Meaning of "thou shalt not kill"

[jimtron]

The fifth or sixth commandment in Exodus--what does it mean? Don't kill other humans? Ever, under any circumstances? Doesn't the god of the Bible urge His followers to kill sometimes?

[Vagabond]

I think it means you should never kill anything unnecessarily. I catch spiders and put them outside. However sometimes it is necessary to kill. Mosquitos die with no remorse on my part at all as do flies. Other humans can also certainly fall into that catagory.

[jimtron]

What about capital punishment? Abortion? War? How about when a woman has sex with an animal; if I recall correctly, she is to be slayed.

[bignickel]

I very much recommend you take a look at John Hartung's article in Skeptic Vol. 3 No. 4 1995 p 86-99, "Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality".

"Consider the proto-legal portion of The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5:17-21) ...the scrolls from which these words were translated have no periods, no commas, and no first-word punctuation. (Decisions about where sentences and paragraphs begin and end are courtesy of the translator.) Accordingly, instead of beign written as five separate paragraphs of one sentence each, without changing any of the words, Deuteronomy 5:17-21 could be translated:

Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor."

And who is your neighbor exactly?

Here the question, "Thou shalt not kill who?" is answered "Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor - the children of thy people, your countrymen, your fellow-in-group member."

How unconventional is this interpretation? Not very. The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite. Indeed, if an Israelite intended to kill a non-Israelite, but killed an Israelite by mistake, he was not guilty of murder.

As you can see, the 10 Commandments aren't all that great a bit of law, particularly the 5th; don't waste anyone in our particular group. Everyone else is fair game. Not something I'd particularly want on the steps of MY county courthouse, but hey, what do I know?

[BJQ87]

Everyone else is fair game.

that is never stated.

[NeilC]

Not in the commandments maybe but it's strongly inferred in the rest of the bible. Dawkins, on his TV programme, pointed out that Moses was angry with one of the tribes for taking it easy on prisoners of war and told them to butcher all the men and older women.....leaving the young virgins for rape of course.

Nearly everything to do with Moses is about him being a fanatical dictator who ordered the slaughter of 10's of 1000's of people who fought for democracy or tried to worship other gods, or made the mistake of falling in love with girls from the wrong tribe and so on.

For some reason (PR or propeganda?) he is only remembered for whipping out a few stone tablets. Not for being the biblical Hitler he clearly was - and that's according to the bible itself. Who knows what else he got up to?

[Rufo]

The fifth or sixth commandment in Exodus--what does it mean? Don't kill other humans? Ever, under any circumstances? Doesn't the god of the Bible urge His followers to kill sometimes?
If I remember it correctly, the hebrew word used in the original text is not the general word for 'kill' - it does not include killing enemies in war, executing criminals and also has some other exceptions which I can't remember. Which is sad, considering all the crusades and other executions that might have been avoided if it was worded differently.

[bignickel]

that is never stated.

Yes, it is.

from same article
The law (Mishna) is explicit in this regard (Sanhedrin 79a): "If he intended killing an animal but slew a man, or a a heathen and he killed an Israelite...he is not liable.'

And the discusssion (Gemara) of this law gives a clear example: "This excludes (from liability) the case of one who threw a stone into the midst of a company of Israelites and heathens. How is this? Shall we say that the company consisted of nine heathens and one Israelite? Then his non-liability can be inferred from the fact that the majority were heathens."

If throwing a rock into a group of heathens is OK, just as long as you were trying to hit a heathen, and not an Israelite..., then I'd have to say that 'fair game' is an apt description.

Just in case you were wondering about non-Israelites, and thinking that the 'do not kill' applied to them...

Mainmonides, whose summarizations and condensations of the Torah and the Talmud are generally accepted as authoritative, put the point succinctly (Book of Torts 5:5:4): "If a resident alien slays an Israelite inadvertently, he must be put to death in spite of his inadvertance." The Book of Judges (5:9:4) confirms this: "A Noahide (non-Jew) who kills a person, even if he kills an embryo in the mother's womb, is put to death. So too, if he kills one suffering from a fatal disease... he is put to death. In none of these cases is an Israelite put to death."

[Darat]

The fifth or sixth commandment in Exodus--what does it mean? Don't kill other humans? Ever, under any circumstances? Doesn't the god of the Bible urge His followers to kill sometimes?

Given the context (e.g. the rest of the OT) it would seem that the only reasonable interpretation is that it really means "Thou shall not [unlawfully] kill another person." In other words it is "thou shall not murder".

[Rufo]

Given the context (e.g. the rest of the OT) it would seem that the only reasonable interpretation is that it really means "Thou shall not [unlawfully] kill another person." In other words it is "thou shall not murder".
Yes, in fact I've wondered ever sinced I read that about the meaning of the hebrew word why it isn't translated to "thou shall not murder" in the Bible.

[bignickel]

Given the context (e.g. the rest of the OT) it would seem that the only reasonable interpretation is that it really means "Thou shall not [unlawfully] kill another person." In other words it is "thou shall not murder".

Given the rest of the OT, 'Another person' is an Israelite.

Heathens like us don't count.

[Tricky]

Even "thou shalt not murder" is fraught with uncertainty. We have vastly different concepts of murder. To some animal rights activists, it includes slaughtering cattle. To some gun rights advocates, it excludes killing somebody for being on your land. The courts recognize various degrees of murder, and all of them are highly debatable. To patriots, it includes flying planes into buildings where the targets may be civilians, but excludes dropping bombs on villages where the targets may be civilians.

So given all the various meanings of "kill" and "murder", the simplistic commandment is virtually worthless as a moral guideline. God needs to be a little more specific. 'Course Moses would have broken his back trying to bring a lawbook carved on stone tablets down a mountain.

[Z]

According to some Rabbinic resources I've discussed the issue with, the line 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' (not kill, murder) specifically dealt with the Jews themselves - and, at that, only Israelites with certain legal status - i.e. male and adult. Try to remember the culture we're discussing - a strong patriarchy, where women were less citizen than property, and where children were not valued nearly so much as we're used to.

In fact, the entire series of Commandments related not to everyone, but to the Israelites alone. And if we go off of the O.T., we're all damned anyway.

[Jellby]

So given all the various meanings of "kill" and "murder", the simplistic commandment is virtually worthless as a moral guideline. God needs to be a little more specific.

I guess it could all have been said in one commandment: Thou shall not break the rules.

[Tricky]

I guess it could all have been said in one commandment: Thou shall not break the rules.
LOL. Yeah, with the caveat: The rules may change.

(Cool avatar, by the way)

[Darat]

LOL. Yeah, with the caveat: The rules may change*.

(Cool avatar, by the way)

*And I may not tell you what they are.

[pgwenthold]

I think it means you should never kill anything unnecessarily.

Good thing we have God and the Ten Commandments to provide "Objective Morality"...

sigh...

[jimtron]

LOL. Yeah, with the caveat: The rules may change.

(Cool avatar, by the way)

And: the rules may be utterly kooky. It's a sin to round the corners of your beard?

[c4ts]

Don't boil any goats in camel's milk.

[jimtron]

Don't boil any goats in camel's milk.
Yeah, but how about examples of kooky laws?.

[epepke]

The word is "ratasch" or something like that, and it means something roughly like the modern version of "murder," to kill a human being illegally and unjustifiably.

[Tricky]

The word is "ratasch" or something like that, and it means something roughly like the modern version of "murder," to kill a human being illegally and unjustifiably.
So, "I don't give a ratasch" actually means "I wouldn't kill for it."

[Vagabond]

Good thing we have God and the Ten Commandments to provide "Objective Morality"...

sigh...


That is the problem with you fundies, you see everything in black and white. Most things are varying shades of grey. Objective Morality only exists in fantasy.

[jimtron]

The word is "ratasch" or something like that, and it means something roughly like the modern version of "murder," to kill a human being illegally and unjustifiably.
The problem is, we all have different ideas of what types of killing are justifiable. Abortion, war, meat, capital punishment, stoning disobedient children to death--which of these are justifiable? If God wants us to follow His laws, why doesn't he make them more clear?

