>>2312723

Well, I haven't seen the movie myself, so I'm only hazarding some weak guesses here.

The usual interpretation of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is that temporal states do in fact have legitimate authority, usually as reflections of some sort of God's will, and that you should generally obey them. His country is probably depicted as a good thing, if it's an American movie from the 40s, and he probably has some kind of guilt over not doing his utmost for it.

That being said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as expressed as an absolute is an idiotic mistranslation. The OT itself endorses capital punishment and warring, which is why the Hebrew says לא תרצח and not לא תהרג

>>2312752

Good points; although the important part comes after "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": "Render unto God what is God's". Money is Caesar's (it had his profile on it, even), but Caesar--ie the state--does not own a man's conscience, his life, or the lives of his enemies.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" was one of his stated passages for conscientious objection: another was "blessed are the peacemakers", and "he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword". Along with the whole "love your enemies, turn the other cheek", I still cannot see how war could ever be justified by the New Testament.

Here's the relevant scene, in case anyone cares to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W87k64HU9gE

>>2312752
Thanks anon the message is clearly in the Hebrew which I can very easily read

>>2312723
Sergeant York is one of the most bizarre movies I have ever seen. I can never tell how ironic Howard Hawks is trying to be

>>2313197

A more accurate translation would be "Thou Shalt Not Murder" as opposed to "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

>>2313544

But what, exactly, is the difference between "murder" and "kill"?
The object you're killing? Some would say "murder" can apply to humans only; some, that it applies to animals, but not to 'less complex' organisms like plants or bacteria.
Or does the difference lie between intention? "Kill" seems to refer to non-malicious carelessness/accidents (eg "He was killed in a car crash"; "a falling rock "killed him", the rock didn't intentionally do it) , as is often intentional killing of 'ones who deserved it' (eg "He killed five Nazis"; "Police killed a bank robber"). Does "murder" only apply to intentional killing of innocents? But no one is innocent, that's the whole reason 'Jesus died for our sins', right? Probably, every killer justifies why someone else isn't innocent enough (eg "My rival bought my land out from under me", "He slept with my wife", "He was wearing the uniform of a different country") and deserves to die.
I would say that, since killing is necessary for us to survive as humans in these bodies, (unless you ate just fruits and nuts), , "killing" would only apply if we eat what we kill and minimize the suffering (ie no killing humans and eating them if you have perfectly good hamburger; no hamburger if you have perfectly good potatoes). Any other destruction of life would fall under "murder".