The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this post entitled "Essays on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments."
This essay covers the Sixth Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," one of the most difficult of the Ten to apply in modern day life. Please remember that, while many try to apply the Commandments to all members of society, they, in fact, apply only to practicing Jews and Christians. Much of the angry debate in the US about the Commandments originates in making the erroneous attempt to apply them to all people.
Please understand also that what I am writing about here is first a discussion of the meaning of the Sixth Commandment in the context of its original meaning for those who first heard it, then, second, in the context of today's world, and finally, third, some personal opinions used as examples of the application of this Commandment. Please do not confuse my analysis of the meaning of the commandment with my personal thoughts on it.
I need to warn you that if you are looking for simple, clear cut, answers about applying the Sixth Commandment in your lives, you aren't going to get them here. They don't exist. But, if you read carefully, you will get some sound guidance on what the Sixth Commandment is really about, and how you can use that knowledge to help you come to your own conclusions about using this Commandment in your life.
The first thing about the Sixth Commandment that you might notice is that I titled this essay, "Thou shalt not kill," which is how it is translated in the King James Version of the Bible. But most modern translations, translate the Hebrew as "You shall not murder." There is a big difference in most people's eyes between "killing" and "murder".
In our culture, killing is often justified. That is we, not necessarily God, often justify killing. But, by definition, "murder" is never justified. Murder is unjustified killing. So the modern translations would seem to take some of the confusion out of the Commandment by changing "Do not kill" to "Do not murder."
The trouble is, however, that it is not clear that the modern translations are correct. The Sixth Commandment in the Hebrew Bible is only two words. The first word translates "No" and the second word translates "killing." "No killing." That's it. That's the whole commandment: "No killing!"
Therefore, it is not clear that God only means "Do not murder." Nor do the more detailed clarifications of the Commandments in so called Covenant Codes found in Exodus Chapters 21 through 24 help much. If you recall those Codes were written to apply the Commandments to the Israelite nation.
In Chapter 21, verses 12-14, there is a distinction between "planned", or "premeditated" killing and "unplanned," or accidental killing. There God is seen as less strict with unplanned killing, saying He will provide a refuge to which the killer can flee. However, the premeditated killer is to be "put to death."
This brings us to a second point, which can be confusing. Having clearly told us not to kill, over and over again in the Old Testament as handed down, edited and redacted from oral stories, God often instructs us to kill. In Chapter 21 we are told that we are to put to death a premeditated killer, and, a couple of verses later, we are told to "put to death" anyone who strikes or even curses his mother or father! The word in Hebrew for "put to death" is a different word in Hebrew than the word for "kill," so obviously the author believed that God intended a distinction.
The distinction is this. The Old Testament says that, at his instruction, we may "put to death" someone, because we are acting for God. And there is another side to that coin. The best example of that is in First Samuel where God deals harshly with King Saul, stripping him of his kingdom, because he did not put all of the Amalkites: men, women and children, and their animals, to death.
Saul was well meaning, showing mercy to the Amalkite king and saving the best animals for a sacrifice to God. But, in the story, God would have nothing of Saul's argument. God had instructed him to kill every living person and their livestock, and when Saul did not, Saul was stripped of his crown! So the conclusion we get from the story is that we may kill if we are acting for God; and if we are told to kill by God we may not chose not to kill! That is how that Commandment was interpreted in ancient Israel.
So, it seems obvious that, if our only source of moral guidance is what the Old Testament tells us God did in the ancient world of the Israelites, God can tell us to kill, and when he does, we are justified in doing it. In fact, some of the most vile, vicious and disgusting acts recorded in the Bible are said to be done so at God's explicit direction. Massive slaughters of men, women, children, of "every living thing" are often ordered by God in the Old Testament.
