If one reads carefully, they wouldnt misunderstand. Even in Christian Churches, they support that revenge should be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Printable View
If one reads carefully, they wouldnt misunderstand. Even in Christian Churches, they support that revenge should be avoided.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
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.
A lot of poeple also link relgion to violence, torture, death, corruption, and wrong doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.
On the hand you claim that religion is against violence, and you try and act as if you are against violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
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.
.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
When religion promotes minimum use of violence, I believe it means WE as people should avoid violence during ourlives, in our society between mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kandaurov
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
Can you give an example? Seems to me that most of the time, the 'wrong-doers' are the ones who won the battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Revenge = evil , what more can he say.
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.
hahaha, so the christ went about saying all sorts of jestery? but he didnt mean it?Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
:lol:
You have to read the whole extract,read my previous post that includes the whole extract. Clearly, Jesus was CORRECTING the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Revenge = evil is a sign of showing my belief, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
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.:)