[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Or something he doesn't us to suffer through and he'll take over. Or we aren't qualified to decide on true justice since we lack the infinite intelligence and knowledge beyond time that he alone possesses.

Yes. :)

But God said vengeance not justice. We are suppose to seek justice and seek after justice.

Someone kills your child, accident or intentional. It is justice to want that person punished. Vengeance would be to go kill his kid. People who quote, "An Eye for an Eye", rarely understand that it was only applied in a certain very specific circumstance and that it was a limiter.

If someone hit a pregnant woman so she went into labor early and mother and baby were ok it was a fine. If there was any other damage to mother or child that was when an tit for tat came in up to and including the person's life. And that was where it stopped. You could not go demand the death of the perpetrator's family or burn down his home or anything else. Your limit was the death of the person who did the assault.

[frank ballenger]

RE: “An Eye for an Eye”... was a limiter.

True. The old way (still continued today in some countries) was unlimited vengeance to the person, the family and the tribe involved.

And as you said:
But God said vengeance not justice. We are supposed to seek after justice.

Thanks.