Thou shall not kill!

[DavidFirth]

How can abortion be murder if you equate breath with life?
Tom

Obviously I believe human life begins at conception.

 

[DavidFirth]

So you say ...

For others, those who might prefer an informed opinion, see Schiff's Abortion in Judaism.

I don't care anything for it, thanks.

 

[columbus]

Obviously I believe human life begins at conception.

So do I, which is why I oppose elective abortion. I think human beings feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is degrading to the human situation overall. But that's my modern, secular, science based morality. It isn't Scriptural.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

So do I, which is why I oppose elective abortion. I think human beings feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is degrading to the human situation overall. But that's my modern, secular, science based morality. It isn't Scriptural.
Tom

Well, I applaud you for being 100% correct.

 

[Thief]

So do I, which is why I oppose elective abortion. I think human beings feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is degrading to the human situation overall. But that's my modern, secular, science based morality. It isn't Scriptural.
Tom

(trying to neutral and having grown up in the housing projects)

many things happen...and they should not
bringing children into the world is often dealt poorly
and the results can be devastating

we humans are such as to grab and grope with no consideration
the consequence dealt unto the children

perhaps the phrase....I wish I had never been born!
is something you have heard?

 

[columbus]

Well, I applaud you for being 100% correct.

I wish anti-abortion religionists were as hardcore ProLife as I am. But I find them typically ProDeath on a wide range of issues, due to Scripture. And ineffective and inhumane concerning abortion and ways to reduce it.
Tom

 

[Thief]

I recall a photo of a small child...crouched naked and dying
with a vulture waiting behind him nearby

the photographer chased away the bird.....but could not help the child
the entire country side was held in desolate poverty

he won a Pulitzer prize for the photo

and years later killed himself

the photo haunted him

 

[columbus]

(trying to neutral and having grown up in the housing projects)

many things happen...and they should not
bringing children into the world is often dealt poorly
and the results can be devastating

we humans are such as to grab and grope with no consideration
the consequence dealt unto the children

perhaps the phrase....I wish I had never been born!
is something you have heard?

I understand all that. Had the Catholic Church not rescued me I would have grown up raised by a poor incompetent mother. My life would have been very different.
Tom

 

[Thief]

sometimes a mother must consider.....
if I go through with this.......

 

[james dixon]

Thou shalt not kill.....
ascribed by Moses?
authored by God?
not a moral issue?

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Why smite you your fellow?

Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelled in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

 

[DavidFirth]

I wish anti-abortion religionists were as hardcore ProLife as I am. But I find them typically ProDeath on a wide range of issues, due to Scripture. And ineffective and inhumane concerning abortion and ways to reduce it.
Tom

ProDeath on a wide range of issues, due to Scripture

What are you referring to there?

 

[BSM1]

I don't deny that murder is a legal term. What I reject is the claim that its definition is exclusively defined by the state. Again, there was a time when 'spousal rape' was (by legal definition) an oxymoron.

By taking this line you're effectively saying that the commandment against murder can only prescribe insofar as the state shall define murder. That's clearly against the obvious intent of the text, which is a moral prohibition against any unjustified taking of human life. Legal definitions by any state are besides the point.


But what has that to do with the Ten Commandments? They're not legal arguments, they're moral prohibitions. What is legal isn't any test for what is moral.

(Also, wouldn't your instance of murder as a purely legal term defined by states effectively mean that the state itself is incapable of murder? When North Korea butchers a family for some minor infraction or straps people to bombs you don't consider these things to be 'murderous'?)

Somewhere you missed the line of thought in this thread. Murder is legally defined by the state (I know, broken record) no ifs, ands, or buts. Period. End of discussion. And no, the state cannot commit, it cannot break and enter, it cannot even shoplift. However, members of the state can do and be prosecuted for these infractions.

 

[1robin]

I am one of those folks who believe this planet was seeded by traveler’s passing by; just as we will seed a planet in our far-off future. (if we do not destroy ourselves first)

There is no evidence for the former and the latter has not occurred and probably will never occur. Debates are arguments who's premises' are found in common ground, not in metaphysical speculation.

And I believe they are watching us today and they will not reveal themselves until we stop eating/killing other living animals/fish/birds. Having said that, I can assure you, they are not going to say hello any time soon.

-

Still, no evidence, no premise', no argument. Just unfounded and irrational speculation. You need to put down the Chariot of the God's and take an actual science or philosophy class.

 

[Thief]

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Why smite you your fellow?

Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelled in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

glad you brought that up.....

now go the distance....
when he was eighty years old Moses climbed the Mount
to meet his Maker
I believe he went there to die.....no intention of return

now see yourself as the man....
and as you scribe the words......Thou shalt not Kill
A Voice stands behind you.....looking over your shoulder

 

[Shaul]

No. Because the Ten Commandments are of Christian origin. Christians place humans at the top of the hierarchy of the animal kingdom.

That said, if you are Christian, you should feel no guilt eating meat.

However, if your views are more expansive, the thought of eating meat might give you pause.

No. The Ten Commandments are not of Christian origin. They are of Jewish origin.

 

[Shaul]

How could such a translation get through Gods screening process?

I thought these people were divinely inspired by God !

Save for the "King James only"-types, the position of mainstream Christianity is the the Bible is holy writ in its original language. That is in its original Hebrew and Greek. Christians don't claim that translations are perfect. Translations are useful for everyday purposes and when additional clarity is needed the original language texts are used.

 

[Shaul]

Am I the only person who is bothered by the title? It should be Thou Shalt, not 'shall'; shall is second person plural, not second person singular. It's like saying 'I has'.

Only in King James's English. In modern English the second person form is shall also. The language has migrated. "Shalt" is archaic and deprecated.

 

[Rival]

Only in King James's English. In modern English the second person form is shall also. The language has migrated. "Shalt" is archaic and deprecated.

No. It's still English. You use shalt with thou, it's just basic grammar. Just because people use it less frequently it doesn't mean the grammar changes.

 

[Glaurung]

Only in King James's English. In modern English the second person form is shall also. The language has migrated. "Shalt" is archaic and deprecated.

Only because the pronoun itself is archaic.

The second person singular no longer exists (grammatically) in modern English. Nevertheless when you do use it, you should use it correctly. Thou shall is incorrect in both early modern and modern English. It is a conjugation error in early modern and nonsensical in modern as thou isn't used at all to begin with.

Your confusion stems from confusing the second person singular with the plural. The pronoun you behaves as a plural (because it was the plural) even if semantically it is now almost always singular. Thou however never behaves as a plural, it never takes plural conjugations. Shalt is archaic because thou is archaic, not because thou has changed conjugation.

No. It's still English. You use shalt with thou, it's just basic grammar. Just because people use it less frequently it doesn't mean the grammar changes.

What is even worse is when people confuse the second and third person singular, resulting in grammatical abominations such as thou taketh.

It's also worth nothing that the second person singular is the only instance that requires you to conjugate modal verbs. Thou shall is wrong, but it is logically consistent.

 

[Glaurung]

Somewhere you missed the line of thought in this thread. Murder is legally defined by the state (I know, broken record) no ifs, ands, or buts. Period. End of discussion. And no, the state cannot commit, it cannot break and enter, it cannot even shoplift. However, members of the state can do and be prosecuted for these infractions.

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.