Just so you'll know where I personally stand on this idea, let me say this. The God I worship would not issue such instructions; so I have never understood it; and if you ask me on my death bed, I still won't understand it. The God described in these stories is a God utterly different than the God that Jesus describes as his Heavenly Father. I seriously doubt that God issued such instructions which were written,redacted,edited and translated to what we read today. I do not accept those kinds of instructions as applicable today. But that is my belief and need not necessarily be yours.
But regardless of how I feel about those gruesome Biblical descriptions of God's orders, it does highlight the most important point about this Commandment. However you translate the Commandment: as "You shall not murder," or "Thou shalt not kill," the fact is that the Commandment is telling us that the only one who has the right to kill is God. God can kill. We cannot, unless we are acting for God, in God's interests, not ours.
That is a key to understanding the Sixth Commandment. The Sixth Commandment is designed to make clear that all life belongs to God who is the Creator of it.
In Genesis 4:10 God is appalled that Cain killed Abel. "And the Lord said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed...!'"
And in Genesis 9:5-6 God tells Noah: "For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. 6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind."
The Bible is clear about one key theological issue. God gives life and God can take it away. But nowhere does it say that man can take life unless he does so when acting for God. Now I know that it doesn't often work the way God intends, but humans are never to kill on their own authority. They are to kill only as agents of God. If you understand that you are a long way toward understanding the Sixth Commandment.
So, we understand now that the Old Testament teaches that God says that there are legitimate and illegitimate killings. Any killing that God allows is legitimate and therefore justified, in spite of the Sixth Commandment. But any killing that God disallows is covered by the Sixth Commandment and is prohibited. And, ironically, the penalty for violation of the Sixth Commandment is to be "put to death."
I know that this is not easy to understand. And you may have to read the last two paragraphs slowly and carefully a few times to be straight on it. Even when you understand the principle enunciated here, it is not clear as to exactly how it is to be applied. Nor is it clear when to apply it and to whom.
So lets just jump into some hot water together here and see if we can swim out of it or if we will just get boiled. Lets get more specific as to its application in real life today. The Sixth Commandment is both cited and ignored by both sides, depending on where the side wants to come out, in discussions of many major social issues facing this nation.
Think about it. Abortion, war, including the preemptive strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued US presence in both countries, capital punishment, suicide, euthanasia, self-defense, stem cell research, and many other issues in this country all can be discussed in view of the Sixth Commandment. Is abortion killing? Is it murder? Is it ever justified? Capital punishment is killing. Is it, as many claim, only state sponsored murder? Or is it justified because the government is acting on behalf of God? Is war justified? If so, when? In war who can you kill? Does it matter how they are killed? These are but a few of the questions that people have related to the injunction of the Sixth Commandment.
On every one of these terribly difficult and emotionally laden issues someone is citing the Sixth Commandment as the answer. For example, the same people who are against capital punishment cite the Sixth Commandment as prohibiting capitol punishment, but ignore it when marching in "pro-choice" rallies.
And citing the Sixth Commandment in arguments about such things is somehow "acceptable" to many Christians even though the Commandment only applies to practicing believers! The simple implication of that, of course, is that they think that the Commandments either do apply to all people, when they clearly do not, or that they "should" apply to all people, even though that was never God's intention.
Now we are not going to resolve these debates here. In fact, none of them will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But believing Jews and Christians are arguing on shaky ground every time we ignore the Sixth Commandment unless we have logical proof that our actions supporting killing are, in fact, instructed by, or allowed by, God. And God has given us little guidance to know when that is the case.
Let me give you two examples. I will share with you my personal positions on these issues. Please do not focus on my positions, that is not the point here; but focus on how the Sixth Commandment comes into play. I will not argue with anyone about whether I am right or wrong. And I may change my mind later anyway. Just try to see how the Sixth Commandment comes into my thinking process as an example of how it does influence me in my own decisions.
Example number one. It is clear to me that the Old Testament, in spite of the Sixth Commandment allows capital punishment; and in many cases, instructs it. However, I do not support capital punishment. I base my position not on the Sixth Commandment, but on Jesus' words and actions.