Objective Morality only exists in fantasy.
I never understood the conservatives who are against "relative morality." Why did we abolish slavery? It's advocated in the Bible. Isn't that relative morality?

[geetarmoore]

The way I understand it is that a person can't smoke another person, but if a government is on God's side, they can smoke whoever they want if they have a reason.... Except for the fetus. You never get a pass to kill them.

So to recap;

I can't kill anyone.
Governments on God's side can kill everyone.
No one can ever kill a fetus.

HTH.
:)

[Darat]

The problem is, we all have different ideas of what types of killing are justifiable. Abortion, war, meat, capital punishment, stoning disobedient children to death--which of these are justifiable? If God wants us to follow His laws, why doesn't he make them more clear?



'Cos he's got a perverse sense of humour? ;)

[Darat]

...snip...

I never understood the conservatives who are against "relative morality." Why did we abolish slavery? It's advocated in the Bible. Isn't that relative morality?

The bible promotes the most subjective kind of morality possible e.g.

"Because the guy with the beard and the thunderbolts said not to"

[Vagabond]

The bible promotes the most subjective kind of morality possible e.g.

"Because the guy with the beard and the thunderbolts said not to"

Exactly, but once they converted his opinions into stone tablets it became objective morality. ;) He isn't even consistant himself much less objective.

[geni]

For some reason (PR or propeganda?) he is only remembered for whipping out a few stone tablets. Not for being the biblical Hitler he clearly was - and that's according to the bible itself. Who knows what else he got up to?

Not much it is somewhat doubtful that he existed.

[jimtron]

'Cos he's got a perverse sense of humour? ;)
Yes, or maybe evil. Or nonexistent.

[Iacchus]

The fifth or sixth commandment in Exodus--what does it mean? Don't kill other humans? Ever, under any circumstances? Doesn't the god of the Bible urge His followers to kill sometimes?Isn't that supposed to be the sixth commandment? Could that be because the Catholics changed this so they didn't have to observe the second commandment? ... "Thou shalt not make any graven images ... and bow down and worship them." Hmm ... Very interesting!

[jimtron]

I assume this has been discussed here: Which Ten Commandments? (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)

[Iacchus]

I assume this has been discussed here: Which Ten Commandments? (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)It's funny how they completely obliterated the part about graven images isn't it?

[Darat]

It's funny how they completely obliterated the part about graven images isn't it?

Only one lot of "they" did that.

[jimtron]

Can you believe the Satanists that want to ban the Ten Commandments from courthouses? I don't know why we even need U.S. laws; why not just consult the tablets?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Can you believe the Satanists that want to ban the Ten Commandments from courthouses? I don't know why we even need U.S. laws; why not just consult the tablets?
Unfortunately, God forgot the tax code, or we could go with your suggestion.

[pgwenthold]

The word is "ratasch" or something like that, and it means something roughly like the modern version of "murder," to kill a human being illegally and unjustifiably.

So there is a commandment that says you shalt not do something that is illegal and unjustifiable?

"There are two rules in this jail. The first rule is, obey all rules." - Barney Fife

God's equivalent: "Don't kill when it is illegal."

I'll leave the part about "unjustifiable" to the moral absolutists...

[c4ts]

So, "I don't give a ratasch" actually means "I wouldn't kill for it."

Actually the "ch" might a be transliteration of the Hebrew "chet" sound (closer to a hard "ch"), which is more like the gutteral noise made when loosening pghlem in the back of your throat. It would sound more like a "A rat's ask" or "A rat's aschkkkk." Or it could be a kaf or a shin or something, and the transliterator guy was very weird.

What a fun language Hebrew is. It reads backwards, sounds like an old guy, and people don't always bother to write down the vowels.

[pgwenthold]

I assume this has been discussed here: Which Ten Commandments? (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)

I once wrote to my congressman, who was supported a bill that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the House, and asked him, 1) which version of the Ten Commandments would be displayed, and once that is decided, 2) how is that not Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a preferred religion in the country?

I never got an answer.

[Iacchus]

Only one lot of "they" did that.And of course the Protestants (and the Jews) are not blameless either.

[Tricky]

Actually the "ch" might a be transliteration of the Hebrew "chet" sound (closer to a hard "ch"), which is more like the guttural noise made when loosening phglem in the back of your throat. It would sound more like a "A rat's ask" or "A rat's aschkkkk." Or it could be a kaf or a shin or something, and the transliterator guy was very weird.

What a fun language Hebrew is. It reads backwards, sounds like an old guy, and people don't always bother to write down the vowels.
Good ol' c4ts! I know I can always count on you to get my jokes.

But that's pretty interesting about Hebrew pronunciation. Are you a recovering Jew?

[Loon]

Good ol' c4ts! I know I can always count on you to get my jokes.

But that's pretty interesting about Hebrew pronunciation. Are you a recovering Jew?

No, but I am. He's spot on.

I got the joke, too :)

[Bri]

The fifth or sixth commandment in Exodus--what does it mean? Don't kill other humans? Ever, under any circumstances? Doesn't the god of the Bible urge His followers to kill sometimes?

In case nobody answered already, the sixth commandment is usually translated directly from the Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder" (the Hebrew word for "murder" is "retzah"). It is a commandment against the unlawful killing of another human being. Other forms of killing (such as war, capital punishment, and the killing of animals) are permitted in the Old Testimate under certain circumstances.

-Bri

[jimtron]

Bri:

Would killing Canaanites and disbedient children be considered lawful killing, according to scripture?

[Bri]

The problem is, we all have different ideas of what types of killing are justifiable. Abortion, war, meat, capital punishment, stoning disobedient children to death--which of these are justifiable? If God wants us to follow His laws, why doesn't he make them more clear?

If the Ten Commandments were the only place the laws were written, it would only be a page long. The Jewish religion recognizes 613 laws in the Old Testimate, of which the Commandments are but 10. Perhaps some of the details you're interested in are in the rest of the Bible.

-Bri

[Bri]

Bri:

Would killing Canaanites and disbedient children be considered lawful killing, according to scripture?

I wouldn't know. Quote me a passage and I'll look it up for you.

-Bri

[Bri]

Except for the fetus. You never get a pass to kill them.

Not true! Actually, the OT required one to perform an abortion on a pregnant woman if her life would be in danger without it. The ancient Jews didn't have the same hangups about abortion that Christians do. Life begins at birth according to Judaism, therefore the mother's life is more important. That is not to say that a potential life wasn't important, just not as important as a living person.

-Bri

[bignickel]

In case nobody answered already, the sixth commandment is usually translated directly from the Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder" (the Hebrew word for "murder" is "retzah"). It is a commandment against the unlawful killing of another human being. Other forms of killing (such as war, capital punishment, and the killing of animals) are permitted in the Old Testimate under certain circumstances.

-Bri

It's not a commandment against killing another human being; it's a commandment against killing your neighbor. IE a fellow Israelite.

If you're a heathen, 1. why would you care about the OT commandments?, and 2. you're not considered a neighbor; therefore, you're fair game (a Israelite would not be punished for killing you), and 3. if you kill an Israelite, you are to be executed immediately.

[Tricky]

Not true! Actually, the OT required one to perform an abortion on a pregnant woman if her life would be in danger without it. The ancient Jews didn't have the same hangups about abortion that Christians do. Life begins at birth according to Judaism, therefore the mother's life is more important. That is not to say that a potential life wasn't important, just not as important as a living person.

According to the OT, God himself was a rather notorious baby-killer. Not only the child of David and Bathsheba, but also those first-born sons of the Egyptians. And of course lots of innocent babies were killed in the great flood, not to mention Sodom and Gommorah. This is not an entity that seems to hold life sacred.

[Bri]

It's not a commandment against killing another human being; it's a commandment against killing your neighbor. IE a fellow Israelite.

The passage in the OT simply says "Thou shalt not murder." Can you provide a reference where it says "Thou shalt not murder your neighbor" or anything similar?

