The Wisdom of "Eye for an eye" theology

[Agape4Robin]

Chileice made my case:



Hardly out of context. To rebuke is to bless with the truth. To not rebuke would be a curse. To forgive without repentence is misrepresenting God's way of doing things and would be a curse. For both parties.



Not forgiving when it is not asked for is NOT repaying evil for evil. Forgiving when someone admits their sins/crimes is having regard for good things. It is a good thing to repent. Yes, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably. But if it is not possible, do the right thing and confront and rebuke those who sin.



Not forgiving is not avenging one's self. Seeking justice is not avenging one's self. To kill my rapist would be evil in God's sight, but to not forgive him is righteous when he is not repentent. Do good, sure, but do not give him what he does not deserve (forgiveness) unless he repents.




Not forgiving is NOT being overcome by evil, else God would have rebuked the saints under the alter. Correction is good. Repentence is great as it paves the way for forgiveness.






Why did Jesus say, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." .. .. If I forgive them, why should God need to avenge? Isn't forgiveness a clean slate? Isn't that what God does for us when we repent and then He forgives?



Rebuking is blessing them. Forgiving them when they do not repent does not bless them. Bless, yes; forgive without cause, no. Forgiving without repentence IS overlooking their sin.



ya think?



Christ did not forgive me until I repented of my sins, so you are not forgiving the way Christ did/does.



You are not forgiving as Christ forgives. And not forgiving someone does not make me bitter. The culprit not repenting makes me bitter.





I was just thinking the same about you.



Forgiving when it is not merited is a sham.



Only if we seek vengence . . . not justice or repentence from the culprit, but vengence.



I am safe in my faith in Christ, because I know that when I turn from my sin and with a contrite heart ask for forgiveness I am given it. I KNOW I will fail as I am only human. God knows that too. But if I can overcome my human desire to make excuses and just be honest and ask for forgiveness when I fail, I know that God will forgive.



You don't know your Scriptures.





If the offender doesn't repend, I'm ok with that.



Irrelevant.



It IS germain to the point. And with it you make my whole case. Let's break it down, shall we.



First of all, you said Jesus forgave Peter 490 times. You misstated.



The king is Jesus Christ, right?



Aw, look, the rebuke. Caught in his sin.




Aw, look, repentence.





NOW we see forgiveness of debt.





Like Christ, the rebuke. Aw.





Aw, look, REPENTENCE.




And this is where the 1st dude messes up, because after rebuking and repentence, he didn't forgive. THIS is wrong.




Are you getting this? "BECAUSE YOU PLEADED WITH ME" THAT's why the lord forgave the slave. He did NOT forgive without the slave pleading.




Hear this?? ". . .IN THE SAME WAY that I had mercy on you" And how was that way? By rebuking, receiving repentence, and THEN forgiving.



IF we do not forgive WHEN there has been repentence, then God will be moved to react badly It's like you're reading this without really seeing it. You've read it so many times that it means nothing to you. Read it again.





Whuddevah blows yore skirt up.



It would be worse if I'd said nothing. Hey, here's one for ya: Was it nice of Jesus to call fellow Jews swine? sons of the devil? brook of vipers?




Your forgiveness means nothing to me as I didn't ask for it. It's a sham. You HOPE you can treat me as you would anyone else??? And here I'd thought you'd forgiven me. See, it's not real, you don't mean it, and it's worthless. THAT's why we are not to forgive without REPENTENCE.



You are mistaken. They want desparately to be free of it, but they cannot because either the culprit is still running around and not turning himself in (ya know, like, repenting) or he's sitting in a cell AT THEIR EXPENSE and laughing at them. I was watching a special on the Tate/LaBiano murders by the Manson clan. Sharon Tate's mother was filmed confronting the guy (can't think of his name, but he claims to be a Christian now and has a website and guess who pays for it -- have been meaning to write to him that he would've likely been saved sooner if he'd had a death sentence hanging over his head so he shouldn't advocate life sentences!). He sat there rolling his eyesk, wouldn't look at her. He murdered her daughter and grandchild, and he sat there sullen like she had some nerve speaking to him that way. No repentence. Nothing. She was wise in not forgiving him. The irony of this: she was prolly not saved and is in hell now (died in the 80s I think) and he's saved. But he was not repentence then, and she was right in not forgiving him.





