Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

I hope this is of interest; I've always, personally, really disliked famous quotes being misinterpreted.
1 posted on 05/22/2009 2:14:15 PM PDT by franksolich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Auntie Mame; buschbaby; Charles Henrickson; Paul Heinzman; Roscoe Karns; bcsco; KJC1

Sort of a ping for the list.


2 posted on 05/22/2009 2:15:13 PM PDT by franksolich (Scourge of the Primitives, in service to humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: franksolich

Does he mean that we should put them in a building and slam a jetliner into it so they can burn to death?

We have more economical methods of dispatching them......


3 posted on 05/22/2009 2:19:47 PM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: franksolich
The several passages in the Torah that mandate `ayin tachat `ayin, shen tachat shen ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth," etc.) are interpreted and explicated in the authoritative Oral Tradition which Moses received from G-d on Mt. Sinai. Its true interpretation is that someone who has caused someone to lose an eye, tooth, limb, etc., must recompense the victim with a monetary amount equivalent to the lost organ/limb.

Never in Jewish history has it been interpreted any differently. Jewish courts have never plucked out eyes or teeth, etc.

4 posted on 05/22/2009 2:21:26 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Haqrev 'et-matteh Levi veha`amadta 'oto lifney 'Aharon HaKohen; vesheretu 'oto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: franksolich

Christ was quoting Moses, or anyway his Law, not Hammurabi. Exodus 20 or so, if I remember corrrectly. Hammurabi came well before the Mosaic Law, so in all likelihood the use of the term in the Law was restating a commonplace of Middle Eastern legal systems.

I’ve also never quite understood why the lex talionis is considered so savage. Exactly what is unjust about forcing the perp to suffer the same injury he intentionally inflicted on another person? Since the perp is a guilty person and the victim was innocent, strict justice might even require greater injury being done to “even things up.”

The Law, BTW, applied this principle only to violent crimes. There was none of the hand-chopping for property crimes so popular in sharia.


5 posted on 05/22/2009 2:25:46 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: franksolich

Very interesting. I didn’t know this.


7 posted on 05/22/2009 3:58:56 PM PDT by Auntie Mame (Fear not tomorrow. God is already there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson