Search This Blog

Monday, November 22, 2010

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

I was at the Triple Crown of Surfing on Sunday in Haleiwa, Hawaii and saw someone walking around with a shirt that had this quote on it. The quote is from Mohandas Gandhi, but he is quoting from the Old Testament law,

"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" Exodus 21:23-25
"Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered." Leviticus 24:19-20

"Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Deuteronomy 19:21
No doubt I would like to research a bit about the context in which Gandhi makes this statement, but here are a few first thoughts: Gandhi is speaking about the themes of justice versus grace. Gandhi is probably dealing with people who are crying out for revenge in the name of justice.

I agree completely that grace and forgiveness are the only way to achieve reconciliation... BUT I also believe that there can be no peace without justice. I wonder if Gandhi himself believed in the same paradox that I hold to here. Jesus taught that it was by grace that we were given reconciliation, but that it was in justice that we were granted peace with God.

Maybe I am taking Gandhi's quotes out of context, but I might say the same about how he quoted from Old Testament law. Regardless, I appreciate his effort to talk about grace and forgiveness. 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

Doesn't this assume that the whole world has sight? Jesus said that the whole world has already gone blind, he came that they might regain their sight. 

Mr. Gandhi, the world doesn't need a prevention of blindness it needs the cure.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Last Templar: How much does historical fiction need to stick to history?

Raymond Khoury's work of historical fiction, The Last Templar, like Dan Brown's The da Vinci Code incorporates historical facts as arguments to support theories within the novel. The fictional characters of the book cannot be held accountable for the facts they present because they are by nature fictional. Yet it would seem that a fictional character who is an academic scholar (specifically one of the antagonists: Vance) should have their general facts straight. On several points in the book I was surprised to find that Vance had simple facts wrong. I don't know whether this is the result of poor research on the part of Khoury or the fact that Khoury didn't feel that his characters needed to stick to facts in certain contexts of the story. 

A very clear example of misinformation is Vance's account of how Hagar was banished.  
"... Abraham's wife, Sarah, couldn't have children, so he took a second wife, his Arab maidservant Hagar, who gave him a son they called Ishmael. Thirteen years later, Sarah manages to have a son, Isaac. Abraham dies, Sarah banishes Hagar and Ishmael, and the Semitic race is split between Arab and Jew." (The Last Templar, Chapter 68, page 327)
First of all, Hagar was an Egyptian (Genesis 16:1). Secondly the biblical account is that Abraham was the one to banish Hagar and Ishmael on Sarah's request, obviously while he was living (Genesis 21:14). These are not significant points upon which key arguments hinge but they are annoying to find these kinds of errors in historical fiction. I wonder if Khoury was using a Islamic account of this event, instead of a Judeo-Christian one. Is this sort of thing common in other historical fiction? I am not always knowledgeable in the culture, history and setting of other historical fiction I read. It could be that authors of historical fiction cut these kinds of corners all the time, and I have been oblivious all this time. 

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Why I try to not always give answers to questions

Socrates and Jesus asked many questions and gave more questions when asked for answers. They did not do this because they didn't want people to know the truth, quite simply the opposite was true. They desperately wanted the masses, both the elite and the common people to know the truth and to engage it.


Asking questions causes the hearer to think more deeply. It also causes people to suppress or forget their preconceived ideas in order to deal with the question at hand. This helps foster an inductive approach to learning and study.


Jesus and Socrates both noticed that people who want answers to questions many times have ulterior motives. For instance, when Socrates is approached by a young man who asks him for knowledge. Socrates proceeds to dunk the man repeatedly in the ocean asking him each time what he wants. The man terrified and gasping for breath says he wants air! Socrates then concludes that this young man will not receive knowledge until he desires truth more than air. (Apocryphal from  Diogenes Laertius)


The religious leaders asked Jesus for answers in order to trap him and discredit him (John 8:6). Another man who was an expert in religious law came to Jesus seeking answers but his motives were to "justify himself" (Luke 10:29). 


The simple and sad truth is that not everyone who asks for truth wants truth. Someone who doesn't want truth probably will get what they want. I think it was G. K. Chesterton who said, "To give answers to someone who doesn't love truth is to give more reasons for doubt." I hope that my questions will aid those who desire to know the truth and frustrate those who don't. 


P.S. However, a little frustration for all of us should be welcomed when dealing with questions.