(March 6, 2017 at 7:52 pm)Jesster Wrote:(March 6, 2017 at 7:45 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: If they work together; then there's no contradiction at all.
We have two conditions:
1-I cannot beat if I wasn't beaten (an eye for an eye verse)
2-I have the right to beat a woman (the wife beating verse)
One must happen, so two can happen.
No contradiction at all.
Wrong. The first verse called for retaliation (an eye for an eye). That is exactly what that means.
You tried to use the second one to spin it away from retaliation. Either you are misinterpreting something through cherry picking, the book is contradicting itself, or the second verse has absolutely nothing to do with the first verse.
Not at all.
The Quran doesn't follow a chronological order; a "Sura" contains "Verses"; the verses follow an order, but the Suras don't.
For example you might find a certain verse on page 1, but it's explained in detail in page 100.
The reason behind the punishment is here:
Sura 2
( 178 ) O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment.
( 179 ) And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you [people] of understanding, that you may become righteous.
It's not for vengeance. It's to save lives.
Maybe it's not me spinning it; or the Quran; maybe it's just the truth.
It saves lives.
For a killer to know that there's an execution awaiting him/her, they might not kill in the first place.
I don't see crime rates declining in countries rejecting this concept.
"Blood doesn't wash away blood" crap; while nuclear missiles are aimed at my ass.
Just saying