For Christians, Jesus' words and actions supercede conflicting information in the Old Testament. And, for example, Jesus interfered with the stoning to death of the woman caught in adultery, which was a mode of capital punishment in that day. He said that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone. Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone.
Others argue that the Bible not only allows, but instructs, capital punishment. And that is also true. But that instruction was to the ancient Israelites and I do not think that it is applicable to us today, in the light of the teachings of Jesus.
And I doubt seriously that those same people who support capital punishment would choose to apply capital punishment to someone who curses his or her parents, or would apply it to many of the other offenses listed in the Old Testament as punishable by death, many of which we would consider trivial, and often bizarre, today.
Example number two. In the same vein, because I believe that a fetus is a living human being, I oppose abortion in most cases. Notice I said "most cases," because I have known cases where the mother would die if she tried to carry the fetus to term, and the fetus had to be taken to save the mother. Some would chose otherwise and let the mother die.
In the case of abortion I use the Sixth Commandment to help guide me to my overall position on the issue. But, interestingly, I am also what is called "Pro Choice." While I am against abortion in most situations, I also strongly believe that the government should keep out of that decision. I believe that is a decision to be made by the woman, hopefully in consultation with her family and doctors. But in no way do I think that my religious belief should be enforced by the government.
The point of giving you these two examples is not for you to judge whether my positions on them are right or wrong. The point is to show that that these are not easy questions, and sincere people can come down differently on them. And, in spite of what the zealots on both sides of most of difficult issues involving life and death say, there are no easy answers.
So I hope we have learned that the Sixth Commandment does not provide anything like detailed guidance which would allow believers to say "yes" or "no" in specific cases. And God did not intend it to. He intends us to wrestle with difficult issues, all the while being aware of the great principle behind the Sixth Commandment: That all life belongs to God.
In sum, the Six Commandment states a non-negotiable principal: people should not kill. Killing is God's prerogative. Believers should not casually support killing just because we want to, or because it is easy, or because it offers a way of revenge, or even because we think it is right to do so.
When believers do kill or support killing, they had best be sure that they are doing it consistent with the reverence for life that God has, and with the knowledge that only God gives life and can take it away.
I believe that it is incumbent upon practicing Jews and Christians to act in these matters with utmost caution, and with genuine humility. We are not God, and it can be a terrible thing if we delude ourselves into thinking that we have God's authority when we do not.
God bless.
Next: You Shall Not Commit Adultery.
575 page views on 2010 01 07
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lucy Mercer
Erica K
Shawn O'Shea
Melissa Holbrook Pierson
Sissy414
Raymond Roske
Salon.com
Comments
"Even when you understand the principle enunciated here, it is not clear as to exactly how it is to be applied. Nor is it clear when to apply it and to whom."
This is the sort of thing, and there are many, which interferes with my ability to be a believer. Surrounded on all sides by noise and confusion, by issues which are interpreted by people based on their ideology rather than logic, I seek clarity and reason in my inner life. And though there are glimpses of it in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, there is never enough to outweigh the disconnect contained in such things as "No killing!" and "Except for when it's for God."
Thanks for trying to puzzle out the apparent mixed message many of us get when trying to think on things that we dont have the linguistic or cultural context for.
I find that in liberal Christianity. Others, like you, walk their own paths. I respect that.
My purpose here is not to convince anyone that they should believe as I do. I would like that, of course, but that is a personal decision with each of us.
Rather my purpose with this series is to show in some detail not only the easy moral concepts that are available to believers, which are far too often misleadingly preached, but that believers have to not only have faith, but we still have to use our reason and capacities to discern when living that faith.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
—Matthew 22:34-40
Jesus quoting the above...well, that why I love Jesus! If I try to do these things, I am much less likely to harm another with my words.
