The focus of my post was supposed to be only about your misunderstanding and misuse of the phrase "eye for an eye". Which you continue to misunderstand and misuse, flying in face of the explanations I provided. Which are not 'torturing the language' at all, since the very language itself was mistranslated:

The Bible does not say, "an eye for an eye." It says, "an eye instead of an eye" or "in place of an eye." "Instead of, in place of" - tachat in the Hebrew - connotes not identical substitution, not an eye for an eye, but one item substituted for a different item.

Tell me: if I post that bit, one thousand and one times, will you read it even once?

So, let's forget the "antisemitic" accusations - I keep forgetting how prickly and ultra-sensitive you Yanks are, to perceived accusations of any prejudice or un-PC sentiments. Maybe as you say, you aren't - and I don't care actually. You are thousands of miles away from me and why should I give a damn about your private feeligns one way or the other? So, the post should have kept to the thin line, which was to correct your misuse and misunderstanding of the following phrase: "an eye for an eye".

Which, since you don't read my stuff, is explained by the following little paragraph:


The Bible does not say, "an eye for an eye." It says, "an eye instead of an eye" or "in place of an eye." "Instead of, in place of" - tachat in the Hebrew - connotes not identical substitution, not an eye for an eye, but one item substituted for a different item.

- Hey, I wouldn't expect you to read the whole piece from which that was lifted. But, did you even bother to read that much, and consider it? Here's the BBC explanation again, for your myopic benefit:

It's often supported with the argument "An eye for an eye". But to argue like that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what that Old Testament phrase actually means. In fact the Old Testament meaning of "an eye for an eye" is that only the guilty should be punished, and they should punished neither too leniently or too severely.

And, here's the Unitarian contribution again:

In truth, the Hebrew text "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was a limitation on mass killings of clans out of vindication. Until the law was put into effect, the practice had been for a family that had one person murdered to retaliate on an entire family or clan. "An eye for an eye" meant that people could not take more than one life for a life, even if the person who was murdered was pregnant and about to give birth.

IN SUMMARY:

1) I DON'T KNOW OR CARE IF YOU ARE AN "ANTI-SEMITE"
2) YOU CONTINUE TO MISUNDERSTAND AND MISUSE THE PHRASE 'EYE FOR AN EYE'. GET EDUCATED.