Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (32327)	10/13/2001 1:08:52 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Why do you think the biblical scholars decided that "thou shalt not kill" was actually "thou shalt not murder"?" They did it because taken in context, that's what it means. I find nothing relative about that. Are you in favor of taking things out of context in order to establish a pretext?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (32327)	10/14/2001 2:46:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

As soon as you use the word "proper" to relate to the justification of killing, yes, you become a relativist. Who decides what level of perceived threat justifies killing in self defense? How can such a decision be discussed in any terms that are not relative? The way you define it most people would be relativists. I look at it a little bit differently. If I can point to any wrong and say its absolutly wrong and it doesn't matter if the people who did it think it wasn't, they are just wrong (incorrect) about not be wrong (morally wrong). Obviously the situation is going to have an effect on what the nature of your action is. Is firing a gun wrong? Well firing one at a target is different then firing one in self defense, which is different then using one for murder. I wouldn't say that recognizing that makes me a relativist, but if it does then perhaps we need a new word for people who think morality is just a matter of opinion. Why do you think the biblical scholars decided that "thou shalt not kill" was actually "thou shalt not murder"? "Kill" has a very specific definition, and that did not suit Christians who thought that they should have the right to decide who is or is not suited to live. So they changed it to "murder", which they can define as they choose. Either "kill" or "murder" was a translation from Aramaic not the actual word used in the original text. Since the Bible also talks about acceptable killing I don't think "kill" was probably a good translation. But I am not an expert on either ancient languages or biblical interpretation. If anyone here is maybe they will have something to add. Tim