Revenge: good or bad?

[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.