• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eye for an eye or turn the other check

Babykat

Babykat

Active member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
443
Reaction score
67
Location
USA, Alabama
Gender
Female
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Better know as “eye for an eye” and

Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Better know as “eye for an eye” and

Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Exodus quote is a limitation on the consequences you can impose on an offender. In other words, you can't give a bread thief the death penalty, you just make him pay for what he stole. The punishment has to fit the crime.

The Matthew quote is a means of staying out of trouble, if nothing else. Turning the other cheek will short circuit the possibility of a brawl and hopefully keep you out of jail.
 
it's just me said:
The Exodus quote is a limitation on the consequences you can impose on an offender. In other words, you can't give a bread thief the death penalty, you just make him pay for what he stole. The punishment has to fit the crime.

The Matthew quote is a means of staying out of trouble, if nothing else. Turning the other cheek will short circuit the possibility of a brawl and hopefully keep you out of jail.
Click to expand...

The Mathew quote has meanings hidden within hidden meanings.

The quote specifically calls out the slap on the right cheek. Slapping the right cheek implies getting slapped with the back of the right hand. A back hand slap is generally not as strong as the forehand.

This reminds me of a friend who was on a tour in Viet Nam who got into a bar fight and punched a guy smack dab on the nose. The "victim" of the punch snorted out some blood and asked, "Is that all you brought?". My friend was suitably impressed and subsequently soundly beaten.

As Mathew sets the scene, the "victim" of the slap is pretty much asking, "Is that all you brought?". This is not a refusal to retaliate; it is in itself a retaliation. My friend pretty much knew after the reaction to his punch that he was in severe trouble. The ensuing beating he took was just the confirmation of what he already knew.

In the same way, "Going the extra mile" today means to do more than is asked.

However, at the time, a Roman soldier was allowed to compel a local Jew to carry his kit one mile and no more. If the Jew went the extra mile, the compelling Roman was in big trouble.

"Going the extra mile" was an act of premeditated aggression against the aggressor.

The early Christians were pretty much badass revolutionaries recommending and teaching revolutionary response to authority.
 
code1211 said:
The Mathew quote has meanings hidden within hidden meanings.

The quote specifically calls out the slap on the right cheek. Slapping the right cheek implies getting slapped with the back of the right hand. A back hand slap is generally not as strong as the forehand.

This reminds me of a friend who was on a tour in Viet Nam who got into a bar fight and punched a guy smack dab on the nose. The "victim" of the punch snorted out some blood and asked, "Is that all you brought?". My friend was suitably impressed and subsequently soundly beaten.

As Mathew sets the scene, the "victim" of the slap is pretty much asking, "Is that all you brought?". This is not a refusal to retaliate; it is in itself a retaliation. My friend pretty much knew after the reaction to his punch that he was in severe trouble. The ensuing beating he took was just the confirmation of what he already knew.

In the same way, "Going the extra mile" today means to do more than is asked.

However, at the time, a Roman soldier was allowed to compel a local Jew to carry his kit one mile and no more. If the Jew went the extra mile, the compelling Roman was in big trouble.

"Going the extra mile" was an act of premeditated aggression against the aggressor.

The early Christians were pretty much badass revolutionaries recommending and teaching revolutionary response to authority.
Click to expand...

I have to say that is a very unique take on that verse from Matthew. Thank you for sharing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
first attempt the second method

if that does not work, then with all might attempt the first method
 
Babykat said:
I have to say that is a very unique take on that verse from Matthew. Thank you for sharing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not really, I've heard a version of that one before.
 
code1211 said:
The Mathew quote has meanings hidden within hidden meanings.

The quote specifically calls out the slap on the right cheek. Slapping the right cheek implies getting slapped with the back of the right hand. A back hand slap is generally not as strong as the forehand.

This reminds me of a friend who was on a tour in Viet Nam who got into a bar fight and punched a guy smack dab on the nose. The "victim" of the punch snorted out some blood and asked, "Is that all you brought?". My friend was suitably impressed and subsequently soundly beaten.

As Mathew sets the scene, the "victim" of the slap is pretty much asking, "Is that all you brought?". This is not a refusal to retaliate; it is in itself a retaliation. My friend pretty much knew after the reaction to his punch that he was in severe trouble. The ensuing beating he took was just the confirmation of what he already knew.

In the same way, "Going the extra mile" today means to do more than is asked.

However, at the time, a Roman soldier was allowed to compel a local Jew to carry his kit one mile and no more. If the Jew went the extra mile, the compelling Roman was in big trouble.

"Going the extra mile" was an act of premeditated aggression against the aggressor.

The early Christians were pretty much badass revolutionaries recommending and teaching revolutionary response to authority.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the striking of the cheek, that is a bit more nuanced than that. STricking someone backhanded was striking an inferior. If you turn the cheek, you are basically challenging them to strike you as an equal, in which case, the first strike would be improper. If you are an inferior, the second strike would be improper

turn the other cheek | Sesquiotica
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to the striking of the cheek, that is a bit more nuanced than that. STricking someone backhanded was striking an inferior. If you turn the cheek, you are basically challenging them to strike you as an equal, in which case, the first strike would be improper. If you are an inferior, the second strike would be improper

turn the other cheek | Sesquiotica
Click to expand...

More meanings within meanings. I love this crap!

Excellent link!
 
