2007-09-30 10:51:15 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ok Bruce but you didn't answer the question lol.
Oh and it isn't a false premise at all first answerer, as you all voted up Paul's "Did you beat your wife again?" or something like that comment which he justified before all of you by saying he was "SLANDERING", yes, he admitted it, to make a point that I was slandering. He got more than 40 votes up and one vote down, no doubt from a Christian, and even if it were from one atheists, big whoopie. Furthermore, he slandered me when I did not slander any of you, therefore he went beyond equal punishment and broke the law completely furthermore he took the law into his own hands. Didn't you all understand what I meant when I said you fell into the pit you dug for me after you voted him up?
2007-10-02 09:54:03 · update #1
I, Bruce is a Catholic. No wonder.
2007-10-02 10:22:14 · update #2
*sigh*
Source?
2007-09-30 10:54:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 2⤋
You really gotta let that wife beating question go and move on. You were shut down on the initial question and just ended up looking like a jerk in the follow-up question (and this subsequent follow-up question).
No atheist believes in 'eye for an eye' (because it makes the whole world blind, but it appears, judging by you past and numerous nasty posts, that it's the only way to deal with you. It's actually quite sad that people feel compelled to drop down to your level to make a point.
2007-10-02 17:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by moddy almondy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justice. That leaves us blind and eating through straws. You mustn't make silly generalizations until you actually have met a few atheists and know what they actually think. And even then, it's probably a bad idea.
2007-09-30 18:04:28 · answer #3 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The ancient law "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," essentially defines justice. That law actually predates Moses; it is found in Hammurabi's law, written before the Torah. It says that punishment should fit the crime, so that the sentence meted out to a criminal should be proportionate to the harm done to the criminal's victim.
Most modern governments, including the US, reject cruel and unusual punishments. Thus, we would not engage the services of a surgeon to remove the eye of someone who intentionally gouged out the eye of another. Instead, we try to compensate with a prison term we judge to be an equivalent loss in freedom to the loss of the victim's eye.
God assigns punishment--the work of bringing evildoers to justice--to human agents because his own goal is not retribution but forgiveness and reconciliation. He made us in his own image in hopes that we would freely give him our love and obedience, become his children, and come to live with him forever.
While unrepentant evildoers spend eternity in hell, it is not a punishment in the conventional sense. Hell is a choice to live without God in an eternal isolation.
God extends a ridiculous offer of mercy even to vicious sinners throughout a lifetime of cruelty and hatred, that if they will only return to him, he will clear their records and create a clean heart in them, enabling them to live with him in perfect happiness for all of time. In God's infinite mercy, he almost seems to abandon justice in retributing repentance with reconciliation. "Today," he says, "you can be with me in paradise."
Cheers,
Bruce
2007-09-30 20:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by Bruce 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Working backwards:
-- Not possible to "vilify" someone/something you don't believe in to begin with.
-- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. (M. Gandhi)
If you really want to know my conception of justice, you could simply ask me. Better yet, come back and ask me in another twenty years, as I'm still formulating it. I can tell you right now, though, that it doesn't involve simple tit-for-tat vengeance. We need to be better than that -- not because the universe requires it (it doesn't) but because we need it.
That's all I've got so far. How about you?
2007-09-30 18:21:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Very quick jump from a straw man to a fallacy.
Atheists do not necessarily believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" justice.
Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not "eye for an eye".
2007-09-30 18:12:13 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Atheists simply do not believe in the existence of any gods.
How can an atheist villify a non-existent being?
You don't know what else any particular atheist may or may not believe - you make things up as you go along.
2007-09-30 18:06:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because what you believe "God" is doing for punishment is NOT equivalent to an "eye for an eye".
Sending someone to be tortured for all of eternity in a fiery pit for not "believing" in him is not "eye for an eye". It's sadistic and insane.
2007-10-02 16:02:30 · answer #8 · answered by Jess H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Where on earth did you get such a backwards idea? Atheists in general would think the exact opposite of that primitive idea.
2007-09-30 18:12:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
But... we don't believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justice... if that can even be called "justice."
I'm more in favour of rehabilitation and efforts to deter crime through social programs.
2007-09-30 18:20:46 · answer #10 · answered by K 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Don't assume all atheists believe in an eye for an eye. I don't at all. Where on earth do you get that from?
2007-09-30 17:56:03 · answer #11 · answered by 354gr 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