****ing context please

[Shadow Wolf]

"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".

"Picking up sticks on the wrong day" is literally what the man did. Any tradition that would kill over such a thing should be examined, questioned, and abandoned. If he "desecrated the Sabbath," oh well. Just because it's authority doesn't make it right.

 

[Tumah]

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.

I don't understand what you are saying. The definition of a "law" is a regulation that the community recognizes that regulates their actions. Ted Bundy is not a community. So however he personally defines permitted and prohibited behavior, doesn't make it a "law", it makes it, his personal opinion.

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.

I don't really know what to tell you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't understand what you are saying. The definition of a "law" is a regulation that the community recognizes that regulates their actions. Ted Bundy is not a community. So however he personally defines permitted and prohibited behavior, doesn't make it a "law", it makes it, his personal opinion.

I am asking how does the "law" make killing anything other than killing?

 

[Tumah]

How old ?

Its not clear. There are various opinions about when Abraham began to recognize G-d. Two of them are age 3 and age 48. So any time after that? The passage isn't understanding the Hebrew word "old" to mean "old age" but to mean as an "elder" or "sage".

Was that before or after God spoke to Abraham ?

It would have had to been at least before (depending on how one interpreted the Midrash based on the others) but possibly after as well. Unless this opinion doesn't argue with the other in which case its just after.

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

This site has over 76,000 Judaic books. Do you really think I could answer that question? Among the sources that I looked, this was the only one that mentioned this Midrash. I do see that the book Raziel also considers itself to have been passed down through the generations from Adam to Abraham (ostensibly by way of Shem) and the Or HaChaim also takes mentions that Abraham learned from Shem although he doesn't quote the Z"C or the Raziel.

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

It means he figured it out himself. According to a theological book, before the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, the way to acquire the Torah was to first purify oneself (from bad traits and sin and attaching oneself to G-d) and then based on the degree of purification one would gain prophetic inspiration that caused one to inherently know the Torah (now its the opposite) based on the principle "the Holy One Blessed be He and the Torah are one".

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

How would one know the correct method to enter the prophetic state without having studied it? I wrote about that a while back.

 

[Tumah]

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.

I don't think we're having the same conversation anymore. You're talking about some philosophical ideas of what should constitute murder and killing. I'm talking about what the words actually mean and based on those already present meanings, how the Torah differentiates between who is killed legally and illegally. Your philosophy has no bearing on the Torah's internal definition and isn't relevant to the conversation.

 

[Tumah]

I am asking how does the "law" make killing anything other than killing?

Because there is something called "illegal killing" which is also called "murder". The law effects what constitutes "murder" and what does not. Therefore killing an inmate on death row in a state where capital punishment is permitted for those sentences to it, is not called "murder" but it is called "killing".

 

[Koldo]

Its not clear. There are various opinions about when Abraham began to recognize G-d. Two of them are age 3 and age 48. So any time after that? The passage isn't understanding the Hebrew word "old" to mean "old age" but to mean as an "elder" or "sage".

It would have had to been at least before (depending on how one interpreted the Midrash based on the others) but possibly after as well. Unless this opinion doesn't argue with the other in which case its just after.


This site has over 76,000 Judaic books. Do you really think I could answer that question? Among the sources that I looked, this was the only one that mentioned this Midrash. I do see that the book Raziel also considers itself to have been passed down through the generations from Adam to Abraham (ostensibly by way of Shem) and the Or HaChaim also takes mentions that Abraham learned from Shem although he doesn't quote the Z"C or the Raziel.


It means he figured it out himself. According to a theological book, before the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, the way to acquire the Torah was to first purify oneself (from bad traits and sin and attaching oneself to G-d) and then based on the degree of purification one would gain prophetic inspiration that caused one to inherently know the Torah (now its the opposite) based on the principle "the Holy One Blessed be He and the Torah are one".


How would one know the correct method to enter the prophetic state without having studied it? I wrote about that a while back.

As see it, being chosen by God is the only requirement. See Jeremiah 1:5.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because there is something called "illegal killing" which is also called "murder". The law effects what constitutes "murder" and what does not. Therefore killing an inmate on death row in a state where capital punishment is permitted for those sentences to it, is not called "murder" but it is called "killing".

