@englishtearose The point still stands, I'd like to point out that when the bible was most used and respected, (The Middle Ages) Feudalism was everywhere. Bible has virtually nothing to do with democracy at all.
In a way, the athineans, had imposed a "federal democratic" governance on the rest(majority) of the rest of the city states, becoming a sovereign power in the "meditterenenan world" Their power (& money leverage) cam directly from the contributions of the other city-states... And if one of them, was to raise their head, opposing Athenisj rule, it would be burned to the ground, by its superior naval forces...Anyways I simply wanted to bring forth this example of federal governance in the ancient world..which is said to have inspired ( as a simile mostly) the modern governance of the U.S. as a ruling elite on the rest of the world stage...
Western civilization is the greatest paradise in the human history. So sad that today's people are throwing away all what our great ancesters have gained. We must start believing in ourselves, at least for the wellbeing of our children.
It’s funny, most of the comments are from people who didn’t actually watch the video, and just became angry at the title and started typing. Many of the people’s points are disproven or corrected by the video. If they had actually taken the time to watch the video, half of the comments would have been answered.
@@ianisz2178 You missed the forest for the trees. "why should I obey a God" We're all God's children. We understand his ways and means as much as a 3 year old understands his parent's ways and means. That was the point of the analogy. Just as a parent doesn't cater to his 3 year old's every whim and disciplines him when he needs to (even if he doesn't understand it at the time and it seems cruel to him at the time), so does God to us. The Book of Job made a pretty good case regarding that (God telling Job his limited POV can't grasp all of God's creation and thus all of his roles in it) . If you want me to expand on it, I can.
@@ianisz2178 Debunked? You must have the Quran in mind (which claims to be perfectly clear and error-free). I'm unaware of such moral debunking. Please elaborate (I'm yet to hear a serious challenge to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah, which is essentially The Law of Christ)
no, you wrong: first it is not revenge, is justice, learn to think, and understand, and by the way, look into: 1) Matt. 10:34 2) Luk. 14:26, and many many many others
@@thecartooncynic Of being a slave owner? Gladly! Or should we apply that to all kinds of things? "Your honour, I may have killed all those orphans, but I would ask you. If you are guiltless, cast the first stone." Now is this a little reductive? Yes. But with purpose, civilisation is not an object - it is a process - like a fire. Try and measure it, try and determine its exact state, and you will be in for a headache and some burnt fingers. So I would ask you: when the tree catches fire, do all the leaves not burn? Or might we expect only a single branch to catch alight?
What about “If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well.” Edit: Ok I get what Jesus actually meant when he said this. Jesus meant that if anyone tries to attack offensively or with evil intentions ,then we should never try to do same to them. Instead, we should defend ourselves from them and don’t allow ourselves to fight evil with evil ,because that’s like fighting fire with fire. In conclusion, we should always protect ourselves and others and never allow evil be our intentions ,but let goodness be our intention.
That actually has a symbolic meaning based on the body language of Christ's time, which did include mild physical violence such as slapping a man on the cheek. First a premise: slapping a man was done by the right hand, as a rule. To hit a man on the right cheek is a backhand blow. This was the way a master strikes a servant, a social inferior. It was dismissive and insulting in other contexts. Christ said that when you are so insulted, turn your face so the only cheek he can slap is your left. That requires a forehand. The body language is different, this kind of slap was given to a social equal. It served as an acknowledgement that yes, I am angry enough to hit you, but I cannot dismiss you. The meaning of the statement is "if someone treats you as a social inferior, force him to acknowledge you as an equal."
@@EliezPaulino I blame my mother for getting into a huge spout of bible study over the past decade. I've picked up a lot of "this famous verse when looked at in the contemporary culture actually means this" tidbits. This one stuck with me more than others, probably because I'm left handed. Christ was many things, but he wasn't a pacifist.
Actually, Christians shouldn't even use The Law of Retaliation, because Jesus rejects it in his mountain speech: 38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39: 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. So even he describes it as immoral. Well that is pretty hard to debunk from a christian perspective, isn't it?
The Buddha said something very similar in spirit: Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love - thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves. That is why I don’t agree with this artificial east-west divide.
Yeah, but then "Eye for an Eye" and "Turn the Other Cheek" do not talk about the exact same thing. When Jesus said "Turn the Other Cheek", he means if somebody did you wrong, you're not supposed to retaliate through evil, but forgive them instead. Jesus is talking about personal forgiveness, not legal forgiveness. Anyone who did you wrong would still have to be punished according to the law, as "Eye for an Eye" suggests.
not exactly, Jesus did not reject it, but he clarified it. Eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are derived from the same basic principle: "Every human being has intrinsic value because they bear God's image." Eye for an eye helps to reinforce that all people are intrinsically valuable. On the other hand, Jesus was essentially saying that not only do all people have intrinsic value, but you ought to treat them with reverence as image bearers of God.
+Intergalactic Thought Criminal *Welcome to (mostly) the trurh* Yea, it's pretty good. Except for that one video that was trying to convince men that marriage was good for them >_
An eye for an eye Tooth for a tooth Commit the crime, pay the price Blood must have blood All the same, people must pay for their sins which they have committed against others without cause
Leandro Toro But that’s inhumane to do that. I mean it’s fine to torture someone but it’s not fair to have to pay the price for murder. That’s what jail is for. But now people say jails are inhumane. You know what, let people murder with no consequences and see where that’ll get us. Eye for an eye is the only fair punishment.
I do agree with they idea of eye for an eye. It's basically standing upto people and showing them they can't hurt you without dealing with retaliation.
“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 one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42)
The point of this verse is to say that you, as a person, should forgive as Christ forgave you. However, we are not able to forgive a criminal on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, the Bible is very clear about laws in society. Just take a look at Romans 13. The point there is that violating the ten commandments hurts more people than just the obvious victim. Therefore, justice should be carried out even while you, as an individual, should forgive the person. Jesus did not forsake justice for love (or else, why would he have died on the cross?).
Prager is a jew. He thinks the old testament is the basis of western civilization- not the New testament. He also forgot to mention that the eye for an eye equality did not apply to slaves, because the bible says they were property.
Lord Blarg Don't lie about what the bible says. 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Lord Blarg And something else you probably don't know if you've never read the Bible critically: right after that verse the Bible says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and if anyone hurts a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, that person is to be fined, not killed, because the life of a fetus is not the equivalent of a adult according to God.
Everyone making comments always have opinions but rarely ever make a video, cite a source or back up their opinion with rational thought. There are many ways to look at something. Just stating your opinion in no way makes it fact. What Prager does is massive amounts of research. If you want to refute what he's saying, first understand the context and then go find credible evidence and present it. Try to present it without hate and bigotry because YOUR eye has no more value than DP's eye. #honestintellectualism
On the contrary, the one who presents the assertion has to also provide the evidence, he asserted that stupid law ended parental violence, he didn't back it up at all, so I'm in all my right to dismiss it as stupid nonsense.
@@SL2797 Did you watch the video? He's saying that because a council had to decide whether or not to stone a child, children were rarely stoned because people saw that you shouldn't stone a child.
From Prager U page itself about the institution: ´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u. Repeating: ´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u We living in a alternate universe where the people(who believe that is smart) believe in this ´´ institution`` and awesome people like neil degrasse tyson, stephen hawking,Richard Dawkins and bill nye are calling communists and leftists. It´s tragic and funny.
