• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thou shall not kill!

BSM1

What? Me worry?
If you truly believe this then will you same the same thing about rape?

How about if the state collapsed and thugs gunned downed your loved ones in the ensuing anarchy? Would they not be murderers in your eyes? There's no legal infrastructure to define them as such...

I maintain that murder is a moral term and not something exclusively defined by the state. Your declarations from on high notwithstanding.

The flies are circling this horse. No matter what you maintain, murder is a legal term. Don't understand your rape question but yes, thugs killing you would legally be murder. If you are saying that anarchy does away with legalities, then we're into another can of worms. One more time, in our society murder is defined by the law.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
"Thou shall not kill" unless god informs you to kill, of course.

.... and also when God informs you Not to kill as Jesus taught at Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10 that Christians would Not pick up the warring sword. Only Jesus, according to Revelation 19:14-16, with angelic armies (Not people) will do any executing work that needs to be done for his followers living on Earth at this time.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member

I find in Scripture to wilfully or deliberately cause pre-meditated abortion is the taking of viable life.
Doctor and mother have judged that the normal developing un-born life is Not fit for life.
Such an abortion's purpose being for the sole selfish reason to avoid the birth of that un-born life.
So, under the Constitution of the Mosiac Law it was ' life for life ' or ' soul for soul ' (equal value) meaning a High Crime in God's eyes according to Exodus 21:22-25 because life was at stake.
Any degree of deliberateness was to be taken into consideration by the judges as per Numbers 35:22-24,31.
So, that is Not talking about un-avoidable abortion because of disease or some sort of weakness beyond human help.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yahweh's view of abortion and infanticide can be found in Hosea 13:
16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.​

In ' Bible speak ', so to speak, the words 'infants dashed in pieces' ( Isaiah 13:16; Nahum 3:10; Hosea 13:16 ) meant that the family line, the family name, of that group would be wiped out or come to an end. The great magnatude of that prophecy against ancient Babylon came true ( Isaiah 13:19-20 ) or came to pass on October 5, 539 BC.
In other words, I find those words are Not about abortion or infanticide.
Just like the expression about ' smoke ' ascending forever for Edom ( Idumea ) would be going up forever as per Isaiah 34:10.
That ' forever smoke ' just meant No further existence or family line for those Edomites.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In ' Bible speak ', so to speak, the words 'infants dashed in pieces' ( Isaiah 13:16; Nahum 3:10; Hosea 13:16 ) meant that the family line, the family name, of that group would be wiped out or come to an end. The great magnatude of that prophecy against ancient Babylon came true ( Isaiah 13:19-20 ) or came to pass on October 5, 539 BC.
In other words, I find those words are Not about abortion or infanticide.
Then you probably think the story of Jesus dying on the cross simply means that he worried about having no children, and has nothing to do with death or the Romans.

I think the words mean exactly what they say, and that attempts to explain them away into politeness miss the entire point about the degree of barbarity in antiquity, which is naturally reflected in their gods.

God accepts human sacrifice, for example. In the stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Jonah on the boat, it's not gone through with, but everyone knows it's for real. In the stories of Jephthah (Judges 11) and the descendants of Saul (2 Samuel 21) God requires, and accepts, human sacrifice, and rewards it. Which brings us to the story of Jesus.

Pretending otherwise is unhelpful to understanding.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
The flies are circling this horse. No matter what you maintain, murder is a legal term. Don't understand your rape question but yes, thugs killing you would legally be murder.
My rape question is pretty easy to grasp. If any moral notion of what constitutes murder not referenced by the state is irrelevant, then you can say the same thing about rape. It's only rape if the law says it's rape.

If you are saying that anarchy does away with legalities, then we're into another can of worms.
Don't evade the question. If your family is gunned down by thugs and there is no legal infrastructure, they wouldn't be guilty of murder in your eyes.

For goodness sake, I do not believe for a second that the author of the Decalogue (or God for that matter) cared one bit about the 'definitions' of modern legal systems. It's a commandment, a moral one, that any taking of human life without really good justification is murder end of story.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My rape question is pretty easy to grasp. If any moral notion of what constitutes murder not referenced by the state is irrelevant, then you can say the same thing about rape. It's only rape if the law says it's rape.
The point is that 'killing' and 'murder' are distinct concepts.

Sometimes the law allows you to kill ─ in the armed forces, the police, in self-defense, in some jurisdictions because you were provoked, or your partner was unfaithful, or is abusive, &c. Elsewhere these may be murder 2 (in contrast to premeditated or felony killing, murder 1). If you didn't intend to kill, but were reckless, it's not 'murder', it's 'unlawful homicide' or 'manslaughter'. Sometimes you can have a defense of insanity, automatism, &c.

