brighid

Perhaps you could provide us with the proper translation then.

B

Jayhawker Soule

I'm not the best one to ask. I've a slight bias for "thou shall not kill," although many would substitute the word "murder". That may have been the intent as far as I know. In either event, no rabbinic authority would interpret the law in such a way as to permit the murder of a non-Jew by a Jew.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

brighid

07523 ratsach {raw-tsakh'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2208; v

AV - slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2,
killing 1, slayer + 0310 1, slayeth 1, death 1; 47

1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be slain
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to murder, assassinate
1c2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
1d) (Pual) to be killed

Although one can say “kill” there isn’t evidence in the Bible to support this as an absolute prohibition against “killing”. There is much discussion about a man who unintentionally slays a neighbor but did not hate him before unwittingly killing him and that he should not have the death penalty given to him as punishment for lack of intent or knowledge. Check out the 19th chapter of Deutoronomy for some examples.

The Bible is pretty clear that killing is acceptable and under what circumstances (although not all encompassing.) Killing someone for punishment is quite the regular feature throughout the OT. So, I have always seen the definition of Thou Shall Not Kill to be a bit incomplete and misleading. One may and should kill according to their God, but murder – such that it is intentional (man laying in wait) and done with hatred (malice) a man cannot flee to save his life but must be brought back to the land where he murdered said man to be punished by death.

And a Gentile must ONLY follow the seven universal (Noahide) principles to be “righteous” but is encouraged to follow others – although not ALL of the mitzvahs – at least as I understand it and has been explained to me by Orthodox Rabbis. However a Jew by design is suppose to be compelled to follow all 613 (?) mitzvahs and is held to a MUCH higher standard then the Gentile (goyim) by this God. And the laws that apply to the Jews do not apply to the Gentiles in the same sense and there is much discussion amongst Judaic scholars as to whether or not Gentiles ARE to be held to certain laws.

One of the principles is a prohibition against killing (similar to the one in the 10 commandments) but laws and punishments are to be held to a lower standard for the Gentile – that’s why they have a different set of rules and aren’t compelled to follow ALL the mitzvahs.


Brighid

Blu

The original post of this thread made me think one thing: What came first the stories of God, or the belief in God. It is sort of like, What came first the chicken or the egg.

If there is a part of our brain that "makes" us inherently spiritualy minded species then it wouldn't matter if there were stories of God or not. I would say that thoughts lead to stories. So you would have to, in your civilization, take away the element in the brain which makes us spiritually minded first. Taking away the stories, would not prevent God from being "invented."

So I would say there are no grounds for your theory at all.

Thanks
Blu

Jayhawker Soule

Brighid, please note my private message to you ...

=======

Regarding the original assertion, I think Wilson's right in making the following assertion:

*If you're interested in the article, note that it's presented in 2 parts ...

free12thinker

Just because people would still have imaginative minds, and come up with myths or gods or legends, does not mean that we would be a religious world. It does not mean we would attribute our existence to god. It simply means that we would continue to use our imaginations, and those things we conjur up with them could continue to be expressed in song, stories, art....but we would no longer require a sprititual explanation for life, and thus, God (as we know of him through stories, as we are dependent on him for support) would not have to exist.

Back when civilizations and ideas and laws and such were still a work in progress, people used their imaginations and told stories to explain things that they could not otherwise explain. But in today's society, with our knowledge and such, we would still have our imaginations, but without the prior stories of god, there would be no essence of a God that acts as a father figure, or symbol of morality/creation.

In a nutshell, we'll always conjur things up with our active minds, but in today's society, if we removed all God references, HE (being specific) would cease to exist, which would thwart the idea that people see/hear/feel him everyday. People claim that they feel/see/hear him, but it's all psychological.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

AJ113

brighid: AJ – You demonstrate a very poor understanding of Judaism…..

Indeed, but I made no such claim. Is this a straw man?

brighid: The Laws of the Old Testament DO NOT, in ANY, WAY, SHAPE or FORM applies to the Gentile – that means YOU. The Judaic laws only apply to the tribes of Israel – PERIOD!

You seem to have taken a lot of trouble to give your opinion on the meaning of one of the Ten Commandments, if your point is that it does not apply to me.
It has already been conceded that some of the commandments are open to interpretation. Clearly you have your own interpretations, too.

brighid: Jesus came to uphold the JUDAIC laws, not to change them – not even “ONE iota!” Therefore all the extraneous additions of the New Testament are a sacrilege. A Jew is not allowed to add to, or take away from the original laws laid down by the Judaic God – oh, but wait a second Jesus is that Judaic God!

The laws are didactic, I’m sure many people adhere to many of the laws regardless of their faith.

brighid: He came to redirect the Jews, to prevent them from breaking those laws and he DID NOT come for the GENTILE! Paul added that crap later.

I say that Paul added nothing. Is this discussion going down the road of a criticism of the NT, or shall we call it a draw on this one?

brighid: Furthermore Jesus does not fulfill the JUDAIC prophecies as defined by Judaism – even if Christianity says he does.

If this is what you think, fine. I don't think many would agree with you.

brighid: The Jews are your God’s Chosen people and unless he lied to them and they are no longer his chosen people the covenant He made with them lasts FOREVER, including every word of every law given to them – the JEW

….including the directive which says that they should listen to the coming prophet. If Jesus is that prophet, then they should listen to him.

brighid: You are a gentile and you have SEVEN laws to follow ONLY and this is how you become a righteous gentile – this is how it has been since the time of NOAH! You are either a Jew, a Noahide, or a Gentile in the eyes of YOUR GOD!

Primarily, I’m a Christian. Especially in the eyes of my God.

brighid: Now mind you, I don’t believe any of this mumbo-jumbo but if you are going to assert that YOUR God Savior is a Jewish King, born of Jews, under the laws of Judaism set forth by the God of Abraham (same god as this Jesus) then you have to abide by the original rules. It is doubtful that the same God that said you may not add to or take away from the LAW EVER, would then come and change his mind, forget about all the prophecies He has previously told His Chosen people, break that covenant AND add many, many new ADDITIONS to HIS LAW! Unless of course He was a liar in the 1st place, therefore nullifying any possibility that He is a God!

Unless, of course, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the original law(s).

brighid: So, you silly, little GOYIM – know from whence you and your God came and quite muddying the waters with your BS!

The inevitable ad-hominem. I always hope for better than this from a lady.

BTW, for someone who does not believe in any of this mumbo-jumbo you seem to take a great interest in it. Are you considering conversion?

AJ113

I think this is unnecessairily patronising.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: AJ113 ]</p>

AJ113

What exactly do you mean by "..offend our sensibilities?"

This is a problem?

AJ113

I would like to rephrase my point from a different angle:

I have a question:

Regardless of any faith I may or may not have, if I was to somehow become the perpetrator of some vile crime(s) such as serial rape or mass genocide, would I be "wrong?" or "evil?"

The reason I ask is that I cannot understand how such conclusions can be arrived at without God. In the absence of God, how do I define right or wrong, good or evil?