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.
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.
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.
I thought the scripture was quite clear with that whole “Thou shalt not kill” part…
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.
Thou shalt not kill people. They don’t consider Palestinians people.
Removed by mod
That’s not the way people interpret it. The majority of religious extremism directly contradicts scriptures. This is still the justification used
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
The Hebrew is לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח which in modern Hebrew translates as “Don’t murder”. It’s also the 6th, not the 1st.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Nah it’s ok god is always on their side. (Any group that does terrorist shit)
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.
deleted by creator
From what I understand, the colonists usually are, though.
We all know terrorist can’t read.