You know how some people say the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" principle is barbaric? Isn't it proof of?

by **augustus** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:19 pm

I take the account to mean a framework for justice for the people living in those times and not a literal sentence to be administered.

by **felabeorbt** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:22 pm

I take the account to mean a framework for justice for the people living in those times and not a literal sentence to be administered.

No, applying such a code means other factors are not being considered, it's irrational and primitive. It didn't do anything to stop stoning for things like adultery now did it?

by **nissim42** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:33 pm

I thought christians were supposed to love their enemies and not seek revenge. I've heard many christians say the eye for an eye thing no longer applies. Now your just confusing me, why is your religion so confusing????

by **alburt** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:35 pm

no it was used to see the criminal was justly punished and did not get off with light punishment

jesus said love your enemies

by **melville** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:49 pm

You're right.
God's statement shows equality and fairness.

by **chika** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:51 pm

It's called organ transplants.

by **emek** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:55 pm

If you think maiming and whipping people is not barbaric, I hope you are never a juror.

by **andor25** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:02 pm

These terms are used because by doing that to few people other people will stop doing it.... you should read about the histories of nations....

by **lundie** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:14 pm

i think you mean equality

I agree with the eye for an eye concept which is the system courts should adopt.

by **wakeley58** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:18 pm

It's proof that ancient peoples had harsh laws and punishments.

That's all.

...

Advertisments:

Useful Links: