Comments on: Ben Jordan Case 7 – The Cardinal Sins http://indieflux.com/2009/12/18/ben-jordan-case-7-the-cardinal-sins/ Indie Flux - News, reviews, previews, and more! Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:38:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Uhfgood http://indieflux.com/2009/12/18/ben-jordan-case-7-the-cardinal-sins/comment-page-1/#comment-3192 Uhfgood Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:05:36 +0000 http://indieflux.com/2009/12/18/ben-jordan-case-7-the-cardinal-sins/#comment-3192 Goury - I stand corrected then. I've read through the Bible several times however I don't necessarily remember everything I've read. Thanks for the comment! Goury – I stand corrected then. I’ve read through the Bible several times however I don’t necessarily remember everything I’ve read.

Thanks for the comment!

]]> By: Goury http://indieflux.com/2009/12/18/ben-jordan-case-7-the-cardinal-sins/comment-page-1/#comment-3191 Goury Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:16:11 +0000 http://indieflux.com/2009/12/18/ben-jordan-case-7-the-cardinal-sins/#comment-3191 I found the whole amulet idea particularly disturbing. It seem that Grundislav’s knowledge about Christianity is lacking. (see this thread for an example: http://bj4u.livejournal.com/4561.html ) However the old ‘eye for an eye’ rule does appear in the Old Testament. I quote from wikipedia: “The phrase "an eye for an eye", Hebrew: עין תחת עין, ayin tahat ayin, is a quotation from several passages of the Bible (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:21) in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to give his or her own eye in compensation. At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Old Testament”. Of course the rule was later abolished by Jesus. However as Cardinal Genovese is a religious fanatic it is perfectly logical that he refers to the old law. I found the whole amulet idea particularly disturbing. It seem that Grundislav’s knowledge about Christianity is lacking. (see this thread for an example: http://bj4u.livejournal.com/4561.html ) However the old ‘eye for an eye’ rule does appear in the Old Testament. I quote from wikipedia:
“The phrase “an eye for an eye”, Hebrew: עין תחת עין, ayin tahat ayin, is a quotation from several passages of the Bible (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:21) in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to give his or her own eye in compensation. At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Old Testament”.
Of course the rule was later abolished by Jesus. However as Cardinal Genovese is a religious fanatic it is perfectly logical that he refers to the old law.

]]>