3 ms·
It basically does not. At all. I think instead of foisting the most iron age-y least charitable interpretation imaginable you ought to realize that people have
by recuter 5y ago
It basically does not. At all.
I think instead of foisting the most iron age-y least charitable interpretation imaginable you ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this.
Ask a Rabbi. They'll say of course not. Ask another, they'll also say of course not but they might provide you a completely different explanation as to why not.
- causality0 5y agoyou ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this. This is of course true but I wasn't trying to say anything about modern Abrahamic religions or their practitioners. Jewish doctrine has changed over time just as Christian and Islamic doctrines have. Jewish people aren't some kind of insane throwback and I wasn't trying to imply that they were.
- recuter 5y agoWell, good. But some nuance is still lost here in my opinion. > in historical-linguistic context it basically only applies to not killing Jewish people This is your own framing. Perhaps you are a timelord or a 3000 yr old man? :) There is weird stuff in the Bhagavad-Gita, bringing your own context to it is ill advised as you are likely to misread the text. I suggest, very politely, that this is what happened here - I have only heard such interpretations as yours from non native speakers with only a passing familiarity of the original text. In other words, I'm glad we agree that a modern day rabbi would disagree with this but it is not as if a rabbi from 1000 years ago would say the commandment only applies to non-Jews. Nor would one from the time of Moses. I don't know where you got this notion. It doesn't matter. Ask someone knowledgable if you are interested.