Eye for an eye, life for a life is under Jehovah's perfect law... Christians are under the law of love...turn the other cheek...or in other words, do not provoke or become provoked...
 
Babykat said:
So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases.
Click to expand...



The better way is, of course, AN EYE FOR AN EYE.


That is what our law system should be based on. If it were, we would need far fewer prisons.


If some thug, for example, sucker punches you, the police should then let you sucker punch him.

If some thug paints graffiti all over your home, the police should then let you paint graffiti all over his home.

Bad human beings are cowards. They can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

That is why Adolf Hitler killed himself. He knew that the Russians would have totally humiliated him if he had been caught alive.
 
Elvira said:
Eye for an eye, life for a life is under Jehovah's perfect law... Christians are under the law of love...turn the other cheek...or in other words, do not provoke or become provoked...
Click to expand...

I mostly lean towards this idea. But it is always good to see things from multiple perspectives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's just one of the many Bible contradictions.
 
How about a tooth for an eye instead? :mrgreen:
 
Babykat said:
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Better know as “eye for an eye” and

Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I believe in retribution, mean two eyes for an eye, how else will they learn, oh and then forgive them.
 
zyzygy said:
It's just one of the many Bible contradictions.
Click to expand...

It’s not a contradiction it’s 2 different set of laws. That like saying Australia taking guns away from citizens is a contradiction of the bill of rights 2nd amendment. They are not the same set of laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
code1211 said:
More meanings within meanings. I love this crap!

Excellent link!
Click to expand...

I noticed that the concepts were originally brought up by someone just this last century, by a theologian named Walter Wink. I don't know how accurate and true his research was, but it's an interesting concept never the less. It is at least plausible, which is a lot more than other of the 'alternate meanings' of scripture are.
 
RAMOSS said:
I noticed that the concepts were originally brought up by someone just this last century, by a theologian named Walter Wink. I don't know how accurate and true his research was, but it's an interesting concept never the less. It is at least plausible, which is a lot more than other of the 'alternate meanings' of scripture are.
Click to expand...

I haven’t read his stuff would be interesting to see. I mostly want to see Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches. Being transgender myself kind of want to see what he has to say on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Better know as “eye for an eye” and

Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I use sugar first. If that doesn't work I go straight to the part were I take their head and their hide and make a pencil holder and a pair boots.
 
Babykat said:
I haven’t read his stuff would be interesting to see. I mostly want to see Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches. Being transgender myself kind of want to see what he has to say on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry to interject my thoughts into your conversation... please reject or ignore as you feel may be appropriate.

Casting the first stone is probably a good place to start in religions either condemning or accepting various lifestyles. The concept and definition of "sin" is another topic altogether.

In a conversation with some very religious folks, one of them observed that different people are "hard wired" in different ways. In their view of the world, God was the one who did the wiring.

Their conclusion: "God don't make junk". If he wires some to be traditional and some to be non-traditional, that is His will and a part of His plan.

In my view of the world, God sent his only Son not exclusively to redeem, but to clear up many of the misconceptions relayed by the inspired word of God from the old Testament.

Let's assume that you hear a voice is in your head saying something that is revolutionary and also assume that you are not revolutionary. After the voice quiets, your memory of what was said will likely change to better fit your ideas of what is correct.

That's just people being people.

Live humble, be kind and walk your dog. You can't control what others think. If you have found love and peace, enjoy it. There are literally billions of people on Earth who exist in varying states of pain and misery.

Love and peace are things to be cherished. Cherish them.
 
code1211 said:
Sorry to interject my thoughts into your conversation... please reject or ignore as you feel may be appropriate.

Casting the first stone is probably a good place to start in religions either condemning or accepting various lifestyles. The concept and definition of "sin" is another topic altogether.

In a conversation with some very religious folks, one of them observed that different people are "hard wired" in different ways. In their view of the world, God was the one who did the wiring.

Their conclusion: "God don't make junk". If he wires some to be traditional and some to be non-traditional, that is His will and a part of His plan.

In my view of the world, God sent his only Son not exclusively to redeem, but to clear up many of the misconceptions relayed by the inspired word of God from the old Testament.

Let's assume that you hear a voice is in your head saying something that is revolutionary and also assume that you are not revolutionary. After the voice quiets, your memory of what was said will likely change to better fit your ideas of what is correct.

That's just people being people.

Live humble, be kind and walk your dog. You can't control what others think. If you have found love and peace, enjoy it. There are literally billions of people on Earth who exist in varying states of pain and misery.

Love and peace are things to be cherished. Cherish them.
Click to expand...

To me love and peace are god given. If you find it your walking a path of righteousness. But very well said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Better know as “eye for an eye” and

Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Turning the other cheek...." refers to insults or slights that's hurled at you. The subject is about "retaliation." Otherwise, it would mean that you should not defend yourself if you're being physically violated (which is allowed).


VENGEANCE IS MINE, says the Lord.

Forgive. The benefit of forgiving is for the one who forgives.
It frees you from the corrosive effects of anger and bitterness.
 
Babykat said:
In the bible there are 2 ways of dealing with someone who has harmed you
.
Exodus 21:23-25
you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Better know as “eye for an eye” and Matthew 5:39,40
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
So which way is the right way of dealing individuals who have harmed you or is a mixture of both judged on a case by case bases. Let’s hear your thoughts and explanation on this subject.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, turn the other cheek and in the middle of the turn, poke them in the eye :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom