• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vengeance, do you believe in it?

Lady Crimson

credo quia absurdum
I personally do. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

A person who does wrong should pay the same price as his/hers victim.

Like if someone killed a living being with cruelty...he should be killed the same way. But what if the afore mentioned person killed several other living beings the same way before. Then how should he/she be punnished?...Well, a court should choose. I am not rulling out judgement. Just as it is now, the person should be considered innocent until proven guilty and should have the chance of a fair tryal. But if he does turn out to be guilty than jail would be to little and a fast death the same. He should pay the same price as his victim/s.

Do you believe in revenge?...and I'm not talking about what your religion tells you, but what YOU believe.
 

Original Freak

I am the ORIGINAL Freak
Revenge or Justice ... and how do you define the difference.

I don't believe in the death penalty so no eye for eye for murder, and I'll tell you why. It isn't because I don't think these people deserve death, it's becaues I think it's an easy way out. (Not counting the financial situation).

Here I give a my opinion an a father who killed his 3 year old son.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16828&page=2&pp=10

I think the rest of these people's lives should be made miserable until the day they day.
 

Lady Crimson

credo quia absurdum
the strange thing, OF...is that I agree with this too. I guess ...in my opinion...that an eye, sometimes, should pe payed with more eyes...depending on the price of the eye.

But I can't stop to think that prison isn't as tough as we make it out to be. Of course, becoming someone's ***** is a big enough punnishment...but I guess a criminal gets used to it after the first five years...What annoys me is that the state pays for the *****'s meals, for it's bed etc etc. Death isn't such a fast way out...many fear it...and in such a case as the the one you have put before me...death should come slowly.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I strongly believe in an eye for an eye.
Death penalty I feel is too good for some people, such as the guy who beat his todler to death because he thought he was gay. That man should be beat to a bloody pulp and publically humiliated. And beat some more until he fears the person beating him, and he is literally too scared of being beaten again to even think about harming another person.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
I would guess that only a very small fraction of crimes can be 100% proveable (e.g. standing over the victim and plunging the knife in the body) and rely on eyewitnesses, physical evidence, etc. Since we all know just how fair our justice system is towards those who can't afford good legal counsel, and because our justice system is *not* always color blind, it would be unjust to punish a *supposedly* guilty criminal in the same way their victim was treated.

It's bad enough when someone is locked away for 20 years or executed and then we find they're not guilty. How much worse if they've been put to death by stabbing them 45 times or burning them to death, etc.?

 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
There is an old science fiction short story I read once, about a world which followed this concept of justice. If you cause a car accident in which someone's leg was broken, then your car would be damaged to the extent the other person's was, and your leg would be broken just as the other's was.

I think this concept breaks down, however, for "victimless" crimes. How do you punish someone who pays a prostitute for sex? How do you punish someone who uses drugs, but doesn't commit a crime directly against another person? How would you punish something like identity theft?
 

Lady Crimson

credo quia absurdum
I think this concept breaks down, however, for "victimless" crimes. How do you punish someone who pays a prostitute for sex? How do you punish someone who uses drugs, but doesn't commit a crime directly against another person? How would you punish something like identity theft?
I do not know how, Engyo...but I was talking about something that is worth revenge...a person who buys drugs is only harming himself (and that is punishment enough)...now, about the subject of paying a prostitute for sex, I have no idea what the punishment of that could be...but, in the end, why should these people be revenged...they comitted these acts with full knowledge of what they were doing.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Lady Crimson said:
I do not know how, Engyo...but I was talking about something that is worth revenge...a person who buys drugs is only harming himself (and that is punishment enough)...now, about the subject of paying a prostitute for sex, I have no idea what the punishment of that could be...but, in the end, why should these people be revenged...they comitted these acts with full knowledge of what they were doing.
If all you are talking about is a personal code of personal revenge, then there is no need. If you want to come up with a workable justice system which encompasses a personal code of revenge, then you have to get into such subjects. I am not aware of any justice system in today's world which allows for personal revenge, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, of course. Without such a justice system, applying one's personal code of revenge is going to run afoul of civil authorities pretty quickly, methinks.

From a Buddhist perspective, I work from the standpoint of karma rather than revenge. It doesn't matter what someone else did to me, what matters is what causes my choices and actions create. I am not responsible for anothers' actions; I am responsible for my own. The other person created their own karma when they did whatever they did; they will reap the effects of the karma they created. It's not necessary for me to be the instrument of those effects.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Engyo said:
If all you are talking about is a personal code of personal revenge, then there is no need. If you want to come up with a workable justice system which encompasses a personal code of revenge, then you have to get into such subjects. I am not aware of any justice system in today's world which allows for personal revenge, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, of course. Without such a justice system, applying one's personal code of revenge is going to run afoul of civil authorities pretty quickly, methinks.

From a Buddhist perspective, I work from the standpoint of karma rather than revenge. It doesn't matter what someone else did to me, what matters is what causes my choices and actions create. I am not responsible for anothers' actions; I am responsible for my own. The other person created their own karma when they did whatever they did; they will reap the effects of the karma they created. It's not necessary for me to be the instrument of those effects.
Engyo, Namaste.

Well, of course I go with your 'take' on this Engyo; personal revenge is harmful - to the person who dishes it out; I think this applies just as much for a Christian as in the Buddhist sense. What we choose to do as an action is down to us - if it is to hurt someone else, then I cannot see it as being condonable.

