Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:03 pm
Reply
True Justice:- A religious prospective

Like this post
True Justice makes peace. But what does peace mean? Looking at Hebrew, peace actually means to be whole- to be complete.
Following the theme of a Crime if someone steals your car, you are after the fact- not whole, your car is missing. So justice somehow gets you back your car, so you can be whole again.
An eye in place of an eye, a tooth in place of a tooth.
Ghadhi would ofcourse Quib an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. And Ghandi would be right; Ofcourse the Bible does not say an eye for an eye- it says an eye in place of an eye- meaning not that you take the tooth from someone that has removed yours, rather the person that took the tooth must return one. The offence is thus paid for and the victim becomes whole again; and so has peace.

Extending this crimes are not simply a victim and a perpetrator, Families are effected, villages are effect local communities can be effected, sometimes an entire nation can be effected.
Like the ripples of a stone falling into the water, a crime can touch many people, and spread out from it´s source.

So in any crime you must look to heal, to make whole, all people affected. And the criminal also.
The times a crime are soley one persons fault are rare, often there are other circumstances, issues and problems that have lead to an incident, crimes can be very complex, and the solutions to bring wholeness to all involved also must be complex.

The resolutions in resolving a crime or incident to bring peace, should be, in each case, as a snowflake- and utterly represent the complexities they seek to heal.

THIS IS TRUE JUSTICE!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
I agree that true justice would indeed be total restitution and restoration.

I don't agree that the biblical scriptures concerning an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth were meant to imply restoration. After all, how is it possible for a mere mortal human to restore an eye?

How would a rapist who dismembers and kills his victim proceed to restore the victim to a state of wholeness?

In short, I agree with your abstract concept of "Perfect Justice" as being complete restoration. That's a nice ideology.

But I disagree that this makes sense in a biblical context, and it's also not possible in terms of any practical restoration of horrific crimes.

And then of course there's the question of how "just" the natural world is. Where is the justice in diseases or natural disasters that maim or kill with no restoration in sight?

Clearly this ideology of "Justice" in terms of restoration is a human hope and dream, but doesn't appear to have much to do with either the Biblical God or nature.

So I don't see how it could even be called a "A Religious Perspective". Unless we're talking about religions far removed from the Bible.

Just my thoughts on your proposed definition of Justice.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

I agree that true justice would indeed be total restitution and restoration.

I don't agree that the biblical scriptures concerning an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth were meant to imply restoration. After all, how is it possible for a mere mortal human to restore an eye?


WEll an Eye for an eye is not what is written. A better translation is "An Eye in place of an eye" Which certainly does speak about restoration.

But it is a good question, and actually it does need those involved to contribute to the concept of restoration, Eyes will be replaceable in the future, and fake eyes are today. Still the victim has a degree of say as the one that is to be made whole again about what is desired, and it would be different for each person actaully.

Quote:


How would a rapist who dismembers and kills his victim proceed to restore the victim to a state of wholeness?



Well if someone is murdered, the murdered person cannot be made whole again. It's the friends and family, the survivers, those effected that are alive, that justice seeks to make whole.

Really difficult, the extreme cases always are. And it is something that will have to be debated and discussed.



Quote:


In short, I agree with your abstract concept of "Perfect Justice" as being complete restoration. That's a nice ideology.

But I disagree that this makes sense in a biblical context, and it's also not possible in terms of any practical restoration of horrific crimes.


No it's a question, how is justice achievable in this or that circumstance, or how close can we get to it.


Quote:


And then of course there's the question of how "just" the natural world is. Where is the justice in diseases or natural disasters that maim or kill with no restoration in sight?


These are different things, people that suffer from a natural disaster are in a different situation to those that are attacked with intent by another person.

Mankind make medicines and are continually finding new ways to solve problems related to diseases and accidents.

Quote:

Clearly this ideology of "Justice" in terms of restoration is a human hope and dream, but doesn't appear to have much to do with either the Biblical God or nature.

So I don't see how it could even be called a "A Religious Perspective".


What does religion have to do with nature?

