Steve Dirickson <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> That's because they conveniently overlook the fact that "an eye for an
> eye" was the Old Testament, pre-Christ "policy" (along with numerous
> other items, like animal and human sacrifice). The birth, life, and death
> of Jesus marked a re-negotiation of the contract; the "New Deal"
> replaced "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek".

And Wirt Atmar adds:

> While that is the essence of the testament of Jesus, it's certainly not
> original with Jesus either. Moses received the Ten Commandments while
leading
> his people out of Egypt to form a new nation. In that, Exodus 20 reads:
>
> "And God spake all these words, saying,

<snip Decalogue>

> "13": Thou shalt not kill.
>
> There are no caveats or exemptions or dispensations or legal loopholes in
> this last statement. You either abide by it, or you don't.

The "turn the other cheek" philosophy (and the expanded commandment of "thou
shalt not kill" - see Matthew 5:20-22) was meant for "brothers"; that is,
fellow believers; first, and then applied to our "neighbors"; who may or may
not be believers, second.  In any event, Jesus used a qualifier ("without a
cause") that indicates he is talking about the killing of innocent people.

As for Exodus 20:13, most later translations use the word "murder" instead
of "kill" indicating the sense of the Hebrew word.  It also applies to the
shedding of innocent blood.  It was never meant to apply to governments (the
death penalty is specified in many of the Old Testament laws) or warfare (as
witnessed by the many wars carried out by Old Testament Israel under the
direct guidance of Jehovah).

Jim Phillips (Speaking for myself here - obviously)

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *