocates that it is wrong.

----------


## 0=2

Right and wrong solidifying our... sense of self formed in... opposition to other which makes... agreement impossible because... the world view of one simply does not permit?

Religion, or rather monotheism, is simply too easy to debunk. There are very few Christians who really understand hteir own religion, and those who do usually belong to Gnostic sects and worry themselves not with PROVING the righteousness of their religion. Most that I have conversed with are in understanding and agreement that religion does not automatical install a benevolent demeanor into the believer, nor does it redeem, and nor has it always acted as "just".

In fact it is only the Gnostics and hardcore Orthodox ministers that seem to understand and even accept my absolute disdain for their faith.

As always, the enlightened few lead, and the rest waddle behind, arguing totemic responses and knee jerk quips as if it were essence. Or absolute.

----------


## Infinitefox

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my opinion:

A couple years ago, when I had just turned fourteen, this girl sorta wronged me. It wasn't some terrible thing that would take a very evil person to do, it was just something that girls do. So, anyways, I was very stupid and immature at the time, and my stupidity and immaturity led me to really try to mess up her life. I harassed her, called her with blocked numbers, tried to break up her and her boyfriend(I think I played a part in that happening, because they did break up), and harassed her friends.

My actions caused her to be afraid. At the time I just thought, "Oh well, she brought it on herself!", and I didn't think that what I was doing was wrong. I had fun doing it. But after I did it, I realized how wrong it was, and I confessed to her that it was me. 

My point is, revenge might seem like the best course of action, but all it does is breed evil in yourself, and you might regret what you do out of revenge. 

It's hard, very hard, for me to practice what I preach. I try not to think vengeful thoughts, but I do. After you fulfill your idea of revenge, it doesn't make you feel good. There's nothing there. No pot of gold at the end of your quest for revenge, just emptiness, and you realize your time was wasted.

----------


## skasian

> I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my opinion:
> 
> A couple years ago, when I had just turned fourteen, this girl sorta wronged me. It wasn't some terrible thing that would take a very evil person to do, it was just something that girls do. So, anyways, I was very stupid and immature at the time, and my stupidity and immaturity led me to really try to mess up her life. I harassed her, called her with blocked numbers, tried to break up her and her boyfriend(I think I played a part in that happening, because they did break up), and harassed her friends.
> 
> My actions caused her to be afraid. At the time I just thought, "Oh well, she brought it on herself!", and I didn't think that what I was doing was wrong. I had fun doing it. But after I did it, I realized how wrong it was, and I confessed to her that it was me. 
> 
> My point is, revenge might seem like the best course of action, but all it does is breed evil in yourself, and you might regret what you do out of revenge. 
> 
> It's hard, very hard, for me to practice what I preach. I try not to think vengeful thoughts, but I do. After you fulfill your idea of revenge, it doesn't make you feel good. There's nothing there. No pot of gold at the end of your quest for revenge, just emptiness, and you realize your time was wasted.


I agree. May I ask what is that you preach?

----------


## Infinitefox

> I agree. May I ask what is that you preach?


Basically what I preach is what I said in my post. I am against revenge, like I said. When I said it's hard for me to practice what I preach, I meant that it's hard for me to not want to attempt revenge, because it's just so easy to do it. Wouldn't it be so easy to kill someone who killed your best friend?

----------


## skasian

Good on you, I completely agree with your views. I believe that when we revenge, our acts make us no different to the offencer that had committed evil. Therefore it makes us equally evil.

----------


## Delta40

Aren't we getting off track here? The question is whether revenge is a good thing or a bad thing. The context to which you apply this is not so relevant as the question itself. Is it? Do you think there is an event, topic or instance where it is justified in one area but not in another? What tosh! Religion smigeon! The question has as much standing as an infantile nursing of revenge against bully jones in the school yard who pulled our pigtails till we cried. 

What about considering the self is greater than the hurts inflicted against us and rising above them? One does not need to even forgive the perpetrator of those infringements. We simply need to find peace within. One of the more interesting pursuits in life really. That does involve letting go. It takes energy to hate. We have to feed it, stoke it to keep the fire burning because if we don't, it will dissipate. That is a choice we make in our own life and something which the other person who 'wronged' us has nothing to do with. This ultimately means any ongoing need for revenge is our problem and nobody else's. We become the self-harmer of our own being, our own negative energy, aura, presence and other people who are around us feel it. Bully jones certainly doesn't. 

This is of course a considered opinion. My journey is too interesting to be hampered by self-inflicted bullcrap

----------


## skasian

> Aren't we getting off track here? The question is whether revenge is a good thing or a bad thing. The context to which you apply this is not so relevant as the question itself. Is it? Do you think there is an event, topic or instance where it is justified in one area but not in another? What tosh! Religion smigeon! The question has as much standing as an infantile nursing of revenge against bully jones in the school yard who pulled our pigtails till we cried. 
> 
> What about considering the self is greater than the hurts inflicted against us and rising above them? One does not need to even forgive the perpetrator of those infringements. We simply need to find peace within. One of the more interesting pursuits in life really. That does involve letting go. It takes energy to hate. We have to feed it, stoke it to keep the fire burning because if we don't, it will dissipate. That is a choice we make in our own life and something which the other person who 'wronged' us has nothing to do with. This ultimately means any ongoing need for revenge is our problem and nobody else's. We become the self-harmer of our own being, our own negative energy, aura, presence and other people who are around us feel it. Bully jones certainly doesn't. 
> 
> This is of course a considered opinion. My journey is too interesting to be hampered by self-inflicted bullcrap


How are we going off track? We are discussing on why we think that revenge is good or bad and we are stating why we agree or disagree with someone as a discussion. All our discussion is about one thing, whether we think revenge is a good or bad.

I think that your post is most off track infact. Your views is rather pivoting around whether revenge is necessary or not. So what is your overall view in revenge, is it good or bad?

----------


## Delta40

For your further clarification, I don't support revenge. Especially when revenge is sought upon me or loved ones for things they did.

I'm tired of hearing about the death sentence as justice. If somebody killed my child....It's human to react this way. A desire to avenge those who harmed your loved is part of the grieving process. It is a component - not the be all and end all of who we are.

Imagine instead that your child is the perpetrator. Your desire for mercy and compassion would be just as strong. It is human to react this way too. Understanding that we must be accountable for our actions, we would not light torches and lead a mob to their door.


I hope this makes sense.

----------


## skasian

> For your further clarification, I don't support revenge. Especially when revenge is sought upon me or loved ones for things they did.
> 
> I'm tired of hearing about the death sentence as justice. If somebody killed my child....It's human to react this way. A desire to avenge those who harmed your loved is part of the grieving process. It is a component - not the be all and end all of who we are.
> 
> Imagine instead that your child is the perpetrator. Your desire for mercy and compassion would be just as strong. It is human to react this way too. Understanding that we must be accountable for our actions, we would not light torches and lead a mob to their door.
> 
> 
> I hope this makes sense.


I agree that revenge should not supported and that death sentences should be eliminated from being recognised as justice. However I have to disagree that it is not human to take another's life away. Being human does not mean we are a bad species however murderers must be considered as bad, what ever the murder's reasons are. Being human does not call the idea that we can kill each other.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Religion promotes the sense of morality, sense of right and wrong. As religion promotes that revenge is a branch of violence, advocates that it is wrong.


Religion also premotes violence and war. 

You can say all you want that Relgion is good and inspires good, and denounces revenge. But you know the old saying actions speak louder then words?

Well the events of both history and present day speak louder then your idealogy

----------


## Dark Muse

> Imagine instead that your child is the perpetrator. Your desire for mercy and compassion would be just as strong. It is human to react this way too. Understanding that we must be accountable for our actions, we would not light torches and lead a mob to their door.


If I had a child that killed another in pure cold blood, or if they were responsible for another's death directly because they were acting irresponsibility. 

Then they would deserve to day, regardless of my personal feelings, that does not change the deed that has been done, and I would not support their actions or plead for them. They would have to be held responsible for the choice they made. 

