****ing context please

[Acim]

In Hebrew it says "murder" (from the root RṢḤ). Its distinct from killing (from the root HRG). And the difference, as you basically said, is killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is unlawful and by extension - murder. While killing someone who G-d did say should be judged for death is lawful and not murder.

So abortion would not be murder.

Abortion would be distinct from murder because, um, er, God did say fetus should be judged for death, and/or because it is lawful, therefore not possibly murder.

All we need then are laws that killing sprees are not murder, and they are not, right?

Because if the State ever says there are lawful, then it can't possibly be murder, right? It is obviously still killing, but because it's not unlawful, it can't possibly be murder, right? Right now killing sprees when not done by the State, and not considered lawful, are murder. But if we just change the State's laws, then not murder, right? Just trying to get at the understanding of difference between murder and killing.

Which technically we already have such laws in place, just arbitrarily applied.

Like if the state (or country) engages in activities that lead to collateral damage (where many non combative enemies are killed), this is not to be framed, ever, as murder. It is obviously killing, but because the State (legally) authorized itself to engage in the action, and those people died as a result, the State's killing spree is not to be seen as murder. I would think abortion, being lawful, is another killing spree occurring, and is not murder. Of course if we killed a whole bunch of born babies, that would probably be seen as murder. But if we could just change it to the State supporting this, then not murder. Still a killing spree, but not murder. Or if the State engages in Capital punishment, and during that whole period of time it ends up killing people that didn't actually commit the crime that the State thought it proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that wouldn't be murder, because they were lawfully killed. So, a killing spree, even with Capital punishment working, but not murder because it was 'lawful.'

All of which goes back to the original inconsistency I brought up, and why attributing 'okay to kill humans in some instances' is about as insane as one can get, especially with context of 'do not kill' being a commandment. But as long as humans are feeling righteous enough to understand difference between murder and killing, then really, c'mon, how could this ever pose any problems for humanity? One would think God would be happy with all the killing we've done in his (cough cough) name.

Before I really was looking for a debate, but kinda knew it would be based on feeble logic. Now, I still want it, but managed to produce a rant that if you find room to offer rebuttal, then good luck.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Within the context of the Torah (and that is the context that the OP's case is in) the person that was killed was not murdered because his death was justified by the transgression of the Law for breaking the Sabbath.

Your personal feelings on the issue doesn't change what the commandment not to murder means within the context of the Torah.

True, but the Jews weren't murdered according to the Nazis, but (estimating) 99.999% of the world does not agree with such a sentiment.

 

[Spiderman]

Wow Tumah! You know your stuff! You aren't lukewarm!

 

[Aštra’el]

It's more that the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" really needs to have a disclaimer on it, saying that "Thou shalt not kill, except when a person does a through z actions."

It's more that certain people need to develop a better understanding of the difference between the words "kill" and "murder".

 

[Tumah]

So abortion would not be murder.

Abortion would be distinct from murder because, um, er, God did say fetus should be judged for death, and/or because it is lawful, therefore not possibly murder.

Did G-d say a fetus should be considered distinct from a person?

All we need then are laws that killing sprees are not murder, and they are not, right?

Because if the State ever says there are lawful, then it can't possibly be murder, right? It is obviously still killing, but because it's not unlawful, it can't possibly be murder, right? Right now killing sprees when not done by the State, and not considered lawful, are murder. But if we just change the State's laws, then not murder, right? Just trying to get at the understanding of difference between murder and killing.

Which technically we already have such laws in place, just arbitrarily applied.

Like if the state (or country) engages in activities that lead to collateral damage (where many non combative enemies are killed), this is not to be framed, ever, as murder. It is obviously killing, but because the State (legally) authorized itself to engage in the action, and those people died as a result, the State's killing spree is not to be seen as murder. I would think abortion, being lawful, is another killing spree occurring, and is not murder. Of course if we killed a whole bunch of born babies, that would probably be seen as murder. But if we could just change it to the State supporting this, then not murder. Still a killing spree, but not murder. Or if the State engages in Capital punishment, and during that whole period of time it ends up killing people that didn't actually commit the crime that the State thought it proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that wouldn't be murder, because they were lawfully killed. So, a killing spree, even with Capital punishment working, but not murder because it was 'lawful.'

The definition of murder is unlawful premeditated killing of a human being (according to Google). So technically if it becomes legal to go on a killing spree, it would not be legally defined as murder.

You may consider such killings unethical. But by the definition of the word, it wouldn't be considered murder.

