jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (45 posts)

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

  1. seanorjohn profile image81
    seanorjohnposted 6 years ago

    What do christians take this to mean.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I take this to mean Mans charge from God for administering punsihment of a crime. If a man takes anothers eye in crime or hate, then he is to loose his eye for the punishment.

      It was a description of punishment for crimes I believe. that said, i also understand that was then, this is now!   not sure how to take this in todays context.

    2. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi friend seanorjohn

      Quran has modified this teaching; I mention from Quran:

      [5:46] And therein We prescribed for them: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for other injuries equitable retaliation. And whoso waives the right thereto, it shall be an expiation for his sins; and whoso judges not by what Allah has sent down, these it is who are wrongdoers.
      http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=45

      So the teaching has been made human, rational and universal.

      Thanks

      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      1. earnestshub profile image86
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bloodthirsty vengeance.

        Very god-like! lol lol lol
        Can't you guys even read what you write yourselves or is this "godlike behaviour?"
        Petty nasty little god!

        1. mythbuster profile image85
          mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree - pretty nasty concept of God.

          I believe that, very often, we take sentences out of Scriptures and try to make them "universal" slogans where, instead, ANYTHING in Scriptures has an historical, spiritual, narrative, literal, figurative and often poetic context. I am very poor at determining spiritual and literal context, also pretty lousy at some of the historical context... however, I do try to read Scriptures in several ways before deciding what a sentence means...

          Call me a geek, whatever, I think there are words of wisdom, along with tropes, metaphors, etc that are bigger than eye for an eye sentences suggesting only one context.

          To my understanding, there are also different cultures interpreting God/gods in Scriptures but many people belief "Christianity" is ONE culture so that there must be only one answer for a given portion of text from Scriptures...

          If one culture's loving god is another's vengeful god, shouldn't we be taking a look at stuff like this instead of making statements like "line such-and-such has only this meaning"?

          1. earnestshub profile image86
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It would be nice if people could read a book without making it their life.

            Unfortunately for those who study the bible in depth it seems to be very much a tool for the terminally ill to promote their particular psychosis.

            Thousands upon thousands of crazy threats adorn it's pages, with the new testament providing a full time watering down of what came before in the OT.

            It is simply a book of controlling lies, threats and hate.

            1. mythbuster profile image85
              mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I study Scriptures constantly, ernestshub.

              Mind you - I study narrative and already mentioned the ways in which I'm deficient in understandings/context viewpoints about scriptures.

              For the original OP:

              "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is pretty plain and simple but seems to be like the emotional reaction/decision of a child who, perhaps, isn't the best decision-maker. Sort of like "billy slapped bobby so bobby slapped back" (sorry guys, it could be betsy and bonnie, too). I wonder if the culture who accepted and promoted this eye for an eye concept is also the same ancient culture or a derivative of the culture that accepted and promoted the God of vengeance and jealousy?

              If so (and I certainly don't know for sure but if so...) then I think there's a limit we have to place on following through on "directions" or "prescriptives" of a certain sort in scriptures. Perhaps these prescriptions are for a certain time, culture, people, outcome than we are needing in our present time.

              1. earnestshub profile image86
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Very moderately stated. smile

                1. mythbuster profile image85
                  mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah but I just realized it would have been quicker to just say:

                  we need to look at multiple aspects of scriptures and also we need to stop assuming that every rule and prescription pertains to us from dead dudes of long ago. Innnnnnnnnn my opinion lol

                  actually that was pretty bad englitch and grammar too lol

                  1. earnestshub profile image86
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I think you did a good job of it the first time. smile

              2. profile image68
                paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                While Jews were living in Egypt; they were being persecuted by Pharaohs in different ways for many generations; their males were being killed; they could do nothing and became cowards and were hesitant to take revenge.

                Moses saved them from this plight; yet the cowardice remained instilled in them.

                To bring them to the normal moral of man; they were given the teachings to take revenge; but not exceedingly.

                Moses’ teaching was right at that time and was rational.