That does not mean I would want them to die, but what I would want has nothing to do with it and I would not think the harmed party were evil or bad for wanting the death of my child if they suffered becasue of him/her.

----------


## Ohmyscience

Interesting topic. Revenge is most likely necessary. Not because it serves a purpose but it satisfies a sense of justice people have. Consider capital punishment. It does nothing for the victim of the crime perpetrated since most likely the victim is dead therefore punishing the culprit only relieves the need the for justice of those that survive the victims death. Revenge can also serve as a deterrant for the acts that disrupt a cohesive society. Therefore IMO revenge definately a good thing.

----------


## Delta40

> That does not mean I would want them to die, but what I would want has nothing to do with it and I would not think the harmed party were evil or bad for wanting the death of my child if they suffered becasue of him/her.


I don't think the family or friends would be evil either Dark Muse. My point is their wants are no greater than yours and if you say your wants have nothing to do with your loved one, why should their wants have anything to do with their loved one?

----------


## Dark Muse

> I don't think the family or friends would be evil either Dark Muse. My point is their wants are no greater than yours and if you say your wants have nothing to do with your loved one, why should their wants have anything to do with their loved one?


Becasue they are the ones who are truly the injured party. Something my loved one did, directly casued them pain and grief. And for me I am taking the wants and feelings of both sides out of it. And stating simply that for one life, it is justified to take another. 

If a loved one of mine murdered another person, for that it would be justice for them to die. I really would have no right to exepct otherwise. 

But those that have been injured would have a right to exepct the person guilty to pay the price.

----------


## Delta40

I don't disagree with you that people would respond in this way. It goes without saying that people react and on an emotional level too when they feel they have been wronged. My point is that their feelings in the matter are not more relevant than the mother, say of the perpertrator who has committed the wrong. This is the human factor. What a person wants, especially at the emotional level in this scenario does not make it right or even just. 

The question is not about the rights of those who have been injured but whether revenge, not justice is a good thing. It is just to hold people accountable for their actions. 

Perhaps a clear distinction between revenge and justice is needed.

----------


## Delta40

Furthermore, as far as revenge goes, if my son sexually molested a six year old then is it just for his six year old son to be molested?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Furthermore, as far as revenge goes, if my son sexually molested a six year old then is it just for his six year old son to be molested?


I had explained this once previously in the thread, but sense you are new to the discussion I shall explain again. 

An Eye for an Eye, in the case of revenge is not meant to be taken to the letter literally, no one with any common sense would. 

But it simply means that the revenge must be equal to the harm given. 

i.e. the rule of an eye for an eye, does not mean it is ok to shoot someone because they verbally insulted you. That would be a clear overreaction.

So that does not mean that if a person molests a child their child then should be molested. Revenge should only be acted out directly against the individually responsible, I do not support hurting innocent people in the name of revenge. The molesters child has nothing to do with the actions of his father. 

But I do think it would be perfectly just to kill a man who molested your kid. I see in situations of rape and molestation murder being a justifiable response. I have always believe that Rape and Molestation should qualify for the death penalty in a court of law.

----------


## JacobF

Revenge is a materialized emotion. We feel victimized and distraught when someone harms us or a loved one. So, we think it makes sense to 'return the favour' -- an eye for an eye. But this achieves nothing, other than maybe a petty sense of self worth. It usually further escalates into a bigger and more heated feud. It's usually how fights start -- one guy punches another guy in a bar. The other guy punches back, and so it continues. The cops come and they are both arrested. What have they gained?

Even in the most dire of circumstances, such as the murder of your family, revenge is not worth carrying out. It is more of an immediate, blood-lust emotion rather than a sensible one. That does not mean everyone should be completely passive. Stand your ground, be assertive and establish yourself as a person. You aren't doing that when you take revenge on somebody.

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind" -- Mohatma Gandhi

(Still, I don't completely hate revenge. It makes good stories >_>)

----------


## Delta40

I agree Jacob. As I said previously it is often at the emotional level that revenge is sought. My next quote, but you stole it (I want revenge - NOW!) is Ghandi's an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. 

It seems to me the taking of another's life is a value which you consider fitting and socially acceptable based on your definition of 'common sense' and my proposed vengeance repulses you. What about those that interpret revenge differently from you? Are they simply wrong and your more 'balanced' view right?

----------


## Dark Muse

> It seems to me the taking of another's life is a value which you consider fitting and socially acceptable based on your definition of 'common sense' and my proposed vengeance repulses you. What about those that interpret revenge differently from you? Are they simply wrong and your more 'balanced' view right?


Revenge is subjective like Religion. I have my own code of ethics and morals, in the way I view revenge. Does this make me right and everyone else wrong? Well I could not say that anymore then it can be said that one religion or one interpretation of a religion is right compared to another. 

Both in religion and revenge people will make it mean what they want. And there is no absolute way to determine who is right and who is wrong. But you cannot declare a concept to be bad, in of itself because some people might misuse it, or have a less favorable interpretation of what it means. 

In anything in life, there will be people who go to extremes. 

I do not declare myself as the "god" of determining what is and what is not the proper way to get revenge, but clearly I do hold my views as the better ones, or I would not have them. 

And just because I support the concept of revenge, does not mean I believe in anything and everything goes, and that all forms and methods of revenge are correct or right. 

Anymore then most people who support religion I do not think would approve of the actions of the Inquisition, yet it was for religion and in the name of religion that they were acting. To denounce their actions, does one also have to denounce all religion? 

It is the same as revenge. To denounce the actions of some people. does not mean revenge in of itself must also be denounced.

----------


## Delta40

> Both in religion and revenge people will make it mean what they want. And there is no absolute way to determine who is right and who is wrong. But you cannot declare a concept to be bad, in of itself because some people might misuse it, or have a less favorable interpretation of what it means. 
> 
> In anything in life, there will be people who go to extremes.


That is really well said. Thank you Dark Muse. If nothing else, it reinforces my belief that revenge is not a good thing. To suggest that a concept is a bad thing is like implying it is evil. I don't believe that is what is at stake here. Is it wise to employ revenge at any time? Is it better to acknowledge it as an emotional response to sets of circumstance that we may be faced with throughout our lives and it drives us to act accordingly. It isn't a determinant. I might feel vengeful but what I do in response to the way I feel is in my control.

----------


## skasian

> Religion also premotes violence and war. 
> 
> You can say all you want that Relgion is good and inspires good, and denounces revenge. But you know the old saying actions speak louder then words?
> 
> Well the events of both history and present day speak louder then your idealogy


I believe that you misunderstand religion. Not all religions do not promote violence and any form. Followers of religion that are human can promote violence just as other human being. I have told you before that most religion promote that violence should be held against therefore revenge should be avoided.

----------


## Dark Muse

I understand religion perfectly well. I just do not hold such a rosy naive view. The Church itself has been an insitituiton of violence and warfare. There are ways one could interepet the Bible or other holy books to suggest that it does support violence and holy war. There is no absolute way to declare that thier intiripitation is wrong. You may disagree, but there are those that can find in the bibile justfication for thier violence, and there is no acurate proof to declare they are wrong. 

The Bibile was used to support slavory.

----------


## skasian

> I understand religion perfectly well. I just do not hold such a rosy naive view. The Church itself has been an insitituiton of violence and warfare. There are ways one could interepet the Bible or other holy books to suggest that it does support violence and holy war. There is no absolute way to declare that thier intiripitation is wrong. You may disagree, but there are those that can find in the bibile justfication for thier violence, and there is no acurate proof to declare they are wrong. 
> 
> The Bibile was used to support slavory.


The Church are holy temples followers of religion attend to, and let me stress the word followers - they are human too, and they arent unflawed to commit sin, and in a way, violence. Even though any one can pick up a bible and interpret it in anyway they like, in the true Christian aspect, they may be wrong. For example an atheist said that as the bible tells us to avoid eating pigs, but in true Christian aspect, as Jesus sacrificed for us, these rules do not apply to us any more.
Overall, all Christians know that the bible is against sin, and violence is included, as well as revenge. Any one can read the bible and interpret that bible supports violence, however a deeply devoted Christian will always declare that we should avoid violence at all cost. God may act in away that appears violent, however He is God. We arent therefore we are not to commit any act that resembles violence.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Overall, all Christians know that the bible is against sin, and violence is included, as well as revenge. Any one can read the bible and interpret that bible supports violence, however a deeply devoted Christian will always declare that we should avoid violence at all cost. God may act in away that appears violent, however He is God. We arent therefore we are not to commit any act that resembles violence.


