breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 915

Andrew Swallow

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

Also, study your Exodus and Deutronomy more closely...the Bible does not simply say "eye for an eye" without qualification...this is a continual misquotation used by those who wish to justify their vegence (which, by the way, is clearly stated as being "unto the Lord", anyway...men may have JUSTICE but "vengence is unto the Lord"):

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:22-25

You'll note that the "eye for an eye" comes after a very specific set of "IF" clauses...it does not say "eye for an eye" without qualification (unlike, say, the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" which has no qualification whatsoever, suggesting that killing of any kind whatsoever should not ever be done under any circumstances)...it is a specific punishment for a specific crime...that of hurting a woman with child AND doing so that she loses her baby AND that "mischief follow" THEN "eye for an eye"...

"If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Deuteronomy 19:16-21

Again, not unqualified...it again stands after an "if" clause, about a particular set of circumstances regarding "false witness"...

It is a malicious, continual misquote of the pbuttage of the Bible - delibrately lifting the words out of their original context - made with evil and malicious intent to justify nothing but blind and pure "vengence"...

Further, if you are a Christian, then it should be further noted that this is Mosaic Law...Jesus spoke very directly and explicitly on the matter in the Sermon on the Mount, leaving ZERO doubt as to His opinion on the matter:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': 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. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." Jesus, Matthew 5:38-42

And this is Jesus' own words directly from the Sermon on the Mount...and He specifically refers to "Eye for an eye"...and then says "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil"...then we have the famous example that everyone knows of "turn the other cheek"...this cannot, for a Christian, hold any doubt whatsoever that Jesus is EXPLICITLY stating that the kind of "eye for an eye" you're talking about is NOT Christian (the Sermon on the Mount is often referred to as the "Christian Manifesto", where Jesus makes a Speech where He lays out the main beliefs of Christianity)...we can see an EXPLICIT "overriding" of the Old Testament because Jesus makes full and unambiguous reference to the earlier "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but then qualifies what the Christian should do and believe...

For Christians, there is no hiding actions behind "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"...Jesus explicitly "overrides" that Mosaic Law above...

Also, if you've heard your local preacher or Bush or someone else claiming Christianity regularly using this as some "excuse" that immorality and liquidate in Iraq is "Christian", then pay attention to another pbuttage in Christ's "Sermon on the Mount":

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-16

And they can "claim" Christianity all they like but it is by their actions - by their fruits - that they saw be judged by the Lord:

"Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" Matthew 7:22-23

Indeed, while you're at it, you can read the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, if so inclined...the "devils who cite scripture for their own purpose" get away with it by, as I say, lifting pbuttages out of context...just saying "eye for an eye", as if it came without qualification...then pretend that Christ didn't explicitly and directly "override" that and state completely and specifically what the Christian interpretation should be...the Sermon on the Mount is the most complete pbuttage to cover most of the Christian belief (as I say, often referred to as the "Christian Manifesto")...don't be "duped" by those who cite scipture for their own purposes, read it for yourself and you can't get "duped" by these tricks...find out the exact context (as, very often, single lines are lifted out of context...the oldest trick in the book: if you only extract a word here, a word there, a word over there, you can make a book of any reasonable length appear to be saying practically anything you like)...

If you're a Muslim, then though the Qur'anic Jesus - a prophet - is quite different than the Christian Jesus (no virgin birth, no cruxification, not Son of God...but still a very important prophet to Islam, heralding Mohammed...who, in legend, when purging Mecca of its idol worship, threw his cloak over an icon of Mary and Jesus, ordering all others to be washed away but to leave this one be), you should certainly recognise a commonality on this point...neither your nor our Jesus - in either text - would truly prescribe these violent and vengeful actions...

If you're Buddhist, then "the law of karma" and the inhernet non-violence of that religion already covers this..."an eye for an eye" would karmically "echo" forever...

If you're an aethist, then a review of the history books will leave the diligent student in no doubt that it is an unwise move...while you're there, read the history books regards "empires": It is no "rave review", whoever you read...

If you're of a scientific mind, then the inherently RECURSIVE nature of "an eye for an eye", leads you to immediately conclude the same as Gandhi did:

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

This is the one useful attribute about true and correct principle: It is IMMUTABLE regardless of the context you view it from...your beliefs or opinions do not alter what is actually objectively true...only how you see it (or fail to see it)...

Take a look at this image (you might have seen it before and, thus, know what I'm going to demonstrate):

Is it a young lady or is it an old woman?

Some will say "young lady" and some will say "old woman"...and both will be confused as to how the other can say something so contradictory...

Are we not looking at the same image? Are these not the same lines and the same areas of white and black we are looking at?

Yes, they are...but this image is a delibrate optical illusion...the young lady looks off over her shoulder, the old woman looks to the ground...the young lady wears a choker, which is the mouth of the old woman...the young lady's chin is the old woman's nose...her ear is the old woman's eye...

It is an optical illusion...the image is delibrately drawn to be both "young lady" and "old woman" in equal measure...the image is neither, either or both, depending on how you want to look at things...

Further, you'll notice one other attribute, once you're able to see both the young lady and old woman...you'll be able to see one or the other at will...but you'll find it quite impossible to see BOTH at the same time...

Yet, we are looking at the same lines, the same areas of black and white...the picture - the reality - does not change one iota...only how YOU perceive it...

"This is my truth...tell me yours" Anuerin Bevan MP, founder of the British NHS

Beth :)