And, Happy Chanukah, Monte! xox
See, if more people of faith were like you, it'd be a lot easier for me. I know you're not trying to convert anyone with these posts you do, but by your own example you're as good an illustration of what's good in Christianity as a person could ask for.
Liberal Christians take Jesus at his word when he said that he did not supercede the teachings of the OT, but that he often interpreted it differently than those who followed the OT. Almost all of the gospel writings about Jesus deal with the tension between the Pharisees who taught the law in Jesus' time and the new interpretations of Jesus.
So, yes, often some Christians, usually conservatives, are in a real sense "trying to justify the inconsistency that you identify in the different approaches between the OT God and Jesus."
I do not do that. I "explain" the differences. But there is no need to justify them. I believe that when there is conflict between NT teaching and OT teaching the NT teaching is normative. Actually, that is a major distinction between Christians and Jews.
But there is much to be learned in the OT, and only a very small portion of it conflicts with the NT. We happen with this essay to be discussing a very difficult area of interpretation for anyone, theologian or lay person. But most of the time there is little or no conflict.
And that make sense when we remember that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, raised completely in the Jewish traditions, and, on further reflection, we remember that the only "Bible" Jesus and the early Christians, who started out as a Jewish sect, had was the OT.
And may God bring blessings to you and those you love in this Holy Season.
Thank you for this, and, what Nana said about you being an "illustration of what's good in Christianity"--I couldn't agree more.
:-)
The OT contains actual history, however skewed. And of course His Commandments. Those who argue over which version of the bible to believe are denying, and therefore killing, individual thought.
Your final paragraph here contains the most important lesson. Humility.
I vacillated for a number of years, even while a practicing Christian. But I find that my uncertainty today is largely irrelevant in the light of the truths I now believe. Each of us will find our own paths, decide what we believe and what we don't; and, hopefully, find some resolution of things that disquiet us.
As you can tell from this essay, I too have issues with some of the "sacred writings." But that has never stopped me from having faith. I know that some of those writings and the preaching about them have turned off many people. I am sorry that children, especially, have to be subjected to anti-intellectual pontificating on scripture, which I have often seen in conservative Christian churches.
I have no experience with how those writings are taught in Synagogues. But apparently you have and were turned off by some of what you learned/heard.
But one thing that I believe without doubt is that we humans will never be able to tack some formula on the wall and find it an adequate solution to problems of situational ethics. For good or bad, with or without religion, we will still have to apply ethical principles to practical issues.
About the Hebrew Bible, if you have read the earlier posts in this series you know that I normally refer to the OT as the Hebrew Bible. But in this essay I am comparing and contrasting the Hebrew Bible with the New Testament and thought that using the Christian terms of OT and NT would be less confusing to those who are not accustomed to religious discussions. My use of OT means no disrespect for the Hebrew Bible.
Likewise, the use of traditional masculine pronouns for God in no way means that I believe that God is male. She is without gender.
Second: Thank you for your kind comments and for your perceptive point about the origins of Chanukah and the implications that has for this Commandment. I agree. And there would indeed not be any Jews or Christians.
I appreciate that you picked up on that word "humility," an attitude far too often spoken about favorably yet honored only in the breach. True humility is a rare commodity in today's world and the more we can emphasize its importance the more people will at least have to think about exercising it.
Bless you on this Holy Day.
Given that God has given us free will, choice and conscience, I have been careful to pray for His wisdom and guidance in times of doubt on a variety of emotions (never for any consideration to kill anyone!), thank God!
My mom always said, "Where there is a doubt, don't" Love that one.
I do kill spiders on occasion, but only the bad ones that bite us in our sleep! Nobody else will kill them so it's my job to protect my loved ones from the agressive arachnids!
Sorry, Monte, for getting a bit off topic!
For example, very early Christians didn't sit around at night reading "the Bible." The gospels and most of the epistles didn't exist. Written works were rare, and most people were illiterate. A generally accepted canon of writings did not exist until after 300 AD. It's like if Jesus were born around the time of Bach, the New Testament canon would be more or less finalized some years from now.