All of which goes back to the original inconsistency I brought up, and why attributing 'okay to kill humans in some instances' is about as insane as one can get, especially with context of 'do not kill' being a commandment. But as long as humans are feeling righteous enough to understand difference between murder and killing, then really, c'mon, how could this ever pose any problems for humanity? One would think God would be happy with all the killing we've done in his (cough cough) name.

There is no original inconsistency because you are conflating your belief about what should constitute murder with the actual definition of murder.
You're also applying your own definitions to the Torah's story and commandment in order to create an inconsistency in it.

Both of those are your problems. Within the context of the Torah (and the definition of the word) murder refers to illegally killing someone. That "illegal" is defined within the context of the Torah as 'any killing not prescribed by Torah Law'. Therefore, since killing someone for breaking the Sabbath is prescribed by Torah Law, within the context of the Torah it doesn't constitute murder and is not in transgression of the Law, "do not murder".

Before I really was looking for a debate, but kinda knew it would be based on feeble logic. Now, I still want it, but managed to produce a rant that if you find room to offer rebuttal, then good luck.

It happens.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's more that certain people need to develop a better understanding of the difference between the words "kill" and "murder".

A legal policy playing linguistic gymnastics does not change the fact if someone is rightfully killed or not, or if they should have been killed in the first place. Cast in point: a man being killed for nothing more than picking up sticks on the wrong day. A legally prescribed death according to a certain policy does not change the fact there is no rational purpose for killing him.

 

[Tumah]

Wow Tumah! You know your stuff! You aren't lukewarm!

I appreciate that.
I think the real answer to your question is that the Sabbath isn't just a day of the week, but is the only commandment about which it says, "and eternal covenant between Me and the children of Israel and sign forever". Its not just a day of the week, but representative of the relationship that we have with G-d. And its not just that either but a declaration of our belief in G-d as the Creator of the world as the rest of the verse says, "because for six days G-d made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day He rested".

In that respect I think its not just picking up sticks on a Saturday. Transgressing the Sabbath represents a complete denial and forsaking of the entire foundation of the reason we (Jews) were created.

 

[Acim]

Did G-d say a fetus should be considered distinct from a person?

Probably not.

The definition of murder is unlawful premeditated killing of a human being (according to Google). So technically if it becomes legal to go on a killing spree, it would not be legally defined as murder.

Don't you see this though as having distinction between God's Law and human interpretations or making of (secular) State laws?

You may consider such killings unethical. But by the definition of the word, it wouldn't be considered murder.

Depends on who's responsible for Law. I think Ted Bundy thought himself capable of following 'Bundy's Laws' which may have conflicted with State laws, but the record will show that State laws did not prevent Bundy from killing.

There is no original inconsistency because you are conflating your belief about what should constitute murder with the actual definition of murder.

Again, depends on who/what you understand to be responsible for Law. So far, I've not engaged in the esoteric wisdom around 'do not kill' and as far as that goes, I'll be quite fine on this matter. For do not kill / murder under such knowledge leads to greater understanding of how killing is literally not possible. Here in make believe land, it sure seems possible.

You're also applying your own definitions to the Torah's story and commandment in order to create an inconsistency in it.

I would say I'm applying Divine Reason to the Torah. The inconsistency is quite observable and explains a thing or two about why old school interpretations of God's Laws deserve to remain in the past, shrouded in the darkness they reside in.

 

[Tumah]

True, but the Jews weren't murdered according to the Nazis, but (estimating) 99.999% of the world does not agree with such a sentiment.

Which is why in Germany no one was arrested for murdering Jews. While presumably one could still be arrested for murdering a non-Jewish German.

You are again conflating ethics with legal definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are again conflating ethics with legal definition.

I'm not conflating, I'm asking why should it matter.

 

[Tumah]

Probably not.

So I guess...

Don't you see this though as having distinction between God's Law and human interpretations or making of (secular) State laws?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Depends on who's responsible for Law. I think Ted Bundy thought himself capable of following 'Bundy's Laws' which may have conflicted with State laws, but the record will show that State laws did not prevent Bundy from killing.

According to Google, the definition of "law" is a system of rules that a community recognizes as regulating the action of its members. Ted Bundy does not a community make, so I think its logical that he should be bound to the community within which he lived.

Again, depends on who/what you understand to be responsible for Law. So far, I've not engaged in the esoteric wisdom around 'do not kill' and as far as that goes, I'll be quite fine on this matter. For do not kill / murder under such knowledge leads to greater understanding of how killing is literally not possible. Here in make believe land, it sure seems possible.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I would say I'm applying Divine Reason to the Torah. The inconsistency is quite observable and explains a thing or two about why old school interpretations of God's Laws deserve to remain in the past, shrouded in the darkness they reside in.

Again, you lost me at applying Divine Reason.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not conflating, I'm asking why should it matter.

