True but, it was not directed at you.
It seems that the original commandment was “Thou shalt not murder”. The distinction between murder and killing is a modern one as in cases of euthanasia, capital punishment or abortion where many see murder and killing as the same thing.
We kill plants and animals in order to survive. That is not murder in the original sense of the commandment.
Moses killed an Egyptian. His only punishment was that he was not allowed to enter the “promised land.” Judith was an assassin on the side of the Hebrews. Here the distinction between murder and killing becomes blurry.
duplicate
I do know what you mean. But that isn’t what happened here. What happened here is PK liberally* interepreted the verse to mean “nobody is allowed to be responsible for anybody else’s death in any circumstance, even indirectly” when there isn’t any reason to believe that’s what the passage means, either in context or by looking at the actual definitions of the words used. I simply pointed out to him what the text he’s commented on actually says.
*Liberally interpreted might be too strong. I think rather he didn’t even look at the passage before declaring what it means.
Moses was merely trying to lay out the basic ground rules for THEIR utopian society. THEY were not to kill each other (there was no rule against killing other peoples as long as it was done properly - indirectly and secretly such as to seem blameless - the “Sword of God”).
In forming the Israel nation, they decided that the word “kill” really meant “kill without our permission”, “murder”. They could easily see that they could not maintain a land without killing off the people already there (the Palestinians). And the prior way of getting other people to do it all for them wasn’t going to work for much longer (although at least through the Iraq war). So the supposed peace loving people were given machine guns and got to work.
They are still building long range nuclear missiles.
There was a reason for them to absolutely insist on calling it the “Holocaust”. After the Holocaust, the rules/commandments get to be rewritten (but this time kept away from those evil gentiles).
K: Thou shall not kill/murder. It is a rather plain and easy statement to understand. If Moses brought
down the tablet, the ten commandments for the Hebrews to follow and he then slaughter Hebrews for
“crimes” then he too interpreted the text, the tablet. It does not say “thou shall not kill unless”. It says
"thou shall not kill/murder. Moses broke the law, it is as simple as that, because context is unimportant
when the commandment is rather straightforward. If context is important, then that is situational ethics.
Thou shall not kill/murder! There is not context there. thou shall not kill. Anything else is context.
Kropotkin
Actually, kill/murder is not said. Murder is not kill. The ancient texts were not translated accurately by priests or others that lacked education. Even today language translation has issues. Example: You think murder means kill. It does not. Don’t feel bad most or many make the same mistake. Intent of words.
Then why did you misunderstand it in your opening post?
The commandment is rather straightforward, but nevertheless you misunderstood it because you ignored the context. You ignored the context because you considered bashing Christians to be more important than making an accurate point.
Right. We shouldn’t use context to determine what a passage means. We should just take PK’s word for everything. Do you understand that you’re brazenly arguing against reason here? Taking a moment to understand what a statement truly means gives a conclusion you don’t like, so you’re arguing against understanding itself. This is where I would typically say something about the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
I know my word doesn’t count for much here, but I was taught to understand the OT from the perspective of the NT. In this way you can see a development leading up to Christ, who told us to love our enemies - which is a far cry from “Do not murder” or “Do not kill each other” (which I agree is the meaning of the text). Also, this approach notes that Jesus regarded the Commandment, “Love your neighbour as your self” on par with “LOve the Lord your God”.
This underlines what PK is essentially pointing at. Of course this position is considered weak by the gun toting right, who despise the “lesser of my brothers” and call them slackers. In reaction to criticism they have the cheek to say we’re Christian bashing.
A fine statement from someone who calls himself Uccisore=Killer
And yet the passage says what it says, and PK was completely incorrect.
What PK was ‘essentially pointing at’ was that Christians are terrible people because they tend not to share his politics, and mirrors your whining about the ‘gun toting right’ and how they ‘despise’ people. He neither knows nor cares what the Bible actually says about anything, but you’re all to happy to stand side by side with him- enemy of my enemy, and all that.
And yes, you are Christian bashing. It’s practically all you do here. Your posting history is available to anyone who wants to read it. If this thread wasn’t an opportunity to shit on Christians, you wouldn’t have posted in it. From the way you began your post fishing for compliments to the way you ended it insulting my name, we’ve seen it all before.
You’ve got to laugh …
You mean in lieu of a substantial reply? Yes, I suppose you do.