But as you said, you are not God, so you have no true authority to declare whoes way of intepreting the Bibile is correct and whose is wrong. You may diagree with people who use it to support violence, but there is no way to say in abolsute certaintiy how it was or was not meant to be interepeted.

----------


## skasian

> But as you said, you are not God, so you have no true authority to declare whoes way of intepreting the Bibile is correct and whose is wrong. You may diagree with people who use it to support violence, but there is no way to say in abolsute certaintiy how it was or was not meant to be interepeted.


Wouldnt this be certain if the Word of the bible specifically talks about that violence should not be triggered? With such specific words, there should be no multiple interpretations. For example when Jesus told us that we must turn the other cheek, I heavily doubt that there would be multiple interpretations that revenge is bad and that we must forgive and love our enemies. (There is actually a verse that says we must love our enemies.) Now do you think that there are multiple interpretation to such direct words?

----------


## Dark Muse

> Wouldnt this be certain if the Word of the bible specifically talks about that violence should not be triggered? With such specific words, there should be no multiple interpretations. For example when Jesus told us that we must turn the other cheek, I heavily doubt that there would be multiple interpretations that revenge is bad and that we must forgive and love our enemies. (There is actually a verse that says we must love our enemies.) Now do you think that there are multiple interpretation to such direct words?


I know there are contridctions in the Bibile and while it may say that in one passage, one could find another passage in the Bible that could support exzactly the oppisite. So perhaps those ezazct words cannot be interepted in another way. Other words also within the Bible could support a different view.

So now are you going to declare which words are correct in the Bible and which words are not?

----------


## Delta40

I miss alot of things. How does this question, this thread arrive at a religious context?

----------


## Dark Muse

It all started with some argument against revenge that skasian preposed, and I pointed that if you simply replaced the word revenge with the word religion, using her own logic, and reasoning, her arugment would come to the conclusion that religion must be declared as bad for the same reasons she declared revenge is bad. 

And from there we have had this side arugment going on about religion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It all started with some argument against revenge that skasian preposed, and I pointed that if you simply replaced the word revenge with the word religion, using her own logic, and reasoning, her arugment would come to the conclusion that religion must be declared as bad for the same reasons she declared revenge is bad. 
> 
> And from there we have had this side arugment going on about religion.


You can't equate "revenge" with "religion" because the former is a clearly definable action - I get back at you for a wrong you did to me. The word "religion," however, encompasses many different beliefs, and as such, is not as narrowly definable as "revenge." The two are not equal in terms of how we approach them in this kind of discussion. If skasian's logic is faulty, demonstrate so, but do so without grinding your anti-religion axe because in this case; it is not an apt substitution by virtue of the very difference in how you define the two terms.

----------


## Delta40

The reason I ask everyone is because I am interested in following the discussion to address the question itself. I notice as I'm sure you all do since many of you are in other threads under religious texts where lively discussions are taking place regarding religion specifically. This isn't, yet it finds its way there nevertheless. Is it because the primary contributors would rather use this context and are not really comfortable looking at other ways of addressing the question? I am interested to know. Can it be addressed effectively in many ways?

----------


## skasian

> I know there are contridctions in the Bibile and while it may say that in one passage, one could find another passage in the Bible that could support exzactly the oppisite. So perhaps those ezazct words cannot be interepted in another way. Other words also within the Bible could support a different view.
> 
> So now are you going to declare which words are correct in the Bible and which words are not?


I never declared that some words of the bible are right whereas the others are wrong, may I ask what made you think this way? I believe that the words within the bible are all correct, but some aspects in the old testiments such as law of Moses are not held accountable these days since Jesus sacrificed for us. Some laws include not trading on Sundays, sacrificing animals to God and most of the rules kept by Jews.

----------


## skasian

> The reason I ask everyone is because I am interested in following the discussion to address the question itself. I notice as I'm sure you all do since many of you are in other threads under religious texts where lively discussions are taking place regarding religion specifically. This isn't, yet it finds its way there nevertheless. Is it because the primary contributors would rather use this context and are not really comfortable looking at other ways of addressing the question? I am interested to know. Can it be addressed effectively in many ways?


Are you implying that we should avoid religion? If so, then why do you consider that using this context prevents us from being adressed effectively? If anyone is uncomfortable with this context, then simply let anyone of us know and we can some how flex away from the context.

----------


## Delta40

> Are you implying that we should avoid religion? If so, then why do you consider that using this context prevents us from being adressed effectively? If anyone is uncomfortable with this context, then simply let anyone of us know and we can some how flex away from the context.


I don't imply. I state what I wish to say and its written in my post. Where possible, I endeavour to communicate clearly as I have been following some of these threads for a while and I don't want to be misunderstood. If you are not clear about what I am saying, read the post again or ask me to clarify further.

----------


## skasian

> I don't imply. I state what I wish to say and its written in my post. Where possible, I endeavour to communicate clearly as I have been following some of these threads for a while and I don't want to be misunderstood. If you are not clear about what I am saying, read the post again or ask me to clarify further.


"The reason I ask everyone is because I am interested in following the discussion to address the question itself. I notice as I'm sure you all do since many of you are in other threads under religious texts where lively discussions are taking place regarding religion specifically. This isn't, yet it finds its way there nevertheless. Is it because the primary contributors would rather use this context and are not really comfortable looking at other ways of addressing the question? I am interested to know. Can it be addressed effectively in many ways?"

You simply asked that can this thread be addressed in different ways other than religion. That is precisely my point and it seems I have not misunderstood you, it seems that you want us to bend away to link and discuss with different contexts other than religion. And no, we are comfortable looking at other ways of linking this context other than religion. If you read Darkmuses previous post, it says clearly how the context religion was used to support the idea that revenge is bad in her terms.

----------


## Delta40

> And no, we are comfortable looking at other ways of linking this context other than religion.


Skasian, I will take that to mean 'yes Delta, we can address this question in many different ways'

Thank you

----------


## skasian

Delta let me ask you a direct question. A person that you were arguing starts to swear, and in one culminating point, that person slaps you in the face, what is your first impulse towards their action? Would you hit them back or hold back.
Reason why I ask this is because I just want to see whether a random person will avenge themselves or not in reflex. I am not talking about action after consideration, I am talking about straight reflexes, the impulse we human being all possess as an innate behaviour which tell us to avenge ourselves as a form of defence. I wonder if there is any one that has the innate behaviour of accepting an attack without striking back at the offender. I believe morality is one of the few factors that help us decide not to attack back therefore avenge ourselves.

----------


## billyjack

> . I wonder if there is any one that has the innate behaviour of accepting an attack without striking back at the offender.


yeah, a wimp. its immoral not to strike back. the striker will get the idea he can go around hitting folks.

----------


## Zee.

I dont think revenge can be classified as a good or bad thing. It is very dependant upon the person and i dont judge them for that. If you feel, in your heart - that it's okay, and you can live with the aftermath, then so be it. It depends on what ground your standing on, and your perspective. 

If someone slaughtered my entire family, then id probably kill the person who did it.
Because in that sense my natural very human rage would take over and my sense of deciding what is wrong and right, which is a learned - in my opinion, behaviour, is overruled.

----------


## skasian

> yeah, a wimp. its immoral not to strike back. the striker will get the idea he can go around hitting folks.


