Comments on: An eye for an eye doctrine http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:09:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alex http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-116683 Alex Mon, 09 May 2011 21:53:31 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-116683 My interpretation of the "an eye for an eye" concept is as follows: if the punishment for crime X, is Y, don't punish the criminal with Z. That is, every action -- or, as related to the article, a criminal act -- must be retaliated against, according to justice. An example would be this: if it's un-just to kill someone who smokes where it's illegal, certainly don't punish the law-breaker with death. Punish according to what he did, not according to what he did not do. The concept doesn't clarify whether to reciprocate bodily or financially (except in the case of intentional-murder, which is only punished by death): only that it must be according to justice. It can't be "an eye for a leg". Now, a question may arise: what is just? For that we have the Torah, whose laws are the <em>only</em> justice. I believe, my understanding doesn't, practically, contradict Obadiah's. My interpretation of the “an eye for an eye” concept is as follows: if the punishment for crime X, is Y, don’t punish the criminal with Z. That is, every action — or, as related to the article, a criminal act — must be retaliated against, according to justice. An example would be this: if it’s un-just to kill someone who smokes where it’s illegal, certainly don’t punish the law-breaker with death. Punish according to what he did, not according to what he did not do. The concept doesn’t clarify whether to reciprocate bodily or financially (except in the case of intentional-murder, which is only punished by death): only that it must be according to justice. It can’t be “an eye for a leg”. Now, a question may arise: what is just? For that we have the Torah, whose laws are the only justice. I believe, my understanding doesn’t, practically, contradict Obadiah’s.

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-115227 Danny the Admin Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:59:29 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-115227 You can believe anything you like, but the Torah is very clear: damage to fetus is a tort, not criminal offense; punished with fine, not execution. You can believe anything you like, but the Torah is very clear: damage to fetus is a tort, not criminal offense; punished with fine, not execution.

]]> By: Stephen R Hale http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-115197 Stephen R Hale Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:33:57 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-115197 Concerning the comment about anti-abortionist. You presume TOO much (a Jewish trait pretty much being yelled at by God who understood the people - and why MERCY from God is so much appreciated - look at the mercy to we of the nations). The only way you presume the Jews did not consider the fetus a child is that you had to fill in (to the woman)as an explanitory note in order to avoid the implication of "if ANY injury to ANY of the parties, the woman and her multiple seed." I still believe that God was compassionate even to the Fetus or multiple thereof. Concerning the comment about anti-abortionist. You presume TOO much (a Jewish trait pretty much being yelled at by God who understood the people – and why MERCY from God is so much appreciated – look at the mercy to we of the nations). The only way you presume the Jews did not consider the fetus a child is that you had to fill in (to the woman)as an explanitory note in order to avoid the implication of “if ANY injury to ANY of the parties, the woman and her multiple seed.” I still believe that God was compassionate even to the Fetus or multiple thereof.

]]> By: John http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-113502 John Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:22:53 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-113502 Sam (Los Angeles) 2009 June 12 Isreal and arab nations. 7 day war. Let them fight it out and get it over with. The rest of the world should have never intervened in the first place. No more brokered peace no more ridiculously drawn borders on ancient traditions. If God wants somebody to have a country he will make it so. If not let it fail. Let it be between the parties involved and keep us the heck out of their business. Religion has once again been influenced by politics instead of the other way around. There is land there, they both want it, they won't forgive each other. Let's just get it over with instead of leaving festering wounds that run decades of hate. Better we all die in the nuclear holocaust we asked for by seeking out to kill in the first place. Humanity gets what it gives, there is your justice. Sam (Los Angeles) 2009 June 12

Isreal and arab nations. 7 day war. Let them fight it out and get it over with. The rest of the world should have never intervened in the first place. No more brokered peace no more ridiculously drawn borders on ancient traditions. If God wants somebody to have a country he will make it so. If not let it fail. Let it be between the parties involved and keep us the heck out of their business. Religion has once again been influenced by politics instead of the other way around. There is land there, they both want it, they won’t forgive each other. Let’s just get it over with instead of leaving festering wounds that run decades of hate. Better we all die in the nuclear holocaust we asked for by seeking out to kill in the first place. Humanity gets what it gives, there is your justice.

]]> By: Paul Jaramillo http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-112445 Paul Jaramillo Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:19:23 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-112445 Compassion can only take you so far, this mindset has only created decades of suffering for the Jewish people. The Palestinians are the proxy army of the Arabs because they are defeated in each war they undertake against the IDF. The only answer is to transfer the Palestinians to their real home, the Arab world. The suffering of Israel comes from refusing to totally defeat the Muslim armies that attack Israel and totally vanquish them. Israel must never bow to the will of the gentile nations and their misguided compassion towards an evil people. Compassion can only take you so far, this mindset has only created decades of suffering for the Jewish people. The Palestinians are the proxy army of the Arabs because they are defeated in each war they undertake against the IDF. The only answer is to transfer the Palestinians to their real home, the Arab world. The suffering of Israel comes from refusing to totally defeat the Muslim armies that attack Israel and totally vanquish them. Israel must never bow to the will of the gentile nations and their misguided compassion towards an evil people.

