THIS is the reason why I support Death Penalty.

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian;

Ok...then try this.

Some person is trying to kill me and I don't try to prevent it, rolling over if you will like a good little pacifist. Isn't that tantamount to suicide, one of the deadliest sins?

If so then defending myself from the deadly sin of another is an allowed act, and if he dies in the process he has another sin to deal with - forcing me to act aggressively to avoid sinning myself.

[Umfriend]

I assume that one is directed at Brain. I do not view suicide as a sin per se.

[Dr Mordrid]

Indeed it was and I corrected the post to reflect that. Sorry.

Brian (again)


Torah: If Someone Comes to Kill You, Rise Up and Kill Him First

[Umfriend]

That's OK, was just checking.

[TransformX]

Both SOED:
1. (An instance of) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, (a) criminal homicide with malice aforethought; (an instance of) the deliberate killing of a human being in a manner or circumstances tantamount to murder. In early use also, (an) instance of non-criminal homicide of a particularly reprehensible kind; fig. (a) mortal sin, (a) great wickedness. OE.

Bad definition. You can't define a criminal act (murder) by using words like criminal, homicide and murder. It's called circular logic. This definition is just a bunch of meaningless words.
If it is against the law, check the local law. If it's against moral, please define your moral system (which religion? Do you follow Yum? Kant?). I expect more from you Brian.

Josephus' writings are documented from the originals. The Torah isn't, it is an oral hand-me-down.

Torah is documented since before Josephus'. Originals or not, it hasn't been altered since.

Many documents from 2000 years ago exist. None exist from Moses' time.

Excuse me while I call bullshit. Go read some Egyptian Hieroglyphs or even Hammurabi laws (on which some claim that many Hebrew laws are based).

According to a man with a political agenda, people with political agendas turned a prominent political figure in, handing him over to the local ruling representative. Do you see where I'm going?

Not really!

Why, because you said so? Sorry, your word doesn't hold any water in this debate, you'll have to do better.

Edit: prime example of said politics: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...06-judas_x.htm
Hardly relevant

See my last remark, just because you said so doesn't make it true.

Edit continued: If you reject the old testament, you should also reject most of the texts you throw at me here. If you don't reject either, you're more than welcome to start a theological debate on matters you can't even read in the original language.

Ah, so you are fluent in Greek. Have a look at this, then
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λ�*γειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομ�*νων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος �*ιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμ�*ραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε �*νομασμ�*νον οὐκ ἐπ�*λιπε τὸ φῦλον.

Don't forget that most writings of that era were in Greek. The earliest examples of the NT are in Greek. I have little doubt that some of the originals were in Greek. Luke and Saul of Tarsus (whose nickname, Paul or �*άυλος, meaning little in Greek) certainly were Greek-speakers/writers. Jesus' reputed pun on Peter being the rock of the church is valid in Greek (�*�*τρος), although I have little doubt that their common language was Aramaic.

You'll be surprised, but people in Israel during Jesus life spoke HEBREW, so excuse me while I skip the Greek till you learn some Hebrew.

[Dr Mordrid]

I would add that two languages were commonly used in the area during Christ's time; Hebrew and Aramaic, and we have texts in both and they agree on this point.

Quoting Greek. or even worse Latin translations of Greek, is silly since as has already been noted there were so many errors in those translations it's better to go back to the original Hebrew/Aramaic, depending on the source, and translate directly from those.

The bottom line is that the foundational documents for Judeo-Christian law clearly separate murder from self defense, and no twisting of the language or logic can undo that. That for some reason European law has strayed into the silliness it has now where defending yourself from attack is somehow a crime is a whole other issue for them to defend. Personally I think it's ridiculous.

[TransformX]

As for your oral fixation Brian:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3062895,00.html

[TransformX]

I would add that two languages were commonly used in the area during Christ's time; Hebrew and Aramaic, and we have texts in both and they agree on this point.

Quoting Greek. or even worse Latin translations of Greek, is silly since as has already been noted there were so many errors in those translations it's better to go back to the original Hebrew/Aramaic, depending on the source, and translate directly from those.

The only book in the Old Testament which isn't in Hebrew is the book of Daniel. All the rest is in Hebrew.

[Dr Mordrid]

Correct, but what's in the Bible or Torah isn't the whole. Many New Testament writings are in Aramaic as are many documents found at Qumram (Dead Sea Scrolls).

