'Thou shalt not kill' Law or Directive?

[Masterblaster]

Hello
The world is full of people and creatures being killed. It seems like a natural thing to do?
What was the original Law of Moses?
Was it a qualified directive. I think it was.
What do you think?
I could kill a person. ( I think!) ...could you?

Micah 7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18

"6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Which way do we go?

[bjs1]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

The Hebrew word is not “kill.” The word is “murder.”

We kill all the time, as did the Israelites. If nothing else, our bodies are constantly killing microbes and germs.

Murder refers to killing humans. There are circumstances where killing a person is not murder. Self-defense, killing in war, a legal execution by the state, and a genuine accident without fault are examples of killings that are not murder. However, I have never been in any of those situation, nor have the majority of people I have known.

Every other example of taking a human life that I can currently think of would be murder. We might be capable of doing it, but it would be inherently wrong.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

I have been considering this. What is your call?

LONDON (AP) — A 32-year-old man with paranoid schizophrenia who fatally stabbed two college students and a man in the central English city of Nottingham was told Thursday that he would “most probably” spend the rest of his life in a high-security medical facility.

The UK has not got a death penalty. Would this person be executed in the US. This person took away the most precious thing that these people had. His crime continues to impact many surviving friends and relatives. If he was a viscious or dangerous dog he would be culled. Is his sentence humane? Is it ethical? Is it lenient?
I would say,...just kill him. In some way it might deter another 'paranoid schizophrenic ' from indiscriminately releasing his/her demons. I am not a doctor to answer this but death looks the obvious, and most convenient solution. Would I pull the plug,....I would definitely think about it.
Jesus's attitude to the murder of his friend, John the Baptist is unclear. The stoning of the Adultress story suggests that he might be of the persuasion that suggests that the punishment should fit the crime. Her adultery was not a crime worthy of severe public censure and it definitely did not warrant a death sentence.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Apart from the Matthew quote in the OP, there is little indication that Jesus pondered matters such as murder or public killings.
This is what happened after John the Baptist was murdered.

"Matthew 14:11 And his head (John) was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.12 And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus.13 When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: .. "

Strange, Jesus virtually ignored the Roman regime that occupied his country at that time. He spoke a little about Roman taxation, when goaded to do so, and basically suggested that he was indifferent to this worldly concern. The Roman's were psychotic serial killers, but still not a word from Jesus, apparently.
The Pharisees plot to frame Jesus under the pretence that his miracle performances would cause public chaos that would attract the authorities to act. It is obvious from this that Jesus was not a violent subversive that could be straightforwardly handed over. When Jesus hears of their scheming, his response was sensible and peaceful. He might even have been scared.
John 11: 54Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples

Interesting, no strong views expressed on murder or killing or torture or public execution, that I am currently aware of.
What do you think?

[JehovahsWitness]

The Roman's were psychotic serial killers, but still not a word from Jesus, apparently.

It would be deeply racist go suggest an entire nation can be comprised of "psychotic serial killers" , not to mention logistically near impossible. Roman rulership was for sure, ruthless in its exercise but their legal system was arguably second to none and at its height, Rome bought many economic, cultural and military benefits to its citizens and others.

Under Roman domination , the Pax Romana bought an unprecedented stability to its empire and while Jews and others under its domination undoubtedly suffered from certain injustices and abuse, they also benefited in various ways. No system (especially one a top heavy and bureaucratic as Rome eventually became ) is free from corruption and abuse, but from there to suggest the Romans (whether as individual citizens or as a people) where deranged killers is hyperbolic in the extreme. Let us not forget the degree of autonomy Rome allowed the Jews not to mention it was Herod (admittedly with not negliable psychopatic leanings) who was responsible for the magnificent Jewish temple of which the Jews were so proud.

That said, the Jews were especially distainful of Roman domination in a land they viewed as divinely ordained ; Jewish religious and cultural traditions clashed with their pagan occupyers and revolt and uprisings were common. Palestine was basically a particularly troublesome thorn in the Roman side, one which history proves was eventually deal with in the harshest way possible.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY DID JESUS REMAIN POLITICALLY NEUTRAL?

Jesus made no comment on all the above because he was not a political leader. He was not a revolutionist, he was not a military leader. He was not, by his own admission sent to judge nor did he say his purpose was instigate social change. Jesus was a spiritual leader, with a message about the kingdom of heaven. This does not mean Jesus was indfferent to suffering but he presented GOD'S KINGDOM the real solution, not only to the problems of his own people but those of the whole world.

He spoke a little about Roman taxation, when goaded to do so, and basically suggested that he was indifferent to this worldly concern.

WAS JESUS INSTUCTION TO GIVE CESARS THINGS TO CESAR AN INDICATION OF INDIFFERENCE?


The Jesus of the gospel is anything but indifferent. He was neither a recluse nor was he distant. He recognised and acknowledge the everyday struggles of ordinary working people and while the religious leaders of his time believed themselves above the concerns of people viewing the unwashed masses as unthinking and uneducated peasants, Jesus was kind, feeling and wanted to help them.