]]> By: Sam http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-112429 Sam Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:03:55 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-112429 There is an immesurable difference between Israelis and Arabs(Hamas,Palestinian Authority). If Israel would stop defending itself from the Arabs who choose to kill them there would be no Israel. If Arabs would stop killing Israelis there would be peace. Think about it! There is an immesurable difference between Israelis and Arabs(Hamas,Palestinian Authority).

If Israel would stop defending itself from the Arabs who choose to kill them there would be no Israel.
If Arabs would stop killing Israelis there would be peace.

Think about it!

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-112390 Danny the Admin Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:18:42 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-112390 American Indians were more or less exterminated in what the historians call "modern times." Sorry, we're the last state to claim our place on earth, so we're a little late to the barbarities' table. But gentiles killed 60 million of each other in two world wars just recently, and millions of Afghanis, Vietnamese, and Iraqis died in American wars. Can we please kill a similar number of Arabs? As for the slaughter of the entire population... The Western world did everything possible to aid the Nazis in doing just that to Jews. American Indians were more or less exterminated in what the historians call “modern times.” Sorry, we’re the last state to claim our place on earth, so we’re a little late to the barbarities’ table. But gentiles killed 60 million of each other in two world wars just recently, and millions of Afghanis, Vietnamese, and Iraqis died in American wars. Can we please kill a similar number of Arabs?
As for the slaughter of the entire population… The Western world did everything possible to aid the Nazis in doing just that to Jews.

]]> By: John Bows http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-112386 John Bows Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:44:10 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-112386 We all know we've moved on from this stage of our religious lives when a significant part of the discussion of the doctrine of "An Eye for an Eye", as we've labeled it here, has us discussing moral/spiritual responsibilities and the civil and criminal restitution required for breaking them when more than a few lines of Exodus implicitly condones slavery (generally) and enslaved Jews (specifically). Further, who in modern times can claim the legitimacy of engaging in the murder of an entire people "...to the last person"? I mean, really, should that passage be taken seriously? That's genocide. A platform like this is a relic. We ought look to it on issues where there exists no current thought or guiding opinions, but it's more than likely that there is little within these pages that we need in order to more effectively live within a post-Enlightentment world. We're better off simply looking back at such texts as measures of how far our religious and moral evolution has progressed (as a Catholic, I hold the same opinion of the New Testament that I encourage others to hold of theirs- they're our religious geneology, our family tree, but not expressive of the how far the trunk and branches and leaves have developed...rather, they really only talk about the roots deep within our common earth). We all know we’ve moved on from this stage of our religious lives when a significant part of the discussion of the doctrine of “An Eye for an Eye”, as we’ve labeled it here, has us discussing moral/spiritual responsibilities and the civil and criminal restitution required for breaking them when more than a few lines of Exodus implicitly condones slavery (generally) and enslaved Jews (specifically).

Further, who in modern times can claim the legitimacy of engaging in the murder of an entire people “…to the last person”? I mean, really, should that passage be taken seriously? That’s genocide.

A platform like this is a relic. We ought look to it on issues where there exists no current thought or guiding opinions, but it’s more than likely that there is little within these pages that we need in order to more effectively live within a post-Enlightentment world. We’re better off simply looking back at such texts as measures of how far our religious and moral evolution has progressed (as a Catholic, I hold the same opinion of the New Testament that I encourage others to hold of theirs- they’re our religious geneology, our family tree, but not expressive of the how far the trunk and branches and leaves have developed…rather, they really only talk about the roots deep within our common earth).

]]> By: Jay Silverman http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-111976 Jay Silverman Fri, 08 May 2009 02:57:09 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-111976 The mitzvah refers only to monetary compensation. The finger of a pianist or surgeon is valued more than that of a farmer or laborer. An eye or tooth is valued in a similar way, as are other parts of the body. The other mitzvahs mentioned regarding women, slaves, or murder are handled in a different way. There are different laws for different crimes. To save a life, defend the Land of Israel, or fight in a war are totally different and should not be confused with this. Please be careful when teaching Torah. Thank You. The mitzvah refers only to monetary compensation. The finger of a pianist or surgeon is valued more than that of a farmer or laborer. An eye or tooth is valued in a similar way, as are other parts of the body. The other mitzvahs mentioned regarding women, slaves, or murder are handled in a different way. There are different laws for different crimes. To save a life, defend the Land of Israel, or fight in a war are totally different and should not be confused with this. Please be careful when teaching Torah. Thank You.

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm/comment-page-1#comment-111854 Danny the Admin Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:03:30 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/an-eye-for-an-eye-doctrine.htm#comment-111854 'An eye for an eye' applies only to intra-group relations. As for the foreign enemies, God commanded Israel to kill them to the last person. ‘An eye for an eye’ applies only to intra-group relations. As for the foreign enemies, God commanded Israel to kill them to the last person.

]]>