[TransformX]

The bottom line is that the foundational documents for Judeo-Christian law clearly separate murder from self defense, and no twisting of the language or logic can undo that. That for some reason European law has strayed into the silliness it has now where defending yourself from attack is somehow a crime is a whole other issue for them to defend. Personally I think it's ridiculous.

According to religion, unlawful killing = murder and nothing else.
Morals and Religion aren't the same, you can read a lot about if from Yeshayahu Leibowitz:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_12084.html

Religion and Morality

In his antimystical approach to Judaism, Leibowitz wanted Jews to reach out toward transcendence, which is approached in the mitzvot that have to be performed without reward. Whereas *Levinas links morality and religion, Leibowitz differentiates between them and even separates the two. Levinas believed that the appeal of the other person is heteronomous, whereas Leibowitz maintained that only the divine command is heteronomous and that morality is autonomous. Therefore, their views on the relationship between religion and morality are radically opposed: for Levinas, religion and morality are intrinsically linked, for Leibowitz, ethical laws are religiously relevant only if a person accepts them as commanded by God. Another crucial difference between Levinas and Leibowitz lies in the fact that the former emphasizes the performance of the ethical act itself, whereas the latter highlights the intention of the act: an act is religious if performed "for the sake of heaven," it is not religious when performed as a function of human needs and based upon a person's arbitrary will. Since morality is autonomous, based upon human thought and will, and therefore not "for the sake of heaven," but "for the sake of man," it is not religious. Towards the end of his life, Leibowitz appreciated Levinas, but his concept of Torah and mitzvot prevented him from agreeing with him.

[TransformX]

Correct, but what's in the Bible or Torah isn't the whole. Many New Testament writings are in Aramaic as are many documents found at Qumram (Dead Sea Scrolls).

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...062895,00.html

two 7th century BCE silver scrolls containing excerpts from the Bible have pride of place in the exhibition. The valuable scrolls, which are several hundred years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, contain the oldest Torah texts in existence.

As for Hebrew and dating the torah:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE49T52620081030

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

[Dr Mordrid]

According to religion, unlawful killing = murder and nothing else.

Which religion? Judaeism? Protestantism? Catholicism? Hindu? Islam?

The key word, of course, being unlawful - meaning that not all killings are equal.

Self defense was/is not unlawful because of the Talmudic admonition to defend ones self when attacked.

In US law this same principle is reflected. Killing another is always listed as a homicide but self defense is considered justifiable homicide, which is not a criminal act. This is another reason why using raw homicide numbers in an argument is not really germane.

[Dr Mordrid]

Just found out more about the neighborhood where this took place;

Local influences include Rev. Jeremiah Wright (his "church" is just 2 miles away from the school & attack) and the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan (a couple more miles north).

One helluva stew.

Also, what about the culture they're brought up in? Gangsta' rap, if you're educated you're not 'black' enough etc. etc.

I'm also extremely ticked at the authorities performance in this matter.

These two gangs have been having a running battle for two whole months. Making matters worse one of the perps was out on probation for assaults. WTF was he doing in a regular school? Haven't they ever heard of Alternative Ed where wackos like that can be sent and better supervised?

Given this why in the name of God the authorities in Chicago didn't flood that school zone with cops just before school started/let out is beyond me. From what I've read in Chicago papers there were 2 cops nearby, but they were overwhelmed and screaming for backup.

I smell a lawsuit.

And this isn't an isolated incident. This kind of school violence, often resulting in deaths, has been ongoing in Chicago for years. Have the authorities done much? No. Have they done as LA has done, which while not totally successful it at least mitigated the problem? No.

Under Illinois law the Mayor of Chicago runs the schools, so thank you Mayor Daley

[Elie]

death penalty, nough said!!!

[NetSnake]

To you all: I don't understand how the bible is relevant. I can't believe that any of you needs the bible to tell you that beating a kid to death is wrong. In fact, having read many of your discussions over the years, I don't understand why you need to quote the bible to explain/justify anything!
Nasty little book that bible, full of threats of damnation and death wrapped around with the "spread the love" message.

Executing a bunch of kids for the horrible thing they did is easy, fixing the circumstances that led a group KIDS to brutally killing an apparently harmless teenager, thats the hard part.