@@SheonEver Dennis Prager just comes up with ideas that works in his own mind. Kind of, "If I, Dennis Prager, were God, this is what I would do". But he isn't God, and he is making it up. Ben Shapiro would know better, as an Orthodox Jew. The biblical scholars who wrote commentary on the Torah were the real deal. And they weren't making it up like Dennis is. The classical scholars knew the Tanach, the Oral Torah, the Medrash, etc. All of it. And that was only their starting point.
@@jimwerther I don't understand the distinction -- biblical scholars would be people who've studied the Bible, have debated with others about the Bible, and perhaps were taught about theology in an institute of higher learning and/or church... then made interpretations and conclusions about the material based on all that. What makes one the real deal?
@@johnnyvincent8995 the Bible is evil and its supporters have fought western civilization for centuries. Forcing us to pretend the earth was at the center of the universe under threat of death
Jesus Christ completely nullified the "Eye for an Eye" law and this is made clear with His following words: (Mathew)"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.
Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." By Jesus's own word the Eye for an Eye law is not nullified. What he meant is that we are to take the Law a step further and to refuse the revenge given to us from the Law in the Old Testament.
Ajax- Why is turning the other cheek a good thing? It sounds like the person described is a total wimp who lets people walk all over him. So he'll let someone steal all his money, move into his house, have sex with his wife and daughters, do whatever they want, and he'll passively allow it? Why is that good to let someone treat you badly, and even encourage the bad person to do more of it?
Of course Jesus does not want us to be beaten to death. We should defend ourselves if someone wants to take our life or it is plain suicide. The same applies to the other occasions you mentioned above. What Jesus wanted to say is that it is better to avoid any unecessary fight and not hit back because the outcome may be far worse. When someone is provocative towards you, you shouln't lose your temper and fight back. It is wiser to play dumb and don't indulge in your desire to participate in the row. A smart man is one who is able to foresee a dangerous and problematic situation and steps away from a possible fight. If it isn't a situation of life or death why bother with people who are always looking for trouble? We should improve our self-control and not be enraged over every little thing. On extreme circumstances like rape, sexual assault, theft, attempt for murder it is common sense that you will not leave the other person do as he pleases. To conlude when an officer slapped Jesus He did not just turned the other cheek but asked him the reason he did it. Here is the verse from John's gospel: 21Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard My message. Surely they know what I said.” 22When Jesus had said this, one of the officers standing nearby slapped Him in the face and said, “Is this how” You answer the high priest? 23Jesus replied, “If I said something wrong, testify to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?” Jesus does not want us to be victims but better people who love each other and dont seek chances to do harm.
What's insane is so many people think "an eye for an eye" is barbaric then in cases of things like rape, child molestation, or animal cruelty, will demand a punishment that's WORSE than what you'd get if society followed an eye for an eye.
Well the answer to that is simple humans are very hypocritical by nature and believe tormenting the tormentors makes them a more kind and trusting person
how it suposed to leave all the world blind? i dont think all the people in the world would want to harm anothers eyes. Respect the law and u dont get punished its simple as that
@@klif4755 and they fool days into deep into the heart there is no God but how come if YHWH speaks through the heart oh I know because you dont have one and are deceiving
While an eye for an eye is good in some cases,sometimes it’s better to forgive,the British killed up to 500,000 people during ghandi’s independence movement but he didn’t try to attack back and India got independence.
"Eye for an Eye" was for use in a legal system, not as a life-governing principle. Jesus expanded on the idea of "Eye for an Eye" and how it pertains to the individual. That's how we ended up with "Turn the other cheek".
"If they're intellectually honest, they'll admit they learned something new"... The problem is that the people I disagree with are generally not even considered intellectuals, let alone intellectually honest
Jesus said that in direct response to the law Eye for an Eye. But even our modern legal system exacts a compensatory justice that is not supposed to exceed the crime. The lesson stands, and so does Jesus' teaching,
Both of these are truths, not one dispelling the other. There's a reason he used "turn the other cheek" and not "turn the other eye," as that would have certainly cancelled out the other law of the Old Testament.
You cannot seriously be arguing that Jesus is against the equality of human rights under the eyes of the Law, or that Jesus is against only the perpetrator(s) of the crime be punished?
"Turn the other cheek", the full teaching means that if sombody were to hit you on one cheek that you offer them the other one to strike as well. Basically saying, "I see that you're frustraded, do you need to get anything else out? If so, you can hit my other cheek." Jesus, who was with G-d from the start, was their when the Law was given to Moses and Israel. Jesus was there and did not disagree. Both of these teaching are valid and have their place.
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty." Abraham Lincoln
jesus " “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 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.""
Hey Anthony, good for you! I felt the same as I started to read through the Bible for myself after college. By the way, you may want to carefully weigh the advice from someone who calls you an “idiot” for thinking and then speaking up about it.
AJEET KUMAR SAHU, that was uncalled for. What did I do that made you want to call me an idiot? I don't understand, pls halp me understand that mind of yours. pls.
Anthony - because he sees no value in you. Specially, as you have shown a spark of light for thinking for yourself. I chimed in to encourage you to seek truth for yourself. Personally, I will look to the Bible for truth as long as I live.
One is about justice, the other is about graciously bearing insult. Jesus was saying an eye for an eye doesn’t apply to personal insults, only to actual crimes.
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay
An eye for an eye is not an endless cycle as it only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If you are doing it in response to someone who harmed you, that is not instigating so there is no cycle there.
Almighty snail , sorry for the typing omission..it says " then you don't know western history ". Rather it should have said *you don't know Christianity history. That's my statement. You also don't have an argument. It's just your opinion. A common question you may already have come across. What prevented the east from creating science and natural philosophy as it did in the west?
@@aisaketakau7824 As far as my knowledge goes, during the golden age of islam things were going well in the middle east. Science was at its peak, great people like İbn-i Sina were playing their role in the developement of science, biology, cosmology, you know; the important stuff.They were even translating the ancient greek philosophers' works and translating them to arabic by also creating their own islamic philosophy which can be translated as islamic mysticism I assume. Back then europe was dealing with the harsh rules of catholic church, the economy and law were connected to the church aswell. Any scientific developement or any scientist was punished like galileo because of their thoughts, inventions or discoveries. Then mongolians came wrecking and slaughtering everyone in the known world and mostly middle east. That was one of the causes but not the whole story. Then people in the middle east got caught up to supersitious beliefs. They got further away from the science, philosophy, history. They did not seek the truth, but the money, wealth, personal gain. States became corrupted, bribe was exteremely common. Then europe broke their chains off through renaissance, they translated bible from latin to other languages, they taught people the real bible, not the corrupted and abused one by the catholic church. People became more and more open minded to scientific developements, science changed from something that was punished to something that is rewarded. Thus the base of the modern, secular and developed europe was established. But we, middle easterners are rotting in our own supersititions. I mean we will eventually break our chains aswell. We'll just wait and see. ^^ Even as a person from the secular Turkey of Kemal Atatürk, I do not think that my country is going to a place of science and enlightenment. In my country, Turkey, %7 of the people in the country stopped believing in the islam in the last two years, with this speed I think we still have a chance to catch europe's mindset. Not that believing in any theological philosophy is wrong but we have to stop the religion and science from being a burden to each other. They have to be seperated, like in secularism. ^^
I wouldn't say bible per se, more like the church. Religion isn't inherently bad, but it's a great tool for manipulation and it was commonly used as such. I think there's actually a lot of things you can learn from the bible if you don't interpret everything literally.
@Hiba Jama Islam is most stupid and dangerous idea that mankind has ever created. Your prophet was slaveowner and slavetrader. And if you still think Islam is superior to west, go back to Islamic shithole and also don't forget to take likes of you to Islamic shithole. Have a nice day.