I was not taught to pretend it didn't happen. I was taught to forgive. As you are saying in this thread. And it is wrong.




It is sin and it was not forgivable becasuse he's not repentent. Re-read above breakdown of wicked slave.



True. And God knows that he has an upaid debt with those he abused. And God will avenge because of his lack of repentence.



THAT'S RIGHT!!!!!

You've managed to make my whole point. Again.




MY freedom is in Christ, as I've already explain. For you to say this now offends the very person of Jesus Christ. And calls me a liar. I'll forgive if you repent. The pedophile's actions affect my live, but do not define it. You need to talk with Christ on this.



D.u.h. I did not seek vengeance. I sought justice. I did move on, affected. I do move on in Christ now, freed, blessed and defined by Christ.



True, which initially I didn't do well. But in Christ, now I do. The pig didn't repent, he is dispicable. And God Himself will avenge me.



Yes, as you are completely wrong about me. If anything, I am bitter towards Christians like you who mislead.

As so againk, you infer that I am lying. Again, you give no credit to my freedom in Christ Jesus.

I rebuke YOU, Chileice. How dare you insult the joy of Christ in my life! How dare you. I rebuke YOU, Chileice. I do not forgive you, however, unless you repent.[/QUOTE]
:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO:

 

[SOTK]

SOTK, I often find your posts thoughtful and interesting. But I guess I see in this post what I see in Rimi's. Unforgiven sin leads to more sin. It can not help but lead to some type of grudge or bitterness. If I do not forgive the one who has wronged me, how will he/she know that he has wronged me? Usually we make the displeasure known by avoiding them, shunning them, closing them out. That in itself is unChrist-like behaviour and exacerbates the sin.

Chileice,

It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.

Overlook and forgive are two very different things. Overlook (disculpar en español) and forgive (perdonar) are totally different concepts. In love we do confront the problem, but I can still choose to treat that person with love and respect "in spite of their sin". That is forgiveness. Overlooking just pretends they have never sinned. Could you forgive your homosexual daughter? (This is a hypothetical question) But this is a question many Christians face. Can you forgive a mate who lusts after someone else? Can we do the hard forgiveness or just the easy stuff? Forgiveness requires guts and it requires a tight relationship with the ONE who has forgiven me... even of the tough stuff.

Chileice,

I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?

The problem with this analogy, and with the attitude that fosters it, is that other people are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. We aren't in charge of other people's moral or spiritual education. And it's only our own blind arrogance that makes us suppose that we are. And of course it's this same blind arrogance that causes others to resent and reject our trying to play "parent" to them. And rightly so. In fact, we would do the same were they to try to arrogantly force their imagined "parent-like" authority on us.

PureX,

See my response to Chileice above. I think what I wrote addresses your points as well.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Chileice,

It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.



Chileice,

I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?




PureX,

See my response to Chileice above. I think what I wrote addresses your points as well.

SOTK

I wish I had learned about this a while ago. I had to learn this truth the hard way. Thank you for this post. God bless you!

 

[Rimi]

Rebuking is blessing; hating is loving, etc. etc. People who believe that are living in some kind of self-made parallel universe. That's truly scarey.

Yes, hating that which is evil is loving. God does it. You must have some real issues with Him. Gooooooood luck.

 

[Rimi]

The problem with this analogy, and with the attitude that fosters it, is that other people are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. We aren't in charge of other people's moral or spiritual education. And it's only our own blind arrogance that makes us suppose that we are. And of course it's this same blind arrogance that causes others to resent and reject our trying to play "parent" to them. And rightly so. In fact, we would do the same were they to try to arrogantly force their imagined "parent-like" authority on us.

This analogy is very appropriate. We ARE our brother's keeper. We can legislate morality: i.e., do not kill.

They can resent this, but so what. Are police to stop investigating murders because it'll upset a murderer when he's caught? If we fail in our endeavors to correct behavior, then his blood is on his own head and not ours.

 

[PureX]

This analogy is very appropriate. We ARE our brother's keeper.

We are not our brother's moral authority (judges or teachers).

We can legislate morality: i.e., do not kill.

No, we can't. Which is why people kill each other every day regardless of our legislation. People don't refrain from murder just because there is a law against it.

They can resent this, but so what.

If you don't care how other people feel about your presuming yourself to be their moral superior, why on Earth should anyone else care about your moral opinions?

