i like this quote better
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi
2006-07-25 02:44:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Peace 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Matthew is where this is found.
While it is true that the first 3, are in the old testament, Matthew is in the new, however, Matthew is before Jesus came to fulfill the law in John-1-1-5.
Any body of people must govern themselves through a standard set of rules or laws.
Laws change with new circumstances.
Circumstances change constantly.
Does this mean that we simply forget the old laws? NO. We must remember how it was done in the past, to know how to deal with new circumstances in the future.
2006-07-25 03:02:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by classyjazzcreations 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not a religious text, but this is the origin of the phrase you speak :
The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 BC Babylon (pre-Mosaic Law).
"If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out."
But I doubt you'll accept this, as it might call to question whether the laws of the Old Testament were in fact from God, or from man.
2006-07-25 02:50:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Arkangyle 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Doesn't matter--
Jesus:
MAT.5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
MAT.5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
MAT.5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
MAT.5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
MAT.5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
MAT.5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
MAT.5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
2006-07-25 02:45:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lori O 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mahatma Gandhi is a human being like you, me and everyone else. His words are his own opinion. Being a human being he can do mistakes. But God's words are error proof.
In glorious Qur'an Allah (SWT) says in Chapter 5: Verse 45:
We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose
or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for
equal."
Further He says in the same verse:
But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an
act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the
light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than)
wrong-doers.
Note: Low Crime rate in Saudi Arabia where Shariah law is implimented
2006-07-25 06:50:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by rabuca 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Jesus did no longer destroy the regulation he fulfilled it. The regulation is the comparable. a look ahead to a watch is God's righteous regulation and the only one worth to forged this stone is Christ the single devoid of sin. All adult men sinned and all adult men inherited dying this is the reason Christ got here to the international to fulfill the regulation that people who settle for the atonement could properly be made new interior the path of the atonement. no longer decrease than regulation yet via faith new creatures in contract with God's righteousness. i prefer to advise John 8 and Romans 6. God's be conscious is perpetually and it does no longer exchange.
2016-11-02 23:15:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A Holy man named Ghandi said, "If everyone lived by an eye for an eye. The whole world would be blind."
The "eye for an eye" designed so that noone could demand
more than what was taken from him. It doesn't mean we have to
get an eye for an eye.
2006-07-25 02:43:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Tegghiaio Aldobrandi 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many women, and a smaller number of men, are married to, or live with, a partner who slaps and beats them. Does one counsel such people to accept abuse, to offer the other cheek, or rather tell them to immediately leave the relationship, and perhaps file a criminal complaint?
Only a few Christian sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, accept Jesus' words as binding them to a position of total pacifism. During World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses in America refused to fight against Hitler, while those in Germany refused to fight for him.
Gandhi
"Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means putting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honor, his religion, his soul, and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration."
Martin Luther King brought that strategy to America, saying he had gained his Christian ideals from his own background, and from Gandhi he learned his operational technique. "Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale," said King. "Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social transformation."
No worldwide church will emerge from Gandhi's ashes, but his spirit came to America in the decade of Martin Luther King.
2006-07-25 10:10:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am glad you pointed the scripture out, cause some think that verse means for anyone but its talking about a woman with child.
2006-07-25 02:40:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why did you ask a question if you are going to answer it yourself. This is old testament and therefore does not apply today. As Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fullfill the law.
2006-07-25 02:49:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by wolfy1 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It actually originally dates back to Hammurabi's Code, written long before the bible.
It's further evidence that the bible is full of plagerism from other religions and cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
2006-07-25 02:42:59
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