****ing context please

[Acim]

Nope, it says murder.

In some sources it says kill.

 

[Rival]

Such feeble logic. All killing sprees could be relegate to 'accident' under such logic.

Uh, no. Ted Bundy knew exactly what he was doing when he killed those women. If the State executes someone it thinks has killed unlawfully but actually hasn't, then that was an accident.

And if killer executes people that killer views as violating (literally anything) it is not a killing spree. It's just punishment, not killing.

This is why we have State Law...

 

[Rival]

In some sources it says kill.

If you say so.

 

[Acim]

If you say so.

EXODUS 20:13 KJV "Thou shalt not kill."

 

[Tumah]

Well, I might have missed that.

Would we be having this conversation if I didn't think a Jew who was witnessed to have transgressed the Sabbath should be killed?

So, it was righteous to kill a man (by stoning) for collecting branches on the wrong day of the week. (Viole taking notes about the concept of righteousness).

Well, Saturday would be the right day of the week to get a stoning, not the wrong day. But yeah that's the Law.

Do you think it would still be righteous today, or does rightheousness depend on circumstances?

Righteousness by the context you are discussing refers to "judging in a Jewish court a person who had transgressed the Sabbath to stoning". The Law doesn't change, so were we permitted to execute capital punishment, and were the witnesses capable of giving accepted testimony in front of the court, it would be righteous for the twenty three judges to judge the person to stoning.

But because we are not permitted by Jewish Law to judge cases involving the death penalty today, it would not be righteous to do so.

By the way, what are those other three execution methods?

Ciao

- viole

I answered that here for you.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Numbers 15
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

I can't get over how psychotic it is to kill someone for working on the wrong day of the week! It's just crazy! Could someone offer me the correct context.

The question is, what was going on in the man's heart, to want to disobey a clear command of God in the first place?

God is utterly holy, the wages of all sin is death, and all have fallen short.

And the Catholic Church believes all Scripture is infallible, even if there are some bad Catholics who don't. Of course, with the variety of views in the Catholic Church that can mean anything, and it can be interpreted however you want. (And they accuse Protestants of being the divided ones with many denominations and interpretations )

 

[Tumah]

With the overriding commandment of "do not kill," I see no difference. But I do see the inconsistency, and how that could lead to justification for killing spree.

Why is "do not kill" and overriding commandment? I'm just wondering.

 

[Acim]

Uh, no. Ted Bundy knew exactly what he was doing when he killed those women.

You don't know this. Ted Bundy knew exactly what he was doing in the same way a State knows exactly what it is doing when it kills a convicted criminal (who is actually innocent).

If the State executes someone it thinks has killed unlawfully but actually hasn't, then that was an accident.

And this accident, happens to be murder. It's either murder or Capital punishment. Both are killing. To excuse it as mere accident actually makes killing sprees much easier to justify, under such feeble logic.

 

[Rival]

EXODUS 20:13 KJV "Thou shalt not kill."

Exodus - Chapter 20 (Parshah Yitro)

"You shall not murder."

Christian translations also think there is an 'order of Melchizedek", so...

 

[Rival]

You don't know this. Ted Bundy knew exactly what he was doing in the same way a State knows exactly what it is doing when it kills a convicted criminal (who is actually innocent).



And this accident, happens to be murder. It's either murder or Capital punishment. Both are killing. To excuse it as mere accident actually makes killing sprees much easier to justify, under such feeble logic.

I give up. Have a nice day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is "do not kill" and overriding commandment? I'm just wondering.

It's more that the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" really needs to have a disclaimer on it, saying that "Thou shalt not kill, except when a person does a through z actions."

 

[Tumah]

It also says (in some sources) you shall not kill. The idea that we have two words, with same result, but different intent, means we get to play god on matters of life and death. Murder being "unlawful" but then only some people, who may not be godly (even a little bit) get to decide which of their killings are lawful and which aren't. Such that abortion is not murder, since it is 'lawful.'

In Hebrew it says "murder" (from the root RṢḤ). Its distinct from killing (from the root HRG). And the difference, as you basically said, is killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is unlawful and by extension - murder. While killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is lawful and not murder.

 

[Tumah]

It's more that the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" really needs to have a disclaimer on it, saying that "Thou shalt not kill, except when a person does a through z actions."

I don't know. I mean, in the US, does the law against homicide come with a disclaimer in the 30 states where its legal?

Besides for that, I don't think its true. By the commandment it specifically uses the Hebrew root for "murder" implying unlawful killing. Killing (a different root in Hebrew) someone who deserves death isn't murdered.

You may not agree that killing and murder is distinct, but its pretty clear that the Tanach does.

 

[Acim]

Why is "do not kill" and overriding commandment? I'm just wondering.

Because it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations for what makes for justifiable killing. Therefore, whoa to those that seek to override it with feeble logic.

The commandment - thou shall not work on the Sabbath can also be overcome with feeble logic, but is likely (and by that I mean certainly) not harming anyone other than sense of God, which I'm thinking God alone can take care of. Would be interesting to consider all the things that might constitute work, such that the person noticing the other person picking up sticks, was arguably 'working' that day as well.

 

[Acim]

Exodus - Chapter 20 (Parshah Yitro)

"You shall not murder."

Christian translations also think there is an 'order of Melchizedek", so...

Thanks for contributing to the discussion that there is more than one source on thou shalt not kill, and thou shall not murder.

 

[Acim]

I give up. Have a nice day.

Your concession is appreciated.

 

[Koldo]

Talmud, Yoma 28b.

What part specifically ?

Right. So?

So it is fair to assume he didn't study with the aid of his father.

I'm guessing at some point over the years that he was in Egypt as a child and young adult. By the time he killed the Egyptian, he was already experienced in some form of prophetic vision. His sister was a prophetess from a young age and his father was the leader of the generation. He seemed to be allowed out of the palace and knew that he was an Israelite as well. So it seems the most likely possibility. Although I guess its also possible he had studied under Bithiah. I don't really know.

But what reason do you have to assume that he studied anything at all, regarding this subject, before he spoke with God ?

 

[Tumah]

Because it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations for what makes for justifiable killing. Therefore, whoa to those that seek to override it with feeble logic.

No it doesn't. In case you hadn't realized, the context is the Torah, that is - the Book of Law. It already comes with parameters for what constitutes justifiable killing.

The commandment - thou shall not work on the Sabbath can also be overcome with feeble logic, but is likely (and by that I mean certainly) not harming anyone other than sense of God, which I'm thinking God alone can take care of.

Clearly though, He decided to hand that off to the people downstairs.

Would be interesting to consider all the things that might constitute work, such that the person noticing the other person picking up sticks, was arguably 'working' that day as well.

Watching a person isn't called work by Jewish standards.

 

[Acim]

In Hebrew it says "murder" (from the root RṢḤ). Its distinct from killing (from the root HRG). And the difference, as you basically said, is killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is unlawful and by extension - murder. While killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is lawful and not murder.

So abortion would not be murder. All we need then are laws that killing sprees are not murder, and they are not, right? Which technically we already have such laws in place, just arbitrarily applied.

All I know is I'm glad the demiurge is not my (our) Creator. It does help explain how this world actually works though.

 

[Acim]

Watching a person isn't called work by Jewish standards.

In the case of the story for this thread, admittedly Jewish standards reign. Outside of it, living today, they do not, nor should they. Thank God.