The view of God has also developed over many centuries, which is to say that people's ability to understand God has developed over many centuries.
Many people, especially opponents of religion, denounce the Bible because of all of the atrocities and violence contained inside. I'm glad that all of those things are included. It means that the Bible has not been "sanitized," has not been altered to give it a "G rating." The warts are defects are all included -- the violence, the atrocities, even the many sins of famous people in the Bible are preserved. The gospels contain a number of contradictions; the early church fathers weren't stupid, and they were very aware of those contradictions. Nonetheless, they decided to preserve all of those contradictions, rejecting attempts such as Tatian's Diatessaron to make everything nice and consistent and harmonized.
What this means is that someone reading the Bible has to struggle with it, has to argue with it, has to ponder and think. He or she has to study the other sacred writings that the religious communities have produced over the centuries, written by people who have also struggled with these issues.
I believe that such a struggle is very rewarding. But it's not easy, and involves thought, practice, and prayer. As your post suggests, coming to understand the implications of even a single commandment is the work of a lifetime for an individual, and the work of centuries for a religious community.
"Given that God has given us free will, choice and conscience, I have been careful to pray for His wisdom and guidance in times of doubt on a variety of emotions (never for any consideration to kill anyone!), thank God!
My mom always said, "Where there is a doubt, don't" Love that one."
I think that is a very good way to look at these kinds of problems where there is not obvious and clear guidance. As I said in the essay, the burden of proof lies with those believers who wish to ignore the Sixth Commandment. Praying for guidance and for making the right decision fits squarely into the way I try to approach problems of situational ethics. It would surely be good if all issues were clear cut and there were easy "yes"/"no" answers. Unfortunately, that is not the way the real world usually works.
Have a wonderful Holy Season.
Monte
I hope everyone reading these comments will reflect on your comments. They are, to me, eminently sensible.
My bottom line is that there is no one answer in applying this Commandment. There is one thing I think applies to believing Jews and Christians when addressing the question of killing other human beings : "... believing Jews and Christians are arguing on shaky ground every time we ignore the Sixth Commandment unless we have logical proof that our actions supporting killing are, in fact, instructed by, or allowed by, God."
And I also urge believers: "I believe that it is incumbent upon practicing Jews and Christians to act in these matters with utmost caution, and with genuine humility."
Beyond that I see this Commandment as one that each of us has to work through case by case as to what we think is applicable to the particular situation we find ourselves addressing. Most of the ethical decisions we make are influenced by the situation and therefore necessitate thought and discernment in applying a general principle. That is the nature of situational ethics.
I also am painfully aware that the blog format is not the best venue for dealing in depth with complicated issues, no matter how much I work at making those issues as clear as possible. But that also makes me very thankful that you, and so many others, decide to take on that challenge here on OS. That for me is a distinct blessing.
============================================
Shiral, there is nothing wrong with being befuddled when you find that something, like this Commandment, that many people claim is clear and simple, is, in fact, anything but. And you have captured very well exactly what I am seeking to do with this series. So you are not quite as befuddled as you might imagine. I wish more people were as "befuddled!" ;-)
And I love this statement of yours: "Since we have these incredibly intricate brains and the ability to reason and think critically, I assume that means God wanted us all to USE our brains. And we're still learning how with varying degrees of success."
=================================
I wish both of you a blessed Holy Season.
Anyway all your questions are great and highly un-answerable. It still makes a fantastic read...!
I too think it odd that the entire planet is set up where to survive something must be killed. In fact in many ways I absolutely hate the implications of that. But that is just the way it is and we have to adapt to it. Much of ethics has to do with precisely how we might go about doing that.
For me one of the things that the introduction of anthropological ethics into all of the world's religions has done is to command, urge, suggest, and implore that we rise above our "base instincts" to a place where we value not only one another as having intrinsic worth, but that we see the entire creation as having intrinsic value. And, of course, that we strive to act accordingly. Our track record as a species is deplorable. But I think it is worth trying to do better, by one another and by the entire creation.