Wait, are you trying to say that stories are meant to have a moral we should look for and aren't meant to be taken as historically accurate events? Blasphemy!
The bible is not simply one or the other. The Psalms are poetic, but have a lot of practical applications Genesis and Exodus are history but have some figurative speech.
Reading the Bible with just a bit of discernment, and letting go of any agenda will help apply it properly. The Holy Spirit also reveals truths about God and his word. Putting every passage in the bible in context with the rest of the bible is necessary for correct interpretation and application
Apparently you missed the point. "An eye for an eye" isn't about revenge nor does it need correction. As was clearly pointed out, it set a limitation on what Jewish communities and society as a whole could levy as punishment for a crime. It establishes a universal standard without regarding race, gender or social status. This standard has, very sadly, not been followed or even revered in the past. And in our modern times, it has been declared antiquated and meaningless. Now, could someone please cite chapter and verse wherein Jesus taught revenge, and its context? I study the Bible, yet I find this passage evades my memory.
They also missed that part where it was first written in Hammurabis code and not the bible, these shit heads have fooled everyone and don't even credit the right people.
@@herobrinesblog yeah, Hammurabi's code was a little way too extreme. e.g. if you are an architect and the house you build for someone falls, your house will be destroyed. Also, a killer who killed a child will lose his child. It isn't really fair as well. A doctor who killed a rich patient will lose his hand, but to kill a slave, only financial restitution. Adultery laws also favors male more. The laws in the OT were much more fair. Adultery? Both were guilty. If you murder, only you die, not your kin. It's still eye for an eye, but not like in the extreme cases as Hammurabi. Rape laws may sound a bit weird in OT. There are a lot of what ifs scenarios with different punishments. Which as we know today that rape could be a bit hectic to decide. e.g. If a man rapes a virgin, he must be her husband forever. This kinda makes sense given that virginity is highly sought after and a form of financial restitution for the victim (so she don't die like a widow).
Unfortunately, everyone else here missed the message, and instead outright accused Prager of Western centrism and pandering to those "old-timey religious folk".
Yeah I think if a guy killed a guy they killed that guys whole family. That kind of thing is mentioned several times in the Bible itself. Pretty heavy handed stuff. Like acting on your feelings rather than justice prevailing with cooler heads. Like dealing with the screaming crying social justice warriors today over nothing and overreacting in the worst sense. Nothing new under the sun. That’s in the Bible too.
An eye for an eye is NOT specific to bodily harm or replicating it. Because the majority of the time crimes have nothing to do with bodily harm but with stealing, lying, destruction of property etc.
the idea comes from ancient alchemy's law of equivalent exchange , to get something you must give something of equal value, Karma today everybody wants something for nothing
This is the very reason why the United of America is so messed up !! Seems almost everyone wants something for nothing!! Even down to immigration, just come on without working for the lawful right . This country has many scars from the Indians to slavery. Most ppl have learned nothing !!
@@tammywines9789 Perhaps this is the voice of blissful ignorance speaking here,but I would think that walking for miles in scorching desert,giving your life savings to dangerous people and enduring scorn and hostility,is hardly "giving something for nothing. 😐 😑😒 🙄 Indeed,it seems to me that advocating for less government regulations and restrictions is convenient only for issues that will almost certainly have an impact on the Right.
Veatah Devarim as a 19 year old I can shed some light on that. The Torah are the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which are the books the Jewish people read in the synagogues. Whereas the Gospel are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Never heard of the parents and judgement thing and yes I thought it was primitive but the way he explains it's impact and meaning was incredibly enlightening and something I probably never would have arrived at on my own.
The Roman's who are a pillar of the West too would disagree. The father had the right to kill is children period at *any* age. I aware of various revolts where one guy complained you didn't need to go to war; just have told him and he would have terminated his son himself.
Dennis Prager has absolutely no authority and competence to interpret Sacred Scripture. His Holiness Pope Leo XIII taught in paragraph 14 of Providentissimus Deus the following: "... it must be observed that in addition to the usual reasons which make ancient writings more or less difficult to understand, there are some which are peculiar to the Bible. For the language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man - that is to say, divine mysteries and all that is related to them. There is sometimes in such passages a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning which the letter hardly expresses and which the laws of interpretation hardly warrant. Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, adapted to illustrate dogma or to confirm morality. Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide(32);... St. Irenaeus long since laid down, that where the charismata of God were, there the truth was to be learnt, and that Holy Scripture was safely interpreted by those who had the Apostolic succession.(33) His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."(34) ... In the other passages ... Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.... St. Augustine ... justly complains: "If there is no branch of teaching, however humble and easy to learn, which does not require a master, what can be a greater sign of rashness and pride than to refuse to study the Books of the divine mysteries by the help of those who have interpreted them?"(37) The other Fathers have said the same, and have confirmed it by their example, for they "endeavoured to acquire the understanding of the Holy Scriptures not by their own lights and ideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct line from the Apostles."(38) The Holy Fathers "to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth - who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,"(39) the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light...." w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 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. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” - Matthew 5:38-42
From Prager U page itself about the institution: ´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u. Repeating: ´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u We living in a alternate universe where the people(who believe that is smart) believe in this ´´ institution`` and awesome people like neil degrasse tyson, stephen hawking,Richard Dawkins and bill nye are calling communists and leftists. It´s tragic and funny.
@@philippg1390But that’s not how it works as an eye for an eye only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If someone blinds someone’s eye first for no reason, then they are instigating and it applies. If someone blinds someone’s eye in response to the person that blinded their eye, then that is not instigating so the rule doesn’t say that the cycle would continue. So if Person A blinds Person B, Person B blinds Person A, it doesn’t continue with Person A blinding B again because Person B didn’t instigate the act of blinding peoples eyes in the first place so the rule doesn’t allow that.
I’m an atheist, I was raised as a catholic, but I think it’s a misconception that we all hate people of faith, while I treat them just as everyone else.
Jesus was against this idea. During the sermon on the mount he said that if someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek. To love your enemies and not seek revenge against them. The idea is to be free from the endless cycle of revenge. Really, this is more of an old testament concept that had its origins with Hammarabis law...
@@cyberpimp29 "jesus was against this idea" "turn the other cheek" so i guess if someone takes out one of my eyes and i should let him take the other. I think jesus is talking about minor offenses here but justice should still be served for things like murder like execution
Vengeance is for irrational, and emotionally weak individuals. Punishment should only be for preventing future transgressions. If you argue revenge for the sake of fairness, you have the moral and mental aptitude of a four year old.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you. You can also tag your slaves and make them slaves for life, and may bequeath them to your children as inherited property. Thus says the Lord.
This has to be the first Prager video I dislike, cherry picking a few things and interpreting them in the most reasonable way. Why not discuss the punishment for homosexuality? Or meaningless bans on things like mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? All in there as well. If people have finally stopped obsessing about the book, then good. Just learn what you can from it and stop forcing it on other people.
But an eye for an eye is not an endless cycle as it only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If you are doing it in response to someone who harmed you, that is not instigating so there is no cycle there.
"Eye for an eye" was for governments (in that case, local government). Jesus never said governments had to be forgiving (or generous, for that matter).
You got the historical precedence wrong. It started with the Hammurabi code centuries before the Bible.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +2
he actually said that in the video. he said in the hamurabi it was litearly eye for an eye while in the bible it is not literaly. if man 1 kills mans 2 daughter then in hamorabi man's 1 daughter would be killed. in the bible the "eye for an eye" would be the life of the killer for the life of the innocent (the man killing the daughter) instead the life of the innocent girl of man 1 who commited the killing.