-Bri

[Bri]

According to the OT, God himself was a rather notorious baby-killer. Not only the child of David and Bathsheba, but also those first-born sons of the Egyptians. And of course lots of innocent babies were killed in the great flood, not to mention Sodom and Gommorah. This is not an entity that seems to hold life sacred.

I won't argue with you about whether or not God holds life sacred, but presumably the laws in the Bible are meant for man, not for God himself. Some would argue that God knows the greater good and therefore the laws of man (who can't know the greater good) don't apply to God.

-Bri

[Tricky]

I won't argue with you about whether or not God holds life sacred, but presumably the laws in the Bible are meant for man, not for God himself. Some would argue that God knows the greater good and therefore the laws of man (who can't know the greater good) don't apply to God.
Yes, I've heard that argument. But if God's own rules are unknowable to us, then how can we possibly be expected to follow his wishes? If God wishes certain people to die, by whatever means, we might actually be working according to his plan by murdering someone, so why would it be wrong to do so?

[brodski]

Yes, I've heard that argument. But if God's own rules are unknowable to us, then how can we possibly be expected to follow his wishes? If God wishes certain people to die, by whatever means, we might actually be working according to his plan by murdering someone, so why would it be wrong to do so?

Its simple, if god tells you to kill someone, its ok to do it... no.. wait...

[Bri]

Yes, I've heard that argument. But if God's own rules are unknowable to us, then how can we possibly be expected to follow his wishes? If God wishes certain people to die, by whatever means, we might actually be working according to his plan by murdering someone, so why would it be wrong to do so?

There are two answers I've heard. One, God gave us all a sense of morality so that even if we don't believe the Bible, we can still do what is morally right. Two, God provided the Bible so that those who believe in it will know how to act despite not knowing God's own rules.

Either way, God is presumably powerful enough to make sure that if we act morally, it will serve the greater good. I think the idea here is that we aren't supposed to worry about God's plan at all (that part is God's responsibility). Therefore, murdering someone because you were trying to second guess God's plan would be immoral.

-Bri

[brodski]

Therefore, murdering someone because you were trying to second guess God's plan would be immoral.

-Bri

but the bible is full of instances where "gods plan" is implmented by human actions. How are we to know if any given murder has not been directly sanctioned by god.

If I hear a voice telling me to kill, does the bible jusify any murders I may carry out?

[bignickel]

The passage in the OT simply says "Thou shalt not murder." Can you provide a reference where it says "Thou shalt not murder your neighbor" or anything similar?

-Bri

Well, first of all: thanks for quoting me. I was beginning to think that my messages posts were invisible.

Secondly, check out my posts in this thread on page 1. I go into alot more detail, which I'd rather not retype. But, it can't be 'Thou shalt not murder.' because they didn't have capitalization, and more importantly, periods (or commas, for that matter).

[Bri]

but the bible is full of instances where "gods plan" is implmented by human actions. How are we to know if any given murder has not been directly sanctioned by god.

If I hear a voice telling me to kill, does the bible jusify any murders I may carry out?

You're really asking two questions here, and I'm not sure I know the answer to either.

The easiest explanation would be that if God were to tell someone to commit a murder, and then would have them get caught, then God intends for them to be caught and punished (for whatever reason). In other words, it is not our place to know whether a person really has direct contact with God, and therefore we probably must presume that the person doesn't. I don't have any quotes to back that up, but there is the "beware of false prophets" thing.

The more difficult question might be if YOU hear the voice of God telling you to commit murder, should you believe it or should you check yourself into a mental hospital. I would guess that God would have the power if he chose to make certain that you know it if he wants to talk to you, so if you hear voices, check yourself into a hospital. Presumably he doesn't do too much of that nowadays anyway.

-Bri

[Bri]

Well, first of all: thanks for quoting me. I was beginning to think that my messages posts were invisible.

You're welcome. Of course, maybe I just know how to read invisible posts. You may never know for sure.

Secondly, check out my posts in this thread on page 1. I go into alot more detail, which I'd rather not retype. But, it can't be 'Thou shalt not murder.' because they didn't have capitalization, and more importantly, periods (or commas, for that matter).

OK, so let's say it's true that the commandment only pertains to fellow Israelites. So what? Even if it only said "Thou shalt not murder" with a giant period after it, that commandment might still only pertain to Israelites since murder would be defined as unlawful killing. So I think you'd have to look elsewhere in the Bible to know what killing was lawful and what killing was unlawful. Obviously, the ten commandments are not meant to be read in a vacuum, and are not the only commandments or laws in the Old Testimate. I believe that the Jewish faith considers them no more (or less) important than the other 603 commandments in the OT.

-Bri

[Beleth]

I've heard certain Fundies define "kill" to include "hate", not just "bring an end to".

[brodski]

You're really asking two questions here, and I'm not sure I know the answer to either.

The easiest explanation would be that if God were to tell someone to commit a murder, and then would have them get caught, then God intends for them to be caught and punished

Getting caught is not an issue, a murder is still morally wrong whether the police catch the killer or not. Also, moral actions may be illegal just as immoral actions may not be.



In other words, it is not our place to know whether a person really has direct contact with God, and therefore we probably must presume that the person doesn't. I don't have any quotes to back that up, but there is the "beware of false prophets" thing.
So our default position towards anyone who claims to tell us how god wants us to behave should be to disbelieve them? Or is it only if they advocate, or commit, illegal actions?



The more difficult question might be if YOU hear the voice of God telling you to commit murder, should you believe it or should you check yourself into a mental hospital. I would guess that God would have the power if he chose to make certain that you know it if he wants to talk to you, so if you hear voices, check yourself into a hospital. Presumably he doesn't do too much of that nowadays anyway.

-Bri

just to clarify, I don't hear voices telling me to kill. :D

but if we are to take a look at history, how are we to distinguish between those killers who where mentally ill, and wrongly believed that they where acting on gods direct orders, from those who actually where acting on Gods direct orders? (if indeed there are any real cases in the latter category).

your answer also seems to indicated that the more firmly you hold a possibly delusional belief, the more likely it is to be true. I don't think that that is a position I could support.

[c4ts]

Good ol' c4ts! I know I can always count on you to get my jokes.

But that's pretty interesting about Hebrew pronunciation. Are you a recovering Jew?

I haven't been Jewish since I turned 13.

[Cosmo]

I haven't been Jewish since I turned 13.

Funny, that...I've said the same about myself.

[strathmeyer]

Even "thou shalt not murder" is fraught with uncertainty. We have vastly different concepts of murder. To some animal rights activists, it includes slaughtering cattle.

No, murder is a word with a meaning. Just because it might be used to describe different things in different context, it still has a regular, socially acceptable meaning.

[Tricky]

I haven't been Jewish since I turned 13.
Let me guess. Instead of calling you a man, they kicked you out. Call it a "barred mitzvah".

[Tricky]

No, murder is a word with a meaning. Just because it might be used to describe different things in different context, it still has a regular, socially acceptable meaning.
It does have a meaning. My definition is that it means to intentionally kill another human when the consequences of leaving himor her alive would be less severe. But that's the thing. You have to define it carefully. Thats what the courts do. Religions, unfortunately, are not quite so precise.

[jimtron]

I wouldn't know. Quote me a passage and I'll look it up for you.

-Bri
Deuteronomy 20:17
Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Are these examples of lawful killing? More Bible murder can be found at this site (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm).

[c4ts]

Let me guess. Instead of calling you a man, they kicked you out. Call it a "barred mitzvah".

No. I got the wedding sized party that didn't really feel like mine, and I even read from the big fat expensive handwritten Torah which I should not touch or breathe on. It was actually a lot of fun. After that I went to one of those high-school Jewbie things, and it gradually lost its appeal. I felt like a lot of the philosophical aspects were wearing down in favor of silly little practices like keeping kosher and by the end the only thing remotely interesting was kaballah-strology. Reform Juddaism was okay, it has none of that "take the Bible literally" or "follow every little insane law in the Talmud" kind of thing. The version I got was halfway between deism, woo, annoyingly catchy chanting, and this need to make everybody learn Hebrew so they can go on a trip to Israel. As far as religions go, I could have been raised a lot worse.

