There's no disrespect intended as my understanding is the only direct revelation of God's Word was when he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. If that's incorrect, please do correct me as it's an important point.
Assuming the above to be true, presumably the most authoritative definition of God's wishes is in those Commandments insofar as this is the only direct communication of them.
The drift is towards 'Thou shalt not kill' as that one goes overboard faster than African refugees.
(Ed: vicious bastard!)
Really. My premise is we should be addressing the problems of why they need to flee rather than getting all weepy when they try it and die.
Some Italian richies bought a forty-foot medical boat and they cruise about in the Med with it to pick up and give aid to refugees abandoned to die by smugglers. If you want to buy yer soul back then, sure, there are ways.
In the Old Testament it says God commanded them to kill all the Midianites but save the virgins for him. However, in the New Testament it says Moses issued the command and he got the virgins.
Looking at it from a tactical standpoint, the New Testament position is, in my view, more affirming of the original statement of 'thou shalt not kill' as it distances God from the act of it.
In summary, my general position is that the Ten Commandments are specifically authoritative whereas everything else in the Bible, New or Old Testament, is a subjective telling of what happened and is thus of less consequence.
My purpose is specifically not to bash religion but rather to look at human behavior. If this is Piaget looking at human history instead of a baby, where would he say cognitive development started.
The overall premise is a fully-actualized human will never even kill bugs ... except for ants inside the house as even God told them to stay the hell out of houses but fookin' ants don't listen to anyone. They're funny like that, those ants.
Assuming the above to be true, presumably the most authoritative definition of God's wishes is in those Commandments insofar as this is the only direct communication of them.
The drift is towards 'Thou shalt not kill' as that one goes overboard faster than African refugees.
(Ed: vicious bastard!)
Really. My premise is we should be addressing the problems of why they need to flee rather than getting all weepy when they try it and die.
Some Italian richies bought a forty-foot medical boat and they cruise about in the Med with it to pick up and give aid to refugees abandoned to die by smugglers. If you want to buy yer soul back then, sure, there are ways.
In the Old Testament it says God commanded them to kill all the Midianites but save the virgins for him. However, in the New Testament it says Moses issued the command and he got the virgins.
Looking at it from a tactical standpoint, the New Testament position is, in my view, more affirming of the original statement of 'thou shalt not kill' as it distances God from the act of it.
In summary, my general position is that the Ten Commandments are specifically authoritative whereas everything else in the Bible, New or Old Testament, is a subjective telling of what happened and is thus of less consequence.
My purpose is specifically not to bash religion but rather to look at human behavior. If this is Piaget looking at human history instead of a baby, where would he say cognitive development started.
The overall premise is a fully-actualized human will never even kill bugs ... except for ants inside the house as even God told them to stay the hell out of houses but fookin' ants don't listen to anyone. They're funny like that, those ants.
2 comments:
It's not as straightforward as that. The actual Hebrew word that is in the oldest text is "retzach" which translates loosely as "murder." This requires an understanding of what was meant by murder in that time period since religious text from the period are very specific on that topic. What is permissible - and is not considered retzach - is capital punishment for crimes such as murder, adultery, and blasphemy (among others.) Also permitted is war. Killing during a war is not retzach and not a violation of the commandment. Finally, killing in self-defense is not retzach and therefore not a violation of the commandment.
Fair enough. There was on comment on the basic premise that this was the only direct revelation so I'll assume that's correct. Not much more review needed in that direction anyway as the main thinking is everything hinges on the words of the Ten Commandments.
I have heard this argument, in general, previously and I appreciate the specifics of it. That aspect needs an article of its own as the definition of the word in a historical context adds the dimension of time to morality whereas, in my view, any moral law goes beyond time. That needs some more consideration.
Post a Comment