5 ms·

How often does "thou shall not kill" need an update?

by ikiris 1y ago

knowitnone3 1y ago
Not even in defense of your own life, family, others? You have a lot of people on HN that celebrate killing of then innocent.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  Obviously the intent was "Thou shall not murder anyone"... Interpreting it otherwise doesn't make sense, and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
  - immibis 1y ago
    "Obviously the intent was" probably not the same as it obviously was 150 years ago!
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      It's still obvious, but in context. It isn't a recipe or street sign lol...
  - crote 1y ago
    The definition of "murder" is "unlawful killing", so you've reduced it to "unlawful killing is against the law" - which is meaningless.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      That's the wrong way to look at it. The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority. Saying murder is "just" illegal killing is the real meaningless statement. Clearly people in the Bible are allowed to fight and defend themselves. Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
      - crote 1y ago
        > The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those. > Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience. That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources. We allow countries to kill out of spite with retaliatory strikes. We allow cops to kill in self-defense - even when other methods to subdue are theoretically available, but inconvenient. On the other hand, we no longer allow stoning to death people violating the Sabbath. Clearly, there is a nontrivial list of criteria separating murder from lawful killing, and this list is mutable. In practice this list is codified in the law, which means murder becomes "killing which is not otherwise allowed in the law", which is the point I was trying to make. Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ".
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        >The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those. It is obvious to people who know the Bible lol. It may have lots of contradictions but this isn't one of them. Murder was understood in a particular way to these ancient people, that still applies to us today. >That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources. As I said, I am not referring to laws of any country. The laws of modern countries are irrelevant to interpretation of the Bible. The dictionary does not count either. >Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ". The only thing that needs an update is the translation. The meaning is very clear and universal. Don't kill people except in self-defense. It is just as antisocial today as it was thousands of years ago.

How often does "thou shall not kill" need an update?

by ikiris 1y ago

How often does "thou shall not kill" need an update?

Not even in defense of your own life, family, others? You have a lot of people on HN that celebrate killing of then innocent.

wakawaka28 1y ago
Obviously the intent was "Thou shall not murder anyone"... Interpreting it otherwise doesn't make sense, and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
- immibis 1y ago
  "Obviously the intent was" probably not the same as it obviously was 150 years ago!
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    It's still obvious, but in context. It isn't a recipe or street sign lol...
- crote 1y ago
  The definition of "murder" is "unlawful killing", so you've reduced it to "unlawful killing is against the law" - which is meaningless.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    That's the wrong way to look at it. The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority. Saying murder is "just" illegal killing is the real meaningless statement. Clearly people in the Bible are allowed to fight and defend themselves. Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
    - crote 1y ago
      > The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those. > Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience. That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources. We allow countries to kill out of spite with retaliatory strikes. We allow cops to kill in self-defense - even when other methods to subdue are theoretically available, but inconvenient. On the other hand, we no longer allow stoning to death people violating the Sabbath. Clearly, there is a nontrivial list of criteria separating murder from lawful killing, and this list is mutable. In practice this list is codified in the law, which means murder becomes "killing which is not otherwise allowed in the law", which is the point I was trying to make. Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ".
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        >The Bible is the source of law here. My point was that interpreting it solely in the way you deem "obvious" does not work: you cannot have "thou shalt not murder" on its own without additional rules clarifying what counts as "murder" and what counts as "lawful killing" - and the Bible contains plenty of those. It is obvious to people who know the Bible lol. It may have lots of contradictions but this isn't one of them. Murder was understood in a particular way to these ancient people, that still applies to us today. >That's how you interpret it. Modern law allows for killing out of greed - if the soldier firing the bullet is different from the politician wanting to capture some resources. As I said, I am not referring to laws of any country. The laws of modern countries are irrelevant to interpretation of the Bible. The dictionary does not count either. >Looping back to the original discussion: contrary to what ikiris was originally claiming it is not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder", and we've been updating the definition of "murder" (and by extent the meaning of "thou shalt not murder") quite a lot over the last few thousand years, so it is false to claim that " 'thou shalt not kill' never needs an update ". The only thing that needs an update is the translation. The meaning is very clear and universal. Don't kill people except in self-defense. It is just as antisocial today as it was thousands of years ago.