The significance of man is that he is insignificant and is aware of it.
- Carl Becker
I would add "in comparison to God."
Have you been to Yosemite?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is Me
- Doulos
- Fresno, Cali, United States
- I am a guy. I enjoy life and do my best to make sure I don't miss it. I don't want to end up looking back 20, 50, 70 years from now and wonder where it went. I do what I love because I love it. I love God, I consistently try and fail and try again to live a life of being called His son. Doulos is a reminder to myself of who I am; it is Greek for slave/servant and I am more then blessed to be that, and yet God has made me an heir through Christ.
9 comments:
"To murder is to kill, but to kill is not always murder. God's Word says not to murder, and translation is weak by using the verb kill."
This is a mostly true statement.
The Hebrew word used is ratasach.
râtsach
raw-tsakh'
A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).
The priest quoted was Roman Catholic and used a translation from poor sources similar to the KJV which also words Exodus 20:13 as "Thou shall not kill."
Yet, perhaps Romero (who was speaking in Spanish not English) was actually taking the commandment through Jesus who spoke in Matthew 5 of nonviolence even in the face of violence.
However, I placed this image in my series of Peace & Justice not because of that use of the verse, but because of the second half of the quote.
"No solider is obliged to obey an order against the law of God."
I doubt that any Christian would disagree with that statement.
I would agree, in that if I were ordered to do something that I felt violated God's law I would have to obey God over man, no matter what the consequences. What part of Matthew 5 are you referring to? Did you see my latter post referring to your Pro Life post? I would love to hear your thoughts on there.
Sorry I took so long to respond. I have been extremely busy with seminary stuff.
The statement is only mostly true because your definition comes only from a modern American English word definition. While this is useful in many circumstances, it is somewhat flawed when confronted by Jesus’ definition. I was, and still am, referring to Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5.
21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
As Christians, our definitions should be based on the teaching of Jesus. While your explanation of the relationship between murder and killing may be an acceptable standard definition, it does not stand when passed through the teaching of Jesus. This falls along the same lines as adultery and lustful thoughts. The two have very different standard definitions but in Christian thought those standard definitions are only mostly true due to the teaching of Jesus.
In regard to your pro-life post; I plan to respond to it through another post but I was planning to wait until after I get a chance to read some comments from your post first.
In your opinion is there a difference between the right of a government and that of an individual to pass judgment in the matter of taking life.
Romans 12 and 13 may add to your perspective on the previously posted question.
This line of thinking is similar to Kant's teaching. that if it is wrong to lie or deceive in one circumstance, it is wrong to lie or deceive in every circumstance. That is to say that, I wouldn't want others to lie to me so I can never lie to others. What if you were in Nazi Germany and you were hiding Jews, and a German soldier came to your door and asked if you were doing so. Would it be wrong to lie? OK, so with that same line of thinking, would it be wrong to take the life of that German soldier if he barged into your house and started to attach the Jews that you were hiding and the only way to stop him and to save those that you were protecting was to take the life of that soldier? So again, I would go back to the intent of both the OT commandment, and what Jesus was saying. This would be killing not murder. Jesus points out the intent of the heart, in this situation the intent is not hatred or malice, but rather preservation of self and others. So are you saying that it would be better to offer full disclosure in that situation at the cost of innocent lives? And in light of Romans 12 and 13 can you explain to me why you would not want a government to be able to act in such a way to protect its people. (understand that I am not trying to justify any current wars, in this but would like to hear your argument for this viewpoint that you hold.)
I responded to your last couple of comments in a new post compiling all of our conversation.
Don't worry about. Hey, if you don't get a chance to get to it I won't be hurt. I'll be praying for you and I hope all goes well at your conference. So what conference is it?
Sounds like fun. I have never been anywhere near there. When you get back we need hang out. I haven't seen you in like 10 years or something.
Post a Comment