Are police to stop investigating murders because it'll upset a murderer when he's caught? If we fail in our endeavors to correct behavior, then his blood is on his own head and not ours.

You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.

 

[Agape4Robin]

You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.

Name a crime that is not associated with sin, Purex. :think:

 

[Chileice]

It is actually quite easy for me to forgive. I have forgiven much in my life and have been given forgiveness much more. I have done many stupid things. Sometimes I knew that I did wrong and sometimes I did not. Either way, having the affected party confront me on my sin and/or behavior was absolutely necessary, beneficial, and Biblical. I don't believe true forgiveness can occur until this process occurs. You say grudge and bitterness occurs by not forgiving. I say grudge and bitterness occurs when attempting to forgive occurs with someone who remains unrepentant. I don't believe Christians are being truly honest with themselves if they say that they can forgive someone who is unrepentant. Enmity still exists between the two no matter how small that enmity may appear. It just doesn't work.

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.Romans 12.18
I appreciate your thoughtful response and I agree that our sins may well need to be pointed out to us through the rebuke of a well-meaning brother or sister or even by an unbeliever. Perhaps we are looking at two sides of the coin or different sides of a triangle even. I see bitterness in the lives of many whom I counsel and most of it comes from a root of bitterness that springs up where unforgiveness was planted.

The writer of Hebrews put it this way in chapter 12:
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
You and I may not agree on the next point. I DO think we can forgive, even the unrepentant, as long as we are not turning a blind eye to their sin. We have to see it the way it is. If you can find a copy of C.S. Lewis' essay "Forgiveness" written in 1947, please read it. He explains it so much better than I could. But the idea is that we can only forgive when the person DOESN?T deserve it. If their action is excusable, they don't need forgiveness.

It's easier for me to let go of a wrong committed against me than it is to pretend to forgive it. Let me explain what I mean. If a brother sins against me and remains unrepentant after I've softly rebuked them, I let it go. I give it to God. I don't forgive. What I do is give the harm caused by my brother to God. I trust that God will cause the offending brother to have a heavy heart and move Him. I can't make someone be repentant, however, God can move someone to become repentant. If a person remains unrepentant after being rebuked, it's a matter between them and God. I've done my part. All I have to do is let it go and give it to Him.

Maybe the problem is the "letting it go" like it never happened. Forgiveness chooses to make a conscious effort to respect even when respect may not be deserved. It is an action of mercy, not an action of justice. Now the person may still need to be dealt with in a judicial sense. They may have to go to jail or pay a civil fine or make reparations, but forgiveness is not concerned with the judicial but rather the merciful. And we can't show true mercy if we are constantly reserving judgement, wondering if the person will sin again. If that is the case, we never truly forgive because the person might (and probably will) fail.

I always treat the offending party with love and respect; hence my parent/child analogy. What makes you think I wouldn't? As I said above, I have been forgiven much. I have had a tremendous amount of grace extended to me. I thoroughly enjoy extending grace back, believe me! I just don't believe I can extend grace back until the person repents. I can not truly extend the grace until that occurs. Before becoming a Christian and accepting Christ's atoning blood and forgiveness, I had to repent. How could I have accepted Grace from Christ until then?

Perhaps we are on a similar wavelength. I enjoy extending grace as well. And often exteding it to the undeserving has led to their repentance. I hope you will take a closer look at what I have to say and the Biblical injuctions on forgiveness and see if there might be some room for you to grow in your understanding.

Respectfully,
Chileice

 

[PureX]

Ummm, ... slavery, ... bigamy, ... animal sacrifice, ... I'm sure there are more.

Also, "sins" according to what religion? Christianity does not consider slavery and bigamy sins, but other religions don't consider incest, or bodily mutilation a sin. "Sins" depend on what religious rules are being applied to what behavior.

 

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

In Hollywood California, it is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time. Now that may be a crime, but you could not construe that as a sin.

But there are sins not are not consider crimes, like gambling, overeating and laziness

 

[Agape4Robin]

Ummm, ... slavery, ... bigamy, ... animal sacrifice, ... I'm sure there are more.

Also, "sins" according to what religion? Christianity does not consider slavery and bigamy sins, but other religions don't consider incest, or bodily mutilation a sin. "Sins" depend on what religious rules are being applied to what behavior.