[Darat]

According to the OT, God himself was a rather notorious baby-killer. Not only the child of David and Bathsheba, but also those first-born sons of the Egyptians. And of course lots of innocent babies were killed in the great flood, not to mention Sodom and Gommorah. This is not an entity that seems to hold life sacred.

And the tradition is carried on in the NT - Herod.

[Iacchus]

Eat or be eaten ... Doesn't that pretty much spell out how life evolved on this planet? How does one define murder in context with that? How does that make God such a bastard prick? I would tend to go for some of that tender veal myself. Oh, and those lamb chops, they're the greatest! :D

Maybe this murder thing has more to do with controlling our lusts? ... which is, definitely a form of hunger.

[Iacchus]

So, how is it that we, in our fallen state (as mortals) escape the theme of life and death? Or, if it's just a matter of kill or be killed, why make such a big deal about it? :confused:

[pgwenthold]

In case nobody answered already, the sixth commandment is usually translated directly from the Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder" (the Hebrew word for "murder" is "retzah"). It is a commandment against the unlawful killing of another human being.

Yes, this old tired nonsense has been brought up. And no one has actually addressed the counter that you have, in fact, described a really stupid commandment that reduces to "you shalt not do something that is unlawful."

Wow, what insight from God! A commandment against something that is unlawful.

IOW, "Don't kill in those situations in which it is wrong to kill."

Thanks for the tip, Goddy.

[Iacchus]

Deuteronomy 20:17
Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Are these examples of lawful killing? More Bible murder can be found at this site (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm).And, does anyone think the Israelites would have been allowed to enter the land of Caanan peacefully? I doubt that very much.

[Loon]

Yes, this old tired nonsense has been brought up. And no one has actually addressed the counter that you have, in fact, described a really stupid commandment that reduces to "you shalt not do something that is unlawful."

Wow, what insight from God! A commandment against something that is unlawful.

IOW, "Don't kill in those situations in which it is wrong to kill."

Thanks for the tip, Goddy.

How about rephrasing it "Do not kill wantonly" or "Do not kill without necessity?"

Hell, it could even be that the commandment was put there because leaving homocide out of a list of "The ten most important things to do or not do" would seem like a licence to kill. Hell, it could be that most of the ten commandments were pretty totally accepted by the israelites (assuming any of it actually happened) before the stone tablets came down. The tablets may have been just a way to get those last two commandments to be accepted by the population because the 2 new ones were set on equal footing with a couple of long standing rules.

[jimtron]

Eat or be eaten ... Doesn't that pretty much spell out how life evolved on this planet? How does one define murder in context with that? How does that make God such a bastard prick? I would tend to go for some of that tender veal myself. Oh, and those lamb chops, they're the greatest! :D

Maybe this murder thing has more to do with controlling our lusts? ... which is, definitely a form of hunger.
How does "thou shalt not kill," except for disobedient kids, those who follow other religions, slaves (in certain circumstances), our enemies, women who have sex with animals, etc. control our lusts? In the OT, God seems to fan the flames of bloodlust, and encourage inequality and divisiveness. Why doesn't God say, hey, we're all equal, let's try to work out our problems instead of murdering each other? Why does he command his followers to murder? Why does He allow some types of slavery? Just wonderin'.

And, does anyone think the Israelites would have been allowed to enter the land of Caanan peacefully? I doubt that very much.
No, perhaps not. But does that mean all the Canaanites, including women and children, should be slaughtered (which, if I'm not mistaken, God orders or at least encourages)? Doesn't that just perpetuate the cycle of violence? Isn't there a slightly more diplomatic way to handle the situation?

(edited to add above question and response)

[pgwenthold]

How about rephrasing it "Do not kill wantonly" or "Do not kill without necessity?"


Although it begs the question of what is necessary, it at least isn't meaningless, as would be a commandment against "unlawful" killing.



Hell, it could even be that the commandment was put there because leaving homocide out of a list of "The ten most important things to do or not do" would seem like a license to kill. Hell, it could be that most of the ten commandments were pretty totally accepted by the israelites (assuming any of it actually happened) before the stone tablets came down. The tablets may have been just a way to get those last two commandments to be accepted by the population because the 2 new ones were set on equal footing with a couple of long standing rules.

Could be, but that is fairly contrary to the general interpretations of the TC. I'm not disagreeing with you, just noting that if more people would view things this way. Instead, they have this silly notion of "These are God's rules" and then have to run into back-peddle mode when they are pointed out as either contradictory or idiotic.

[Loon]

Although it begs the question of what is necessary, it at least isn't meaningless, as would be a commandment against "unlawful" killing.

I don't know the true meaning of the original Hebrew, other than that it is better translated as "no murder" than "no killing." It could be that "no wanton killing" is better still, though I have no way of knowing. Could be one of those "Crisatunity" things in Chinese.

Could be, but that is fairly contrary to the general interpretations of the TC. I'm not disagreeing with you, just noting that if more people would view things this way. Instead, they have this silly notion of "These are God's rules" and then have to run into back-peddle mode when they are pointed out as either contradictory or idiotic.

I think there are a lot of silly notions people have about the bible and god. The fact that lots of people buy into them doesn't make them any less silly (or less right, if that be the case.) Not to say there is a lack of obvious silliness, but I think people read in even more in an attempt to get it all to say what they want it to say.

[jimtron]

Hell, it could even be that the commandment was put there because leaving homocide out of a list of "The ten most important things to do or not do" would seem like a license to kill.
But God does give a license to kill, essentially, doestn't He? At least there are explicit instructions that some types of homicide are appropriate.

[Bri]

Deuteronomy 20:17
Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Are these examples of lawful killing? More Bible murder can be found at this site (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm).

Killing in a war and capital punishment are both lawful.

-Bri

[bignickel]

OK, so let's say it's true that the commandment only pertains to fellow Israelites. So what? Even if it only said "Thou shalt not murder" with a giant period after it, that commandment might still only pertain to Israelites since murder would be defined as unlawful killing.

Did you read my posts on page 1? That's the whole point I'm making: the 10 commandments ONLY apply to the Jews, as the whole of the Talmud, etc (and bits of OT that xtians use) is for the Jews only.


It seems to me that an AWFUL lot of posts in this thread are moot, especially after you look in the OT at all the laws. "Do not murder" does NOT apply to heathens! This is a proscription against killing your fellow neighbors; God has NO problem with a Jew killing a heathen. Again, look at what I quoted on page 1. In fact, God tends to get upset when he commands that some heathens be killed, and they're NOT. Then he tends to cause all types of havoc.

[jimtron]

Killing in a war and capital punishment are both lawful.

-Bri
Lawful, yes, but, at least in the case of killing disobedient children, crazy and wrong, no?


Did you read my posts on page 1? That's the whole point I'm making: the 10 commandments ONLY apply to the Jews, as the whole of the Talmud, etc (and bits of OT that xtians use) is for the Jews only.


It seems to me that an AWFUL lot of posts in this thread are moot, especially after you look in the OT at all the laws. "Do not murder" does NOT apply to heathens! This is a proscription against killing your fellow neighbors; God has NO problem with a Jew killing a heathen. Again, look at what I quoted on page 1. In fact, God tends to get upset when he commands that some heathens be killed, and they're NOT. Then he tends to cause all types of havoc.

So why are Christians apparently so into the Commandements? Do we all agree that the sixth Commandment is ambiguous, possibly meaningless?

[Bri]

Lawful, yes, but, at least in the case of killing disobedient children, crazy and wrong, no?

I would guess that this law pertains to an adult cursing his or her parents rather than a child.

-Bri

[brodski]

I would guess that this law pertains to an adult cursing his or her parents rather than a child.

-Bri

and on what would you base that guess?

[jimtron]

I would guess that this law pertains to an adult cursing his or her parents rather than a child.

