I believe Biblical translators/scholars will tell one that "an eye for an eye" when translated, meant compensation, not literal retribution.

Many would find this interesting

The culture of ugliness in modern Islam
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/05/04/3208020.htm

Certainly the early Islamic period witnessed codes of chivalry, with which the Crusaders came in contact, adopted and took back to the West - including 'the art of courtly love'.

However, an Iranian apostate related horrific acts that Mohammed had instigated himself. One was the rounding up of over 300 people (presumably male) stripping them and beheading all those that had pubic hair.

A question is: Did the chivalric code of Islam actually predate the Islamic period, and thus influenced the Saracens? Or was it born with Mohammed, an illiterate teacher.

Nice find Danielle. Hmm... certainly not the Christian style, they would lobby government and first establish what funding they could get from caring for the burns victims afterwards. Then they’d set up an organisation for psych evaluation and give their staff at least 6 weeks training that would be charged to the public coffers. They would then sub contract at tax payers expense the ways and means to identify and make the acceptance of help compulsory for any victims and their future children. As children emerged from what they have convinced people are mothers suffering varying degrees of post traumatic stress they would bring the children into care and again make use of public funding for all levels of their services that they would have set up in the media as being a vital service and we’d see releases from government praises them for their service to the community. You would never hear from the mothers or children again as privacy laws cover up all aspects of their practice. All abuses and failures within this system would be deemed excusable as acknowledging any responsibility would reduce funding. All children would be capable of seeking damages from government and no Christian org would ever have to lift a finger or be liable for any compensation as they reap the rewards but not accountability. Given the abuse received the next generation would not need a fire as they can prove any ward in the system has suffered abuses as the well trained counselors step back in to label the next generation of mothers. And on the system goes.

Mutawa really have to up their game and learn short term misery is not a successful strategy. When their oil runs out they better learn the Christian way to do things.

Jewely,
You will find Child welfare and social welfare funding was initially raised and administered by the Church and Para organisations that when the Government saw its socially beneficial outcome decided to fund from taxes. However there are currently welfare recipients that the Church would not fund; at least not to the current level, i.e. refugees with children living in Coastal resorts, at $1,800 p/w.

Raised, not earned by church – they’ve always taken public money either directly or through govt. They take the money the kudos and pay themselves.

What refugees do you mean Philo?

In the early days of the Church, religious orders cared for the poor and dispossessed with endowments by the wealthy. Many wealthy widows entered the Church taking money with them; then there were the large bequests (even lands) made to the Church, not only out of devotion, but also for 'masses in perpetuity' for their souls after death.

The protestant period witnessed many philanthropists giving to the poor. This was considered a sign of their devotion.

Today, In the USA and elsewhere, many organisations to help the poor and needy (and for other causes) have been established and funded by philanthropists, many of whom were/are Jewish and Christian.

All relgions have a 'clause' that the devout laity donate to the poor. Quite reasonabe really.

It’s such a load of twaddle people joining the church putting all their monies in and then going to help the little children with it. They don’t, they profit from helping children through charging excessive amounts – wouldn’t go assuming it is all Christian employees either cause they’ll take anyone they can generally to then pass the expenses on to the tax payer. Hope you don’t really have an image of little poor nuns and monks going about helping the needy after giving all their worldly possessions to the church. Its big business baby and only business now.

Reasonable it isn’t, huge rip off it is... and now I’m starting to sound like Yoda!