Blessings and peace.
But not really "alas." That's how we express our humanity--working those difficult questions out.
Thanks once more.
One of the biggest mistakes, as you know amateurs at translation make is the misapplication of modern forms of a language being used to translate archaic forms-in that there is a HUGE margin of error. Many of the forms of the New Testament, there are about 5400 partial and complete translations, the oldest dating back to the 2nd-3rd centuries are copies of copies of copies of copies and the stories within those 5400 have appeared and disappeared and reappeared, been redacted, revised, changed, etc. They are in Archaic Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Coptic and Archaic Aramaic- (Jesus' spoken language).
One of the big mistakes of all time is that of those goofs that say that Nostradamus’ poetic, prophetic, words are very inaccurate. BS! They are trying to translate 17th Century French, which was richly endowed with Greek, with modern French, which is NOT so endowed. Such “translators” are certifiable Idiots!
Also in the words "God instructs us to kill," I would alter that, to "those who CLAIMED that God told them or us to kill." Capital punishment, in my belief is premeditated murder.
God speaks to some of us and sends messengers, have that I am certain, but I highly doubt that He ever requested a Hit on anyone. The story of Abraham Genesis 22:9, asked by God to Kill his son is not to be taken literally and is literally NOT a true story. It was a dramatization of his life in Ur, where human sacrifice was the order of the day. It took great courage to leave his place of birth and go forward into the wilderness to find a new home. But he did so out of rejection, of the practices of the Government of Ur. Thus he removed from his hand and mind the temptation (“lead us not into temptation”) in essence, “kill his own child,” or approve of the killing of any child.
In fact, my reply to a TV commentator/minister, who said that God said to kill so and so, was that if indeed The Almighty God, the God made the entire universe and all within it, He wants someone dead, He is perfectly capable of so doing all by Himself with NO help from a puny human. God asking anyone to kill anyone else is like Babe Ruth asking Ferris Fain (Mostly homerless in his career) to hit a home run for Ruth.
Very good post! Rated PS read this Monte:
http://open.salon.com/blog/professoremerituspab/2009/03/08/a_haunting_by_angels
================
Hi, Pilgrim. Your comments are very sensible and I thank you that you pick up quickly on the fact that I write these essays not so people will agree with me, but so that they will THINK about their decisions. In my nearly 71 years I have found that all of the really important questions and decisions are seldom easy. In fact, I would argue that we can only make progress, both individually and as a society, when we wrestle with difficult problems and make decisions which are consistent with the moral imperatives that we know are normative for ourselves and our society. In my case my faith informs what those moral imperatives are.
=========================
Hey, Pete, excellent comments. I WILL change some of that language which says that "God says." I usually do that but sometimes slip into the lazy assumption that everyone KNOWS that God's Word has been subjected to the vagaries of many, many minds and hands. Alas, that is not true as you so clearly point out.
I hope others will read and ponder your comments as well.
=================================
Blessings and Peace to you and yours during this Holy Season.
I'm just so grateful that you're around to guide us through these murky paths and to let us know that you struggle too. I struggle with this commandment on just about every level, and often, whether it is regarding supporting a "just" or "unjust" war (I'm a Catholic), eating or not eating meat (I often sup with my Buddhist brethren but totally agree with Traveller1), when, if and how to respond to the thorny issue of abortion (at this point I'm pretty much where you are but that could change), and whether or not to buy a gun (so far the answer is no even though the times seem so dangerous and my instinct is to protect my children and grandchildren, while preaching pacifism. Ack.).
