Revenge: good or bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.:p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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;

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

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.

No problem :]


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

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.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...itch/bs/hd.jpg