@@Mather088 "it is wrong and outdated just saying" oh okay i guess the bible is disqualified just like that. Kinda odd though that such a wrong and outdated book helped form our civilization TODAY. How about you don't nitpick and genuinely read. You have a brain and you're smart enough to read and understand
@@Mather088 i didn't say it was based on the bible i said the bible helped form our civilization and to deny that is ignorance. History and religion, you learn a lot about how the people before us formed the world
Bible... creating democracy?
Sir, the ancient greeks would like to have a word with you.
@englishtearose The point still stands, I'd like to point out that when the bible was most used and respected, (The Middle Ages) Feudalism was everywhere.
Bible has virtually nothing to do with democracy at all.
The USA Is a federal republic, not a democracy
The Bible had king's but not presidents or prime ministers.
Cyrus Wang a federal republic is a form of democracy. Not a pure democracy, but still
In a way, the athineans, had imposed a "federal democratic" governance on the rest(majority) of the rest of the city states, becoming a sovereign power in the "meditterenenan world" Their power (& money leverage) cam directly from the contributions of the other city-states...
And if one of them, was to raise their head, opposing Athenisj rule, it would be burned to the ground, by its superior naval forces...Anyways I simply wanted to bring forth this example of federal governance in the ancient world..which is said to have inspired ( as a simile mostly) the modern governance of the U.S. as a ruling elite on the rest of the world stage...
Western civilization is the greatest paradise in the human history. So sad that today's people are throwing away all what our great ancesters have gained. We must start believing in ourselves, at least for the wellbeing of our children.
Leo ооо You're delusional.
Sayed Asif you have not read or understund my message. Read properly.
Sayed Asif = Allah akbarring moron.
Funny, isn't it, how slavery still exists in Africa and Muslim countries?
Sayed Asif My spelling is perfectly fine. Oh, and a quick, FYI: your religion is sending you to hell. :)
As a non native English speaker I have to say you speak so clear , I’m able to understand everything you said in the video.
This is interesting because as an english speaker, one of the modern generation, i can say we dont prioritize clarity, and we should.
What country are you from? I'm learning foreign languages. And, congratulations! I know it's exciting when you understand.
I personally am non religious but I acknowledge the bible has many principles of western civilization
Not particularly religious, but I do think Jesus was a good, smart man who had good morals, and willingness to spread them.
@@Gnomelander1400
In times of conflict, it is difficult to sympathise with he who is trying to eradicate you.
Wrong bible is shit
@@TrueLimeyhoney There is no any evidence that shows jesus really lived.
What is bible based on? If you follow the source, it is Sumerian Civilization. What we know today are all have their basics in Sumerian Civilization.
It’s funny, most of the comments are from people who didn’t actually watch the video, and just became angry at the title and started typing. Many of the people’s points are disproven or corrected by the video. If they had actually taken the time to watch the video, half of the comments would have been answered.
Why should a child obey a parent whom doesn't cater to his every whim?
@@el_killorcure Jesus was like... 30 at the time, not 3
@@ianisz2178 You missed the forest for the trees.
"why should I obey a God"
We're all God's children.
We understand his ways and means as much as a 3 year old understands his parent's ways and means.
That was the point of the analogy.
Just as a parent doesn't cater to his 3 year old's every whim and disciplines him when he needs to (even if he doesn't understand it at the time and it seems cruel to him at the time), so does God to us.
The Book of Job made a pretty good case regarding that (God telling Job his limited POV can't grasp all of God's creation and thus all of his roles in it) . If you want me to expand on it, I can.
@@el_killorcure I do not think that we should follow rules based on a fictional book that has been debunked countless times as moral judgement
@@ianisz2178 Debunked? You must have the Quran in mind (which claims to be perfectly clear and error-free). I'm unaware of such moral debunking. Please elaborate (I'm yet to hear a serious challenge to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah, which is essentially The Law of Christ)
*Jesus never taught revenge*
*Johnny Lee,* I know. But Dennis is referring to the Bible in General. So I included Jesus.
Dean Natuno But he did teach to love your neighbor.
no, you wrong:
first it is not revenge, is justice, learn to think, and understand, and by the way, look into:
1) Matt. 10:34
2) Luk. 14:26, and many many many others
Eye for an Eye is not about revenge, it is about justice. Dean, please watch the video before you comment. Saves time.
atheist here
I'm from Ghana, West Africa, and I love Dennis Prager
Ayy My family is from Greater Accra region
Looks like we're two here 😎😊
I’m from
The Volta region!! 🇬🇭
same lmao. that Ghana president new deal thooo
Seth Gyan Not a big suprise. You're in africa. You're suppose to like his views.
"Eye for an eye" law also enshrined "innocent until proven guilty", as a remedy can only be extracted from a person who is guilty.
Great point.
"If they are honest..."
Yep..., good luck with that. No one, is honest these days.
No one was honest during all of their excistence.
Not everyone is a liar.
@@shqiptariidukagjinit5650 I'm a liar... Then again, that could be a lie.
Or maybe I'm lying about *that*
Grigori Rasputin well obviously your a liar Rasputin. And quick question, how do you survive eating poison? I’ve always wanted to do that.
Some people are painful honest
"Ghandi was wrong, it's just nobody has the balls to say it"
Yeah preach
@@Matthew_Klepadlo plz read indian history .
7 psychopaths!
I hate Ghandi. He's no hero
You said it, and openly admitted you have no balls...smooth move
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
The sad thing is, he preached about morality while being a slave owner…
@@aceclover758 hey s#!t for brains, if you are guiltless, cast the first stone
@@thecartooncynic Of being a slave owner? Gladly! Or should we apply that to all kinds of things?
"Your honour, I may have killed all those orphans, but I would ask you. If you are guiltless, cast the first stone."
Now is this a little reductive? Yes. But with purpose, civilisation is not an object - it is a process - like a fire. Try and measure it, try and determine its exact state, and you will be in for a headache and some burnt fingers. So I would ask you: when the tree catches fire, do all the leaves not burn? Or might we expect only a single branch to catch alight?
What about “If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well.”
Edit: Ok I get what Jesus actually meant when he said this. Jesus meant that if anyone tries to attack offensively or with evil intentions ,then we should never try to do same to them. Instead, we should defend ourselves from them and don’t allow ourselves to fight evil with evil ,because that’s like fighting fire with fire. In conclusion, we should always protect ourselves and others and never allow evil be our intentions ,but let goodness be our intention.
That actually has a symbolic meaning based on the body language of Christ's time, which did include mild physical violence such as slapping a man on the cheek.
First a premise: slapping a man was done by the right hand, as a rule.
To hit a man on the right cheek is a backhand blow. This was the way a master strikes a servant, a social inferior. It was dismissive and insulting in other contexts.
Christ said that when you are so insulted, turn your face so the only cheek he can slap is your left. That requires a forehand. The body language is different, this kind of slap was given to a social equal. It served as an acknowledgement that yes, I am angry enough to hit you, but I cannot dismiss you.
The meaning of the statement is "if someone treats you as a social inferior, force him to acknowledge you as an equal."
Ryvaken Wow I never knew it meant that.
@@EliezPaulino I blame my mother for getting into a huge spout of bible study over the past decade. I've picked up a lot of "this famous verse when looked at in the contemporary culture actually means this" tidbits. This one stuck with me more than others, probably because I'm left handed.
Christ was many things, but he wasn't a pacifist.
Ryvaken Did you just say a pun.
@@EliezPaulino ...I don't think so?