:doh:
Try to keep up, Purex. This is a Christian Forum, so we are discussing Christian perspectives. Ok?

Since when is bigamy not a sin, as it pertains to Christian Theology? Animal sacrifice? Sin. Remember, Christ is now the only atoning sacrifice made for sin.

Slavery? :darwinsm:

 

[Agape4Robin]

In Hollywood California, it is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time. Now that may be a crime, but you could not construe that as a sin.

But there are sins not are not consider crimes, like gambling, overeating and laziness

Oh, you two!!!!!!!! :darwinsm:

 

[PureX]

SOTK,

I guess we have different ideas about what a "rebuke" is.

For example, I have a boss that doesn't seem to know or care about the proper boundries between human beings, and continually tries to belittle and humiliate his employees whenever he's feeling frustrated, himself. He doesn't understand or respect the fact that his emotions are not his employees' responsibility.

I refuse to accept such behavior from him, or from anyone else in my life. As an adult, I have learned that it's not appropriate for me to vent my emotions on other people regardless of whether I feel they've offended me in some way or not. And I believe that I have a right to stop anyone else who thinks they can do this to me. When he forgets to mind proper boundries, I will remind him in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable adult behavior.

Is this "chastizing" him? I don't believe it is, because I'm not aproaching it from a position of assumed moral superiority. I'm simply establishing a boundry that I want and believe should be enforced for the good of everyone. I'm not doing it because I'm "right" and he's "wrong". I'm doing it because this is who I am and what I believe I should do in this situation. I'm not doing it because I believe I'm his moral keeper and that I need to "teach him the right way" to behave.

Can you see the difference? It's subtle, but important, I think.

 

[julie21]

SOTK: Personally, I don't think the scripture you cited above has anything to do with Biblical forgiveness. That Scripture purely had to do with Jesus asking God to forgive them for not realizing that they were killing God. I think we would be reading too much into it to take it any farther than that.

This is the instance that set Biblical forgiveness...
Christ was physically placed on the cross by a limited few, but He was put on the cross by the sins of ALL..that is you and me and our next door neighbour all,and it was ALL of these groups that He asked the Father to forgive as He hung there.
Christ set the precedent for forgiveness, the pattern we as Christians who have had since that death, His grace extended to us through His forgiveness, that we are to follow. That is if our 'Christian hearts' are responsive to His leading through His example.

 

[Rimi]

PureX wrote:

We are not our brother's moral authority (judges or teachers).

So you have a real problem with laws, and judicial procedures of any kind. Anarchist?

No, we can't. Which is why people kill each other every day regardless of our legislation. People don't refrain from murder just because there is a law against it.

Irrelevant. Just because people don't obey the law doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist and be enforced.

If you don't care how other people feel about your presuming yourself to be their moral superior, why on Earth should anyone else care about your moral opinions?

Because what is right and what is wrong doesn't really change because someone doesn't like it. They might think killing is OK, but that doesn't make it right.

You are confusing crime with "sin". They are not the same thing. Crimes are behaviors that the collective society have agreed can't be tolerated for the good of the collective society. "Sins" are behaviors deemed unacceptable according to a religious perspective.

Most if not all crimes are sins. Not all sins are crimes. True. You had a point here somewhere.

 

[SOTK]

This is the instance that set Biblical forgiveness...
Christ was physically placed on the cross by a limited few, but He was put on the cross by the sins of ALL..that is you and me and our next door neighbour all,and it was ALL of these groups that He asked the Father to forgive as He hung there.
Christ set the precedent for forgiveness, the pattern we as Christians who have had since that death, His grace extended to us through His forgiveness, that we are to follow. That is if our 'Christian hearts' are responsive to His leading through His example.

No, this is the instance where Biblical forgiveness was set:

"Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him." Luke 17:3-4

Isn't the above scripture pretty cut and dry? I don't understand why so many people in this thread are overlooking this. The above scripture is a direct quote from Jesus Himself.

The reason why I stated that "we are reading too much into the words of Christ to the Father" is because Christ was directly asking for forgiveness for particular peoples at that particular time. I do not think that Jesus was asking the Father to forgive everyone who existed in the World at that point in time nor was He asking the Father to forgive people who didn't exist. He was asking for "real time" forgiveness. Jesus was asking for direct forgiveness for the people who were directly responsible for His death.