My husband comes from a non practicing Jewish family and he often cites the inconsistencies in the Bible, both NT and OT as a reason for not believing. I also struggle with those inconsistencies. However, your comment, as follows (and others in this thoughtful and thought provoking post) give me some solace:
"But one thing that I believe without doubt is that we humans will never be able to tack some formula on the wall and find it an adequate solution to problems of situational ethics. For good or bad, with or without religion, we will still have to apply ethical principles to practical issues."
Thanks to Sally on the meaning of this commandment relative to the meaning of Chanukah, and thanks as always to mishima for his insightful thoughts.
Blessings to all of you on this Holy Season!
Denese
I know that we all struggle with these issues. Ironically, perhaps, the more you know and really understand Biblical theology the more you struggle, not the less. I do not think that is unique to the study of ancient texts. It is true in almost every worthwhile endeavor in life. The more you really understand things the more you are convinced that there is more to learn, not less.
I celebrate, with Mishima and many, many others, the fact that our Holy Scriptures' inconsistencies have not been redacted away in an attempt to "simplify and clarify" the texts. In Bible study the truth is not usually found in the details, but in the overall thrust of the instruction in the texts.
That is why I have never been able to accept the idea that the Bible is "inerrant and infallible." I do not doubt that God's original instruction to us is inerrant and infallible, but the words that are handed down to us cannot be. They have been gathered from oral traditions, edited, further redacted, copied and translated, often multiple times.
By the same token I do believe that the the words, ideas, and instructions in the Bible are inspired by God and that they are a sufficient guide to us as to how God would have us live our lives. And part of that "living" is using our hearts and our heads to struggle with difficult issues as we use Scripture as a guide to our thoughts and actions.
I hope you and your family have a wonderful Holy Season.
As I was reading this, I became more curious as to your opinion on abortion and was glad when you clarified your stance without me having to ask about it. I don't think anyone is "for" abortion. That is an incredibly difficult decision for all involved and can certainly do much harm to the psych of those who have to make those decisions. Like you, I'm a believer in "pro-choice" and feel it is neither mine or anyone else' business unless I were involved in the pregnancy and even then it should not be my decision, but that of the woman.
I'm with Jeff in saying you give Christians a good name and the world could be a better place if more had your attitude whether they are religious or not. Best that life has to offer to you, Monte.
I hope that, in spite of this difficult economy and the effect it has had on you, that you will be able to involve yourself in the things that really are God's gifts to us; gifts we are free to share with others: family, friends, joy, hope and laughter. May you be blessed in this Holy Season and in the year to come.
When God's on your side." Also very much appreciated Mishima's observations. I also appreciate the fact that the Bible contains so much of the human experience. To me it is the story of our attempt to find God as much as or more than it is God's attempt to guide us. IF that makes sense. Anyway, peace to you in this advent season!
This is very sensible to me, "To me it is the story of our attempt to find God as much as or more than it is God's attempt to guide us."
The odd thing about the truth of that is that we stumble, myself included, "looking for God" when God is with us always. It is like we are frantically twisting the dial all the time, in harried, frightened attempts to "tune in," forgetting that we need quiet, and slow and deliberate attention in order to find God's signal. The signal is always there for us when we take the time to find it. God is always ready to guide us. But, as I mentioned in and earlier post, we have to lean in, listen and be still to hear his word to us.
Good insight in your comments.
Blessings,
Just in case I am diverted I want to thank you now and here Monte, I want to thank you for deep kindness and acceptance, your understanding. Your words have given me a great deal of succor.
You are tops in my book and you are the epitome of
GRACE.
Merry Christmas.
L
No two people, religious or otherwise, have exactly the same take on these difficult subjects, and, in the end, each person has to make up his or her own mind about where they come down on difficult ethical issues. No one has a monopoly on the "right" answers.
Thank you for your very kind words about me and my efforts here on OS. I am glad to call you my friend.
I hope the you are blessed in this Holy Season and that blessings will pour abundantly on you and yours in the coming year.
I know what I believe but I also know how I struggle with that belief. Doubt is part of the human condition. One who claims to have no doubt is deluding himself.