-Bri

One problem with turning to scripture for moral guidance is that we do have to guess about the proper way to interpret the laws and rules. So let's say your guess is right, that the law pertainst to an adult cursing her parents. Doesn't death by stoning sound just a wee bit, er, crazy and horrible?

[Bri]

and on what would you base that guess?

Common sense. On what would you base a guess of the opposite?

-Bri

[Vagabond]

Common sense. On what would you base a guess of the opposite?

-Bri

2nd Kings 2:23-24 would be a good basis for thinking that since it says "small" boys. It's also the worst example to me of pure murder in GOD's name.

[Bri]

One problem with turning to scripture for moral guidance is that we do have to guess about the proper way to interpret the laws and rules. So let's say your guess is right, that the law pertainst to an adult cursing her parents. Doesn't death by stoning sound just a wee bit, er, crazy and horrible?

Are you asking my opinion? I agree with you that the punishment seems harsh.

However, the OT apparently takes "honor your father and mother" very seriously. It is also unclear exactly what the Hebrew word that is translated as "curse" actually entails.

It should also be pointed out that capital punishment was rarely carried out in practice because other laws that made it very difficult. For example, the act has to be witnessed by two people who are not relatives of the criminal, both of whom had to warn the person before the crime was committed that the crime was punishable by death, and the criminal would have had to acknowledge that s/he was warned but then committed the crime anyway. A person is also not allowed to testify against themselves.

Therefore, for such a crime to result in the death penalty would have been very rare.

-Bri

[Bri]

2nd Kings 2:23-24 would be a good basis for thinking that since it says "small" boys. It's also the worst example to me of pure murder in GOD's name.

Doing a search on the Internet, it appears that the passage your're talking about concerns the prophet Elisha being mocked by some children who were subsequently mauled by some bears.

What exactly does that have to do with capital punishment of children for cursing their parents?

-Bri

[Tricky]

And the tradition is carried on in the NT - Herod.
Well, technically, Herod is a bad guy. He's trying to kill Jesus, for Christ's sake.... um... maybe could have worded that better.

[Darat]

Well, technically, Herod is a bad guy. He's trying to kill Jesus, for Christ's sake.... um... maybe could have worded that better.


Oh sorry - I'd got this impression that God decided what happened - didn't realise he had nothing to do with anything and couldn't do anything about innocent children being slaughtered.... ;)

[Bri]

Getting caught is not an issue, a murder is still morally wrong whether the police catch the killer or not. Also, moral actions may be illegal just as immoral actions may not be.

First, I should make it clear that I'm only playing devil's advocate here. My answers don't necessarily stem from my own beliefs so I consider them far from definitive. I'm only offering a possible answer to your question, but by no means am I claiming my answers to be the only answers, nor any more "correct" than anyone else's answers. That said...

Presumably, if God wants a murder committed (presumably for a greater good), he could remove someone's free will and make them carry out the murder. It might even be argued that God's telling someone to do something automatically removes their free will and their moral responsibility for the act.

That is not to say that we could ever presume to know whether the person did the crime of their own free will or because God made them. If one follows the Bible, one is required to punish a person who commits a crime. I don't know of anywhere in the Bible where it says that we should first try to determine whether God made them do it. Presumably, if God didn't want the person punished he has the power to make it so that they wouldn't be punished.

So our default position towards anyone who claims to tell us how god wants us to behave should be to disbelieve them? Or is it only if they advocate, or commit, illegal actions?

I don't know what the Bible says about that. Try doing a search on the Internet and reporting back to us (that's how I've found most of my answers). I seem to remember a few places that warn against false prophets, so I would say that the default position would be one of skepticism, especially nowadays.

just to clarify, I don't hear voices telling me to kill. :D

Good to know, but you'll still have to forgive me for not giving you my address!

but if we are to take a look at history, how are we to distinguish between those killers who where mentally ill, and wrongly believed that they where acting on gods direct orders, from those who actually where acting on Gods direct orders? (if indeed there are any real cases in the latter category).

Why would we distinguish between the two? We would likely be required to punish a person who commits a crime whether or not they claimed to be acting on God's orders.

your answer also seems to indicated that the more firmly you hold a possibly delusional belief, the more likely it is to be true. I don't think that that is a position I could support.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

-Bri

[bignickel]

So why are Christians apparently so into the Commandements? Do we all agree that the sixth Commandment is ambiguous, possibly meaningless?

It's not ambigous or meaningless to the Jews. As for the Xtians, it is COMPLETELY meaningless, since they're heathens, and the 10 commandments (or if you want, the Old Covenant) was not for them.

For the Jews, it's incredibly clearcut:
1. If someone breaks this particular law, they are to be killed.
2. Don't murder your neighbor

That pretty much covers killing and capital offences in the OT & Talmud, etc. Don't kill any of your neighbors, unless you're executing them for committing a capital offence, as laid down in the laws.

As for the Xtians who are obsessed with the OT: I have no idea WHY they're wrapped in the OT. I suspect it's because deep down inside, they want to be Jews; they really prefer the old Covenant to the new one, especially all the 'wraith of god' stuff. It just naturally appeals to them more than "do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you." I mean: THAT'S no fun! No fun at all! How are they going to crush all the morally corrupt people around them with that one? No, they want to find something in the OT, and then use that to go after them.

But everytime they do that of course, they're rejecting the new Covenent for the old one. And by doing so, they'll be held accountable for the all the laws in the old one that they're breaking (according to what is SUPPOSED to be their own theology).

Of course, I don't think a Jew would agree with that Xtian line of reasoning, since the Xtians are, once again, not Jews. In Jewish philosophy, it doesn't matter what the xtians do with the OT, since they are heathens (even if the heathens consider themselves to be 'evolved' Jews) and therefore, have no covenent with God. They would have to convert to Judiasm in order to take part in that covenant (and even then, I'm not sure that's enough).

Did anyone here read Hartung's articlein Skeptic? If not, ORDER the issue. It's also got a great interview with Richard Dawkins (and if you're feeling particularly retro, a nifty section on Velikovsky and Frank Tipler).

[bignickel]

As for the posts about God wasting this group or ordering this other group killed:

This is only an issue if God is telling the Jews in the OT was is moral and what isn't. He's not; he's giving them a set of laws to follow. If he was handing them his thoughts on morality, then he would be a hypocrite for constantly breaking his own moral code.

But he's not doing any such thing. He's in fact saying: do as I say, not as I do.

And the reason he can do that is: he's the Daddy! And that's the kind of thing that daddy says.

As I've said before (but maybe never posted), morality and religion have nothing to do with each other. (anticipating a response to that last statement: Jesus' statements about morality are completely seperate from xtianity itself. You can still believe Jesus is the chosen one, God is in Heaven, etc etc etc, and still completely disagree with Jesus' discussions on ethics and morality, just as long as you OBEY his 2 commands)

[Bri]

But he's not doing any such thing. He's in fact saying: do as I say, not as I do.

Your revelation here wouldn't be too surprising to most theists I wouldn't think. Most theists agree that human beings aren't responsible for doing what is for the greater good since human beings cannot possibly know what is for the greater good. Therefore, it's not at all surprising that God would have a different set of rules than human beings would.

-Bri

[David Swidler]

Sorry for the haphazard nature of this post.

As for the Xtians who are obsessed with the OT: I have no idea WHY they're wrapped in the OT. I suspect it's because deep down inside, they want to be Jews; they really prefer the old Covenant to the new one, especially all the 'wraith of god' stuff. It just naturally appeals to them more than "do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you." I mean: THAT'S no fun! No fun at all! How are they going to crush all the morally corrupt people around them with that one? No, they want to find something in the OT, and then use that to go after them.


Actually, that bit comes from the OT. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is in Leviticus. The "golden rule" interpretation of it appears before the NT, as well. The Talmud records an exchange that Hillel the Elder (who preceded Jesus) had with a potential convert, who challenged the sage to teach him the whole Torah standing on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary. Go and learn."

