Road rules1 min ago
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?
9 Answers
What's the meaning of this? My knowledge of this is that it comes from the Old Testament if I'm not mistaken.
And was it Gandhi who said this isn't true?
Eye for an eye turns the world blind.
I'm confused as to what it means.
omnom
And was it Gandhi who said this isn't true?
Eye for an eye turns the world blind.
I'm confused as to what it means.
omnom
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by omnom. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.actually, I'm wrong; they aren't presented as maximums but as the correct response
http://bible.oremus.o...-19:21&version=nrsvae
I think it was Gandhi but haven't found an actual source.
http://bible.oremus.o...-19:21&version=nrsvae
I think it was Gandhi but haven't found an actual source.
it seems they have both used that quote, though I should imagine that Gandhi was the first.
http://thinkexist.com...ye-leaves/146484.html
http://thinkexist.com...ye-leaves/146484.html
Apparently
http://net.bible.org/...assage=Lev%2024:19-21
http://www.biblegatew...1%3A22-25&version=NIV
You didn't mess around with those Hebrews. However, those quotes are from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus is much more placatory, suggesting that only someone without sin should cast the first stone (when stoning someone to death). I imagine he'd be much more comfortable in Gandhi's company than his father would.
http://net.bible.org/...assage=Lev%2024:19-21
http://www.biblegatew...1%3A22-25&version=NIV
You didn't mess around with those Hebrews. However, those quotes are from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus is much more placatory, suggesting that only someone without sin should cast the first stone (when stoning someone to death). I imagine he'd be much more comfortable in Gandhi's company than his father would.
It meant a punishment or a response to match the original affront. Supporters of capital punishment have used it to justify killing murderers.
Presumably they are not Christians because, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus rejects this and says that, on the contrary, if someone smites you on the cheek you should turn the other one to be smitten also.
Which makes one wonder why Jesus is considered a wise man. Just imagine it...
"Oh, you've stolen a tenner from me? Hang on, there's another tenner in the other pocket."
"You've raped my daughter? Well, I've another daughter here. Would you like to rape her?"
Isn't religion wonderful?
Presumably they are not Christians because, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus rejects this and says that, on the contrary, if someone smites you on the cheek you should turn the other one to be smitten also.
Which makes one wonder why Jesus is considered a wise man. Just imagine it...
"Oh, you've stolen a tenner from me? Hang on, there's another tenner in the other pocket."
"You've raped my daughter? Well, I've another daughter here. Would you like to rape her?"
Isn't religion wonderful?