Actually, Christians shouldn't even use The Law of Retaliation, because Jesus rejects it in his mountain speech:
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: 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.
So even he describes it as immoral. Well that is pretty hard to debunk from a christian perspective, isn't it?
The Buddha said something very similar in spirit:
Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love - thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.
That is why I don’t agree with this artificial east-west divide.
Wasn't this in the scenario where if they didn't turn the other cheek, they would be killed by the Romans?
Julius now you tell me...
Yeah, but then "Eye for an Eye" and "Turn the Other Cheek" do not talk about the exact same thing. When Jesus said "Turn the Other Cheek", he means if somebody did you wrong, you're not supposed to retaliate through evil, but forgive them instead. Jesus is talking about personal forgiveness, not legal forgiveness. Anyone who did you wrong would still have to be punished according to the law, as "Eye for an Eye" suggests.
not exactly, Jesus did not reject it, but he clarified it. Eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are derived from the same basic principle: "Every human being has intrinsic value because they bear God's image." Eye for an eye helps to reinforce that all people are intrinsically valuable. On the other hand, Jesus was essentially saying that not only do all people have intrinsic value, but you ought to treat them with reverence as image bearers of God.
PragerU your channel is a DIAMOND
Leo ооо So was Neil.😄 (Diamond, that is.)
Prageru is propaganda.
Diamonds have no actual value they are a scam.
Leo ооо I know! I'm a liberal, and even I'M grateful that I found this channel
Royal Maniac good. Hope you go on the right side now, if you know what I mean😎
That' s first time I haved watched Dennis Prager :0
Welcome to PragerU
Welcome to (mostly) the trurh
+Intergalactic Thought Criminal
*Welcome to (mostly) the trurh*
Yea, it's pretty good. Except for that one video that was trying to convince men that marriage was good for them >_
Hoàng Kim Việt he is very smart. Enjoy all his videos.
David K I will support for this channel :0
An eye for an eye
Tooth for a tooth
Commit the crime, pay the price
Blood must have blood
All the same, people must pay for their sins which they have committed against others without cause
Leandro Toro But that’s inhumane to do that. I mean it’s fine to torture someone but it’s not fair to have to pay the price for murder. That’s what jail is for. But now people say jails are inhumane. You know what, let people murder with no consequences and see where that’ll get us. Eye for an eye is the only fair punishment.
Jails arent inhumane. Idk how someone could say that lol
The REAL mike thegamerguy24 you know what’s in humane? Killing another person
Huge FX yeah
Sounds like Shariah law lol
I do agree with they idea of eye for an eye. It's basically standing upto people and showing them they can't hurt you without dealing with retaliation.
“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 one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42)
The point of this verse is to say that you, as a person, should forgive as Christ forgave you. However, we are not able to forgive a criminal on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, the Bible is very clear about laws in society. Just take a look at Romans 13. The point there is that violating the ten commandments hurts more people than just the obvious victim. Therefore, justice should be carried out even while you, as an individual, should forgive the person. Jesus did not forsake justice for love (or else, why would he have died on the cross?).
Prager is a jew. He thinks the old testament is the basis of western civilization- not the New testament. He also forgot to mention that the eye for an eye equality did not apply to slaves, because the bible says they were property.
Great Moose Detective, it is easy to 'forget to mention' things that aren't true.
Lord Blarg
Don't lie about what the bible says.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Lord Blarg
And something else you probably don't know if you've never read the Bible critically: right after that verse the Bible says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and if anyone hurts a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, that person is to be fined, not killed, because the life of a fetus is not the equivalent of a adult according to God.
Everyone making comments always have opinions but rarely ever make a video, cite a source or back up their opinion with rational thought. There are many ways to look at something. Just stating your opinion in no way makes it fact. What Prager does is massive amounts of research. If you want to refute what he's saying, first understand the context and then go find credible evidence and present it. Try to present it without hate and bigotry because YOUR eye has no more value than DP's eye.
#honestintellectualism
On the contrary, the one who presents the assertion has to also provide the evidence, he asserted that stupid law ended parental violence, he didn't back it up at all, so I'm in all my right to dismiss it as stupid nonsense.
What sources did Prager cite?
You are those he said to be "Intellectually lazy". At least use your brain a little please.
Under what possible context is it acceptable or "good sounding" to stone a kid to death just for disobeying his parents?
@@SL2797 Did you watch the video? He's saying that because a council had to decide whether or not to stone a child, children were rarely stoned because people saw that you shouldn't stone a child.
Mesopotamians
Ancient Greeks
The Romans (Before the rule of the emperors)
The Magna Carta
Philosophers
Get your history right.
Yeah right
Did any of those work? With minimal corruption?
brian miller so ur telling me that ancient Greeks saw all humans with equal value?
Bust Nutyear are you really implying that the Bible has never led to corruption or evil
Bust Nutyear does America work? With minimal corruption
That totally blew my mind. Definitely gonna check out his book.
From Prager U page itself about the institution:
´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u.
Repeating:
´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.``
Lol, what institution it´s prager u
We living in a alternate universe where the people(who believe that is smart) believe in this ´´ institution`` and awesome people like neil degrasse tyson, stephen hawking,Richard Dawkins and bill nye are calling communists and leftists. It´s tragic and funny.
Prager is hardly a biblical scholar, much as I like Prager U.
@@jimwerther That's an interesting statement.. What, to you, makes someone a biblical scholar? Just a genuine question.
@@SheonEver
Dennis Prager just comes up with ideas that works in his own mind. Kind of, "If I, Dennis Prager, were God, this is what I would do". But he isn't God, and he is making it up. Ben Shapiro would know better, as an Orthodox Jew. The biblical scholars who wrote commentary on the Torah were the real deal. And they weren't making it up like Dennis is. The classical scholars knew the Tanach, the Oral Torah, the Medrash, etc. All of it. And that was only their starting point.
@@jimwerther I don't understand the distinction -- biblical scholars would be people who've studied the Bible, have debated with others about the Bible, and perhaps were taught about theology in an institute of higher learning and/or church... then made interpretations and conclusions about the material based on all that. What makes one the real deal?
Very well explained, Specially for those who never read the Bible but talk about it in ignorance.
You mean what most christians do?
@@blue5813 you mean what most liberals do
@@johnnyvincent8995 the Bible is evil and its supporters have fought western civilization for centuries. Forcing us to pretend the earth was at the center of the universe under threat of death
@@jonlorax2090 no western civilization was built by christianity
@@jonlorax2090 lso what about the bible makes it evil
Jesus Christ completely nullified the "Eye for an Eye" law and this is made clear with His following words: (Mathew)"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.
And was that a smart thing to do?
Matthew 5: 17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
By Jesus's own word the Eye for an Eye law is not nullified. What he meant is that we are to take the Law a step further and to refuse the revenge given to us from the Law in the Old Testament.
Ajax- Why is turning the other cheek a good thing? It sounds like the person described is a total wimp who lets people walk all over him. So he'll let someone steal all his money, move into his house, have sex with his wife and daughters, do whatever they want, and he'll passively allow it? Why is that good to let someone treat you badly, and even encourage the bad person to do more of it?