Above, Bri noted that the legal requirements to administering the death penalty were such that it was rarely implemented. In one dispute among Talmudic sages the parties differ on what makes a particular court too favorably inclined to putting murderers to death: one execution every seven years, or seventy years. Another sage, obviously of the latter approach, stated that as a member of any court adjudicating a capital offense, he would always find some way to disqualify the testimony or make it insufficient to warrant the death penalty.

The Hebrew root used in the Ten Commandments indeed means murder. The Hebrew root for "kill" is h-r-g (in which the "h" sound is the letter heh, equivalent to our own h, not to the guttural "het" in "ratzah").

A note on pronounciation, for those who care (the rest of you can skip this paragraph). There are actually two commonly confused (or conflated) guttural consonants in Hebrew represented by "kh" or "ch". One is the letter "het" (in the same place as the Latin h; that's no coincidence, as the Latin script is descended of the Phoenecian/Semitic. But I digress), and the other is the "kaf/khaf" (digression again: analogous to our "k", and in some grammatical cases identical; whether it's pronounced "k" or "kh" depends on its placement in a word). The latter is pronounced much like the guttural French "rrrrr," unvoiced. The former is pronounced further back in the throat, without the pallet. European (Ashkenazi) Jews tend not to distinguish between the sounds, using "kh" for both. Sephardic and Yemini Jews have preserved the distinction, as have Hebrew-speaking Arabs (Arabic has the equivalent letters).

The lack of a death penalty for murdering a non-Israelite should not be construed as permitting the act. It simply doesn't carry the same legal penalty. That's hardly an exception, as there are many cases of seemingly similar violations in the OT that carry different penalties.

I'm sure there's plenty more to add, but this post is disjointed enough already.

[bignickel]

Your revelation here wouldn't be too surprising to most theists I wouldn't think. Most theists agree that human beings aren't responsible for doing what is for the greater good since human beings cannot possibly know what is for the greater good. Therefore, it's not at all surprising that God would have a different set of rules than human beings would.

Which pretty much makes my point: God is handing down the law in the OT, Talmud, etc; he's not giving us a sense of morality.

And yet, the vocal theists are constantly claiming that without God, we have no sense of morality; how can this be, when God gives only law, and not morality? The vocal theists do this every time they say that athiests can not be moral, since they face no punishment in the hereafter. Yet, they can't be moral themselves: they are only following the law, and only out of fear of punishment.

(I say 'vocal theists' to distinguish between your normal everyday theist who just practices their religion quietly, versus the kind who are loud and visible, either attacking atheism, or proselytizing)

It is possible for a theist, just like anyone on the planet, to develop a sense of morality. The question is, can they apply that morality to their diety? Atheists and agnostics do apply morality to all conscious things, including dieties ('do as I say, not as I do' doesn't cut it with them).

Anyhoo, back to the OT (original topic, not old testiment): I don't think that the 10 Commandments are all that great a bit of law, especially since, lifted out from all the other commandments (that mandate death for this and that offence), they don't make as much sense (thus the whole purpose of this thread). But then again, I don't think the 10 were supposed to be all that isolated to begin with (what are there, like, 600 commandments in the OT or something?). Plus, it was only for a particular ingroup, and nothing to do with the outside groups of people.

Now, the first laws that applied to ALL people equally... That's something that's impressive, and those I would have no problem with having on the courthouse steps. Off the top of my head, if you're going to have something on your courthouse steps... how about a plaque of the Constitution? Or would that just be too silly?

[Bri]

Which pretty much makes my point: God is handing down the law in the OT, Talmud, etc; he's not giving us a sense of morality.

Well, not all theists would agree that belief in God is necessary for a sense of morality (many would agree that atheists have a sense of morality), but I don't think you've proven that God isn't the source of that sense of morality.

And yet, the vocal theists are constantly claiming that without God, we have no sense of morality; how can this be, when God gives only law, and not morality?

The argument goes something like this: even though our laws and our sense of morality are related, laws are perhaps more important. People often act in immoral ways in order to get ahead and take advantage of others (we have free will so that we can choose to do just that). Even though we would like to believe that people (atheists and theists both) will always do the right thing, it is fairly clear that not all will, and that a system of laws and punishment are necessary. In addition, individuals can claim to have differing senses of morality and therefore can claim that they didn't know something was wrong. Presumably a society develops a system of justice that is based on a common sense of morality, but we also know that entire societies often can and do take advantage of certain minorities of people. For example, a society might determine that old people are just too expensive to take care of and decided to pass a law that killing old people is not a crime. A Christian would probably say that the Bible provides laws that are immutable, and therefore would prevent a society from taking advantage of a vulnerable minority of citizens.

The vocal theists do this every time they say that athiests can not be moral, since they face no punishment in the hereafter. Yet, they can't be moral themselves: they are only following the law, and only out of fear of punishment.

I agree with you, and I personally think that everyone has a sense of morality. Christianity dwells on the afterlife quite a lot, but not all religions do. Whether you are a theist or an atheist, it is clear that it is possible to be moral without worrying about eternal damnation, but laws are still necessary in practice. You make an excellent point that if you're only following the law out of fear, you're not doing it entirely out of any moral obligation. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if everyone acted in a morally responsible way regardless of the reasons (unfortunately, many don't). When you think about it, one's actions are what affect others, not the reasons behind them, so the actions themselves are most important.

(I say 'vocal theists' to distinguish between your normal everyday theist who just practices their religion quietly, versus the kind who are loud and visible, either attacking atheism, or proselytizing)

You won't get any argument from me there. I don't understand proselytizing myself.

It is possible for a theist, just like anyone on the planet, to develop a sense of morality. The question is, can they apply that morality to their diety? Atheists and agnostics do apply morality to all conscious things, including dieties ('do as I say, not as I do' doesn't cut it with them).

Yes, of course morality would apply to dieties, however nobody would expect an omniscient, benevolent diety to have the same moral obligations that a human being would. An omniscient and benevolent diety knows what constitutes the greater good and would be morally compelled to act for the greater good, whereas a human being does not and cannot. For a human to attempt to do what is for the greater good without knowing what is for the greater good would undoubtedly result in disaster, so in most religions it would be a sin to attempt to play God.

Anyhoo, back to the OT (original topic, not old testiment): I don't think that the 10 Commandments are all that great a bit of law, especially since, lifted out from all the other commandments (that mandate death for this and that offence), they don't make as much sense (thus the whole purpose of this thread). But then again, I don't think the 10 were supposed to be all that isolated to begin with (what are there, like, 600 commandments in the OT or something?). Plus, it was only for a particular ingroup, and nothing to do with the outside groups of people.

I think that is a fairly accurate reading of the 10 commendments, although some Christians might disagree with some of what you said. (According to the Jewish religion, there are 613 commandments in the Torah.)

Now, the first laws that applied to ALL people equally... That's something that's impressive, and those I would have no problem with having on the courthouse steps. Off the top of my head, if you're going to have something on your courthouse steps... how about a plaque of the Constitution? Or would that just be too silly?

We are in total agreement on that. I believe in separation of church and state.

-Bri

[David Swidler]

As an aside, after relating the story of the Flood, the Torah refers obliquely to some universal laws that apply to everyone (Jewish tradition teaches that there are seven such laws). According to Maimonides's code (cited back on page one of this thread) those commandments were given to Adam. That can easily be understood as an embedded moral sense in all of humanity.

For those who are interested, the seven commandments are:
No murder
No sexual immorality
No theft
No idol worship
No consuming the flesh taken from a living animal
No blasphemy
Setting up a court system

Naturally, the list is hardly the end of the story. How does one define "sexual immorality?" Theft? Blasphemy? The Talmud addresses some of these questions, with the caveat that the definitions for non-Israelites differ from the (generally broader) definitions of the analogous commandments from the 613.

[Roboramma]

Maybe I'm misreading - All of humanity has a sense that idol worship is bad?

[David Swidler]

Again, as I said, the terms need definition. In a general sense, idol worship is granting centrality to the wrong ideas and entities. Morally, that principle applies as much to nurturing an inflated ego as to sacrificing things to appease the mountain not to have an avalanche.