A wimp you say, mental and physically weak? This reminds me of The Idiot by Dostoevsky, where people claim he is intellectually weak just because he accpted people doing bad to him without striking back. The idea Dostoevsky wants to express is outside the value what people think about you, isnt the moral that is important? 
Let look at why the striker wont get the idea to go around hitting folks. The average person is not insane, therefore wont go around hitting people for no reason. Let consider what happens if youdo strike back. A fight begins and punching and kicking involves. Do you think violence is the way of things? Do you think that a person must give up and surrender in bloodshed in order to finish a conflict? surely there must be a better method of dealing with conflict.

----------


## skasian

> I dont think revenge can be classified as a good or bad thing. It is very dependant upon the person and i dont judge them for that. If you feel, in your heart - that it's okay, and you can live with the aftermath, then so be it. It depends on what ground your standing on, and your perspective. 
> 
> If someone slaughtered my entire family, then id probably kill the person who did it.
> Because in that sense my natural very human rage would take over and my sense of deciding what is wrong and right, which is a learned - in my opinion, behaviour, is overruled.


Say you killed the assassinator but their group comes along and burn your house down, a constant turns of revenge. What do you think revenge in this case is? As it magnified the problem, wouldnt this be bad?

----------


## Zee.

Yeah i guess i never thought of it that way...

But then again, i guess in a situation where i would seek revenge, i wouldnt be thinking about the consequences.

If someone burned my house down, id probably burn theirs down - being even more illogical, it'd probably turn into a huge fight until one of us or both of us were dead.


Now - that is revenge at it's most dramatic.
If someone did something nasty to me, it would depend on the situation if i responded.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I never declared that some words of the bible are right whereas the others are wrong, may I ask what made you think this way? I believe that the words within the bible are all correct, but some aspects in the old testiments such as law of Moses are not held accountable these days since Jesus sacrificed for us. Some laws include not trading on Sundays, sacrificing animals to God and most of the rules kept by Jews.


I was not implying that you were saying that. But making the point, if you
say that religion is against violence, becasue Jesus says turn the other cheek.

If there is another passage in the bible that supports violence 

Well then you are suggesting that the passages that are against violence are more correct then the ones that support violence.

----------


## skasian

> I was not implying that you were saying that. But making the point, if you
> say that religion is against violence, becasue Jesus says turn the other cheek.
> 
> If there is another passage in the bible that supports violence 
> 
> Well then you are suggesting that the passages that are against violence are more correct then the ones that support violence.


Do you mind if you could please give that passage that supports violence? I never been across a passage that supports violence in a way that tell us that it is acceptable. 

I am suggesting that because there seems to be no passage that tells us that we should commit violence, and there is a very direct passage that tells us revenge should be avoided. (yes turn other cheek is one) As there cant be another interpretation that revenge is bad, it is simple, bible tells us that violence, especially in form of violence, is unacceptable.

----------


## skasian

> Yeah i guess i never thought of it that way...
> 
> But then again, i guess in a situation where i would seek revenge, i wouldnt be thinking about the consequences.
> 
> If someone burned my house down, id probably burn theirs down - being even more illogical, it'd probably turn into a huge fight until one of us or both of us were dead.
> 
> 
> Now - that is revenge at it's most dramatic.
> If someone did something nasty to me, it would depend on the situation if i responded.


Yes, if one of you ended up dead, then it would mean revenge is unacceptable as revenge resulted in avoidable death. This unacceptability would mean it is obviously bad no matter the measure of damage caused.

----------


## Zee.

Yes but i still dont see it as "bad"

I mean, take cause and reaction.

Someone kills my family, my reaction - i kill them.
Sounds extreme yes, but to me, it'd be almost instinctual.

----------


## skasian

> Yes but i still dont see it as "bad"
> 
> I mean, take cause and reaction.
> 
> Someone kills my family, my reaction - i kill them.
> Sounds extreme yes, but to me, it'd be almost instinctual.


Most everything in our lives are simply reaction. The act of stealing an apple from a store because you are hungry can be regarded as a reaction. But in moral aspect, it is wrong. If you think this way revenge I believe is also wrong as it involves someone acting wrong (ie killing) in order to satisfy one self.

----------


## Zee.

As a buddhist, it should be against my nature to kill, anything for that matter.
I mean, i save ants from the damn shower...

but..the thought of someone wiping out my family, its hard to banish the thought of killing from my mind

----------


## Zee.

As a buddhist, it should be against my nature to kill, anything for that matter.
I mean, i save ants from the damn shower...

but..the thought of someone wiping out my family, its hard to banish the thought of killing from my mind

----------


## skasian

Talking of Buddhism, I think it seems inevitable for a religious person to link religion with revenge, just as limajean you did. The reason why I am bringing this point is because delta40 suggested that people should look for other ways of discussing revenge other than religion. In order to satisfy his suggestion, may be we should not include religion in this thread any longer.

Delta40, the only reason why we religious users link revenge with religion is because sense of morality is discussed in this thread: revenge, and religion promotes a strong sense of morality therefore, it becomes natural for us to link religion with nature of revenge.

----------


## Zee.

Both religous and non religious people have morals, this dictates one's approach to revenge, i believe.
Then again, theres a big difference between what you want to do and what you're told - by religious beliefs, you shouldn't do.

----------


## skasian

> Both religous and non religious people have morals, this dictates one's approach to revenge, i believe.
> Then again, theres a big difference between what you want to do and what you're told - by religious beliefs, you shouldn't do.


True, but the religious beliefs that tells people what they should do and what they should avoid are based by morality, always telling us to do the good over the bad. Except for the religions that promote freewill of course, however karma seems to promote good as well: Do the right thing to get good things back to you.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Do you mind if you could please give that passage that supports violence? I never been across a passage that supports violence in a way that tell us that it is acceptable. 
> 
> I am suggesting that because there seems to be no passage that tells us that we should commit violence, and there is a very direct passage that tells us revenge should be avoided. (yes turn other cheek is one) As there cant be another interpretation that revenge is bad, it is simple, bible tells us that violence, especially in form of violence, is unacceptable.


I don't have the Bible memorized but I am sure with a little looking into I can find one.

----------


## Delta40

Isn't the old an eye for an eye very misquoted and taken totally out of context? What I mean to say so I am not misunderstood is this: Jesus totally refuted this approach and recommended turning the other cheek. Still, even today people conveniently extract that one line, as if it were some sort of justification for revenge and say because it is written in the bible, it is legitimate.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

I've posted this in another thread but it is of interest to this disscusion if you want to see the Buddhist take on the matter. (You could put me firmly in the non-revenge camp.)

The Parable of the Saw
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...021x.budd.html

It is featured right at the bottom of the link posted if you want to read it.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Isn't the old an eye for an eye very misquoted and taken totally out of context? What I mean to say so I am not misunderstood is this: Jesus totally refuted this approach and recommended turning the other cheek. Still, even today people conveniently extract that one line, as if it were some sort of justification for revenge and say because it is written in the bible, it is legitimate.


But if you say, that is not legtimate just becasue it is written in the Bible, then nothing in the Bibile can be called "legitimate" 

For who is to determine what passages are more legitmate then others?

----------


## Delta40

That is my point! People extract what they want to use and apply incorrect interpretation. They don't look at the context in which it is said. That is what makes the part passage they use non-legitimate.

----------


## Dark Muse

Though people take An eye for an eye out of context, the passage still supports the use of violence, as well as captial punishment for certain offesneces. 

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death
(That is a pretty clear cut case for the death pently right there) 

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. 
(The execution of unruly children) 

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money
(It is ok to beat your slaves as long as they survive the beating)

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. 
(It's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating. But avoid excessive damage to their eyes or teeth. Otherwise you may have to set them free.)

But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
(If your ox kills someone, you should be put to death, and your ox stoned to death)

----------


## Ohmyscience

Interesting how revenge is tied up so much with religion and morality. The word revenge has negative connotations in the west. However if replace with other similar words like vindicate or retribution does it become easier to argue for? 

skasian I do not know the exact passage in the bible but in the old testiment god is vengeful and he also commands his people to commit genocide. Of course if you do not refer to the old testament the new testament has problems as well. Can you really turn the other cheek knowing full well the perpetrator will harm others in the future?

