Exodus 21:23-25 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It's there. It may be taken from Hammurabi, but it's in the Old Testament, too. Now, the ongoing Jewish tradition re-worked it to be a system of tort laws involving financial reparations for damages, and Christianity entirely repealed it -- in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I don't know enough about Islam to know for sure how Muslims interact with the notion, but a very brief skim of Wikipedia suggests that Sharia law accepts the idea, but allows, and highly encourages, the victims to accept monetary compensation instead.
Personally, I feel that goes too far in the other direction, but, again, in the ongoing development of Christianity, Christians HAVE developed ways to resist evildoers -- just as we Jews have found ways to avoid taking lex tailonis literally, Christians have found ways to avoid taking "turn the other cheek" to an extent that would destroy society.
Society cannot survive EITHER too much justice OR too much mercy. It needs both in balance.
In any case, I agree that the religion was arguing against a strawman -- but I'm not COMPLETELY bothered by that. I perceived it as a disagreement in worldview that I, personally, have with the characters of Paul, Grahame, and Clive. And, in real life, I have that disagreement with people I like, so I found myself able to accept that.
It's probable that Pegg and Frost have similar views as Grahame, Clive, and Paul -- but, just as that doesn't make me dislike Pegg and Frost, it doesn't make me dislike the movie.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-21 10:30 am (UTC)23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It's there. It may be taken from Hammurabi, but it's in the Old Testament, too. Now, the ongoing Jewish tradition re-worked it to be a system of tort laws involving financial reparations for damages, and Christianity entirely repealed it -- in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I don't know enough about Islam to know for sure how Muslims interact with the notion, but a very brief skim of Wikipedia suggests that Sharia law accepts the idea, but allows, and highly encourages, the victims to accept monetary compensation instead.
Personally, I feel that goes too far in the other direction, but, again, in the ongoing development of Christianity, Christians HAVE developed ways to resist evildoers -- just as we Jews have found ways to avoid taking lex tailonis literally, Christians have found ways to avoid taking "turn the other cheek" to an extent that would destroy society.
Society cannot survive EITHER too much justice OR too much mercy. It needs both in balance.
In any case, I agree that the religion was arguing against a strawman -- but I'm not COMPLETELY bothered by that. I perceived it as a disagreement in worldview that I, personally, have with the characters of Paul, Grahame, and Clive. And, in real life, I have that disagreement with people I like, so I found myself able to accept that.
It's probable that Pegg and Frost have similar views as Grahame, Clive, and Paul -- but, just as that doesn't make me dislike Pegg and Frost, it doesn't make me dislike the movie.