One thing I do not doubt is that I am richer for having you as a friend. And I wish you and yours many blessings, now and in the coming year.
The many issues that you have mentioned that our country has questions and problems with. I think killing is killing and murder is murder. Capital punishment I kind of feel different about, because most people who has been put on death role, have brutally taken the lives of others. I feel that their punishment should fit the crime that they have committed.
Very interesting and insightful reading.. Thank you
As to this Commandment I think that once we decide that we agree with the general principle of it we are still forced to make our individual responses to killing, murder or otherwise, based on the situations we encounter.
I agree that the Bible can be contradictory and a lot of that comes from the fact that there were many different authors and redactors. Some of it also comes from the fact that it was compiled and written over a period of over a thousand years and the views people and societies have on the ethics and morality within society changes generation to generation. Those changes in views are also reflected in the writings of the Bible.
I guess that you will just have to take my word for it but the Bible is not contradictory regarding about 95% of the important issues it discusses. All those points of agreement tend to never get mentioned. We tend to ignore where things are consistent, its much more boring than focusing on the places where it is not.
And, yes, through the years the Church has used the Bible to keep people in line. The issue there for me is whether, on balance, the teachings of the Church have been useful in helping people follow a way of life that is morally and spiritually preferable to the life that those people might have lead had they simply never been taught the moral and ethical values upon which the Church was founded; ie: the teachings of Christ. I think that the virtues taught by the Church far outweigh the abuses of the Bible by some self serving Church leaders.
And, Merry Christmas to you, a truly good and supportive friend that I have been privileged to get to know well while here on OS.
I hope that, in spite of there being some very difficult times in your life these last couple of months, you will have a very blessed Christmas, and that God will bring you and your many blessings in the year that lies ahead.
I am glad that we have been here for one another through good times and bad and that we will remain good friends regardless of how hard the times may get.
"But believing Jews and Christians are arguing on shaky ground every time we ignore the Sixth Commandment unless we have logical proof that our actions supporting killing are, in fact, instructed by, or allowed by, God."
Not necessary, actually. The sixth command expressly prohibits murder, which G-d defined as the unjust taking of a life. For example, if someone is in the process of attempting to commit
murder, and you kill them to save the other person's life, you are not guilty of violating the sixth commandment in G-d's eyes.
We are not God, and it can be a terrible thing if we delude ourselves into thinking that we have God's authority when we do not.
It can also be a terrible thing if we presume to know the mind of G-d. NOT that I think you're doing that here, Monte, for I have read enough of your posts to know you in that regard. That comment is mostly aimed at those who claim to be acting on G-d's will. :-D
My friend, I will eventually be all caught up with your posts. In the meantime, I'll just close with a "Thank you!" for providing your insights and opinions. You're doing a fine job with this series.
I appreciate your comments more than you likely know. I need to learn from the perspective, and so do my readers, of non-Christian thinkers, and most particularly from those who have studied Judaism and the history of Israel from within that community of faith, like you have.
Christians, to my mind, inherited the rich foundation of our faith from Judaism. And it is inevitable that Christians will view some of the Commandments differently because we look back on the history of Israel through the hermeneutic of our belief that the Messiah has come. Try as we may to be "objective" Christians are all influenced by our beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth.
I understand what you say about what "murder" is: the unjust taking of a life. And in your example it is clear to me that there are times when we are justified in taking a human life.
My point is that many people, including those who perpetrated the holocaust, thought that the taking of those lives was "just." In the same way suicide bombers today think that the taking of the lives they take is "just." That is why I say that the burden of proof must lie with those who take life to be as certain as possible that God would justify that taking. It is not enough for an individual to justify himself.
Ultimately the community must help in making that decision, as, in the case of the Nuremberg Trials, the world community made ex post facto judgments about the taking of lives by individuals serving under Hitler.
Your second point makes this very clear.
Thanks much. I always look forward to your judicious take on this series.