jdonn Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Lobowolf, trying to logically explain the meaning behind every phrase in the bible and how they fit together is like trying to do the same for SAYC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Lobowolf, trying to logically explain the meaning behind every phrase in the bible and how they fit together is like trying to do the same for SAYC. THAT'S a project I wouldn't dream of taking on. I mean, the Bible part, but the SAYC part too, now that I think of it. But isolated parts (of each) can make some sense. 5-card majors? Sure. Murder is either always wrong or so close that you could say always, for all practical purposes. Killing, yeah, almost always, too, but a lot less certain. I would add voluntary euthanasia to the list of killing that is not immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Oklahoma is located in that part of the United States that is known as the "Bible Belt" and the population tends to be part of the far right Christian Coalition that seems to believe that killing crooks and torturing foreigners is A-O.K as long as God's children are the ones doing the killing and torturing. I always thought that that among the ten commandments was: "You shall not kill" But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to "You shall not murder" Since the Bible wasn't written in English, back in the day, the word used was neither "kill" nor "murder." I've heard the assertion that "murder" is a more accurate translation, and it certainly strikes me as credible. Most cultures permit killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. And others permit capital punishment (and certainly did so in the Old Testament world). So I'm certainly inclined to believe that "murder" is the correct translation, and a more desirable one, certainly, with respect to things like self-defense when confronted with deadly force. Not all killing is wrong. A blanket proscription on murder makes more sense. I've always found the arguments that try to differentiate between "kill" and "murder" rather fascinating. From what I can tell, the dispute about the translation is fairly recent in nature. Back when I went through confirmation classes, the King James Bible was pretty darn clear: The fifth commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Kill". In a similar vein, if I trot out my family's old German bible, the commandment reads "Du sollst nicht töten" (Note the use of töten - "to kill" - rather than morden - to murder) My cynical interpretation is that this whole dispute was ginned up by a group of fundies who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to follow word of god while still being able to apply the death penalty to folks they dislike. Whatever... Where it gets amusing is the strong overlap between fundies and Biblical literalists. I've always found it quite bizarre that the same group of people can simultaneously argue 1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions) 2. Something as significant as kill versus murder slipped through the cracks One of these days I'm sure that I'll run into a pro-death penalty King James Only literalists. If I'm really lucky, I'll get to watch his head explode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions) 2. Thank God for that! Does anything else matter? :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Isn't "you are not supposed to murder" a pleonasm? I suppose murder is defined as illegal killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 The judge ordered the weapons restriction after she watched a video of the pharmacist shooting robbery suspect Antwun Parker, 16, on May 19 at Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City. In a twist in the already unusual case, District Attorney David Prater asked the judge to allow Ersland to have access to a gun at work in case the pharmacy is robbed again. The prosecutor said his position "sounds crazy” but he insisted that under the law Ersland has the right to defend himself and others at the pharmacy. (the judge denied this request) http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-...article/3373432 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is. Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is. Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not? My guess this is a typical situation of competing rights.In this case you are accused of shooting/killing someone in first degree murder with a gun. This at least suggests you may be a real danger to others when it comes to guns vs the right to defend yourself. It seems ok to limit one right(you cannot have a gun) at least for the duration of the trial given the risk to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is. Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not? It could be that the ruling isn't an order, per se, but a bail condition. The judge doesn't have to grant bail. So it's not that he can't be around guns, per se; it's that if he doesn't agree not to be around guns, he can wait in jail until his trial. Letting him out with conditions isn't an undue restriction on his rights when it's at the judge's discretion whether he be let out at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there. Hopefully people who participate in armed robberies will have the same notion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there. Hopefully people who participate in armed robberies will have the same notion. If customers have that notion then it hardly matters, there wouldn't be a pharmacy for long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Why do I have the feelilng that pharmacist did something he has been thinking about doing for a long time. That is what makes it a murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions)Isn't is convenient for the story that the only known writings from God himself were destroyed by an ill-tempered holy man and now we all have to believe what we are told was written. Oddly, the Mormons have a similar story about finding gold tablets that mysteriously disappeared - and again we have to accept by faith what was written. Yet I guarantee you the devout Southern Baptist will tell you that the Mormons' story is full of crap but the ten commandments are obviously real. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 It could be that the ruling isn't an order, per se, but a bail condition. The judge doesn't have to grant bail. So it's not that he can't be around guns, per se; it's that if he doesn't agree not to be around guns, he can wait in jail until his trial. Letting him out with conditions isn't an undue restriction on his rights when it's at the judge's discretion whether he be let out at all. Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.