                Thanks

                1. libby101a profile image61
                  libby101aposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you on this ONE point paarsurrey! It is accurate!

          2. mom101 profile image60
            mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. ......How about the verse about the eye of the needle? 
            It amazes me to no end that people actually take this literally.
            Vengeance, well, it belongs to God.  It is His to get. When you were young, and if someone hurt you, did your parents take care of it? He is no different. He does not want His children hurt.
            The Bible, is for today more so than it was then, or at least just as much. God is the same today as He was yesterday.

    3. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It means that although everyone can easily figure out the difference between right and wrong themselves, that statement promotes people to be violent towards one another. smile

    4. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Damn.  How come you only want the Christian opinion?  How about seeking opinions from sensible, reliable and logical people too?

      No need to get such a one sided opinion or view point.  To me, that's boring.cool

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  2. CMHypno profile image90
    CMHypnoposted 6 years ago

    Barbaric - if implemented it takes whoever is handing out the punishment down to the level of the person who committed the crime.  How can anyone condemn an action and say it is wrong and illegal then go and do it themselves without losing all moral standing?

    I'm not religious, but I do believe that Jesus was supposed to have said turn the other cheek

    1. libby101a profile image61
      libby101aposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really?? Don't our legal system today put men to death for murder? I don't see much difference!!!

  3. profile image0
    mtsi1098posted 6 years ago

    I take this as - do unto others as they do to you...

    1. profile image59
      exorterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      do unto others as you want them to do unto you,

  4. stilljustwonderin profile image60
    stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago

    That was in the old law.  Jesus came and taught love and forgiveness.  He said to turn the other cheek.

    The old covenant didn't work.  Jesus came and brought in the new covenant.  The 10 commandments and the golden rule still stands.
    But now we have love and forgiveness.

    1. Rochelle Frank profile image88
      Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The other thing is... In earlier times, death was the punishment for a lot of lesser crimes.
      If you put out someone's eye, or knocked out a a couple of teeth when you punched someone, you could be put to death.
      This was meant to moderate extreme punishments.

    2. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who was the author of the Old Covenant; according to Christians it was the Christian-God-Jesus who authored it. Is it not true?

      Thanks

      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      1. stilljustwonderin profile image60
        stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes it is true.  There were times in the OT that God repented.
        He saw that us humans can be hard hearted, and hard headed.
        So he repented of the old covenant and brought in the new.

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It is written that love of money is the root of all evil.

            I don't think so !!!

            I think  SELF  JUSTIFICATION  Is cause it is so easy to find

      2. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The author of the Old Testament Covenant was Jehovah.  Christian religions interpret who Jehovah is differently. Some say that it is Jesus Christ, while others argue that Christ had not been born yet, therefore could not also be Jehovah.

        1. stilljustwonderin profile image60
          stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Jehovah is God's name.  He has many names.  That's why I believe that just because some one is using a different name for God than I do, it doesn't mean they aren't praying to the same God.

  5. secularist10 profile image89
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    What do Christians take it to mean?

    Depends on the Christian, and it depends on the Christian sect. Some Christians, like many in Nigeria today, take a lot of the harsher ideas of the Old Testament more seriously. There has been a trend recently in Nigeria of pastors and churches persecuting "witch" children. Many children have been killed, tortured or maimed by these people.

    On the other side we have more bland, milquetoast universalist-types who are thoroughly secularized and would not even tolerate a bad word about gays.

    And there is everything in between. There are plenty of Biblical verses, sayings from Jesus and doctrinal traditions that support all kinds of interpretations and Christian customs. It is impossible to know which is the "true" Christianity and which is the "impostor." That is why Christianity, and every other religion, is fundamentally dangerous. There is always the potential for someone, somewhere, to take "eye for an eye" literally.

  6. RFox profile image81
    RFoxposted 6 years ago

    Talking of taking religious texts literally....it reminded me of a funny Red Dwarf episode where Rimmer explained to Lister that his parents were Seventh Day Advent"Hopists".