The (non-unanimous) consensus of post-Talmudic scholarship is that neither Islam nor Christianity constitute idolatry for non-Jews (as noted above, Jews have less forgiving requirements).

Interestingly, the Talmud also says that in general, people raised in a pagan culture are not guilty of idolatry, as they are merely perpetuating their ancestors' practices, not out of a genuine desire to worship idols. That reflects a different Talmudic statement that people no longer have the innate desire to worship idols, which was removed at roughly the same time that prophecy ceased (i.e. at the start of the second temple period).

[Iacchus]

How does "thou shalt not kill," except for disobedient kids, those who follow other religions, slaves (in certain circumstances), our enemies, women who have sex with animals, etc. control our lusts? In the OT, God seems to fan the flames of bloodlust, and encourage inequality and divisiveness. Why doesn't God say, hey, we're all equal, let's try to work out our problems instead of murdering each other? Why does he command his followers to murder? Why does He allow some types of slavery? Just wonderin'.And such is the legacy we've inherited that coincides with a body that's comprised of flesh and blood. If we wish to speak of morals and ethics, however, we must speak of that which transcends flesh and blood.

[Tricky]

And such is the legacy we've inherited that coincides with a body that's comprised of flesh and blood. If we wish to speak of morals and ethics, however, we must speak of that which transcends flesh and blood.
As soon as you show us evidence of one of these things, then perhaps we can speak of it. If you don't have evidence, then you're just babbling about things you don't know, not that this is any big surprise.

How do you manage to treat a spiritual being immorally, anyway? Do you kick it in the ectoplasm?

[Iacchus]

As soon as you show us evidence of one of these things, then perhaps we can speak of it. If you don't have evidence, then you're just babbling about things you don't know, not that this is any big surprise.

How do you manage to treat a spiritual being immorally, anyway? Do you kick it in the ectoplasm?What, evidence that the natural world exists? Of course we have evidence that the natural world exists. This is the default position, remember?

[Tricky]

What, evidence that the natural world exists? Of course we have evidence that the natural world exists. This is the default position, remember?
When will you answer a question instead of babbling an unrelated question? Of course, babbling is your default position.

[Iacchus]

When will you answer a question instead of babbling an unrelated question? Of course, babbling is your default position.In this context? Probably never.

[Tricky]

In this context? Probably never.
In what context will you ever provide evidence for the things you claim?

[brettDbass]

And such is the legacy we've inherited that coincides with a body that's comprised of flesh and blood. If we wish to speak of morals and ethics, however, we must speak of that which transcends flesh and blood.
In what way do morals and ehtics not apply to flesh and blood?

Based on that premise it would be OK for me to randomly chop off the legs of people in the street, just so long as I don't kill them (to choose one example of thousands I could have made).

[Iacchus]

In what way do morals and ehtics not apply to flesh and blood?

Based on that premise it would be OK for me to randomly chop off the legs of people in the street, just so long as I don't kill them (to choose one example of thousands I could have made).Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it finally kills it and eats it?

[Iacchus]

In what context will you ever provide evidence for the things you claim?Hey, I'm agreeing with you, that we are speaking of those things which are a result of natural consequences. So, if we wish to speak about it in some other context, how do we go about doing so? How would you describe the natural world as moral and ethical if, it were simply a matter of "eat or be eaten?" What gives you the right to speak about morals and ethics in other words?

[Roboramma]

Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it finally kills it and eats it?
Yeah. What's your point? (seriously, if you have one, I'd like to know.)

[Iacchus]

Yeah. What's your point? (seriously, if you have one, I'd like to know.)Really? It seems awfully sadistic of the cat to prolong the suffering of the mouse, don't you think?

[Belz...]

And such is the legacy we've inherited that coincides with a body that's comprised of flesh and blood. If we wish to speak of morals and ethics, however, we must speak of that which transcends flesh and blood.

Ah! Iacchus. Always present to muddle the issue.

[Roboramma]

Yeah, it does. I find it even more difficult to watch the Orca playing with baby seals before killing them. (as seen on David Attenborough's The Trials of Life and Blue Planet).

But, well, so what?

[Iacchus]

Ah! Iacchus. Always present to muddle the issue.No, simply here to remind you that this is the issue ... already muddled.

[jimtron]

Really? It seems awfully sadistic of the cat to prolong the suffering of the mouse, don't you think?

Is the point that God is the cat, and humans are mice?

[Tricky]

Hey, I'm agreeing with you, that we are speaking of those things which are a result of natural consequences. So, if we wish to speak about it in some other context, how do we go about doing so? How would you describe the natural world as moral and ethical if, it were simply a matter of "eat or be eaten?" What gives you the right to speak about morals and ethics in other words?
But you speak of these other worlds as if you knew something about them, and if you do, then I'd like to know what makes you think you do. If you don't know anything about them or even if they exist, then it seems pointless to discuss them. Stick to things for which there is evidence, unless you are writing fiction.

[Iacchus]

Is the point that God is the cat, and humans are mice?No, the point being that so long as people are subject to the dictates of the flesh, this is what God has to work with. You can't blame God for all the spiteful things that people do to each other in other words.

[Mercutio]

No, the point being that so long as people are subject to the dictates of the flesh, this is what God has to work with. You can't blame God for all the spiteful things that people do to each other in other words.
So god is powerless, and merely something we made up, according to you, and subject to the dictates of the flesh.

Nice to know we have somebody who can speak authoritatively for god.

[Darat]

Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it finally kills it and eats it?

Mine don't eat them - they just play with them, quite often leaving me to do the actual killing. I must be God.

[Roboramma]

No, the point being that so long as people are subject to the dictates of the flesh, this is what God has to work with. You can't blame God for all the spiteful things that people do to each other in other words.
Didn't God create the dictates of the flesh?

Oh, wait, I know this one. No, it didn't.

[brodski]

Mine don't eat them - they just play with them, quite often leaving me to do the actual killing. I must be God.

no cat, ever, would act in anyway to leave its "owner" with anything less that the absolute conviction that the cat is god, or at least considers itself to be so.

[Iacchus]

So god is powerless, and merely something we made up, according to you, and subject to the dictates of the flesh.That depends, on whether yours is to seek a higher purpose or design.

Nice to know we have somebody who can speak authoritatively for god.Yes, I agree, we are all subject to the contraints of the flesh.

[Iacchus]

But you speak of these other worlds as if you knew something about them, and if you do, then I'd like to know what makes you think you do. If you don't know anything about them or even if they exist, then it seems pointless to discuss them. Stick to things for which there is evidence, unless you are writing fiction.Or, I could simply be asking you to think outside of the box ... which, if you didn't, how would you know?

[Genesius]

Or, I could simply be asking you to think outside of the box ... which, if you didn't, how would you know?
If Iacchus is outside of the box, I'm staying right here!!
:boxedin:

[homer]

Going back to the question , Thou shalt not kill means just that . Don't kill .
But as Christians , if you claim you are one , you have to turn the other cheek and love your enemy as well. Not so easy .
This could be why there are so few Christians around who actually practice this , being more content to argue about tiny differences and kill those who disagree with them . Later versions of the 'truth' like Islam are just as prone to this .

[geetarmoore]

If Iacchus is outside of the box, I'm staying right here!!
:boxedin:


:D

[Tricky]

Or, I could simply be asking you to think outside of the box ... which, if you didn't, how would you know?
Oh, I imagine I can write fiction just as well as you, if that's what you mean by "thinking outside the box". Because without evidence, that's all your babbling can ever be. Problem is, you're not calling it fiction. You're using phrases like "I know" and making definitive statements about god. Much as you like to pat yourself on the back for your journeys into the unknown, and as much as you wish these things to be true, it has nothing to do with reality. If it did, you could demonstrate it. Ay, there's the rub.