Note that to have a defense you have to have a court. Note that the existence of an offense implies a court too.

But if you're in the jungle, and another tribe comes through and wipes you out, no one's around to say it's murder. No law was broken, however properly enraged the survivors may be. You or I as onlookers might think the morality was extremely offensive to us.

Still ─ no law, no murder.
If your family is gunned down by thugs and there is no legal infrastructure, they wouldn't be guilty of murder in your eyes.
No legal system, no offense of murder.

No offense of anything. You can double-park all you like. And if someone smashes your windows and slashes your tires as a result, same again.

That's why, when you think about it, the 'rule of law' is such an attractive idea, so basic to civilization.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
My rape question is pretty easy to grasp. If any moral notion of what constitutes murder not referenced by the state is irrelevant, then you can say the same thing about rape. It's only rape if the law says it's rape.


Don't evade the question. If your family is gunned down by thugs and there is no legal infrastructure, they wouldn't be guilty of murder in your eyes.

For goodness sake, I do not believe for a second that the author of the Decalogue (or God for that matter) cared one bit about the 'definitions' of modern legal systems. It's a commandment, a moral one, that any taking of human life without really good justification is murder end of story.

Unfortunately rape is what the law determines is rape. If there were no law defining rape then a man (or woman) could force his intentions on a person that fails to defend themselves. This something you find in the animal kingdom. However, our society has determined that that action constitutes a felony punishable by law. Thus rape is definitely defined by law.

But I have to tip my hat to @blu2 who has summed it up rather nicely.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Then you probably think the story of Jesus dying on the cross simply means that he worried about having no children, and has nothing to do with death or the Romans.
I think the words mean exactly what they say, and that attempts to explain them away into politeness miss the entire point about the degree of barbarity in antiquity, which is naturally reflected in their gods.
God accepts human sacrifice, for example. In the stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Jonah on the boat, it's not gone through with, but everyone knows it's for real. In the stories of Jephthah (Judges 11) and the descendants of Saul (2 Samuel 21) God requires, and accepts, human sacrifice, and rewards it. Which brings us to the story of Jesus.
Pretending otherwise is unhelpful to understanding.

What verse(s) in 2nd Samuel 21 did you have in mind.

Jesus' ransom death I find covers ALL as in everyone according to 1 John 1:7 B.
Since Not all will end up accepting Jesus is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers MANY instead of all.
ALL who died before Jesus died (John 3:13) can have a healthy physical resurrection including the Romans, etc.
It is just that those people of the nations were Not offered a heavenly position.
That includes people like King David who is awaiting an earthly resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 2:34.
David can have a chieftainship princely position on Earth as per Psalms 45:16 B; Isaiah 32:1; Ezekiel 34:24.

Please notice in Genesis the two (2) persons mentioned at Genesis 22:5 where Abraham tells the people that 'he and the lad (Isaac)' WILL come again or come back to you. That is simply showing how confident Abraham and Isaac were in the physical resurrection promise. Remember once it reached the point that Abraham and Isaac were willing to go through with it that God stopped them. It also shows us Abraham's firm confidence in the resurrection.
That future resurrection will take place on Earth during Jesus' 1,000-year governmental kingdom rule over Earth.

Jephthah's daughter was Not a literal sacrifice but as we might sacrifice to give up something today.
Please notice Judges 11:40 because she is alive year after year, so her sacrifice was to serve at the temple.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What verse(s) in 2nd Samuel 21 did you have in mind.
2 Samuel 21: 1 There's a famine. David asks Yahweh why. Yahweh says, because Saul's bloodguilt regarding the Gibeonites is unexpiated. 6 The Gibeonites say, give us seven sons of Saul and we'll impale them. That will level the score. 9 David does do, and the Gibeonites impale them 'before the Lord'. 14 They bury the bones of Saul and the executed sons. "And after that God heeded supplications for the land" ie lifted the famine.
That future resurrection will take place on Earth during Jesus' 1,000-year governmental kingdom rule over Earth.
Sorry, that's just a tale.
Jephthah's daughter was Not a literal sacrifice but as we might sacrifice to give up something today.
Judges 11:39 Jephthah 'did with her according to his vow which he had made'. The vow was 31 "whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return victorious from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's and I shall offer him up for a burnt offering," That was his daughter, of course.
Please notice Judges 11:40 because she is alive year after year, so her sacrifice was to serve at the temple.
That's simply wrong. 11:40 says it became the custom "that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah" &c. Nothing there about her being alive a year later.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
so....thou shalt not kill.....
was always conditional