    The character Rimmer further went on to explain that his parents version of the Bible had a misprint and instead of Faith, Hope and Charity....it stated the three most important things were Faith, "Hop" and Charity.

    Taking this printed version literally every Seventh Day his parents would "Hop" everywhere in the name of God.

    This was written as a joke for the episode but it does illustrate a good point about taking written religious texts too literal.

    (I know most of the North Americans on this thread have probably never heard of Red Dwarf but if you're into completely twisted, British, sci-fi humour from the 80's then you'll love this series!)

    big_smile

  7. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    it is simple..those books which teach such things wrote in context to times when the books came into existence which in turn again shows that there should not be taken word by word or else we would move back in ladder of civilization..can't blame writers of those books..they wrote best they could think of but being humans they had their limitations ...

    1. secularist10 profile image89
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It also means nobody should see these books as "holy" or "inspired," just imperfect writings by humans that may contain some interesting moral or ethical ideas.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is not correct. Quran, Revealed Word of the Creator-God Allah YHWH is for the whole humanity. Its teachings fulfill needs or all the societies; if understood correctly. It was revealed in a primitive tribal socienty to start with and transformed it to the greatest heights. Later the society has moved to democracy which has separated religion and rule; which is secular and useful.

        The purpose of Revelation is not primarily to promote the punishments; it is to guide humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual fields; in this situation, unless the punishments are approved by the legistlature; such teachings won't be effective.

        This way the system will work amicably with no fiction.

        1. earnestshub profile image86
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yep I see that. lol lol lol

          How many people did your religion wipe out today? Don't you like to watch the news? smile

        2. secularist10 profile image89
          secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Its teachings fulfill needs or all the societies; if understood correctly."

          And how do you know which is the correct understanding?

          1. profile image68
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In the context of some verses preceding and some following the verse in question; also taking in account, if the verses are explained elsewhere in the Quran. This principle is mentioned in Quran; but people don't care for it; that is why they understand it incorrectly.

            Thanks

  8. Joe Badtoe profile image61
    Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago

    Well you learn something new everyday!!

    I thought it meant that there were some very bad and vengeful ophthalomigists and dentists out there.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

  9. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    The scripture is properly quoted as:
    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Matthew 7:12

    That makes the Golden Rule read a lot differently than as misquoted above.

    Additionally:
    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
    Mahatma Gandhi

    I think that sums it up rather well. Thinking any other way is insanity. A world of maimed, mutilated, angry, vengeful people. (Similar to what we have now, but worse.)

  10. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    Personally, I think it simply means punishment if appropriate for crimes.  If you commit murder you don't get off by claiming it was because you were addicted to vidoe games or ate too many twinkies.

  11. IntimatEvolution profile image83
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    I take it to mean something literal.  If a person steals, chop off their hand.  If a man commits murder, then he should be killed.  That is what I think it means.  I think it means to do something just as equally bad as to what they did in the first place.  Equal treatment for the crime.

    What is it suppose to mean?

  12. profile image0
    ralwusposted 6 years ago

    God must be a gangsta.

    1. seanorjohn profile image81
      seanorjohnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yup, you gotta be right. A good gangsta though. One of the good fellas.

  13. profile image0
    AMBASSADOR BUTLERposted 6 years ago

    It shows human beings the way of life on the earth for them. What they sow is what they will reap depending upon what they sow and the motive behind their sowing whether positive or negative. Sow love peace free and reap love peace free. Be not deceive: for whatever a man soweth that is what he reap. Simply put, it is the way of living on the earth for human beings with each other and the rest of creations that lives on the earth with human beings that is given authority by GOD to rule over the earth in rightousness over all things.

  14. profile image68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Quran has modified this teaching; I mention from Quran:

    [5:46] And therein We prescribed for them: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for other injuries equitable retaliation. And whoso waives the right thereto, it shall be an expiation for his sins; and whoso judges not by what Allah has sent down, these it is who are wrongdoers.
    http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=45

    So the teaching has been made human, rational and universal.

  15. profile image0
    Rhysjcposted 6 years ago

    An eye for an eye makes the whole word blind.

 
working