[Iacchus]

Oh, I imagine I can write fiction just as well as you, if that's what you mean by "thinking outside the box". Because without evidence, that's all your babbling can ever be. Problem is, you're not calling it fiction. You're using phrases like "I know" and making definitive statements about god. Much as you like to pat yourself on the back for your journeys into the unknown, and as much as you wish these things to be true, it has nothing to do with reality. If it did, you could demonstrate it. Ay, there's the rub.And do I really expect you to get it? No, not really. And you're right, I could be making the whole thing up.

[Tricky]

And do I really expect you to get it?
LOL. You think I can't understand your babbling and recognize it for what it is? Stop kidding yourself Iacchus. Almost everybody here "gets it", which is why you are widely regarded as a fool.
And you're right, I could be making the whole thing up.
Until you give me some reason to think otherwise, I shall continue to believe that "making the whole thing up", even if you are unable to see it yourself, is exactly what you are doing. I suspect I am not alone in that.

[geetarmoore]

I suspect I am not alone in that.


Nope. Not alone.... ;)

[Tricky]

Nope. Not alone.... ;)
You catch on quick, Mr. Moore.

Would you like some lupins?

[geetarmoore]

You catch on quick, Mr. Moore.

Would you like some lupins?


"Lupins?" he asked....... :confused:

[Tricky]

"Lupins?" he asked....... :confused:
Obligatory Monty Python reference. (http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/dennis.html)
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
galloping through the sward,
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
and his horse Concorde.
He steals from the rich,
he gives to the poor,
Mr Moore, Mr Moore, Mr Moore.

[geetarmoore]

Obligatory Monty Python reference. (http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/dennis.html)
[/B][/FONT]



Ahhhh yes...... Forgot about that one, I did. :)

[Iacchus]

LOL. You think I can't understand your babbling and recognize it for what it is? Stop kidding yourself Iacchus. Almost everybody here "gets it", which is why you are widely regarded as a fool.Yes, it says in the Bible not to cast your pearls before swine. So in that sense I suppose you could be right.

Until you give me some reason to think otherwise, I shall continue to believe that "making the whole thing up", even if you are unable to see it yourself, is exactly what you are doing. I suspect I am not alone in that.Which of course doesn't change anything.

[Tricky]

Yes, it says in the Bible not to cast your pearls before swine. So in that sense I suppose you could be right.
LOL. You've used that particular insult, which you borrowed, at least three times, (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=111531) Iacchus. Can't you do anything original?

Which of course doesn't change anything.Nope. You were quite simply wrong yesterday. You are quite simply wrong today. You will be quite simply wrong tomorrow. Very little changes about you.

[Iacchus]

The only thing science is capable of doing is predicting that the Universe exists after the fact. It's really quite easy. In fact we don't even need science to tell us about it. We all know we exist don't we? ... Ah, but the greater mystery you see, is how did it all get here? Indeed, if we don't know from whence we came, how do we know from whence we go? ... except nowhere of course.

[Cosmo]

The only thing science is capable of doing is predicting that the Universe exists after the fact. It's really quite easy. In fact we don't even need science to tell us about it. We all know we exist don't we?

Science did not enable you to brush your teeth this morning by designing a reliable public water network.
Science did not let your lightbulbs receive power when you flipped the switch, nor did science ensure that power went to a device, invented through science, that keeps your food cold.
Science absolutely had no part in the design or production of the vehicle with which you drove to your job this morning.
Science also did not, in any way, contribute to the design and production of the machine with which you entered your latest garbage post onto the internet, nor did science have anything at all to do with the network of computers (which science did not design) that allow your garbage post to be seen by others.

It sure is amazing, all these things that science isn't capable of doing. You sure were right about that, Iacchus!

[Iacchus]

Yes, the Universe exists. This is after the fact ... as is everything else that exists within it. So in that sense, science isn't really discovering anything new. It's merely discovering how things work within the parameters of that which already exists.

[Cosmo]

Yes, the Universe exists. This is after the fact ... as is everything else that exists within it. So in that sense, science isn't really discovering anything new. It's merely discovering how things work within the parameters of that which already exists.

You seem to think that discovering how things work is not a worthy effort. I can't even begin to describe how wrong you are.

[Tricky]

You seem to think that discovering how things work is not a worthy effort. I can't even begin to describe how wrong you are.
You see, for Iacchus, knowledge is the enemy. It terrifies him. It threatens the fantasy universe he has constructed for himself. He refuses to read anything scientific if there is any chance it conflicts with one of his pronouncements. His god demands homage to ignorance, and he is in its thrall.

[Iacchus]

You see, for Iacchus, knowledge is the enemy. It terrifies him. It threatens the fantasy universe he has constructed for himself. He refuses to read anything scientific if there is any chance it conflicts with one of his pronouncements. His god demands homage to ignorance, and he is in its thrall.No, I only need experience the fact that I exist. All other answers merely coincide with that fact.

[Roboramma]

Yes, Iacchus, you know you exist. Whoopee. We're all so proud.

There is more to know than just that, you know.

[Tricky]

No, I only need experience the fact that I exist. All other answers merely coincide with that fact.

College entrance board: We see that on your SAT's you just wrote "I exist" but you didn't answer any of the questions.


Iacchus: All other answers merely coincide with that experience of that fact.


College entrance board: Well, that's good enough for us.

[Mercutio]

LOL. You've used that particular insult, which you borrowed, at least three times, (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=111531) Iacchus. Can't you do anything original?
Your link deally fails. I assume it was a search for "pearls" or "swine" by username "Iacchus"? I am surprised it is only 3 previous times.

Nope. You were quite simply wrong yesterday. You are quite simply wrong today. You will be quite simply wrong tomorrow. Very little changes about you.I gotta start charging for use of my phrase. Two bits each time, and I may eventually be able to retire!

[Mercutio]

Yes, the Universe exists. This is after the fact ... as is everything else that exists within it. So in that sense, science isn't really discovering anything new. It's merely discovering how things work within the parameters of that which already exists.
You have already demonstrated quite sufficiently that you have no clue about what science is or does. You can just take that as read and not continue to pile on the evidence. It will save us all time and bandwidth.

[brettDbass]

Ok, let's try again.
Following your comment...
And such is the legacy we've inherited that coincides with a body that's comprised of flesh and blood. If we wish to speak of morals and ethics, however, we must speak of that which transcends flesh and blood.

I asked you this...
In what way do morals and ehtics not apply to flesh and blood?

Based on that premise it would be OK for me to randomly chop off the legs of people in the street, just so long as I don't kill them (to choose one example of thousands I could have made).

To which you replied thus...
Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it finally kills it and eats it?
However, there is an absolute failure on your part to provide the question with any attempt at an answer; I just get feeble rhetoric.

I can see that you love doing this to wind people up. If you get a sad little kick out of goading people, well it's your own life you're wasting.

On the other hand, just in case I'm wrong about you being a troll of the lowest order, I'm giving you one more chance to answer me properly.

Go.

[Rufo]

Wow. A thread that has derailed to everyone on Iacchus. Never seen that one before.

[bignickel]

BTW - "the pearls before swine" reference, along with Jesus saying 'it's not proper to give the children's bread to the dogs', is completely about Jesus' wisdom (and plans) being exclusively for the Jewish people. All he said and did was directed towards the goal of the realization of the Jewish dream: that Israel would be pre-eminent over all nations on the planet, with all of them bowing down and paying tribute; as well as acknowledging that G-D was the god of all gods. (this doesn't mean that they'd convert to Judiasm; just that they acknowledged Israel as the first among firsts, and G-D as god among gods)

from same article
Jesus was very concerned that the holy plan not become apparent to out-group members, so again he instructed his diciples (Matthew 7:6 RSV): "dont not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before swine." In this case "dogs" referred to left-over Canaanites and Samaritans (e.g., Matthew 15:21-28 above) and "swine" referred to people who eat pork - that is, gentiles.

The original covenant was an exclusive contract. Although he occasionally threatened to destroy them for insufficient fealty, the god of the Israelites never wavered in this insistence that they were his chosen people. The new covenant was for Jews who would follow the messiah and recreate the empire of the original chosen people. Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had know that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.

[bignickel]

Sorry, mispelling:
(Matthew 7:6 RSV): "do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before swine."