Quote:

Unless we're talking about religions far removed from the Bible.

Just my thoughts on your proposed definition of Justice.



No it is a religious perspective, as it is what the bible speaks of, I would argue that it's the type of Justice God wants, a justice that makes peace, and seeks to make(as best as possible) all people involved whole.

It's for us(humanity) to administer that justice.

God will administer Gods Justice.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
Daddieslittlehelper wrote:

No it is a religious perspective, as it is what the bible speaks of, I would argue that it's the type of Justice God wants, a justice that makes peace, and seeks to make(as best as possible) all people involved whole.

It's for us(humanity) to administer that justice.

God will administer Gods Justice.


Your interpretation would be problematic in Christianity. In the New Testament Jesus rebukes "An eye for an eye" and replaces it with "turn the other cheek".

What would that mean in your interpretation? To quit offering restoration and just turn away?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:43 pm
Reply

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

Daddieslittlehelper wrote:

No it is a religious perspective, as it is what the bible speaks of, I would argue that it's the type of Justice God wants, a justice that makes peace, and seeks to make(as best as possible) all people involved whole.

It's for us(humanity) to administer that justice.

God will administer Gods Justice.


Your interpretation would be problematic in Christianity. In the New Testament Jesus rebukes "An eye for an eye" and replaces it with "turn the other cheek".


Jesus does not replace anything, "Do not imagine I have come to do away with the law or the prophets... not one dot, one spot or one little stroke is to fall out of the law"

Jesus upholds the whole of the Torah, turn the other cheek is a rather direct, and personal response to an action, it's do not propogate.

For 'an eye for an eye' this makes sense, notice that Jesus is dealing with the Oral Law here, through out the whole of the sermon on the mount Jesus says "You have heard it said, but I say to you" He does not say 'it is written' Rather it appears Jesus is actually talking about Oral Torah, People might and still do say An eye for an Eye, but actually what is written is 'an eye in place of an eye'.

Jesus clearly takes about legal Justice, and this is a legal not personal issue, justice is a social function, not a personal thing.

To say real justice is not just about the personal it's about all involved, turn the other cheek is about a personal not social responce.

Matt 5. 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way; lest perhaps the prosecutor deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. 26 Most certainly I tell you, you shall by no means get out of there, until you have paid the last penny.


So what Jesus is talking about is a seperate issue really.

Quote:

What would that mean in your interpretation? To quit offering restoration and just turn away?


No if you follow what Jesus is saying the Victim would not want any Restoration. And would let the person off.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Fri May 19, 2017 11:59 am
Reply
Re: True Justice:- A religious prospective

Like this post
Daddieslittlehelper wrote:

True Justice makes peace. But what does peace mean? Looking at Hebrew, peace actually means to be whole- to be complete.

So in any crime you must look to heal, to make whole, all people affected. And the criminal also.

This is what was meant by repentance too.

For a person to repent then they must make amends - try to fix or reverse the harm done.

Many people claim that repent only means to be sorry for the sin, and that does not repair anything.

If a person repents and it does not make peace for all concerned - then that would be a big sign that the repentance was not done correctly.

Daddieslittlehelper wrote:

An eye in place of an eye, a tooth in place of a tooth.
Ghadhi would ofcourse Quib an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. And Ghandi would be right; Ofcourse the Bible does not say an eye for an eye- it says an eye in place of an eye- meaning not that you take the tooth from someone that has removed yours, rather the person that took the tooth must return one. The offence is thus paid for and the victim becomes whole again; and so has peace

I do not see any way for a person to return an eye for and eye, or to return a tooth for a tooth.

Perhaps they could offer to pay money for the eye or the tooth, or offer some other recompense and that would work in my view.

Daddieslittlehelper wrote:

... notice that Jesus is dealing with the Oral Law here, through out the whole of the sermon on the mount Jesus says "You have heard it said, but I say to you" He does not say 'it is written' Rather it appears Jesus is actually talking about Oral ...

This is well said = that it was a reference to oral and not written.

I never noticed that before.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version