Of course Jesus does not want us to be beaten to death. We should defend ourselves if someone wants to take our life or it is plain suicide. The same applies to the other occasions you mentioned above. What Jesus wanted to say is that it is better to avoid any unecessary fight and not hit back because the outcome may be far worse. When someone is provocative towards you, you shouln't lose your temper and fight back. It is wiser to play dumb and don't indulge in your desire to participate in the row. A smart man is one who is able to foresee a dangerous and problematic situation and steps away from a possible fight. If it isn't a situation of life or death why bother with people who are always looking for trouble? We should improve our self-control and not be enraged over every little thing. On extreme circumstances like rape, sexual assault, theft, attempt for murder it is common sense that you will not leave the other person do as he pleases. To conlude when an officer slapped Jesus He did not just turned the other cheek but asked him the reason he did it. Here is the verse from John's gospel:
21Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard My message. Surely they know what I said.” 22When Jesus had said this, one of the officers standing nearby slapped Him in the face and said, “Is this how” You answer the high priest? 23Jesus replied, “If I said something wrong, testify to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?”
Jesus does not want us to be victims but better people who love each other and dont seek chances to do harm.
Menachem Salomon Yes
What's insane is so many people think "an eye for an eye" is barbaric then in cases of things like rape, child molestation, or animal cruelty, will demand a punishment that's WORSE than what you'd get if society followed an eye for an eye.
Well the answer to that is simple humans are very hypocritical by nature and believe tormenting the tormentors makes them a more kind and trusting person
Eye for an eye
I shall not fall till I revenge
Till you deserve what you get
Till you pay the debts you have made
Shadow Dawns Where is this from?
Undisciplined Cowboy Minecraft story mode part 3
@@astralisk lol
Forgiving others like Jesus is superior 🖤 Sets you truly free
@@laurasmith1078 Tell that to those who had their Mother's, father's and Siblings murdered. Justice is Justice
God bless you Mr. Prager and all that you do! I am on your side.
When your in the comments and everyone's talking about Jesus but your the only one thinking "an eye for an eye seems fair"
“Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
-Ghandi
how it suposed to leave all the world blind? i dont think all the people in the world would want to harm anothers eyes.
Respect the law and u dont get punished its simple as that
Jack Krauser People can be slandered and incarcerated without doing anything wrong. Are you just going to deny that?
you’re* you’re*
Seth A. Yes that may be true, however, in the United States it is much less likely to occur than in other parts of the world.
The word of God is sharper than a double edge sword, piercing through your heart and soul
it isnt real. and this jew is directly contradicting the word of jesus.
so which jew do you follow? prager or jesus?
@@klif4755 and they fool days into deep into the heart there is no God but how come if YHWH speaks through the heart oh I know because you dont have one and are deceiving
Idk man, getting stabbed in the gut with a sword hurts a lot
While an eye for an eye is good in some cases,sometimes it’s better to forgive,the British killed up to 500,000 people during ghandi’s independence movement but he didn’t try to attack back and India got independence.
"Eye for an Eye" was for use in a legal system, not as a life-governing principle. Jesus expanded on the idea of "Eye for an Eye" and how it pertains to the individual. That's how we ended up with "Turn the other cheek".
shitosusansen k
I call BS on that 1/2 million dead.
IronSmith they committed mass shootings and food blockades on Indians for 5 decades.
IronSmith Winston Churchill intentionally starved around 400,000 Indians.
"If they're intellectually honest, they'll admit they learned something new"...
The problem is that the people I disagree with are generally not even considered intellectuals, let alone intellectually honest
Are you debating with people on the matter of them learning something or not, or religion
Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and the last time I checked, Jesus had the final word.
jesus also killed a guy when he was angry but then brought him back to life lol
Jesus said that in direct response to the law Eye for an Eye. But even our modern legal system exacts a compensatory justice that is not supposed to exceed the crime. The lesson stands, and so does Jesus' teaching,
Both of these are truths, not one dispelling the other. There's a reason he used "turn the other cheek" and not "turn the other eye," as that would have certainly cancelled out the other law of the Old Testament.
You cannot seriously be arguing that Jesus is against the equality of human rights under the eyes of the Law, or that Jesus is against only the perpetrator(s) of the crime be punished?
"Turn the other cheek", the full teaching means that if sombody were to hit you on one cheek that you offer them the other one to strike as well. Basically saying, "I see that you're frustraded, do you need to get anything else out? If so, you can hit my other cheek."
Jesus, who was with G-d from the start, was their when the Law was given to Moses and Israel. Jesus was there and did not disagree. Both of these teaching are valid and have their place.
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind...
Detroit
Scurvys Second Mate I don't see what's wrong with that. Pope killed Tig's daughter in Sons of Anarchy because Tig killed his.
@@andymejia5456 Ghandi
@@dood9974 Dennis literally addressed this stupid point in the video
Kiki Melendez I assume that you absolutely hate killers getting jail time.
This is one of the few new videos made by Dennis prager himself that have few dislikes, maybe the liberlas haven't been informed about the video yet.
Tepes Obrejac cool vlad the impaler pic
edit: It seems that they were informed, so unfortunate.
Nah. The vegan atheist squad hasnt been informed.
10 Economic 6 Social it is though...
SHHH! Don't give them any ideas!
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty." Abraham Lincoln
"Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell." John Adams
jesus " “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 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.""
Mind = blown. I had always wondered about those verses, and thought of them to be hypocritcal and barbaric, but this really changed my mind.
Hey Anthony, good for you! I felt the same as I started to read through the Bible for myself after college.
By the way, you may want to carefully weigh the advice from someone who calls you an “idiot” for thinking and then speaking up about it.
AJEET KUMAR SAHU, that was uncalled for. What did I do that made you want to call me an idiot? I don't understand, pls halp me understand that mind of yours. pls.
PortCanon, to be honest, I'm quite confused as to why he would call me an idiot in the first place.
Anthony - because he sees no value in you. Specially, as you have shown a spark of light for thinking for yourself.
I chimed in to encourage you to seek truth for yourself.
Personally, I will look to the Bible for truth as long as I live.
I do have a copy on my bookshelf from school. I think I might go through it again with a different perspective.
Eye for eye was made in ancient mesopotamia
Yeah but there's an even better one, "Turn the other cheek.".
Its much easier to say that if the damage done from the crime is not permanent.
Prager is Jewish and doesn't believe in such heresy lmao
One is about justice, the other is about graciously bearing insult. Jesus was saying an eye for an eye doesn’t apply to personal insults, only to actual crimes.
Greek,the creek cheese
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Only a fool would take someone's eye if they knew their own eye would be taken. So NO, it does not make the whole world blind.
Did you watch the whole video?
I doubt it because u just said that.
X3
@@NVArt001 if the fool takes both of the eyes,the world will be never be blind.
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay
Screw that, an eye for head and a tooth for a jaw.
Keeps folks away from my eyes and teeth....
An "eye for an eye" would leave the whole world blind.
Whose eyes have you gouged out?
An eye for an eye is not an endless cycle as it only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If you are doing it in response to someone who harmed you, that is not instigating so there is no cycle there.
as someone from the east, science and philosophy created western civilization. bible was just an obstacle for you which you overcame with renaissance.
Then you don't western history.
@@aisaketakau7824 Well, you do not have an argument so...
Almighty snail , sorry for the typing omission..it says " then you don't know western history ". Rather it should have said *you don't know Christianity history. That's my statement. You also don't have an argument. It's just your opinion.
A common question you may already have come across.
What prevented the east from creating science and natural philosophy as it did in the west?