I'm curious about the aphorism an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. This only applies to two parties with unsettled and differing ideas of justice. In homogenous societies punishment for heinous crimes are agreed upon. Technically it leaves two people blind?

----------


## Jozanny

I don't know about the cost of revenge itself, as even Dumas makes his 19th century superhero, the Count, exact too high a price, but the cost of not acting can also do you physiological harm, that I know. I was hurt, psychologically, and economically, by both a woman and an institution surrounding her, repeatedly over the years, after my career ended at another org they had partnered with, essentially meaning I still had a professional relationship with the first.

I am now about to get serious, and hire an attorney, file the appropriate grievance with the appropriate authority, and yet my inner psyche watching me dance like Bonzo wonders what I am going to achieve? Even in the event that I *win* concessions, or a settlement, can I really fix a broken and corrupt system that is a nationwide pathology of lies? (If you ask how I know this, I have met numerous former and angry disabled employees of said institution(s) which are federally mandated, but state controlled.)

In proportion to the degree of my anger, I am beginning to feel that the Italian mafia is, to a great degree, a cultural ingenuity.

Part of me in fact just wants to do something radical, like flee to Italy, and then continue to fight with my pen. Part of me wishes I had the brawn to send my former colleague to sleep with the fishes. The other part remembers how much I had once valued her friendship. I had a *talk* with her former boss this evening; he is dying. No one says anything but it is self-evident, as I knew him before his strokes and heart attacks. He doesn't want me to sue, and once more, tries to pacify me, even though he profited by certain events which caused me great suffering--and this time, it isn't enough. Not that I believed in him, her, or the old guard I came up with.

Perhaps I'll be sleeping with the fishes when the dust settles; maybe I should have fought back sooner. Maybe it is too late altogether.

----------


## skasian

> I don't have the Bible memorized but I am sure with a little looking into I can find one.


I see you have provided passages that does contains reference of violence. But I assume this was taken out from the old testiment. If it is, then this is part of Law of Moses, where it is now unaccountable. It is because when Jesus was preaching, he altered the old rules.

----------


## skasian

> That is my point! People extract what they want to use and apply incorrect interpretation. They don't look at the context in which it is said. That is what makes the part passage they use non-legitimate.


When the extract is directly straight forward then there is no chance of having an incorrect interpretation. As we were discussing revenge, the extract about Jesus turns the other cheek cant have multiple interpretation other than be forgiving and to avoid violence and revenge. If you want more information, read the context, it makes the extract even more straight forward.

----------


## skasian

> Interesting how revenge is tied up so much with religion and morality. The word revenge has negative connotations in the west. However if replace with other similar words like vindicate or retribution does it become easier to argue for? 
> 
> skasian I do not know the exact passage in the bible but in the old testiment god is vengeful and he also commands his people to commit genocide. Of course if you do not refer to the old testament the new testament has problems as well. Can you really turn the other cheek knowing full well the perpetrator will harm others in the future?


Ah, then there is the power of speech and persuation to help the offender from acting violent in the future. Turn the other cheek does not necessary mean that we should be dumbfolded and do nothing about the damage. Jesus gives an insight that violence is not the answer and there are other methods of approaching conflict. For example, talk to them without violence and revenge to smooth things out.

----------


## Delta40

> an incorrect interpretation. .



Thanks for agreeing with me Skasian

----------


## skasian

> Thanks for agreeing with me Skasian


I beg your pardon? I said NO CHANCE of an incorrect interpretation. Unless this is a lame joke, you should read more carefully.

----------


## Delta40

I believe people do the same thing with partial extracts from the bible Skasian. They take them out of context. Thanks for assisting me.

----------


## skasian

> I believe people do the same thing with partial extracts from the bible Skasian. They take them out of context. Thanks for assisting me.


Please tell me why you think this way, how does a person take out a small segment of extracts that can result in an entirely different interpretation? I have never been across this, nor the person who does this.

----------


## Delta40

matthew 5:38-5:39

Concerning Revenge

38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

----------


## Jozanny

> matthew 5:38-5:39
> 
> Concerning Revenge
> 
> 38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;


Which creates a convenient martyr complex. We are sitting wherever we are sitting, on machines which were not even on the radar screen of our grandparents, connected by electric pulses or satellite signals, and a simple majority can do nothing more advanced with a moral issue, one that is covered by many great writers, even geniuses, than to toss around 2000 year old texts not even properly translated from ancient Hebrew into Shakespeare's English, let alone modern English.

It is stuff like this that makes it seem remarkable to me that the modern human lasted 100,000 years. Like language itself, we must be an evolutionary accident which evolution itself will correct within the next thousand years, if not less.

I am ashamed at what we cling to. I really am.

----------


## Delta40

I am not ashamed of the history of humankind. It loves. It learns. It errs. It aspires. It inspires.

----------


## billyjack

> isnt the moral that is important?


there is no moral certainty in specific situations. you're looking for moral absolutes--which have a similar reality to that of the tooth fairy




> Do you think violence is the way of things?


i dont think violence is _the_ way of things. but it is _a_ way. peaceful civil disobedience, for example, has it place, but its just one of many responses to violence. for instance: do you really think the world can deal with radical islam by way of peaceful resolution?




> Do you think that a person must give up and surrender in bloodshed in order to finish a conflict? surely there must be a better method of dealing with conflict.


until we master jedi mindtricks, peaceful conflict resolution can only be an ideal to strive for, not the rule to live by.

----------


## Dark Muse

One thing I find interesting that I am starting to notice here, is the way in which revenge is automaticaly being tied into voilence. In my mind the two do not have to be synomouous with each other. While exmpales have been made, by myself included of extreme cases in which violence is used, this seems to be truning more into an argument of trying to justifiy the use of violence in some circumstances and moving more away from the act and nature of revenge in of itself. 

You know there are ways in which a person can relitalite against another where no one is physcialy harmed, and where there need no be any bloodshed of violence. Revenge does not by default equal violence. 

Just look at the things you could do to a person using computers and the interenet.

----------


## Jozanny

Dark has a good point--but I think how we act to some degree conditions the end result. I was interested in the posts of members who acted, (perhaps with a little extra-legality) and regretted it--which is why I posted a little of my story--to show that not acting has consequence, as my health and well-being has suffered--and not just by the cruelty of the institution, but by my inability to come to peace with it.

As I indicated, part of me wants to drop this, as there is always going to be internal dynamics under which a certain percentage of people get chewed up and spit out--and yet, in a way I know so much that my own feelings of principle says "fight to fix it."

I am not any saint. I have a terrible temper and have had my share of thriller fantasies where I get my power back at the point of a gun--which is at once laughable, but also corrosive to me, as violence strips us of positive civilizing influences.

But if I fight the right way, then maybe I too join the chorus that puts enough pressure on policy makers to change the rules which cater to the abuses.

Revenge, as a word, has a kind of onerous quality. I think previous posts have pointed this out, but vindication is more positive, and connotes victory has been achieved.

----------


## Delta40

I agree that revenge does not have to involve violence. Of course, your discussion opens up a can of worms there. What is violence?

----------


## Dark Muse

For the sake of this discussion I am decalaring violence meaning physically assulting another person. Causing physical injury and pain, or death.

----------


## JacobF

> I agree that revenge does not have to involve violence. Of course, your discussion opens up a can of worms there. What is violence?


Violence is inflicting physical harm upon someone else. I don't see how that definition can be embellished upon, because I can't imagine violence as anything other than just that. 

I guess we view revenge as a violent act because of the cultural connotations it carries. Almost all the mobster movies portray revenge as beating the victim to a bloody pulp. In Shakespeare, Hamlet wants to kill Claudius, Shylock wants a pound of Antonio's flesh, and so forth. It's just easier to imagine revenge being carried out as a violent act rather than, for instance, stealing.

----------


## Dark Muse

Yes that is true, but then look at highschool, which I am sure most of us has experinced. There revenge, generally tends to come in the form of gossip, and slander, writing phone numbers on bathroom walls. And today probably involves postings on Myspace and blogs. 