Julie, was Mary, His mother, responsible for His actual death? Were the Apostle's directly responsible for His death? Were all the people He healed and performed miracle's on directly responsible for His death? How about John the Baptist? Was he responsible for His death?

Jesus did indeed die for my sins! You are absolutely correct! He died for me, you, and our neighbors. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that I was not directly responsible for murdering Him. There were certain people who did do this and Jesus asked the Father to "forgive them because they did not know what they were doing". He was asking the Father for something particular.

I am "responsive" to what He said in Luke 17:3-4. This is the scripture where we were instructed on how to forgive.

Julie, did you or did you not repent of your sins before accepting the Grace of Jesus Christ? In other words, didn't you more than likely face the Lord in repentance before becoming a Born Again Christian? Or, did you feel like this was not necessary because you had already been forgiven and didn't need to repent of anything?

 

[PureX]

So you have a real problem with laws, and judicial procedures of any kind. Anarchist?

Now you're using that very tired old 'trick' of re-characterizing the other person's position in the most absurd extreme, so as to justify dismissing it without ever actually understanding it. "Prejudice prior to investigation" is basically a definition of bigotry. Are you a religious bigot?

I have no problem with societal law. Society's need laws to function. What I'm talking about is the difference between writing and enforcing laws based on social function, and writing and enforcing laws to promote a moral agenda. In America, killing other people is not against the law because it's morally "wrong". It's against the law because the society can't function without a law against killing people. When we have a trial, and someone is convicted of murder, we aren't locking them up because they're "bad", we're locking them up because they're a danger to society. Or at least this is how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, since America no longer teaches basic civics in it's schools, the general public is completely ignorant about how and why the government is supposed to work as it does. And this is why it's not working very well, these days.

The United States is not a Christian, religious, or even moral autocracy. It's laws and functions are not the product of any religious or moral agenda. The purpose of government in America is to establish and protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through equal rights, equal freedom, and equal justice for all.

You may deem this "morally right" or "religiously inspired" or you may not, depending on your moral or religious beliefs. That's your own business. You may consider a murderer "bad" if you want to. That's also your own business. But these are not why we try and convict people of the crime of murder, and it's not why we lock them up. Or at least it's not supposed to be why. Unfortunately, as Americans become more and more ignorant, they also become more and more confused about this. And the confusion has now spread to all levels of the government and justice system. As a result, the system is in danger of being dismantled by our own ignorance.

 

[aikido7]

No, bean, you are going to hell for rejecting Christ.

Yeah--right. Did you notice that when he talked about Buddhism and the Buddha and said something about "karma" and that what goes around comes around (typical new-age liberal drivel....)

Everyone knows that it should be "As you sow, so shall you reap!"

 

[Rimi]

Now you're using that very tired old 'trick' of re-characterizing the other person's position in the most absurd extreme, so as to justify dismissing it without ever actually understanding it. "Prejudice prior to investigation" is basically a definition of bigotry. Are you a religious bigot?

I have no problem with societal law. Society's need laws to function. What I'm talking about is the difference between writing and enforcing laws based on social function, and writing and enforcing laws to promote a moral agenda. In America, killing other people is not against the law because it's morally "wrong". It's against the law because the society can't function without a law against killing people. When we have a trial, and someone is convicted of murder, we aren't locking them up because they're "bad", we're locking them up because they're a danger to society. Or at least this is how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, since America no longer teaches basic civics in it's schools, the general public is completely ignorant about how and why the government is supposed to work as it does. And this is why it's not working very well, these days.

The United States is not a Christian, religious, or even moral autocracy. It's laws and functions are not the product of any religious or moral agenda. The purpose of government in America is to establish and protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through equal rights, equal freedom, and equal justice for all.

You may deem this "morally right" or "religiously inspired" or you may not, depending on your moral or religious beliefs. That's your own business. You may consider a murderer "bad" if you want to. That's also your own business. But these are not why we try and convict people of the crime of murder, and it's not why we lock them up. Or at least it's not supposed to be why. Unfortunately, as Americans become more and more ignorant, they also become more and more confused about this. And the confusion has now spread to all levels of the government and justice system. As a result, the system is in danger of being dismantled by our own ignorance.

Wonder why, then, it's called the JUSTICE system. :idea:

 

[aikido7]

Wonder why, then, it's called the JUSTICE system. :idea:

Divine justice or the other, imperfect kind?