@@aisaketakau7824 As far as my knowledge goes, during the golden age of islam things were going well in the middle east. Science was at its peak, great people like İbn-i Sina were playing their role in the developement of science, biology, cosmology, you know; the important stuff.They were even translating the ancient greek philosophers' works and translating them to arabic by also creating their own islamic philosophy which can be translated as islamic mysticism I assume. Back then europe was dealing with the harsh rules of catholic church, the economy and law were connected to the church aswell. Any scientific developement or any scientist was punished like galileo because of their thoughts, inventions or discoveries. Then mongolians came wrecking and slaughtering everyone in the known world and mostly middle east. That was one of the causes but not the whole story. Then people in the middle east got caught up to supersitious beliefs. They got further away from the science, philosophy, history. They did not seek the truth, but the money, wealth, personal gain. States became corrupted, bribe was exteremely common. Then europe broke their chains off through renaissance, they translated bible from latin to other languages, they taught people the real bible, not the corrupted and abused one by the catholic church. People became more and more open minded to scientific developements, science changed from something that was punished to something that is rewarded. Thus the base of the modern, secular and developed europe was established. But we, middle easterners are rotting in our own supersititions. I mean we will eventually break our chains aswell. We'll just wait and see. ^^
Even as a person from the secular Turkey of Kemal Atatürk, I do not think that my country is going to a place of science and enlightenment. In my country, Turkey, %7 of the people in the country stopped believing in the islam in the last two years, with this speed I think we still have a chance to catch europe's mindset. Not that believing in any theological philosophy is wrong but we have to stop the religion and science from being a burden to each other. They have to be seperated, like in secularism. ^^
I wouldn't say bible per se, more like the church. Religion isn't inherently bad, but it's a great tool for manipulation and it was commonly used as such. I think there's actually a lot of things you can learn from the bible if you don't interpret everything literally.
*Caution*
Triggered atheists below.
Youre delusional. Nobody can pull you out of that delusion but you. Good luck
Lol you’re right
Huh. The first reply proved his point.
@Hiba Jama Islam is most stupid and dangerous idea that mankind has ever created.
Your prophet was slaveowner and slavetrader.
And if you still think Islam is superior to west, go back to Islamic shithole and also don't forget to take likes of you to Islamic shithole.
Have a nice day.
Muslims and Christians arguing is like an ancient Spiderman meme
I'm gonna take a moment and appreciate the fact the title on my phone was written in ancient Greek.
Why?
my mum always told me if someone punches you then you better punch them back twice as hard and I still live to that code to this day
Wait, are you trying to say that stories are meant to have a moral we should look for and aren't meant to be taken as historically accurate events?
Blasphemy!
the morality is dodgy at best if you actually read the bible...
The bible is not simply one or the other. The Psalms are poetic, but have a lot of practical applications Genesis and Exodus are history but have some figurative speech.
Reading the Bible with just a bit of discernment, and letting go of any agenda will help apply it properly. The Holy Spirit also reveals truths about God and his word. Putting every passage in the bible in context with the rest of the bible is necessary for correct interpretation and application
@@rebeccaconlon9743 easy to say. How?
Apparently you missed the point. "An eye for an eye" isn't about revenge nor does it need correction. As was clearly pointed out, it set a limitation on what Jewish communities and society as a whole could levy as punishment for a crime. It establishes a universal standard without regarding race, gender or social status. This standard has, very sadly, not been followed or even revered in the past. And in our modern times, it has been declared antiquated and meaningless. Now, could someone please cite chapter and verse wherein Jesus taught revenge, and its context? I study the Bible, yet I find this passage evades my memory.
Note the context, Jesus telling a parable; he was not setting down an exact agenda.
They also missed that part where it was first written in Hammurabis code and not the bible, these shit heads have fooled everyone and don't even credit the right people.
Charles Johnson u are right but you have to criticize that stuff too and that goes hand in hand with a critique of the society.
An eye for an eye simply means. Have done to other as would done to you.
@@herobrinesblog yeah, Hammurabi's code was a little way too extreme. e.g. if you are an architect and the house you build for someone falls, your house will be destroyed. Also, a killer who killed a child will lose his child. It isn't really fair as well. A doctor who killed a rich patient will lose his hand, but to kill a slave, only financial restitution. Adultery laws also favors male more.
The laws in the OT were much more fair. Adultery? Both were guilty. If you murder, only you die, not your kin. It's still eye for an eye, but not like in the extreme cases as Hammurabi.
Rape laws may sound a bit weird in OT. There are a lot of what ifs scenarios with different punishments. Which as we know today that rape could be a bit hectic to decide. e.g. If a man rapes a virgin, he must be her husband forever. This kinda makes sense given that virginity is highly sought after and a form of financial restitution for the victim (so she don't die like a widow).
Eye for an eye actually limits the punishment placed upon the wrongdoer. Good job Mr. Prager.
Unfortunately, everyone else here missed the message, and instead outright accused Prager of Western centrism and pandering to those "old-timey religious folk".
Yeah I think if a guy killed a guy they killed that guys whole family. That kind of thing is mentioned several times in the Bible itself. Pretty heavy handed stuff. Like acting on your feelings rather than justice prevailing with cooler heads. Like dealing with the screaming crying social justice warriors today over nothing and overreacting in the worst sense. Nothing new under the sun. That’s in the Bible too.
An eye for an eye is NOT specific to bodily harm or replicating it. Because the majority of the time crimes have nothing to do with bodily harm but with stealing, lying, destruction of property etc.
the idea comes from ancient alchemy's law of equivalent exchange , to get something you must give something of equal value, Karma
today everybody wants something for nothing
This is the very reason why the United of America is so messed up !! Seems almost everyone wants something for nothing!! Even down to immigration, just come on without working for the lawful right . This country has many scars from the Indians to slavery. Most ppl have learned nothing !!
@@tammywines9789 Perhaps this is the voice of blissful ignorance speaking here,but I would think that walking for miles in scorching desert,giving your life savings to dangerous people and enduring scorn and hostility,is hardly "giving something for nothing. 😐 😑😒 🙄
Indeed,it seems to me that advocating for less government regulations and restrictions is convenient only for issues that will almost certainly have an impact on the Right.
Mosaic Law: trying juveniles in court before it was cool 😎
4:58. "If they're intellectually honest ..." Prager is hilarious.
I’m a buddhist and I acknowledge
Jesus and Buddha would be hanging together in heaven ;)
Watch "Saint Oniisan", it's exactly about that lol
@@keggierage5981 buddha is light of asia and jesus is destroyer of pagans
An eye for an eye then the whole world goes blind.
It's something Marcus said in Detroit become human.
Also it's commonly attributed to gandhi
@@MadToxin2876 r/wooosh
Only a fool would take someone's eye if they knew their own would be taken as well.
1k views in a minute
29k in seven
Aidan O'Hagan Lopez 104k in 4 hours
an eye for an eye, only makes the world blind
fookinboi only in one eye. One eyed guy is much more careful...
Deep
The cycle of violence won't end until we get gta 6
I don't know why western people can't understand what is Torah and what is Gospel ?
But u know , what he has told is true .
Veatah Devarim as a 19 year old I can shed some light on that. The Torah are the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which are the books the Jewish people read in the synagogues. Whereas the Gospel are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
If I filter out the moralizing I indeed have learned something. Thank you PragerU, this really puts things in perspective!
Never heard of the parents and judgement thing and yes I thought it was primitive but the way he explains it's impact and meaning was incredibly enlightening and something I probably never would have arrived at on my own.
He also said that there are no recorded incidents of child-stoning. Period. He didn't list any extra bit. The verse did nothing.
The Roman's who are a pillar of the West too would disagree. The father had the right to kill is children period at *any* age. I aware of various revolts where one guy complained you didn't need to go to war; just have told him and he would have terminated his son himself.
Bro forgot that in Victorian Britain a poor child could get hanged for stealing a wallet from rich person.
