eye for an eye

[franksolich]

I went over to TxRadioGuy's hometown forum, to see an argument ongoing there, about how enemy combatants should be treated.

And as usual, there's a primitive mucking up a passage ostensibly from the Bible, but which actually goes back much further than that (Christ was saying it as then-ancient history).

This "eye for an eye" bit.

I have no idea why that's considered a bad thing.

Of course, it's considered a bad thing because it's always misinterpreted.

The "eye for an eye" comes from the ancient Code of Hammurabi, which was quite a few centuries before Christ, and which thus far is known, is the first codification of laws; this idea that the law is superior to any person, no matter how powerful that person is (or was).

"An eye for an eye" was nothing about revenge, as least as Hammurabi (and probably Christ) intended it; it was about making the punishment fit the crime.

In the time of Hammurabi, and before, punishment for a crime had been more or less capricious, and inconsistent.  A rich man might get simply a public rebuke for stealing a silver coin; a poor man usually got his head cut off for the same crime.

"An eye for an eye" was simply about making the punishment fit the crime--and no more than that, no more capital punishment for stealing a handful of grain--and to make the punishment across the board, applying to rich and poor alike.

If someone stole a cow, it was no longer that the rich man got off scot-free, and the poor man paid with his life; both, if committing this crime, were required to make the victim whole again, i.e., obtaining a cow to replace the one they had stolen.

I'm sure this is what Christ intended when He quoted Hammurabi, but anyone with more Scriptural wisdom than I is free to illuminate me.

It's like this "love your neighbor as yourself" bit, which was obviously not meant in the same sense that shallow people take it to mean.

[rich_t]

That has always been my interpretation of it Frank.

[franksolich]

That has always been my interpretation of it Frank.

But damn it, there's so many ignorant people, like the primitives, who think it has something to do with revenge, rather than equitable justice.

[Duke Nukum]

Jesus was pretty radical, even for our time, here is the whole quote:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Later Jesus talks about how it is better to cut off your own arm or remove your own eye if it keeps you from Heaven, which is interesting because Jesus seems to be saying, to me at least, that another person cannot harm us and he also seems to be denying the importance of our bodies.  I don't think he was literally saying we should mutilate our bodies in order to get into Heaven but just denying the importance of the body as something important or sacred.

[rich_t]

But damn it, there's so many ignorant people, like the primitives, who think it has something to do with revenge, rather than equitable justice.

Honest ignorance can be cured with education.  There is no cure for willful ignorance (as so often exhibited by the DU crowd and thier ilk).

[Inga]

I feel if we had this type of punishment for some of the crimes and abuse today there would be a lot less evil going on. And less fighting and wars.

I think they were on to something.

[Sam Adams]

Frank is right. The ancient Middle East (and for that matter, the present-day Middle East) loved revenge. If one member of one family commited murder, then the survivors would not only kill the murderer, but the murderer's whole clan. Such excesses went far beyond God's will. The Old Testament's "an eye for an eye" actually limited punishment to what was appropriate.

I would only add that we should distinguish between the love two private individuals should have for each other, and the administration of public justice. The Jews made an "eye for an eye" the rule for person-to-person relationships, but Jesus corrected that. The Old Testament laws are still a good guide for modern societies. If I were a judge charged with deciding a murder case, I would sentence the murderer to die, because that's what the Bible requires. But I should still pray for him, and do whatever other kindnesses I could for him--and his family.

[franksolich]

Frank is right. The ancient Middle East (and for that matter, the present-day Middle East) loved revenge. If one member of one family commited murder, then the survivors would not only kill the murderer, but the murderer's whole clan. Such excesses went far beyond God's will. The Old Testament's "an eye for an eye" actually limited punishment to what was appropriate.

I would only add that we should distinguish between the love two private individuals should have for each other, and the administration of public justice. The Jews made an "eye for an eye" the rule for person-to-person relationships, but Jesus corrected that. The Old Testament laws are still a good guide for modern societies. If I were a judge charged with deciding a murder case, I would sentence the murderer to die, because that's what the Bible requires. But I should still pray for him, and do whatever other kindnesses I could for him--and his family.

Amen, sir.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

But damn it, there's so many ignorant people, like the primitives, who think it has something to do with revenge, rather than equitable justice.

If you translated it into Marx-O-Speak they'd be on it like me on a drunken cheerleader...and it is very egalitarian.

BUT

The DUmmies hate God first and foremost so whenever God agrees with a DUmmy the DUmmy is compelled to change what he believes. To acquiese that God MIGHT be right is to allow for the point that maybe the DUmmie is beholden to something higher than himself...and they can't allow that camel to get its nose in the tent. If He is right even once then the DUmmie must ask who is more likely to be wrong on matters they disagree: them or God; and God by His nature holds greater weight. Thus, as an imperative God must be wrong on all points all the time.

Oleg, who is lead designer at thepeoplescube.com, came from the USSR and one of his favorite points is the commies would say: the issue isn't the issue, the revolution is the issue.