History. Original Christians spoke the common Jewish language, wrote in Jesus’s part in that language. Not English, German, Italian, etc.
The European priests took a language they were semi fluent in, tweaked it, translated it and put their own beliefs into the writing. Yet even in English murder and kill have two different meanings. Original: thou shall not murder, new: thou shall not kill. That there are sects that see the commandment differently should be no surprise. Some take it as murder , some take it as kill. Look at the orthodox Amish as an example compared to the average nondenominational Christian. There is a gulf.
That’s why the text of Exodus is so important. LIke I said, whomever wrote Exodus back in the day had Moses declaring “Thou Shalt Not Kill!” then immediately ordering a bunch of people executed. That tells you something about how they were using the word irrespective of how we want to interpret it into other languages. Either the writer of Exodus (or Moses) was so irrational that they immediately violated their own rule as soon as they proclaimed it, or else ‘kill’ didn’t apply to things like executions.
Ucci, do a search on the Hebrew language for murder and kill. Moses did not say kill, he said murder. Most Christians say kill but follow the Jewish definition of murder. The language and intent and teaching is confusing but, rational perspective clears it.
Ucc, what do you think of this quote?
“If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don’t!”
You mean in the way you answered my post?
I felt that it was ironic that this subject was adressed by an “Uccisore”.
I also thought that it was substantial to mention that Christian Theologians taught me to read the OT with the NT in mind and acknowledge the development in the relationship that God is portrayed as having with humanity.
The law is something that shows us how incapable we are at being righteous in our own right - that is by compliance to commandments - which is why Christ is the redeemer and Grace the way of salvation. However, redemption raises us up onto higher ground, and devotion leads us along the path that Christ showed us. It is this release that gives us freedom to love our neighbour and our enemy, to be a “neighbour” to the needy and show compassion to those oppressed.
This is a worldview that may have its problems, as many early Christians experienced and suffered for, but to give up the power of grace and rely upon a pious morality and weapons is precisely what Christ showed us was going wrong in Israel.
It is right that the OT portrays a God prepared to spill blood, but curiously, as little as possible in that he curbs the right to revenge (“Revenge is mine!”). Punishment was also curbed, and an “eye for an eye” demands that punishment be appropriate and not go overboard.
When you say that only murder is adressed, that is only one side of the argument. You’re right, but you’re cherry picking (again) and fail to recognise the spirit working, which has always been the problem with organised religion. The Pharisees meant well, but they denied the need for grace and redemption and relied upon their own strength to obey the law, and therefore they read the law like many “conservative” and evangelical Christians do.
In a country that grew up with the cold hand of weaponry, there is little room for the compassion of Christ, and the spirit shows itself rarely. There are spiritual people in America of course, but they are marginalised and suffer the contempt of the political right-wing.
Who is “Christian bashing”? I feel I support the spiritual people here who are bashed by the pious.
The letter (literal interpretation) of the Scripture is death.–Paul. Modern Christian “right” Pharisees will not accept interpretations of Scripture based on etymology or historical context. In the same way they have deified the constitution, wanting only literal interpretations of it.
anytime we say, look at the context of X event, we are interpreting.
He hit her but look at the context, but he really was protecting himself
or he hit her and she deserved it or he hit her and man he should go to jail.
depending on context, we get a different answer. Same event, different context
which means different reactions. Now personally, I believe that different contexts
creates a different reaction which is the essence of situational ethics. He hit her
and under different contexts, we can interpret it several different ways.
And that is my point. The action of hitting her may or may not be wrong depending
on the context. So we interpret the action to discover if in that context, the action
was wrong. Cino’s do the same thing, interpret the action to discover if the action
was wrong, but the whole point of the ten commandments is to remove interpretation.
To remove context. The idea of god is not about interpreting him or try to understand
context in regards to certain actions such as thou shall not kill or thou shall not
covet thy neighbor wife. Because if you use context or interpretation, you can
discover a way to covet thy neighbor’s wife and not be held to god’s law. I can
covet thy neighbor’s wife because … and god’s law is meant to prevent that.
I can murder or kill because of the context or interpretation of this…means I
am not held accountable to god’s law. The whole point was to make everyone accountable. Interpretations and context are a means to avoid the ten commandments and god’s law.
Kropotkin
I think it’s an attempt to change the subject because that’s the way you always needle me when I’m right.