To kill or not to kill?

[cardero]

As for Numbers, can I get a translation on that one please?

The Numbers scripture has to do with strangers coming upon the encampment who may or may not be interested in the tabernacle.

 

[1nharmony]

Wow! So many thoughtful responses in such a short time. Now I will respond to some of them.

To those who have cried "foul" on the translation of the text "Thou shalt not kill" I would say that it would seem rather difficult to murder someone without killing them (and vice versa). Just guessing; haven't tried it myself.

Same thing for the list of offenses for which one should be put to death. (Thank you, Cardero.) Rather a challenge to put someone to death without killing them, eh?

And about Abraham's "test of faith" with his only son Isaac. A test of his love and devotion to God you say? That's rather psychotic, isn't it?

And I probably should have made my point a little more clear in regards to my search. How about a religion that effectively teaches people to be nice to each other?

 

[Ody]

Early on in the Bible (Exodus 20)God gives Moses ten commandments for his people to live by. Among them is this - "Thou shalt not kill." It sounds pretty straight forward. Not up for discussion and no exceptions, right?

Yet, what follows throughout the rest of the Old Testament is a gory plethora of peoples wiped out by the Israelites. How can God tell you not to kill, and then lead you into battle over and over again????

when you translate wrong...

 

[may]

effectively[/b] teaches people to be nice to each other?

i have found it.

 

[1nharmony]

Early on in the Bible (Exodus 20)God gives Moses ten commandments for his people to live by. Among them is this - "Thou shalt not kill." It sounds pretty straight forward. Not up for discussion and no exceptions, right?

Yet, what follows throughout the rest of the Old Testament is a gory plethora of peoples wiped out by the Israelites. How can God tell you not to kill, and then lead you into battle over and over again??

[qoute=Alan]when you translate wrong.... [/quote]


Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not murder. How can semantics make ANY of it RIGHT?
This is delusion.

 

[Booko]

All Christs teachings do this.
In the real world I think the Quakers take it the furthest.

The Amish and Mennonites as well.

 

[Booko]

And I probably should have made my point a little more clear in regards to my search. How about a religion that effectively teaches people to be nice to each other?

How would you determine if a religion is effective or not?

Just trying to understand your criteria, that's all.

 

[Booko]

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not murder. How can semantics make ANY of it RIGHT?
This is delusion.

It is not semantics to point out that two different words have two different meanings.

Murder is a subset of killing, and the relationship is not "identity."

Murder may be wrong, but it's commonly held by most religions that self-defense is allowed, particularly in cases where there are no alternatives. Whether warfare is allowed depends on the religion.

Is your position on killing such that, if faced with a situation where you had to choose between killing an agressor or allowing him/her to kill an obvious innocent such as an infant, you would stand by and allow the infant to die and the violent person to live?

 

[1nharmony]

It is not semantics to point out that two different words have two different meanings.

Murder is a subset of killing, and the relationship is not "identity."

Murder may be wrong, but it's commonly held by most religions that self-defense is allowed, particularly in cases where there are no alternatives. Whether warfare is allowed depends on the religion.

Is your position on killing such that, if faced with a situation where you had to choose between killing an agressor or allowing him/her to kill an obvious innocent such as an infant, you would stand by and allow the infant to die and the violent person to live?

Yes, Booko, it is. In your example, the aggressor becomes an attempted murderer and I become the murderer.
However, let me make clear that in such a situation I would not "stand by", but WOULD do everything else in my power (short of murder) to dissuade and disrupt the aggressors attempt to take innocent life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, Booko, it is.

No, it is not.

If you wish to argue pacifism, that is a worthy debate and I encourage you to pursue it in its own thread. But unless and until you've been coronated ruler of semantic meaning, to assert that killing and murder mean the same thing is simply ignorant or dishonest.

 

[Kcnorwood]

It seems it was ok to kill in the Old testment OR if God told you too, I've always thought that was a bit strange. Its like ok heres what happened some 2000 years ago.
BUT lets forget about that & move on. How can one forget about all the bloodshed that God allowed to happen & that he did himself?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Tanakh is, in one view, the story of a people - a tapestry of cultural mythos, ethical writings, civil code, geneology, political propaganda, and poetry. As such it's rife with contradictory intentions and messages. So, for example, the God of the Tanakh was the source of national covenant - in a sense the author of nascent Israel's right to self determination - as well as a projection of perceived ethical values. And, of course, He served as talisman to ward of threats and potential threats from very real enemies.

It is easy (cheap) to focus on the latter. It is also easy (cheap) to approach the Tanakh in an anachronistic manner. Far better, in my opinion, to read this remarkable work as a work of human origin and applaud its insights and teachings.

In a world where women had little worth and no rights, what does it mean to assert that they are created in the image of God? In a world engulfed in jingoism and xenophobia, what does it mean to insist that one love the stranger who sojourns with you - for you too were strangers in the land of Israel? What does it mean to build a society where charity is a responsibility? What does it mean, in a world where human sacrifice was practiced, to be concerned with the ethical slaughter of animals and, by way of a clever story about Abraham and his son, transmute human sacrifice into the more symbolic blood sacrifice of circumcision?​

The Tanakh isn't a gift, it's an advocation. You get out of it what you put into it.

 

[1nharmony]

Look, the point is this, there are very rare cases out there where sometimes taking the life of another is the only option and in certain types of situation no rational person who knew the situation would even dare tell the person they did the wrong thing or the act was unjustified.

I do not believe there is ANY case, rare or otherwise, in which the only option is taking the life of another. We obviously disagree in this matter. I know you are comforable with your viewpoint, but it is not mine. Though I think I might have agreed with your position in my younger years. But I've learned that the only way to get to a "cease fire" is to stop shooting. That the way to peace is through forgiveness; the alternative to endless violence.

 

[Booko]

Yes, Booko, it is. In your example, the aggressor becomes an attempted murderer and I become the murderer.

And in the alternative, an innocent dies while the guilty party lives.

However, let me make clear that in such a situation I would not "stand by", but WOULD do everything else in my power (short of murder) to dissuade and disrupt the aggressors attempt to take innocent life.

Yes, well, good luck with that.

I'm not speaking from "theory" harmony -- I've faced down guns twice before in my life.

There's a word for someone who thinks they can always dissuade an aggressor: dead.

 

[jewscout]

The Tanakh is, in one view, the story of a people - a tapestry of cultural mythos, ethical writings, civil code, geneology, political propaganda, and poetry. As such it's rife with contradictory intentions and messages. So, for example, the God of the Tanakh was the source of national covenant - in a sense the author of nascent Israel's right to self determination - as well as a projection of perceived ethical values. And, of course, He served as talisman to ward of threats and potential threats from very real enemies.


It is easy (cheap) to focus on the latter. It is also easy (cheap) to approach the Tanakh in an anachronistic manner. Far better, in my opinion, to read this remarkable work as a work of human origin and applaud its insights and teachings.

In a world where women had little worth and no rights, what does it mean to assert that they are created in the image of God? In a world engulfed in jingoism and xenophobia, what does it mean to insist that one love the stranger who sojourns with you - for you too were strangers in the land of Israel? What does it mean to build a society where charity is a responsibility? What does it mean, in a world where human sacrifice was practiced, to be concerned with the ethical slaughter of animals and, by way of a clever story about Abraham and his son, transmute human sacrifice into the more symbolic blood sacrifice of circumcision?​

The Tanakh isn't a gift, it's an advocation. You get out of it what you put into it.

Amen!