GeorgeW Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 It may be that the 6th commandment is in conversation with the accounts of massacres, etc. and not part of a unified message. There is more than one view in the Hebrew Bible. Dutch I think that 'kill' is just a bad translation a word about which various views can be held. One can oppose capital punishment, as I do, but to cite the 6th Commandment as authority is incorrect. The author did not forbid all killing and clearly not capital punishment. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I agree. These killings are not amoral acts. They are justified by the 'greater evil.' FWIW, the translation of the Hebrew word ratsach in the 6th Commandant 'kill' is IMO a bad translation. It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.). The 6th Commandment is often wrongly cited as prohibiting war, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These may be argued to be wrong on other grounds, but they are not prohibited by the 6th Commandment. George Ratsach or no, the recipient of the killing is still dead, and someone had to justify it. IOW, whether or not a killing is ratsach is relative to whomever decides who is worthy of death. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) I think that 'kill' is just a bad translation a word about which various views can be held. One can oppose capital punishment, as I do, but to cite the 6th Commandment as authority is incorrect. The author did not forbid all killing and clearly not capital punishment. George We do "cite" the Bible don't we but perhaps the 6th commandment does not so much forbid killing but as ask us to consider what does "kill" ,or taking another's life, mean, today, you and me. The men who had so many committee meetings they lost a civil war understood "Thou shalt not kill" as a discussion starter. Here is what the Larger Catechism says Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; [727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745] Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761]oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765] http://www.reformed....-150.html#fn648 I apologize for leaving the Scripture citations numbers in the cut and paste. Dutch Edited December 2, 2011 by glintofpewter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 When I have too much time on my hands I watch what the bots are reading. Came across this interesting thread. Taking a fairly broad interpretation of the word religion - to reconnect. Relativitism and pluralism are both descriptions of the way some of us see the world. Taking the scientific world view it is easy to see relativitism as a reasonable description, from Galeleo and Newton to Einstein they all realized that at least the physical world can be described in relativistic terms. Science itself can be quite pluralistic - it divides and conquers, When a scientist does an experiment she does her best to isolate the variables from extraneous factors. End of the day she realizes no matter how how good a job she does the rest of the universe has not been isolated. Our understanding of gravity, magnetism and quantum mechanics predict the effects extend to infinity. The amazing thing about Schrodinger's cat is not (would not be) a dead and alive cat in juxtaposition, but the box that could keep the universe out. Science for me points to a monistic description of the universe where everything is connected (hence religion). So both relativitism and pluralism are useful like Father Christmas in pointing us in a particular direction, but they are ultimately false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.