While in Lieature and movies revenge generally tends to be about voilence, in the real world, I think revenge takes many forms. Runining someones reputation, trying to get someone fired, acts of vandilizim against property. Uploading emrbassing and damaging viedoes on the internet.

----------


## NikolaiI

Revenge doesn't have to be violence, it could also be destruction of property, etc.

----------


## Jozanny

> Revenge doesn't have to be violence, it could also be destruction of property, etc.


I would think destruction of property involves the use of excessive force. :Tongue: 

But what Dark says about highschool seems to be a basic truism, and made me smile. CILS are very highschool, and even middle school, at times. You have the AB's (able-bodied persons) who lord their ableness over the tarts, and those can be anyone, not just the MR diagnosed. Major disabling conditions lessen developmental maturity, regardless of whether retardation is actually present, then you have the staff with various minor impairments, deafness, gimp-leg, blindness, but otherwise matriculated successfully, then the smart quads or near quads (like me) and then after that you have the seriously disabled, through which those up the food chain earn their living--and it just doesn't work, and never will, which is why the parts and parcels that make up what a CIL is, need to go back to the drawing board, and I am not the only disgruntled voice which brays about the degree to which the concept is broken.

Destroying the system, which really wouldn't take more than a federal class action lawsuit, would be part vengeance for some of us who broke our backs on the IL creed, but part idealism too, in that what IL really is supposed to stand for should be more than doled out lip service by would-be school marms, or highly inept case managers--whichever classification suits one's fancy.

----------


## skasian

> matthew 5:38-5:39
> 
> Concerning Revenge
> 
> 38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;


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

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

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

What ever you are trying to support, it is clear that Jesus opposes revenge. The first statement He says is "You have heard that it was said An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." that implies that we are used to being accepted of using revenge, then the second statment "39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" is Jesus CORRECTING our acceptance of using revenge. Therefore Jesus is advocating that we should NOT use revenge. Last statement "40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." is Jesus advocating the idea of forgiveness, and taking pitty and sympathy to the evildoer.

So, I would like to say that people DOES NOT take out a small segment of extracts and turn it into an entirely different interpretation. Thank you Delta for refreshning my memory of Jesus's words about revenge.

----------


## skasian

> there is no moral certainty in specific situations. you're looking for moral absolutes--which have a similar reality to that of the tooth fairy
> 
> 
> 
> i dont think violence is _the_ way of things. but it is _a_ way. peaceful civil disobedience, for example, has it place, but its just one of many responses to violence. for instance: do you really think the world can deal with radical islam by way of peaceful resolution?
> 
> 
> 
> until we master jedi mindtricks, peaceful conflict resolution can only be an ideal to strive for, not the rule to live by.


"there is no moral certainty in specific situations."
In what ever specific situations, it is important for us to act in a moral sense, ie good over bad. For example, every decision should be chosen in a good way in order to be beneficial or efficient.

Of course violence is one of many conflicts to solve a conflict, however I was trying to express that violence should be the last to choice of a list of many methods. The only reason why people cant use peaceful conflict resolution is because of their temptation to use evil, ie violence, but there is no rule that it should be a rule not to live by.

----------


## skasian

Isnt destruction of property a form of violence? A quick defintion of violence: Extreme force; Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering; Widespread fighting; Injustice, wrong.

I know some have tried to think of other aspects to link revenge other than violence, but I couldnt resist to say that as violence can be defined as "wrong" and that some people can accept linking violence to revenge, revenge can also be defined as "wrong"..therefore fulfilling the threads title, revenge = bad.

----------


## Delta40

> 38
> 
> So, I would like to say that people DOES NOT take out a small segment of extracts and turn it into an entirely different interpretation. Thank you Delta for refreshning my memory of Jesus's words about revenge.



People so often (perhaps after engaging in a revengeful act,) cite Jesus as have preached an eye for an eye.

----------


## skasian

> People so often (perhaps after engaging in a revengeful act,) cite Jesus as have preached an eye for an eye.


If one reads carefully, they wouldnt misunderstand. Even in Christian Churches, they support that revenge should be avoided.

----------


## Delta40

I wish I was more patient Skasian. (Prays to God for more patience) I cannot believe you have missed the entire point I was making. Perhaps you would care to read my posts more carefully so you don't misunderstand. That is EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE DON'T DO!!!! THEY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A PASSAGE, NOT ALL OF IT, YOU SEE AND GIVE IT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANING. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY TAKE THE LINE: AN EYE FOR AN EYE, WITHOUT THE REST OF THE PASSAGE AND THEN GO AROUND SAYING THAT EVEN JESUS HIMSELF SUPPORTS REVENGE TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN DEEDS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT NOW?

I wrote this in upper case so if you need to refer to it again, you can locate it easily because I really am tired of explaining myself on such a simple concept. 

Could we move on?

----------


## skasian

> I wish I was more patient Skasian. (Prays to God for more patience) I cannot believe you have missed the entire point I was making. Perhaps you would care to read my posts more carefully so you don't misunderstand. That is EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE DON'T DO!!!! THEY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A PASSAGE, NOT ALL OF IT, YOU SEE AND GIVE IT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANING. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY TAKE THE LINE: AN EYE FOR AN EYE, WITHOUT THE REST OF THE PASSAGE AND THEN GO AROUND SAYING THAT EVEN JESUS HIMSELF SUPPORTS REVENGE TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN DEEDS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT NOW?
> 
> I wrote this in upper case so if you need to refer to it again, you can locate it easily because I really am tired of explaining myself on such a simple concept. 
> 
> Could we move on?


I wish for you to hold on to your tranquility.
The reason why I cant move on is because your point is different from mine. Misunderstanding and misinterpretating for their own benefits are very contrasting therefore are different things. Using an extract and twisting for their own means is different from misunderstanding by accidents, so dont let yourself think people are using extracts for their own cause when some people may be just misdirected by mistake.

----------


## Delta40

If you take a hair and split it you will have still have hair. 

misundertand
misinterpret
misrepresent
misuse
misguide


They all 'mis' the point Skasian. Whether by intent or sheer ignorance, the message is the same in this part extract: Ane eye for an eye means Jesus endorses revenge. 

Whether or not this makes a fundamental difference to your sense of comfort knowing some are misguided and others are not when they misuse the quote is irrelevant to my point.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I know some have tried to think of other aspects to link revenge other than violence, but I couldnt resist to say that as violence can be defined as "wrong" and that some people can accept linking violence to revenge, revenge can also be defined as "wrong"..therefore fulfilling the threads title, revenge = bad.


A lot of poeple also link relgion to violence, torture, death, corruption, and wrong doing. 

In fact you cannot talk about religion without talking about violence, war and bloodshed. Unless you are going to pretend like history never happend. 

Relgion is filled with violence and intimately linked to violence, so once again, your agurments to prove revenge as bad, also prove religion to be bad.

----------


## Zee.

I've noticed many people are talking about jesus and revenge intertwined together,and at the same time, not quite understanding how people view revenge differently - either because their religious beliefs are different or have no religious beliefs at all.

Revenge isn't bad or good - it all depends on where you're standing, what happened, who to etc - and then the thought process of revenge begins. Some may argue that the need for revenge can feel instictual - and that it would be wrong to ignore this feeling

----------


## Jozanny

> I've noticed many people are talking about jesus and revenge intertwined together,and at the same time, not quite understanding how people view revenge differently - either because their religious beliefs are different or have no religious beliefs at all.
> 
> Revenge isn't bad or good - it all depends on where you're standing, what happened, who to etc - and then the thought process of revenge begins. Some may argue that the need for revenge can feel instictual - and that it would be wrong to ignore this feeling


Thank you limajean. That is what I was trying to get at even though I was sounding off as an insider on disability politicking. Revenge can be consuming either way. Dumas's Count is consumed by it to the point that he is little else but a super-avenger. Hamlet is consumed by it much in the way I am, heavy with inaction and consequence, so that when he does act, it is a damn bloodbath, perhaps out of proportion to the original murder. It leads one to some interesting questions about justice as a function.

----------


## Zee.

No problem :]


We're discussing something that is very personal and very dependant on the person.
We're all going to disagree, regardless.

