Observing Religions as a Theory that evolved

[Imagist]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

But for some cases (especially small ones) it is too bothersome to call a third party. If both parties agree to resolve the issue "out of the court" then so be it.

But according to your rule, the victim is not obligated to settle at all. Sure, he'll get a little more reward with Allah if he forgives, but the standard according to the Quran's rule is to react with vengeance.

Valid point. But remember, just as scientific advancements and the pursuit for more knowledge is good even though that knowledge can be used to do good or evil, very similarly, humans are more evolved than the remaining species due, for one reason, their ability to make free choices. Humans using their free will to make the wrong choices is not a counter to the fact that they are more advanced.

I agree that humans are more advanced, but my statements were to disprove your statement that:

Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and are the best of the species without a doubt in that they can make choices and can reflect and think. Other species just follow instinct.

Not on this thread. View the Quranic Debates folder in Scriptural Debates folder in Religious Debates folder in ... and I would like to read your views on a topic that interests you (there are only a handful at the moment).

Unfortunately I'm already following five threads closely; there's only so much I can do. When one of the threads I'm watching dies down, I'll take a look at the forum you mention.

[tariqkhwaja]

ure, he'll get a little more reward with Allah if he forgives,

Excuse me? Little more reward. Where did you get that from? The standard is to react with vengeance?
Firstly, it is complete justice that if you punch me I punch you back with equal or lesser force. There is no injustice in this at all. So even if it is a "standard" I hope you don't disagree with it.

I agree that humans are more advanced

Then that is all I meant.

[Imagist]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Excuse me? Little more reward. Where did you get that from? The standard is to react with vengeance?

Originally Posted by Quran

And the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof

Firstly, it is complete justice that if you punch me I punch you back with equal or lesser force. There is no injustice in this at all. So even if it is a "standard" I hope you don't disagree with it.

I do disagree with it. Perpetuating a crime for the sake of justice does more damage than injustice does. All your retribution will do is start a fistfight.

In some situations it might be okay to punch back, but only in self-defense, not for justice.

In my opinion, forgiveness is the only correct action for a victim. Justice is only important inasmuch as it protects victims and provides reparation (NOT retribution) for wrongs. Only in situations where reparation or protection are appropriate should justice be served, and then always by a third party if at all remotely possible.

[tariqkhwaja]

In my opinion, forgiveness is the only correct action for a victim.

Really? So you believe in turning the other cheek. Always. Unless a judge is at hand.

Oh and the victim should not ask for the judge because that would be tantamount to asking for revenge, right? The victim should just stand by and hopefully the judge witnessed what happened and decided on his own to be just (I think it is called sumo moto notice).

[Imagist]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Really? So you believe in turning the other cheek. Always. Unless a judge is at hand.

Originally Posted by imagist

In some situations it might be okay to punch back, but only in self-defense, not for justice.

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Oh and the victim should not ask for the judge because that would be tantamount to asking for revenge, right? The victim should just stand by and hopefully the judge witnessed what happened and decided on his own to be just (I think it is called sumo moto notice).

I have already explained this but I will attempt to be more clear.

There are two things that are important when wrongdoing occurs:
1. Reparation (return or repair of lost, stolen, or destroyed goods, fixing the wrongdoing).
2. Protection (prevention of further wrongdoing for the safety, security, and wellbeing of the victims of wrongdoing and others who might become victims).

These should be enforced by a neutral third party when possible. Obviously if no neutral third party is available the victim has no choice but to take matters into his/her own hands, especially if protection is needed (this is known as self-defense).

"Turn the other cheek" entails not seeking reparation or protection.

"An eye for an eye" is neither reparation nor protection, but is instead retribution/revenge. If person A loses an eye because of person B's actions, taking out Person B's eye does not help person A (reparation) or prevent person B from taking person A's other eye, or taking the eye of someone else (protection).

The ONLY result of "an eye for an eye" is harm (to person B). In contrast, both reparation and protection result in good, not harm.

Person A is allowed to ask for a judge to determine whether reparation or protection are necessary. Person A might ask for a judge out of vengeful reasons, but that is irrelevant: the ENTIRE REASON for a judge is to prevent Person A's desire for vengeance from affecting the distribution of reparation and protection, because in most cases the victim WILL have vengeful feelings toward the wrongdoer.

[Rolling_Stone]

Just a point of interest about "turning the other cheek." It's not entirely passive. In that time and culture, a back-handed slap, which would ordinarily would be done with the right hand on the right side of the face, was meant not to be just painful, but humiliating as well. By turning the other cheek, one makes it impossible for the striker to repeat the act and may even send a message: "Don't do that again."

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Just a point of interest about "turning the other cheek." It's not entirely passive. In that time and culture, a back-handed slap, which would ordinarily would be done with the right hand on the right side of the face, was meant not to be just painful, but humiliating as well. By turning the other cheek, one makes it impossible for the striker to repeat the act and may even send a message: "Don't do that again."

A very interesting perspective, but one that I don’t believe is supported by the text. What you are suggesting here is that “turning the other cheek” is actually a clever way to avoid the evil. But the text directly contradicts this interpretation; it says “resist not evil”.

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

As hard as it may be to accept it does seem from the text that Jesus is actually suggesting that we should allow someone to strike us again. The idea expressed here is so radical that most people simply cannot accept it, even those who believe that they ought to follow the teachings of Jesus. So they simply reinterpret it and decide that it must mean something else than what it actually says.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

A very interesting perspective, but one that I don’t believe is supported by the text. What you are suggesting here is that “turning the other cheek” is actually a clever way to avoid the evil. But the text directly contradicts this interpretation; it says “resist not evil”.
As hard as it may be to accept it does seem from the text that Jesus is actually suggesting that we should allow someone to strike us again. The idea expressed here is so radical that most people simply cannot accept it, even those who believe that they ought to follow the teachings of Jesus. So they simply reinterpret it and decide that it must mean something else than what it actually says.

I didn't say it was supported by the text. It's something historians and theologians pointed out on a PBS program. (From Jesus to Christ, I think.) Sorry, but I think I'll take their understanding over yours unless you're a specialist in the area.

[herushura]

Originally Posted by Imagist

Original? Zeus isn't one of the original gods. Ask any shaman-king.

Greeks and Romans adopted there gods from Metopotamia, The Original Gods are the "Annunaki"