However Jesus knew the real help was not to come from political uprisings (withholding of taxes was considered an act if rebellion against the authorities) but rather from a SPIRITUAL liberation. His message was for his followers to accept the limitations of their circumstances knowing that ultimate liberation comes from being a child of God. It is for this reason, not from indifference, he wisely refused to be pulled into political controversy indicating his followers should submit to the ruling authority so long as this did not compromise their worship of God.

True Christians to this day hold to this principle remaining entirely politcally neutral under whatever regime they happen to live.

[JehovahsWitness]

This is what happened after John the Baptist was murdered.

"Matthew 14:11 And his head (John) was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.12 And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus.13 When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: .. "

WAS JESUS INDIFFERENT TO THE MURDER OF JOHN THE BAPTIST?

It would be a mistake to take the lack of public statement as a reflection of a absence of grief. We notice for example, there is no biblical record of Mary, Jesus mother , making a statement about how she felt seeing her son tortured and killed. It would be unreasonable to conclude however that she was indifferent. Even if any of the gospel writers or fellow believers had the opportunity to ask, the answer to the question : "How did you feel seeing your son bleed to death?" is so obvious , it may well be considered deeply offensive to even ask.

Jesus did not use the death of John the Baptist as the occassion to launch a tirade against Roman occupation, nor did he politicize it to further a revolutionist agenda. The bible account simply said he sought solitude, no doubt to process the information and pray for comfort. If Jesus was seen to weep openly so deeply was he moved by the pain of others, we know he must have been deeply hurt by the murder of someone he so admired, someone who also happened to be a relative.




JW



RELATED POSTS

For whom did John the Baptist prepare the way?
viewtopic.php?p=1133902#p1133902

[Masterblaster]

Thanks JehovahsWitness

You said- "His message was for his followers to accept the limitations of their circumstances knowing that ultimate liberation comes from being a child of God. It is for this reason, not from indifference, he wisely refused to be pulled into political controversy indicating his followers should submit to the ruling authority so long as this did not compromise their worship of God."

At least three Roman Emperors of the time were psychotic sadists with a private Gestapo to implement their will. This was a model from the top for local government as well. Our past as a species oozes sadistic practice. Look at North Korea today,...people hoping to die.

Your stuff about Jesus makes sense to you. Your end conclusion dictates your interpretation of the narrative. How often does that happen everyone. We draw a dog starting with it's bark.

Your JW Jesus conclusion is that Jesus is not a rebel, or a political reformist, or hardly even a moralist when it comes to worldly affairs. He gives spiritual enlightenment to his followers even to this day. All they ask for is a place to be spiritual in.Did I get you correctly?

If that was all Jesus was about I would crucify him myself. Asking people to accept suicide with fortitude and hopeful resolve. That would be a con-man, in my book. A doomsday apocalyptic cult waiting for ever to correctly call the end of time. Definitely a hanging offence, akin to giving a starving wretch a cookbook for his birthday.
Thanks

[1213]

Hello
The world is full of people and creatures being killed. It seems like a natural thing to do?
What was the original Law of Moses?
Was it a qualified directive. I think it was.
What do you think?...

I think the original Commandment was: "Don't murder" Exod. 20:3-13, which is not exactly the same as don't kill. But, in any case, I understand that it is a qualified directive.

[JehovahsWitness]

...Jesus is not ... even a moralist when it comes to worldly affairs.

WAS JESUS A MORALIST?

A MORALIST is defined as ... a person who teaches or promotes morality; mortality being "conformity to ideals of right human conduct" (Merriam Webster). Since Jesus did indeed teach and promote right human conduct he could arguably be called "a moralist". Of course he did not impose his ideas on anyone that did not wish to hear them and certainly did not go about trying to change people's behaviour through political or "social movements" but he did seek to influence people by his religious discours.

WAS JESUS A MORALIST WHEN OR COMES TO WORLDLY AFFAIRS?

If by "worldly affairs" one is refering to the political, commercial or military system then Jesus words are clear enough, his disciple were to be no part of the world. Jesus identified Satan the Devil as the unseen power behind the world system of things and urged his disciples not to become involves in worldly affairs but rather to preach the kingdom of God that would ultimately solve the world's problems.



JW

FURTHER RESEARCH : Bible Questions answered : LIFE AND MORALS
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... le-morals/



RELATED POSTS

Do good people do bad things ?
viewtopic.php?p=1140774#p1140774

Are non believers bad people ?
viewtopic.php?p=1140775#p1140775

What did Jesus mean when he said "No one is good except ...God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 02#p942302

Can we judge God as having bad morals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p791542

Is it true Jesus never said anything useful?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p952079

Is it true your heart is where your treasure is?
viewtopic.php?p=1095583#p1095583

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SIN , MORALS , and ... RESPONSIBILITY