----------


## Jozanny

It can be personal yes, but we all seem to recognize it as a universal attribute. The Christ's statements were problematic, at least to me. Submitting yourself to injury for the sake of reward in an afterlife is counterintuitive, and I *know* how damaged I am, taking it on the chin by minorities and others, and sometimes my own, repeatedly. I think in part that I am a bad person, even worthless, because I am belittled even by those who believe they are doing their jobs trying to *help* me.

One day I was in a train station store with my ex, around the holidays, and I picked up two stuffed kitties to buy. The clerks were African American, and I gave my credit card to the one. The other gave me a magazine to lean on.

The first started to say, "you have to sign--"
"She knows how to do it!" The second interrupted, and they argued about me and my fiance in third person, like we weren't there. My guy had served in the army in Nam, and was a NYC cop for years. I myself had a graduate education, and yet I bit my tongue from hissing something equally hurtful at their ignorance.

There are still a healthy percentage of Americans who think crips are simpletons.

----------


## weltanschauung



----------


## skasian

> If you take a hair and split it you will have still have hair. 
> 
> misundertand
> misinterpret
> misrepresent
> misuse
> misguide
> 
> 
> ...



Think about the purpose. What ever actions that may seem similar, if there are different purposes provoked the actions, they are completely different. 
And please, you STILL dont get the extract fully, now it seems you are using the extract to your benefits which is wrong. Just because Jesus used an eye for an eye statement doesnt mean that he supports it. He is CORRECTING it for the last time. I hope this will correct your mistakes.

----------


## skasian

> A lot of poeple also link relgion to violence, torture, death, corruption, and wrong doing. 
> 
> In fact you cannot talk about religion without talking about violence, war and bloodshed. Unless you are going to pretend like history never happend. 
> 
> Relgion is filled with violence and intimately linked to violence, so once again, your agurments to prove revenge as bad, also prove religion to be bad.


Nope. Since of purpose is what really counts. Religion's sense of violence and torture is backed up with reasonable purposes, which links with God, therefore the purpose is to serve good. Revenge however is linked with violence by self satisfaction, for the benefit of one self's pleasure, therefore the purpose is to serve evil.
However followers have been comitting violence and conflict out of religion's name, for their own corrupt reasons. This is the people of religion that is to be blamed, not religion itself.

----------


## Dark Muse

> Nope. Since of purpose is what really counts. Religion's sense of violence and torture is backed up with reasonable purposes, which links with God, therefore the purpose is to serve good.


On the hand you claim that religion is against violence, and you try and act as if you are against violence. 

On the other hand you claim that doing violence in the name of relgion is good. 

But doing violence for self-justification is bad. 

Either religion does not premote violence, or violence is justifible when done in the name of God. You have to pick one or the other. 

You cannot claim that revenge is bad becasue it is linked to violence, and that religion does not support violence, and then say, that when violent acts are done in the name of religion it is good.

.

----------


## JacobF

> Nope. Since of purpose is what really counts. Religion's sense of violence and torture is backed up with reasonable purposes, which links with God, therefore the purpose is to serve good. Revenge however is linked with violence by self satisfaction, for the benefit of one self's pleasure, therefore the purpose is to serve evil.
> However followers have been comitting violence and conflict out of religion's name, for their own corrupt reasons. This is the people of religion that is to be blamed, not religion itself.


I don't mean to branch into a theological discussion, but I'm wondering: which act of violence in the name of religion would you say are 'reasonable'? And you mention followers of a religion who have been committing violent acts do not represent the religion itself, which I can buy. However, I don't see how you can distinguish the two.

----------


## skasian

> I don't mean to branch into a theological discussion, but I'm wondering: which act of violence in the name of religion would you say are 'reasonable'? And you mention followers of a religion who have been committing violent acts do not represent the religion itself, which I can buy. However, I don't see how you can distinguish the two.


I believe that violence committed by followers that are against the will of God, is not reasonable therefore wrong. For example the violence between Catholics and Protestants, where they faught for who were more holy between the two. However the violence mentioned in the bible that are committed by the hand of God, I believe is reasonable.

----------


## skasian

> On the hand you claim that religion is against violence, and you try and act as if you are against violence. 
> 
> On the other hand you claim that doing violence in the name of relgion is good. 
> 
> But doing violence for self-justification is bad. 
> 
> Either religion does not premote violence, or violence is justifible when done in the name of God. You have to pick one or the other. 
> 
> You cannot claim that revenge is bad becasue it is linked to violence, and that religion does not support violence, and then say, that when violent acts are done in the name of religion it is good.
> ...


When religion promotes minimum use of violence, I believe it means WE as people should avoid violence during ourlives, in our society between mankind. 

As religion has history using violence, God was in control, not us human. When He wanted to punish the wrong doers in the world, God used violence as his absolute last resort. Because God is purity, all truth and good, His act of violence is unlike ours, therefore I believe that this violence cant be related or compared to us.

----------


## kandaurov

But how do we know whom God wants us to fight against? How is the will of God revealed to us? Through the clergy?

----------


## skasian

> But how do we know whom God wants us to fight against? How is the will of God revealed to us? Through the clergy?


Bible! I believe that the Word of God reveals all. As God is light, truth, righteousness, it is even common sense to know to fight against what is the opposite of Him. The darkness, fakery, wrongness, wickness.. evil. God doesnt need to fight evil, its just unmatchable. Its US that have to fight against evil as we are born neutral, capable of swinging towards either side. WE have to fight temptations that are evil such as lying and stealing. These things have reasons in real life too, like how a small insignificant lie may grow into a major lie that will inevitable lead into continuous and destructable conflicts.

----------


## JacobF

> Bible! I believe that the Word of God reveals all. As God is light, truth, righteousness, it is even common sense to know to fight against what is the opposite of Him. The darkness, fakery, wrongness, wickness.. evil. God doesnt need to fight evil, its just unmatchable. Its US that have to fight against evil as we are born neutral, capable of swinging towards either side. WE have to fight temptations that are evil such as lying and stealing. These things have reasons in real life too, like how a small insignificant lie may grow into a major lie that will inevitable lead into continuous and destructable conflicts.


But the bible was written by man. God didn't stick his hand through the clouds and write the book for us. How do you know that the people who wrote it were not committing 'fakery' as you call it? Maybe the bible is just one big sin, and god is laughing at us. 




> As religion has history using violence, God was in control, not us human. When He wanted to punish the wrong doers in the world, God used violence as his absolute last resort. Because God is purity, all truth and good, His act of violence is unlike ours, therefore I believe that this violence cant be related or compared to us.


Can you give an example? Seems to me that most of the time, the 'wrong-doers' are the ones who won the battles.

----------


## Dark Muse

> But the bible was written by man. God didn't stick his hand through the clouds and write the book for us. How do you know that the people who wrote it were not committing 'fakery' as you call it? Maybe the bible is just one big sin, and god is laughing at us.


It is also known that the Bibile has been altered, edidted, and changed throughout its many translations, and there are debates on the accuracy of how certain words, and ideas were translated, so unless you know the acutal Original Hebrew version of the Bible you just have someone elses interpiation of what they think/want the Bible to say. 

There is a collection of stories that were orignally meant to be part of the Bible that had been removed becasue the Chruch felt they were contradictory to the message they wanted to convey.

----------


## Jozanny

> It is also known that the Bibile has been altered, edidted, and changed throughout its many translations, and there are debates on the accuracy of how certain words, and ideas were translated, so unless you know the acutal Original Hebrew version of the Bible you just have someone elses interpiation of what they think/want the Bible to say. 
> 
> There is a collection of stories that were orignally meant to be part of the Bible that had been removed becasue the Chruch felt they were contradictory to the message they wanted to convey.


Which is what I tried to say when I first posted in this thread, aside from which, the ancient Hebrews were as much political as they were spiritual--and they did not invent the law of lex talonis (eye for an eye). That came from a Babylon king trying to regulate proportionality of action. It was a revolutionary concept in jurisprudence--but the world is no longer centered around the ancient social guilt of the Middle East, and yet the West cannot let go of its fixation, apparently.

