alya73

I've seen a lot of Xtians say that the commandment that one should not kill is misinterpreted,that it is properly translated as thou shalt not MURDER.

If this is the case what do we make of Judges 4:21-But Jael, Heber's wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was asleep and exhausted. So he died.

Isn't this murder? Isn't this a story we hear in regard to righteousness? WTF?
What gives Xtians?

P.S. If this has been discussed before I'm sorry. I'm just too lazy to look it up. Pus it is a bit more fun this way.

Reason

Moral relativism is SOP in the babble. Rahab the harlot is held out as a hero of faith--because she lied and committed treason. David, a man "after gawd's own heart," murdered a man in order to steal his wife. Gawd murdered a man and his wife over a real estate deal. Jebus sent his disciple to steal a donkey. And so on.

thentian

Thou shalt not kill jews.

It is pretty obvious from the context that's what was meant, since that part of the babble bible is all about how Moses and his tribe killed every non-jew they could find in the area.

Roger Pearse

It seems unclear whether you are arguing that murder is OK; or that Count Stauffenberg was wrong to try to blow up Hitler. A little clarity on this would help your argument.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

alya73

I don't think murder is acceptable at all really. War is clearly a different matter as it wouldn't constitute murder, which of course is how "thou shalt not kill" is gotten around. Are you saying this should be read as an act of war? Should I consider Jael as on a par with Arjuna? ( I know a Gita reference in BC&H...sorry.)

Toto

This whole chapter is describing war. And then verse 23 goes on to sayJael was just an instrument.

Roger Pearse

You need to address the Stauffenberg issue. Was he right or wrong, then?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu

I don't quite get how the Stauffenberg issue gets into this, perhaps you can illuminate? It seems to me the question here is that the OT at one place says that killing/murder is not OK, but then in another place--e.g. the Israelites killing/murdering the previous inhabitants of the promised land--seems to condone it. Now, given how the OT was put together, and given the tribal instincts that result in "us human them animals," this is not all that surprising, of course. But the implicit question to the mythical average Christian would be: If you agree with the commandment about not killing/murdering, and you think that the Israelites killing off the previous occupants was allowable, how then do you rhyme the two? So how does Stauffenberg enter the pictutre--unless you take the rather unlikely position that the previous occupants of the promised land were all Nazis?

Gerard Stafleu

Clutch

I think the narrative in 2 Samuel rather depicts the LORD as taking exception to this. So, swing and a miss at this particular pitch.

alya73

A military coup (Stauffenberg) fits into the construct of war, so he was right to plant the bomb. (excused anyway) The story of Jael seems to fall outside of "rules of engagement". Correct me if I'm wrong but as long as there's been war there has been some sort of rules. While a civilian killing a chieftain would be considered a hero by their side, they would still be considered a murderer by everyone else.

David called a hit and didn't commit the murder himself. And yes "God" took exception,Samuel did anyway.

The point is killing can be justified in war. A command not to kill would however be broken by war. 'Do not kill'='Do not have war'. 'Do not murder' would exempt soldiers. Jael wasn't a soldier and this action not a typical act of war. IMO anyway.