An eye for an eye, etc, is the last sentence in a whole passage dealing with tort. It is completely misunderstood and taken out of context.The law of an eye for an eye is completely misunderstood. It is read out of context. Read Exodus 22.

"love thy neighbor, etc." is not originally by "jesus". It is an old Jewish saying. The same applies to "don't do unto others...."

The typical bible toting evangelist is very narrow minded. Only the ignorant quote verbatim and out of context. The early Christians also did not think much about attributing quotes to their source, so we put a lot of things in the mouth of jesus that are not his (if he ever existed). Talmud, on the other hand, always attributes who said what and when and also deals with the whole passage dealing with tort and not only the last sentence.

@norealgod The "eye for an eye" is much older than the Old Testament, appearing in Hammurabi's Code (1754 BC), who's general laws must have been known throughout this area of the world at the time.
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." ... "An eye for an eye ..." is a paraphrase of Hammurabi's Code, a collection of 282 laws inscribed on an upright stone pillar," Wikipedia

The point is that Paul transformed the direction of values from a life of appearances to the inner self changing the force of "love others as you love yourself" into its most radical expression as in "to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also", "love your enemies". Paul discovered man's existential will as explicated in Hannah Ardent's "Life of the Mind" [which is an excellent read].

I am well aware of the Hammurabi code, but if you read the whole passage in Exodus, you will see that we deal with reparation rather than revenge. The passage starts with reparation for damage done with intention and ends with a vengeful act for damage done unintentionally. This is an illogical progression and the amoraim (the Talmudic scholars) saw thru it. The verbatim ignorant takes it out of context.

Hanna Arendt (not ardent) is a wonderful and erudite writer. I happen to disagree with her a lot. But I digress. Morality is manifested in action not state of mind. Paul is, in my not so humble opinion, is the crux of christian immorality. I explained it my comment above.

@norealgod
It is Exodus 21, paragraph 22.
Yes, Arendt
I guess we must disagree about Paul. I think his thought on a secular basis is fascinating, especially as Simon Critchley's presents him in his book "The Faith of the Faithless" Just started reading Alain Badiou's "St Paul".