You're asking why the legal definition of a word should matter when interpreting a statement bearing that word?

 

[Aštra’el]

A legal policy playing linguistic gymnastics does not change the fact if someone is rightfully killed or not, or if they should have been killed in the first place. Cast in point: a man being killed for nothing more than picking up sticks on the wrong day.

"Picking up sticks on the wrong day" is a rather reductive and misleading way of interpreting "deliberately desecrating the Sabbath and everything that it meant to a people and their God".

 

[Acim]

According to Google, the definition of "law" is a system of rules that a community recognizes as regulating the action of its members. Ted Bundy does not a community make, so I think its logical that he should be bound to the community within which he lived.

He did, and adapted his methods to the community. (Some, but clearly not all members of) The community eventually reacted to his methods and decided later to bring a halt to his methods. The community as a whole was fine before, during and after Bundy. He was not the first to invoke his methods, though if including nuances and a whole world of circumstantial considerations, he was unique.

Again, you lost me at applying Divine Reason.

That's fine. Hence why I used the word esoteric. Apparently not all eyes are meant to see, right now. Some think the State's Laws outweigh God's Law. From the esoteric perspective, that's just funny.

 

[Acim]

"Picking up sticks on the wrong day" is a rather reductive and misleading way of interpreting "deliberately desecrating the Sabbath and everything that it meant to a people and their God".

And yet killing people is not? Go figure.

 

[Koldo]

The part that I was thinking of says

"Rav Hama bar Haninah said, 'from the days of our fathers, yeshivah (study-hall) didn't stop from them. In Egypt they had yeshivah with them as it says, "go and gather the Elders of Israel (Ex. 3:16)". In the desert they had yeshivah with them as it says, "gather for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel (Num. 11:16). Abraham was old and sitting in yeshivah as it says, "And Abraham was old coming in days (Gen. 24:1)"...​

How old ?
Was that before or after God spoke to Abraham ?

There is also a passage in the Zohar Chadash

Rabi Yosi says, "G-d forbid, they didn't forget the Torah! Rather G-d said, 'if I tell them to keep My whole Torah, they'll remove the whole yoke (of the Torah) like others that say, "and the knowledge of Your ways, we didn't desire (Job 21:14). Rather, I'll give them a few things and they'll keep that until one will come who will keep all of it. And that is Abraham as it says, "Because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My watchings, My commandments, My statutes and my Torah (Gen. 26:5)." That once he learned the Torah from Shem, he accepted on himself all the commandments. Therefore G-d specified for him all the commandments of the Torah.​

Do you only find this reference in Chadash ?
Nowhere else?

I should also add that this is not the only opinion. There is also another brought in Midrash Rabbah that he was given special help from G-d.

...and until now the Torah wasn't given. And it says, "And he kept My watchings (Gen. 26:5). From where did Abraham learn the Torah? Rabi Shimon says, 'his two kidneys became like to pitchers of water and they were overflowing with Torah. And how do you know so? As it says, "Even at night, my kidneys admonish me (Psa. 16:7)".' Rabi Levi says, he learned it from himself as it says, "From his ways will be satiated an impure heart, and above him a good man (Pro. 14:14)​

And there's a few other sources that more or less says the same thing as this one here. The opinions don't necessarily contradict, but I guess we can take them at face value for now.

He learned it from himself ?
What is meant by that ?

Because according to the Midrash he was already displaying some prophetic ability when he killed the Egyptian. On the words "and he looked here and there (Ex. 2:12)" there is a Midrash that says that with his prophetic ability he looked through all the descendants that would ever come out of this person and saw that none would every be worthy, so he killed him.

But why couldn't he have prophetic abilities without studying ?

 

[von bek]

When you read the books, it does come across that they are only smoking tobacco. The movies make it look like they are smoking some good weed.

 

[Aštra’el]

The movies make it look like they are smoking some good weed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're asking why the legal definition of a word should matter when interpreting a statement bearing that word?

Yes. People keep making excuses for state and other authorities, but killing, when except for in cases of self defense, is wrong. People keep trying to say that somehow it is different when it is the state, but invariably there are too many examples to show this "legal framework and wording" is used to justify destruction that is so severe and wide that entire city blocks have been obliterated in an instant, an entire ethnic group nearly systematically butchered into extinction, and the massacres of those yearning for freedom.
When you kill, you kill. Except for accidents and self defense, there is no difference the killing a soldier does and the killing a mobster does. We all say it's wrong, but we're all too willing to make excuses and special circumstances.

 

[psychoslice]

These words are just from barbaric people of the time when they were written, thank heaven most of us have become more civilized.