Actually the commandment is, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” The first and foremost commandment that God gave to his people. I’m not religious at all (actually atheistic) but, that commandment does not carry with it any exceptions. Sure people would naturally defend themselves when assaulted, who wouldn’t - but that doesn’t mean you can ever be redeemed afterward. Just the opposite. Even Moses was disbarred from heaven for killing an Egyptian who was whipping a slave. God means it when he hands down that commandment; it applies to everyone.
I don’t speak Hebrew but I’ve been told the original language is more like “thou shalt not murder”. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, but “thou shalt not kill” has problems as well—like it could be taken as mandating veganism.
In the end I don’t think it matters how the hairs are split—people are gonna interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
That’s a good point. I think someone pointed out that in Leviticus it technically could be interpreted we aren’t even allowed to step on insects or else be damned for it. Not that we should want to step on insects, but who hasn’t done that at some point.
Oh - I appreciate the clarification. It shows I really am not well-educated in religious stuff. Still I wonder how such a commandment can be wiggled around, to me it doesn’t leave any room for other interpretations.
The main arguments for wiggling around it are based on balancing multiple lives against one. There’s a ton of commentary that are basically trolley problem examples. So self-defense is ok, intent matters, etc. Very similar to how most Western legal codes (quite possibly more, I’m just less familiar) distinguish between manslaughter, murder in the moment, planned murder, etc.
Keep in mind it is a religious text, so it obviously also carves out a bunch of stuff around killing for the purpose of enforcing laws (capital punishment), warfare, etc.
I would not be surprised if there’s something in there about how it’s ok to kill people who tie their shoes the wrong way.
I think most religious texts could be interpreted to support anyone’s need to justify brutality toward others somehow. I would hope that human conscientiousness and empathy would prevail and keep people from ever wanting to hurt each other, but that’s just not the reality we live in. It kind of scares me how people tie themselves into pretzel-knots of justification for their horrible actions. But I truly believe - bible or not - killing is always wrong no matter what the reason someone uses for it. Hey that’s just me, but…I’m glad I am that way.
Actually the commandment is, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” The first and foremost commandment that God gave to his people. I’m not religious at all (actually atheistic) but, that commandment does not carry with it any exceptions. Sure people would naturally defend themselves when assaulted, who wouldn’t - but that doesn’t mean you can ever be redeemed afterward. Just the opposite. Even Moses was disbarred from heaven for killing an Egyptian who was whipping a slave. God means it when he hands down that commandment; it applies to everyone.
That’s not the way people interpret it. The majority of religious extremism directly contradicts scriptures. This is still the justification used
I know, I live in a state with major religious extremism. I’m well aware how they bend scriptures to suit their need to justify everything.
I don’t speak Hebrew but I’ve been told the original language is more like “thou shalt not murder”. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, but “thou shalt not kill” has problems as well—like it could be taken as mandating veganism.
In the end I don’t think it matters how the hairs are split—people are gonna interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
That’s a good point. I think someone pointed out that in Leviticus it technically could be interpreted we aren’t even allowed to step on insects or else be damned for it. Not that we should want to step on insects, but who hasn’t done that at some point.
The Hebrew is לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח which in modern Hebrew translates as “Don’t murder”. It’s also the 6th, not the 1st.
Oh - I appreciate the clarification. It shows I really am not well-educated in religious stuff. Still I wonder how such a commandment can be wiggled around, to me it doesn’t leave any room for other interpretations.
The main arguments for wiggling around it are based on balancing multiple lives against one. There’s a ton of commentary that are basically trolley problem examples. So self-defense is ok, intent matters, etc. Very similar to how most Western legal codes (quite possibly more, I’m just less familiar) distinguish between manslaughter, murder in the moment, planned murder, etc.
Keep in mind it is a religious text, so it obviously also carves out a bunch of stuff around killing for the purpose of enforcing laws (capital punishment), warfare, etc.
I would not be surprised if there’s something in there about how it’s ok to kill people who tie their shoes the wrong way.
I think most religious texts could be interpreted to support anyone’s need to justify brutality toward others somehow. I would hope that human conscientiousness and empathy would prevail and keep people from ever wanting to hurt each other, but that’s just not the reality we live in. It kind of scares me how people tie themselves into pretzel-knots of justification for their horrible actions. But I truly believe - bible or not - killing is always wrong no matter what the reason someone uses for it. Hey that’s just me, but…I’m glad I am that way.
I hope you stay that way. I lost most of my faith in humanity at some point, and what little was left is gone after October 7th.