I don't believe so

I suspect the characters of the bible would make vow......just willynilly.

and then SUFFERED their proud boasts to their great dismay

oooooops
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
2 Samuel 21: 1 There's a famine. David asks Yahweh why. Yahweh says, because Saul's bloodguilt regarding the Gibeonites is unexpiated. 6 The Gibeonites say, give us seven sons of Saul and we'll impale them. That will level the score. 9 David does do, and the Gibeonites impale them 'before the Lord'. 14 They bury the bones of Saul and the executed sons. "And after that God heeded supplications for the land" ie lifted the famine.
Sorry, that's just a tale.
Judges 11:39 Jephthah 'did with her according to his vow which he had made'. The vow was 31 "whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return victorious from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's and I shall offer him up for a burnt offering," That was his daughter, of course.
That's simply wrong. 11:40 says it became the custom "that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah" &c. Nothing there about her being alive a year later.

Please note that in the Hebrew Tanach that ' lament ' was ' WITH the daughter of Jephthah ' at Judges 11:40.
They could Not lament 'with her' four days of the year if she was dead.

At 2nd Samuel the famine was Not an ordinary famine but a 3-year famine because of the bloodguilt that Saul caused. Saul put innocent Gibeonites to death (Joshua 9:15). So, the living Gibeonites in this instance could have been serving as the ' Avenger of Blood ' for those put to death. ( Life for life, soul for soul ). Justice would be served by the execution of those 7 sons thus ending that drought or famine, and those Philistine giants at 2 Samuel 21:22.

Whether one calls Revelation 20:6 a tale or not, it is still recorded in Scripture about Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth when there will be healing for earth's nations as mentioned at Revelation 22:2.
That is in fullfillment to God's promise to father Abraham that ALL families of Earth will be blessed, and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed. Blessed with the benefit of healing or the curing for earth's nations.- Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18. To me 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 is Not a tale but fulfillment of what is written.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Please note that in the Hebrew Tanach that ' lament ' was ' WITH the daughter of Jephthah ' at Judges 11:40.
I don't know where you get that from, but certainly not from the text of Judges 11:40. That says instead that they went to lament for her, which would be silly were your claim correct. Here, read it:

KJV:
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.​

RSV (my usual):
that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Young's Literal translation:
that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Strong, word by word:
that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.​

It was a human sacrifice to Yahweh in accordance with the deal they'd cut, and Yahweh rewarded Jephthah by making him judge ─ ruler ─ of Israel.
At 2nd Samuel the famine was Not an ordinary famine but a 3-year famine because of the bloodguilt that Saul caused. Saul put innocent Gibeonites to death (Joshua 9:15). So, the living Gibeonites in this instance could have been serving as the ' Avenger of Blood ' for those put to death. ( Life for life, soul for soul ). Justice would be served by the execution of those 7 sons thus ending that drought or famine
But the text is quite specific that (a) Yahweh required the deaths, and (b) only lifted the famine after the seven were impaled "before the Lord". Human sacrifice to appease a god, plain as day.

And then there's Jesus.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I don't know where you get that from, but certainly not from the text of Judges 11:40. That says instead that they went to lament for her, which would be silly were your claim correct. Here, read it:

KJV:
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.​

RSV (my usual):
that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Young's Literal translation:
that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Strong, word by word:
that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.​
It was a human sacrifice to Yahweh in accordance with the deal they'd cut, and Yahweh rewarded Jephthah by making him judge ─ ruler ─ of Israel.
But the text is quite specific that (a) Yahweh required the deaths, and (b) only lifted the famine after the seven were impaled "before the Lord". Human sacrifice to appease a god, plain as day.
And then there's Jesus.

As I posted I got it from the Hebrew. Judges was written in Hebrew and later translated into English.
There are other KJV verses that are Not as clear as in the original manuscripts.
That does Not make the Hebrew as wrong but the translated English as not as clear.
The Hebrew shows the women would go to lament with the daughter four days in the year.
If she was dead there would be No need to go to visit her for four days each year.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
But the text is quite specific that (a) Yahweh required the deaths, and (b) only lifted the famine after the seven were impaled "before the Lord". Human sacrifice to appease a god, plain as day.
And then there's Jesus.

The point was ' execution ' for justice. Surely you are Not saying the 'Avengers of Blood ' were sacrificing people.
What was the purpose of the ' Avenger of Blood ' under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law.
Any thoughts about Jeremiah 32:35 or 2 Chronicles 28:3
 
Top