Okay, Which one is correct then?

The funny little bible is full of contradictions, but the one that gets me is as follows:

So tell me which one is correct, huh?

Is it the scripture that suggests, an eye for an eye...

Or is it the one that says, turn the other cheek...

Please explain to me how both seemingly opposite reactions can exist in that good old book?

Are you supposed to decide based on the merits of the situation?

Are you supposed to turn the other cheek and then poke them in the eye?

Are you supposed to blind them and then turn their other cheek?

Nobody needs a book to tell them to treat people as they wish to be treated.
Here's simple, be nice, help others and don't commit violence.

Everyone of all walks of life can get behind that idea.

a reply to: forthelove

Not being of a faith that follows that book, I thought that Jesus said that he was citing a change in the law from the old testament to a new law. No more eye for an eye and replacing it with turn the other cheek. That is what I thought was going on with that.

a reply to: forthelove

Do you really want to understand?

Jesus taught how to be perfected, not simply how to be just per occasion.

If you live by the letter of the law you will inevitably fail, but if you live by the spirit, you are blameless.

The law was and still is misunderstood. If you want to be just, sure, judge an eye for an eye, but if you want to be blameless, you turn the other cheek and do not judge...

People are meant to live by the spirit of the words, not the letter.

Can you understand? You need to understand the will of the law to understand the law.


Essentially: If you judge then you too will be judged and you will fail like everyone else who is judged. If you live by the spirit, there is no law against it because the spirit is the law : love God and love each other - be blameless.


P.S. To judge means to carry out a judgement - to cast stones, so to speak. It does not mean judgement in the way we think of judgement today (as discernment). We are to discern.

a reply to: forthelove

Neither.

Kev

a reply to: forthelove

Old Testament: Exodus 21:24
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

New Testament: Matthew 5:38-48
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 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. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: forthelove

Not being of a faith that follows that book, I thought that Jesus said that he was citing a change in the law from the old testament to a new law. No more eye for an eye and replacing it with turn the other cheek. That is what I thought was going on with that.

I also am not a christian, but I do study the Bible intensely because I don't think it is even a Christian book but a book for people from all walks of life that is ancient and has no religion attached to it.

Jesus never started a new religion or changed any rules. He said that the Law of God never changes and never will.

The contradiction in philosophy is just that.

A contradiction. But the Father in Heaven is not the God of the Old Testament.

So the real revelation is that a higher authority exists than Yehovah, but very few will (and do) figure it out.

Once you realize that, the contradiction disappears and it is not law that governs our actions but will. If we were all good we wouldn't need or have laws because everyone will do what is right.

Unless you worship that god of psycopothy. Like our world leaders and their minions down to the local churches Pastors who are doing a job and don't care one way or the other.

a reply to: Black_Fox

The world is full of people that expose this hypocrisy daily, they will gladly bomb the crap out of a village in Syria or Iraq, and decry that behavior in their own country when it happens to them.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

No I understand, the world is full of hypocrites and the supposed bible allows for them to get there.

a reply to: forthelove

I always took this to mean to me personally that if I caused someone any harm I should feel enough remorse to pluck my own eye out .

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And which version is supposed to be correct? That is my point, it is all a crock.

or....you can say that the bible was written during a time that the vast majority of people in the middle east were ignorant peasants or slaves, simply concentrating on surviving.

a reply to: forthelove

I figured they were dishonest / rhetorical questions only used as a device for you to cast shade with but I thought I'd give you the benefit of doubt anyways.


Oh well, good luck.

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And which version is supposed to be correct? That is my point, it is all a crock.

I guess that for followers of Jesus, the turn the other cheek is correct and for those who follow Judeaism, the eye for an eye. Two different sets of people.

Easy. One is in the Old Testament. The other is in the New Testament, in which God was in a much better mood.

originally posted by: Black_Fox
Nobody needs a book to tell them to treat people as they wish to be treated.

Uhm.. What if you like spankings, flogged or beaten with a whip?

Your purpose to come here was never for illumination but to sew division and mock wasn't it now. I can scarcely see any other reason for your OP. Being the author of "All religion is fake" bears witness of your disdain of God or religion. I suggest you proclaim any answer you want and head on down the road a Victor.

a reply to: forthelove

Somewhere else it says, the one that strikes the second blow starts the fight.

So.........eye for an eye is not taught in the Scripture............cool...

originally posted by: Plotus
Your purpose to come here was never for illumination but to sew division and mock wasn't it now. I can scarcely see any other reason for your OP. Being the author of "All religion is fake" bears witness of your disdain of God or religion. I suggest you proclaim any answer you want and head on down the road a Victor.

Why so hostile? It is a legitimate contradiction and if it is making you mad enough to respond with accusations my guess is that you don't understand and are equally confused about the contradiction and even more mad that you can't properly answer.

Religion is a house of contradiction and hypocrisy if questioning something that doesn't make sense is enough to draw angry comments like that.

Even if you are not religious, asking questions is smart if something doesn't make sense.

When people start accepting things that don't make sense we get a society of robots who get taken advantage of daily.

Meet religion.