I learned something new! Thanks Prager U.
Dennis Prager has absolutely no authority and competence to interpret Sacred Scripture. His Holiness Pope Leo XIII taught in paragraph 14 of Providentissimus Deus the following: "... it must be observed that in addition to the usual reasons which make ancient writings more or less difficult to understand, there are some which are peculiar to the Bible. For the language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man - that is to say, divine mysteries and all that is related to them. There is sometimes in such passages a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning which the letter hardly expresses and which the laws of interpretation hardly warrant. Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, adapted to illustrate dogma or to confirm morality. Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide(32);... St. Irenaeus long since laid down, that where the charismata of God were, there the truth was to be learnt, and that Holy Scripture was safely interpreted by those who had the Apostolic succession.(33) His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."(34) ... In the other passages ... Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.... St. Augustine ... justly complains: "If there is no branch of teaching, however humble and easy to learn, which does not require a master, what can be a greater sign of rashness and pride than to refuse to study the Books of the divine mysteries by the help of those who have interpreted them?"(37) The other Fathers have said the same, and have confirmed it by their example, for they "endeavoured to acquire the understanding of the Holy Scriptures not by their own lights and ideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct line from the Apostles."(38) The Holy Fathers "to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth - who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,"(39) the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light...."
w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
As a lawyer, I find this very insightful. Thanks for the good work.
oof dont be a lawyer then
Eye for an eye makes part of the world blind and makes the others follow any rules necessary to keep their eyesight.
The Bible still says that eating shrimp is a sin, and that two consenting men loving each other is a sin. I’d say that is irrational.
School: Don't retaliate if you get bullied
Me: an eye for an eye...
"If you have an anime profile pic your opinion doesn't matter" - the 2nd amendment written by Elliot rodger.
1987shachar I know
It's just a joke
@@erojerisiz1571
was not sure if it was 100% joke or it was half and half so I made sure
Glad I found this channel. It's a breath of fresh air.
Bringing God always brings wisdom and well being.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 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. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
- Matthew 5:38-42
"If they are intellectually honest....", good luck finding that today. That went out with the bible.
Ohh wow! That was the best video I’ve seen for a long time. Thank you so much.
From Prager U page itself about the institution:
´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.`` Lol, what institution it´s prager u.
Repeating:
´´Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body.``
Lol, what institution it´s prager u
We living in a alternate universe where the people(who believe that is smart) believe in this ´´ institution`` and awesome people like neil degrasse tyson, stephen hawking,Richard Dawkins and bill nye are calling communists and leftists. It´s tragic and funny.
@@arthursouza9365 are you sure you mean to reply to me?
Why are there so many comment saying
"An eye for an eye makes the world blind."
Did ya'll not watch the whole video or something?
X3
What they mean is if I blind your eye, you are by the rule allowed to blind my eye, but then I am allowed to blind your eye because you blinded mine
@@philippg1390But that’s not how it works as an eye for an eye only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If someone blinds someone’s eye first for no reason, then they are instigating and it applies. If someone blinds someone’s eye in response to the person that blinded their eye, then that is not instigating so the rule doesn’t say that the cycle would continue. So if Person A blinds Person B, Person B blinds Person A, it doesn’t continue with Person A blinding B again because Person B didn’t instigate the act of blinding peoples eyes in the first place so the rule doesn’t allow that.
I’m an atheist, I was raised as a catholic, but I think it’s a misconception that we all hate people of faith, while I treat them just as everyone else.
Jesus was against this idea. During the sermon on the mount he said that if someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek. To love your enemies and not seek revenge against them.
The idea is to be free from the endless cycle of revenge.
Really, this is more of an old testament concept that had its origins with Hammarabis law...
The Old Testament law (such as eye for an eye), was for governments, Jesus' teachings were for the individual
@@ncrtrooper9406 truf
I dont think he meant let someone gouge both your eyes out....
@@elocore1702 - Correct. And how did I imply that?
@@cyberpimp29 "jesus was against this idea" "turn the other cheek" so i guess if someone takes out one of my eyes and i should let him take the other. I think jesus is talking about minor offenses here but justice should still be served for things like murder like execution
When you fail middle school history.
Love this!
Whether atheist like to admit it or not, the Bible has been the moral compass of the west since its inception. Glory to God, praise Jesus.
True I love God almost as much as eating babies while I pray to him.
"An eye for an eye and the world goes blind"
No only people who cut out innocent people’s eye’s go blind.
Man, look at all them references, citations and stuff.
Jesus made an update on the “eye for an eye” phrase
My cousin is an atheist and he even said the Bible and the Ten Commandments r keys to a good world
Thank you sir. Learned quite a lot from this video and needed this today.
Yes, when someone conquers your land, you take it back and get some more.
@@grapplejuice6059 that's an eye for an eye for you
well, I have learned something new....
Vengeance is for irrational, and emotionally weak individuals. Punishment should only be for preventing future transgressions. If you argue revenge for the sake of fairness, you have the moral and mental aptitude of a four year old.
Shakespeare gave the right interpretation of " eye for eye" : ,"Mesure for Mesure".
I love everything this channel does, but I just cant agree with this one.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you. You can also tag your slaves and make them slaves for life, and may bequeath them to your children as inherited property.
Thus says the Lord.
@@TheRojo387 ok bro
Please ring the Atheist experience with that argument. I'd love to hear the debate. :)
An eye for an eye leaves an entire nation blind.
This has to be the first Prager video I dislike, cherry picking a few things and interpreting them in the most reasonable way.
Why not discuss the punishment for homosexuality? Or meaningless bans on things like mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? All in there as well.
If people have finally stopped obsessing about the book, then good. Just learn what you can from it and stop forcing it on other people.
I agree..it's your soul..do with it as you will
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
Nah, you still have an eye ;)
Merkava MK IV M - Ha ha ha very funny(!)
@@andrehayworth8911 I know, right?
But an eye for an eye is not an endless cycle as it only applies when someone *instigates* a crime. If you are doing it in response to someone who harmed you, that is not instigating so there is no cycle there.
Well yeah, but Jesus teaches us to forgive.
"Eye for an eye" was for governments (in that case, local government).
Jesus never said governments had to be forgiving (or generous, for that matter).
"I make up annoying cliches that provide people with a 'Get Out of Thinking Free' card." - Ghandi
You got the historical precedence wrong. It started with the Hammurabi code centuries before the Bible.
he actually said that in the video. he said in the hamurabi it was litearly eye for an eye while in the bible it is not literaly. if man 1 kills mans 2 daughter then in hamorabi man's 1 daughter would be killed.
in the bible the "eye for an eye" would be the life of the killer for the life of the innocent (the man killing the daughter) instead the life of the innocent girl of man 1 who commited the killing.
Most of these things came from Hellenic civilisations that had mostly pagan religions.
Greeks came after the Old Testament.
I'm not Christian but I believe the Bible is a great book that we have a lot to learn from.
MTB Gamer and I'm Christian and I agree
@@Mather088 "it is wrong and outdated just saying" oh okay i guess the bible is disqualified just like that. Kinda odd though that such a wrong and outdated book helped form our civilization TODAY. How about you don't nitpick and genuinely read. You have a brain and you're smart enough to read and understand
Stray so gay marriage should be illegal? God is all loving and caring. Do not believe it, he is not all loving, caring and powerful
Stray society is not based on the bible, the Vatican is and if we did our society would literally be stupid
@@Mather088 i didn't say it was based on the bible i said the bible helped form our civilization and to deny that is ignorance. History and religion, you learn a lot about how the people before us formed the world
Love these