Lady Crimson, you advocated "I personally do. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
I can understand that this is often the way our nature takes us, but consider Matthew:-

5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

5:39 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.

5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Jesus knew no believer could be sinlessly perfect (Matthew 6:14,15) in this life. Nevertheless, this must be the standard and the goal--not for gaining salvation, but for living the Christian life. The word "perfect" also can be understood as "complete" or "fully mature," but this state is no more attainable than sinless perfection--in fact, they are really the same. We do have such a standing in Christ, and we should perpetually seek to fulfill this standard by God's help.

The 'Instructions' here are straight - if someone hits you - let him hit you again......
There is again that strange (Why strange ?) similarity of the Buddhist way and of the Christian way - the Buddhist, by hitting back, and letting the 'slight on him' fester away, just really destroys himself - he in effect does harm to himself ; and I think the above passages show that God wants us to try and follow that concept. He knows we will never be 'Without sin' - but he asks us to try as hard as we can!:)
 

robtex

Veteran Member
I had a co-worker once, who is luthern for the record, who said, the opposite of love is apathy. I gained wisdom from pondering it and this seems as good of place as any to dispurse it. The definition of love is subjective and open to debate but at the most basic level I figure it is reasonable to collectivly assert it is a postive emotion directed at someone (or thing if an animal) we have a personal interest in. The turning of the emotion into that associated with hate, rage, revenge and the negative connotations isn't the reversing of it but he redirection of of love in a negative direction in terms of personal feeling. If the feeling were to be vacated comletely we would be left with no feeling the absense of love or apathy.

Applying that to vengence I would say if love is one of the most pleasurabe emotions one can feel, (assume one concurs with this sentiment) mutations of it including vengence with strong emotions affecting and tangent to love (aka the motive for the need for vengence in the first place), create a vaccum in the total time one can spend on the postitive acts of love. What I mean if one is consumed with negative emotions or activly pursues them they do so in the sacrife of positive ones. One cannot feel positive love and a negative emotion at the same time.

So with the more time diverted from love happiness, fullfillment the less time to enjoy and embelish these emotions in ones lifetime. I would in this theory be very selective in deciding which times I experience a negative emotion and for how long.

I believe this would be a similar concept to the hindu and buddhist concept of karma. One cannot hate or spite another without feeling the bitterness inside that such actions create.

Alternate motives such as self-preservation and community benefit, from a utilitarian standpoint propogate a safer motive and keep a sense of fair play alive while shielding us from the hate and emotional damage that revenge tends to promote within ourselves.
 

Lady Crimson

credo quia absurdum
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.

I know who Matthew was and some things that he has said...and I respect his opinion and his believers' opinions...but mine is that 'if someone smites me on my right cheek than smite him on both cheeks'

The wrold is ruthless and since I rather believe in non-existence after death than Heaven...it matters how I live my life...And yes, I believe in personal justice, how ever wrong it may be.
 

Fluffy

A fool
I will quote somebody who I feel said it much better than anyone ever has

"Revenge is the path to the dark side"

Personally, I tread a thin line with the dark side sometimes, confused as I am over which extreme I belong to. In the end I just look at it like this, what do I really want out of a situation? What I want is for that toddler to have been taken away from his dad before he had been murdered. What I want is for whatever tragedy which messed up that father so badly that they were able to commit such an atrocity to be erased from time. I can't have these things. So I feel frustration. Revenge is simply a product of this frustration. However, it is not giving me what I want. In fact it won't even make me feel better since I still won't have what I want when I'm done with my revenge. It is a product of my irrational attempt to deal and has such serves no real purpose. Given this, how can I justify attempting it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Lady Crimson said:
I personally do. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
This was not a call for vengence but, rather, an early attempt to set limits on retribution. The intent was to effect fair punishment.
 

Fluffy

A fool
This was not a call for vengence but, rather, an early attempt to set limits on retribution. The intent was to effect fair punishment.
I remember being told that a very long time ago and I much prefer that interpretation. Frubals to you for reminding me!
 

Lady Crimson

credo quia absurdum
"Revenge is the path to the dark side"
I have a T-shirt...on the front:' Join the darkside...' ; on the back: '...and get a free cookie' :biglaugh:

This was not a call for vengence but, rather, an early attempt to set limits on retribution. The intent was to effect fair punishment.
Yes, excuse the way i expressed myself, but my english vocabulary is still quite limited...I, perhaps didn't find the right words, but I do agree on your statement. :)
 

huajiro

Well-Known Member
Lady Crimson said:
I personally do. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

A person who does wrong should pay the same price as his/hers victim.

Like if someone killed a living being with cruelty...he should be killed the same way. But what if the afore mentioned person killed several other living beings the same way before. Then how should he/she be punnished?...Well, a court should choose. I am not rulling out judgement. Just as it is now, the person should be considered innocent until proven guilty and should have the chance of a fair tryal. But if he does turn out to be guilty than jail would be to little and a fast death the same. He should pay the same price as his victim/s.

Do you believe in revenge?...and I'm not talking about what your religion tells you, but what YOU believe.
I find myself oddly obsessed with revenge. I believe anyone who does something negative against another purpously, should pay dearly. I believe this because I strive to not affect anyone else negatively in any way. I try to avoid hurting any living being at all. Because of this, if someone hurts me, I react twice as harshly against them.

My favorite movies have always been the ones where an innocent person was done a wrong and they got revenge (Braveheart, Gladiator, At Close Range, The Crow, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc, etc)
 
Top