It's still killing. This "legal/illegal killing," such distinctions are how bad killings are justified.
Other than self-defense and accident--which are still both killing but one in necessity of self-preservation and the other just because random terrible things sometimes happen--I don't see where there is a difference other than the state permitting itself to do something no one else is allowed to do, something that just about everyone from all cultures from all times, at least claimed and upheld as a standard, have claimed is not something to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your philosophy has no bearing on the Torah's internal definition and isn't relevant to the conversation.

My philosophy is the basis of my question of why did this man deserve death, and on what grounds is it justified?

 

[Aštra’el]

My philosophy is the basis of my question of why did this man deserve death, and on what grounds is it justified?

Those questions were already answered numerous times, you just have the tendency to ignore any valid answers posted that contradict your own argument and philosophy while you're off getting dramatic about the countless issues that you've leapt at the opportunity to be offended by.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those questions were already answered numerous times, you just have the tendency to ignore any valid answers posted that contradict your own argument and philosophy while you're off getting dramatic about the countless issues that you've leapt at the opportunity to be offended by.

Where have I been offended? You keep saying this, but I'm not being offended.
And, no, it hasn't been answered. I am asking for the fundamental core of why we have such a distinction? Appeals to "legality" are not answers, because I am question the notion of this "legal/illegal kill," especially when it's in regard to killing someone over something so trivial.

 

[Tumah]

As see it, being chosen by God is the only requirement. See Jeremiah 1:5.

That is dealt with by a commentary who explains that this verse refers to two pre-requisites that a prophet needs. He needs the physical and mental characteristics that enable a prophet to receive prophecy and he needs to perfect his actions with good actions. With those pre-requisites, he could start on the path to prophecy.

What this verse is understood to be saying is that Jeremiah was provided these pre-requisites by G-d free of charge. If he wasn't naturally inclined towards the physical and mental characteristics by way of genetics while in the womb, G-d changed him so that he had them. And then after he was born, G-d - I guess you could say suspended his free-will to an extent so that he would have the good action required to attain prophecy.

This is how he breaks down the verse:
"Before you were formed in your mother's womb, I knew you" refers to preparing his genetic traits in order to be capable of receiving prophecy.
"And before you left your mother's womb, I sanctified you" refers to preparing his actions to be holy after he is born.

So its not really speaking about the actual training that a person needs to go through to attain prophecy. Just the pre-requisites that a person needs in order to begin the process to begin with.

 

[Tumah]

My philosophy is the basis of my question of why did this man deserve death, and on what grounds is it justified?

Right. And what I am saying is that the Torah already comes with an internal justification by way of what it considers legal and illegal killing.

So if you ask - regardless of your person philosophy - what this man did to deserve death, the answer is that he transgressed the Torah's command to not profane the Sabbath which comes with a penalty of death.

And if you ask - again regardless of your personal philosophy - on what grounds is it justified to kill him, the answer is again, it is justified by way of the Torah's internal legal system this man lived under whereby a person who transgresses Sabbath Law is killed.

What you maybe mean to be asking is, according to your own philosophy, the Torah's legal system is immoral and this man's death wasn't justified. And to that I say, 'OK'.

 

[Tumah]

It's still killing. This "legal/illegal killing," such distinctions are how bad killings are justified.
Other than self-defense and accident--which are still both killing but one in necessity of self-preservation and the other just because random terrible things sometimes happen--I don't see where there is a difference other than the state permitting itself to do something no one else is allowed to do, something that just about everyone from all cultures from all times, at least claimed and upheld as a standard, have claimed is not something to do.

Again, how is this relevant to the topic that we've been discussing? You have a philosophy on what constitutes moral killing. The Torah has a different philosophy on by way of legality under its internal Law. What does your philosophy have to do with the Torah's Law?

 

[Koldo]

That is dealt with by a commentary who explains that this verse refers to two pre-requisites that a prophet needs. He needs the physical and mental characteristics that enable a prophet to receive prophecy and he needs to perfect his actions with good actions. With those pre-requisites, he could start on the path to prophecy.

