• Juujian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I thought the scripture was quite clear with that whole “Thou shalt not kill” part…

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, but that says not to kill people. It says nothing about killing rats! /s

      Seriously, though, that’s exactly why we’re so capable of committing atrocities: we dehumanize each other until we consider it acceptable to kill. Portraying Jews as rats and subhuman is exactly how the Holocaust happened, and portraying Palestinians as subhuman is exactly how Israel is currently doing what they’re doing.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually the commandment is, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” The first and foremost commandment that God gave to his people. I’m not religious at all (actually atheistic) but, that commandment does not carry with it any exceptions. Sure people would naturally defend themselves when assaulted, who wouldn’t - but that doesn’t mean you can ever be redeemed afterward. Just the opposite. Even Moses was disbarred from heaven for killing an Egyptian who was whipping a slave. God means it when he hands down that commandment; it applies to everyone.

        • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not the way people interpret it. The majority of religious extremism directly contradicts scriptures. This is still the justification used

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know, I live in a state with major religious extremism. I’m well aware how they bend scriptures to suit their need to justify everything.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t speak Hebrew but I’ve been told the original language is more like “thou shalt not murder”. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, but “thou shalt not kill” has problems as well—like it could be taken as mandating veganism.

          In the end I don’t think it matters how the hairs are split—people are gonna interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a good point. I think someone pointed out that in Leviticus it technically could be interpreted we aren’t even allowed to step on insects or else be damned for it. Not that we should want to step on insects, but who hasn’t done that at some point.

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh - I appreciate the clarification. It shows I really am not well-educated in religious stuff. Still I wonder how such a commandment can be wiggled around, to me it doesn’t leave any room for other interpretations.

            • steventhedev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The main arguments for wiggling around it are based on balancing multiple lives against one. There’s a ton of commentary that are basically trolley problem examples. So self-defense is ok, intent matters, etc. Very similar to how most Western legal codes (quite possibly more, I’m just less familiar) distinguish between manslaughter, murder in the moment, planned murder, etc.

              Keep in mind it is a religious text, so it obviously also carves out a bunch of stuff around killing for the purpose of enforcing laws (capital punishment), warfare, etc.

              I would not be surprised if there’s something in there about how it’s ok to kill people who tie their shoes the wrong way.

              • tygerprints@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think most religious texts could be interpreted to support anyone’s need to justify brutality toward others somehow. I would hope that human conscientiousness and empathy would prevail and keep people from ever wanting to hurt each other, but that’s just not the reality we live in. It kind of scares me how people tie themselves into pretzel-knots of justification for their horrible actions. But I truly believe - bible or not - killing is always wrong no matter what the reason someone uses for it. Hey that’s just me, but…I’m glad I am that way.

                • steventhedev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hey that’s just me, but…I’m glad I am that way.

                  I hope you stay that way. I lost most of my faith in humanity at some point, and what little was left is gone after October 7th.

    • SlikPikker
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jewish scripture always left room for murder.

      This book, popular among the Israeli religious right, shows that their thinking (that segment) is much like Da’esh but for Jews: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torat_Hamelekh

      Even Al Qaeda thought that killings at least needed a reason.