Jesus, if he actually existed, was a Jewish rabbi very concerned with social equity. He can be applauded, but has no relevance for the 21st century. Christianty, whether Catholic or Protestant, is out moded, and has few answers for the modern social dynamic of the human animal, really, but I just find it easier to put those who insist on preaching on ignore.

I prefer my own independence of mind.

----------


## Dark Muse

As far as the whole eye for an eye things goes, at least where I am concerned. The whole turning the other cheek thing has never been a part of Pagansim. Within my own beleif system, there is no moral law against revenge. Pagans have always lived according to the rule of an eye for an eye with the exception of Neo-Pags. and Wicca. 

So within my own beleif system revenge is supported and accepted.

----------


## Jozanny

Don't know much about it Dark. I am a secular humanist, and I find the Christian ranting in this community to be discomfiting. Scholars, even religious evangelicals, don't wear sermons on their sleeves. I do listen to them on public radio; the difference is they don't preach, like so many members here do--they explain, and they may even advocate a thesis, but they do not shove it down my throat.

It is what wearies me about this community despite some of the decent literary debates.

We do not actually discuss philosophers, but simplified metaphysical points, and religious texts aren't discussed in Religious Texts, it just turns into a shouting match about your beliefs, mine, and some really enthusiastic propagada on occasion.

When I am back on my feet, I will blow a nice kiss and wave from whatever progressive community where I find a better comfort level. This isn't about any one member so much as the relentless self-justification that goes on. This is not a church, mosque, synagogue, or Buddhist temple, but a English language literature forum, and no one minds not seeing the woods through the trees.

----------


## skasian

> But the bible was written by man. God didn't stick his hand through the clouds and write the book for us. How do you know that the people who wrote it were not committing 'fakery' as you call it? Maybe the bible is just one big sin, and god is laughing at us. 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example? Seems to me that most of the time, the 'wrong-doers' are the ones who won the battles.


Examples, check out the bible anything around I Kings, II kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles they have alot of battles and ethnic cleansing and it clearly states God is with them.

The people who wrote them were guided by God with visions etc. There is an extract in the bible that says who ever changes bible that alters the interpretation completey or for ones benefit, God will punish them severely.

----------


## skasian

> Don't know much about it Dark. I am a secular humanist, and I find the Christian ranting in this community to be discomfiting. Scholars, even religious evangelicals, don't wear sermons on their sleeves. I do listen to them on public radio; the difference is they don't preach, like so many members here do--they explain, and they may even advocate a thesis, but they do not shove it down my throat.
> 
> It is what wearies me about this community despite some of the decent literary debates.
> 
> We do not actually discuss philosophers, but simplified metaphysical points, and religious texts aren't discussed in Religious Texts, it just turns into a shouting match about your beliefs, mine, and some really enthusiastic propagada on occasion.
> 
> When I am back on my feet, I will blow a nice kiss and wave from whatever progressive community where I find a better comfort level. This isn't about any one member so much as the relentless self-justification that goes on. This is not a church, mosque, synagogue, or Buddhist temple, but a English language literature forum, and no one minds not seeing the woods through the trees.


Heres something that doesnt include a religious aspect but rather in a philosopher's perspectives. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes have analysed "Desire, by doing hurt to another, to make him condemn some fact of his own,revengefulnesse" and "Revenge. retribution of Evil for evil, Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other designe, than for correction of the offender or direction of others."
Revenge = evil , what more can he say.

----------


## Dark Muse

Everyone is entiled to have thier own beleifs, but nothing anyone else says shall change my mind upon the subject. I belive in living by the rule of revenge, and more then anyone elses ideology I am going to belive my own personal experince. 

Thus far, I have no regrets for making this choice and thus have no reason to do anything differently.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Just because Jesus used an eye for an eye statement doesnt mean that he supports it.


hahaha, so the christ went about saying all sorts of jestery? but he didnt mean it?
 :FRlol:

----------


## skasian

> hahaha, so the christ went about saying all sorts of jestery? but he didnt mean it?


You have to read the whole extract,read my previous post that includes the whole extract. Clearly, Jesus was CORRECTING the idea.

----------


## skasian

> Everyone is entiled to have thier own beleifs, but nothing anyone else says shall change my mind upon the subject. I belive in living by the rule of revenge, and more then anyone elses ideology I am going to belive my own personal experince. 
> 
> Thus far, I have no regrets for making this choice and thus have no reason to do anything differently.


Good on you, every one respects your belief and no one is trying to convert your views. We are just trying to get an insight why you believe so. Your input is much appreciated.

----------


## Dark Muse

Revenge = Evil, is that not a direct criticism of my belief as well as an attempt to "reform me" 

While you are entitled to hold views against revenge, by making such remarks you are making a direct judgement, not simply seeking understanding.

----------


## skasian

> Revenge = Evil, is that not a direct criticism of my belief as well as an attempt to "reform me" 
> 
> While you are entitled to hold views against revenge, by making such remarks you are making a direct judgement, not simply seeking understanding.


Revenge = evil is a sign of showing my belief, nothing more.
My view has nothing to do with seeking understanding. I seek understanding my reading other people's thoughts about this thread including yours. 
How would my own views satisfy my own hunger for understanding?

----------


## weltanschauung

> Bible! I believe that the Word of God reveals all. As *God is light, truth, righteousness, it is even common sense to know to fight against what is the opposite of Him.* The darkness, fakery, wrongness, wickness.. evil. God doesnt need to fight evil, its just unmatchable. Its US that have to fight against evil as we are born neutral, capable of swinging towards either side. WE have to fight temptations that are evil such as lying and stealing. These things have reasons in real life too, like how a small insignificant lie may grow into a major lie that will inevitable lead into continuous and destructable conflicts.



this is the main point at which christianity fails.
if god is the creator, then the universe is a cavity inside god, who is infinite and unimaginable (ain soph). if god created the universe, then everything inside this universe, which is god, is god. if all things in the universe, which is god, are made by the combination of two opposites (cold and hot, soft and hard, far and close, light and dark, and so on) how is it possible to state that only hot, for instance, is god? how about cold, it isnt? HOW? if everything is inside the universe, which is god, is god, how can you say, and expect to be taken seriously, that god is only light? truth? righteousness?
dark, and mischief, and weakness is also god. there is nothing besides god in here, for everything exists in him. you christians say god is good, and satan is evil, but who created "satan"? god created evil, therefore god is evil too. god is darkness. and "satan" is also god. everything is god, for nothing exists outside of it.

----------


## skasian

> this is the main point at which christianity fails.
> if god is the creator, then the universe is a cavity inside god, who is infinite and unimaginable (ain soph). if god created the universe, then everything inside this universe, which is god, is god. if all things in the universe, which is god, are made by the combination of two opposites (cold and hot, soft and hard, far and close, light and dark, and so on) how is it possible to state that only hot, for instance, is god? how about cold, it isnt? HOW? if everything is inside the universe, which is god, is god, how can you say, and expect to be taken seriously, that god is only light? truth? righteousness?
> dark, and mischief, and weakness is also god. there is nothing besides god in here, for everything exists in him. you christians say god is good, and satan is evil, but who created "satan"? god created evil, therefore god is evil too. god is darkness. and "satan" is also god. everything is god, for nothing exists outside of it.


First, I want to point out that God is not everything. What He created is NOT God. Since when do you look at a piece of stone and hail all God almighty? God created us, however are we Him? We may be made in the image of Him but I fear that human is no where near being depicted as God. What He created is simply a beautiful footprint, no more.

Yes God created satan but I believe he is beneficial to God because evil serves God as God is almighty. Even though God created us, He gave us freewill, and our decisions is not of God's. A builder and his building arent the same thing. Do you see the difference of my view of God and His creations?

God is light, and only the most pure, powerful light. Absence of God, therefore absence of light = darkness and all the metaphors that represent it.

I believe this is thread for revenge, not religions and God, so I think this topic is best discussed in the religious thread. :Smile:

----------

