I have been thinking about this for bit. We have many people who claim to be Christians and who claim to follow the word of God. If you look at what they really believed, you would see that that their claims to beings Christians is a lie, or as
I now call them CINO or Christians in name only. Their claim fails when they voice support for our culture of death that allows guns everywhere including schools. Guns have one value and one value only, that of death. Thou shall not kill. That is the whole commandment. It doesn’t say, thou shall not kill unless you are threatened and it doesn’t say thou shall not kill unless a policeman does it in your name.
When a cop kills someone, it is done in your name as you are part of society that a cop has sworn to protect. He kills in your name and if you are a Christian, you cannot let someone kill in your name because “thou shall not kill” doesn’t allow that because the wording is very specific. Thou shall not kill" even if it’s in your name with your permission. Because thou shall not kill. If you allow this by permission or by silence, you are a CINO. Thou shall not kill. If you allow anyone to kill in your name, you are a CINO.
When Moses came down from Mr. Sinai with the Ten Commandments in his hand, one of which being Thou Shalt Not Kill, he saw a bunch of his people worshipping a golden calf. He ordered them executed. The very foundational figure of all Jewish law ordered a mass execution while the God-etched “Thou shalt not kill” tablet was still in his hand. The divine ink wasn’t even dry yet. Levitcan law would go on to prescribe death for a great many offenses.
So it’s just possible that your understanding of the commandment is a bit simplistic.
Two points, one, you are talking Moses, over 3000 years ago. I think we can exclude any examples over 3000 years old. Two, thou shall not kill. It is a full and complete sentence. It does not allow for interpretation or second guesses. There is no room for an individual to decide to obey this rule and ignore that rule when convenient. That is situational ethics and kinda the point of the bible is to avoid situational ethics. If you can interpret the biblical rules as to when you obey or not to obey, then the idea of sin, heaven or hell really doesn’t apply and liberals are correct in their understanding about ethics being one of situational ethics and there are no standards to be followed. If you can interpret a basic and fundamental rule of God like"thou shall not kill" then god rules mean nothing.
K: and we get to point. The statement is clear “thou shall not kill” it doesn’t allow room for interpretation
or second guessing. Thou shall not kill, except for a just war, it doesn’t say that. There is no wiggle room in that statement, so we to create some space, create such things as a “just war” or we allow killing in the defense of ourselves. But this is nothing then but interpreting gods law for our own needs.
Or as we call it, situational ethics. If we can interpret law or rules, to fit our needs, that is subjective and situational ethics. So once again, we find ourselves at situational ethics.
Bullshit. Which one of us is merely pointing out exactly what the text says, and which one of us is pretending it says something it doesn’t because they have a political aim?
Moses ordered a mass execution for blasphemy immediately after pronouncing “Thou Shalt not Kill”. Is that in the Bible, or isn’t it?
Levitican law demands a death penalty for a wide variety of immoral acts despite ‘thou shalt not kill’ being a maxim. Is that in the Bible, or isn’t it?
PK declares “. He kills in your name and if you are a Christian, you cannot let someone kill in your name because “thou shall not kill” doesn’t allow that because the wording is very specific. Thou shall not kill” even if it’s in your name with your permission. Because thou shall not kill. If you allow this by permission or by silence, you are a CINO. Thou shall not kill. If you allow anyone to kill in your name, you are a CINO. "
Is that in the Bible, or isn’t it?
Am I allowed to point out that the original word for ‘kill’ in the text actually means ‘murder’ and wasn’t used to apply to things like warfare or executions, or would that be a ‘liberal interpretation’ as well?
If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for PK, am I right?
Er…then why are you making the 3,000 year old specific wording of the 10 Commandments from the same text your standard?
I’m just telling you what the BIble says. The guy who said “Thou shalt not kill” ordered a bunch of people killed, and the religious law of which “Thou shalt not kill” is a part advocates the death penalty. If you don’t see how that completely invalidates your interpretation of the commandment, it’s because you don’t want to see it. Period.
Do you understand that the Bible wasn’t originally written in English? Do you understand that the definition of ‘kill’ you are relying on is something you pulled out of your ass, and has zero baring on the actual commandment?
So, even the bible has exceptions to what should
be a straightforward rule, thou shall not kill/murder
UNLESS…sounds like situational ethics to me. So
It is agreed that even the bible does not have absolute standards which must be adhered to. The
Situation dictates if an an act of murder is really murder or rightful defense. Man interpreting gods rules.
I don’t really care what you think of the Bible. My point here was to show that your interpretation of the commandment, and thus your judgment of Christians who live according to it, was baloney. Though the way you shifted from “Christians suck because they don’t follow the BIble” to “The Bible sucks because it doesn’t agree with me” without so much as pausing for air to acknowledge your mistake is telling. If we drop out the bits about the Bible because you don’t really know about it, your real point of “Christians suck because they don’t agree with me” comes shining on through.
Ucc, I was looking at the phrase, “do not kill”. A conservative interpretation of that wouldn’t bring in anything outside the letter of the law there. So not all the context, from the bible or anywhere else. So you wouldn’t search around for things to induct in order to expand or contract the statement itself. So you’d just take it to mean, “do not kill” and then you wouldn’t kill. If you wanted to do a liberal interpretation, then you’d say, "I know it says do not kill, but if we look here and if we look there, we can take it to mean something other than, “do not kill”. In the latter case, you’d be going beyond the letter of the law in your interpretation.
War, suicide by cops, abortion, euthanasia-- do any of these situations beg interpretation of do not kill? Can we still slaughter animals? Can I swat a fly? Surely a god who knows us humans would be aware of our not accepting literal interpretations of commandments.
Oh, you’re a Bible scholar now? Tell me more about how conservative biblical interpretation ignores context and the meanings of the terms used in their original languages.
The statement itself is ‘do not murder’, not ‘do not kill’. The statement was made by somebody who immediately issued a bunch of executions after making the statement. PK is simply full of shit, there’s no issue of ‘kinds of interpretation’.
Why even respect ‘do not kill’ at all if you aren’t going to acknowledge the text it is written in which addresses these very issues? It’s a familar pattern- people with a liberal take on religious texts pick out the slender portions that appeal to them as words to live by. Those slender clauses divorced from the text lack all context. The lack of context leaves them hopelessly open to interpretation. The liberal declares religious understanding to be hopeless because the context-free bits they accept don’t make sense without the larger context they dismissed to begin with.
No one has bothered to go to the original version, which is the Jewish text?? Two different words are at play here. The original commandment was thou shall not murder. Kill is not original. The two are not defined the same, in English and the Jewish language. And for the love of god please do not use Wiki as an authority, you can do a search and find quite a few more reliable , educated, literate sites.
I’m not talking about the bible. I’m talking about how statements can be interpreted. I was thinking of Scalia’s book, “matter of interpretation” of whatever it’s called. Whether or not the statement in the bible says don’t murder, or don’t kill, I suppose is important. But if it says, “don’t kill”, and then you come up with a way to kill something because you interpret something else into it than what it says, would mean that you were interpreting it liberally. I know you know what I mean.