What this verse is understood to be saying is that Jeremiah was provided these pre-requisites by G-d free of charge. If he wasn't naturally inclined towards the physical and mental characteristics by way of genetics while in the womb, G-d changed him so that he had them. And then after he was born, G-d - I guess you could say suspended his free-will to an extent so that he would have the good action required to attain prophecy.

This is how he breaks down the verse:
"Before you were formed in your mother's womb, I knew you" refers to preparing his genetic traits in order to be capable of receiving prophecy.
"And before you left your mother's womb, I sanctified you" refers to preparing his actions to be holy after he is born.

So its not really speaking about the actual training that a person needs to go through to attain prophecy. Just the pre-requisites that a person needs in order to begin the process to begin with.

That's kind of my point. Such required training is not stated anywhere in the Tanakh.
And the only reference to the Talmud you have given me so far has a rather ambiguous meaning.

 

[Tumah]

That's kind of my point. Such required training is not stated anywhere in the Tanakh.
And the only reference to the Talmud you have given me so far has a rather ambiguous meaning.

Not being in the Tanach is not a good argument for me. I already gave you this source about training to become a prophet way back on the second page. What I was doing in this previous post, was showing you that the verse in Jeremiah is not a contradiction to the need for training.

 

[Koldo]

Not being in the Tanach is not a good argument for me. I already gave you this source about training to become a prophet way back on the second page. What I was doing in this previous post, was showing you that the verse in Jeremiah is not a contradiction to the need for training.

I was not saying there is a contradiction. I was saying the only requirement in Jeremiah was being chosen by God.
Your sources don't say anything relevant because, for starters, they don't cite their own sources.

 

[Tumah]

I was not saying there is a contradiction. I was saying the only requirement in Jeremiah was being chosen by God.
Your sources don't say anything relevant because, for starters, they don't cite their own sources.

I can only answer you within the context of my religious belief. In my religion, some authors get to be the sources. I don't know if that author based his information on other kabbalistic texts or its a tradition that he has from his rabbi. But I don't think there are too many Orthodox Jews that would discount that book because he doesn't mention his source.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Its not a minor infraction. It was the Sabbath.

Does it not break the rules to murder someone on the Sabbath?

This man knew or should have known God's sabbath Law

The quote shows no one, including Moses, knew what to do with him. Moses had to hear God to get an answer, so, no, they shouldn't have known, because apparently murdering someone who probably wanted to cook breakfast on the Sabbath is perfectly fine though they only learned that just now.

There's a difference between going on a killing spree and enforcing capital punishment.

When you're executing someone for picking up a stick, I would consider that normal killing, as it's waaaaaaay "overkill" for the crime committed, no?

It becomes a genocide when hundreds die for no good reason.

Picking up sticks on a Saturday was a good reason? Moses is a murderer ... why not stone HIM? The exiles looted, which is theft and coveting. Why not just stone ALL of them? Why pick the stick picker?

EXODUS 20:13 KJV "Thou shalt not kill."

But even vegans kill the plants they digest and all of our immune systems kill the foreign bodies (or try to) that enter us. Not killing is impossible, if we want to get nitpicky.

You don't know this.

C'mon. There are people who advertise their evil all over the place. Sure, they could be lying for the "glory" or whatever, but when they're bragging about it and we have evidence all over the place (and not just stupid evidence like "the white woman saw the black boy kiss the white woman from a mile away in heavy fog), then, yeah, we should, for the safety of humanity, get rid of such people permanently.

 

[Tumah]

Does it not break the rules to murder someone on the Sabbath?

Yeah, although if someone would murder on the Sabbath, they would probably get stoning (for breaking the Sabbath) rather than beheading (for the murder) based on the principle that when an action has multiple punishments associated with it, only the most severe punishment is given.

The quote shows no one, including Moses, knew what to do with him. Moses had to hear God to get an answer, so, no, they shouldn't have known, because apparently murdering someone who probably wanted to cook breakfast on the Sabbath is perfectly fine though they only learned that just now.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, they knew that the guy was breaking the Sabbath (otherwise they wouldn't have brought him in) and they knew that it was punishable by death Ex. 31:14-15. What they didn't know is which form of capital punishment the death should take.