How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

[leibowde84]

I don't think Jews accept any Torah text "on faith alone." They, like the preponderance of Christianity, see the texts as part of Holy Tradition, and an expression of the ongoing faith-community.

Isn't that the same thing? All of those aspects are based on faith in their beliefs being accurate.

 

[sojourner]

I guess this sort gets at another question then. If morality to us isn't objective, and the commandments provided by can't be objectively determined to be moral or ethical, then why follow them, exactly?

Christians don't follow them, exactly. They've been amended to suit our circumstances, such that the intent is preserved in a way that's meaningful and useful for us.

 

[sojourner]

From our POV, yes. But not, particularly, from the writers' POVs. That's the mistake you're making, that circumstances don't dictate meaning.

 

[sojourner]

Isn't that the same thing? All of those aspects are based on faith in their beliefs being accurate.

It doesn't have anything to do (at least from a Xtian standpoint, and I suspect it's the same for Judaism) with "accuracy." It has everything to do with the sense of the community. So, no, I don't think it's the same thing. I think you're using "faith" as "belief in absolutes." But that's not really how this sort of thing works. The texts, their commentaries, and teachings are not seen as "absolute," except in cases of unreasonable fundamentalism. But such fundamentalism isn't the norm.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I don't think Jews accept any Torah text "on faith alone." They, like the preponderance of Christianity, see the texts as part of Holy Tradition, and an expression of the ongoing faith-community.

Not exactly.
I wrote this previously. However, it IS THE Torah point of view regarding the death penalty. And, it specifically originates in the passages under discussion:

The Torah is based on G-d's Justice.
In this case, Justice means due process. You are not allowed to simply kill people or wipe out a city without due process.
So yes, this is different from "my god can kill more people than your god..." Or, simple conquests - "kill 'em all and take the loot."

These Commandments are directed towards the People of Israel who made a Covenant with G-d to accept G-d as their G-d. And, G-d promised that if they accepted Him. He would make them into a Great Nation and if they rejected Him, He would reject them.
However, in ALL death penalty cases, many things must happen before one is allowed to take another human life.
The person (or the city in this case) must be warned by at least two witnesses that the crime he is committing is punishable by death. The person must understand this commandment and penalty.
At least two witnesses must see this crime occur and be able to testify precisely how, when and where this crime occurred.
If any of these steps are not taken or are confused by the witnesses, there is no crime involved.
There is even doubt if the first time the crime is committed whether or not the person is liable. A repeat offender who had had the benefit of all of these previous steps would be taken to Court.
The Court would have to Judge the crime based on the testimony of the witnesses. If there were contradictory witnesses, the crime would not be punishable.
If the Court ruled unanimously that the crime was committed and the death penalty should be applied, the perpetrator would go free. Jewish Law demands that at least one Judge must doubt the guilt of the accused.
I am sure that there are other technicalities that I am leaving out but, that's basically it.

G-d's Torah was given to promote Justice as opposed to the self willed whims that rule Man on a daily basis.
It is very, very difficult to administer the death penalty under Jewish Law.

 

[sojourner]

Seems like theres a lot of times and situations where god granted a lot of leniency for people to kill.

So what's your beef? That God "shouldn't have been portrayed in that way by the ancients?" Or that the bible "shouldn't accurately represent the POVs of its writers?"

 

[dust1n]

Very nice.
So, do you believe that "Maat" was a governing principle?
I read the Wiki and, if you so choose, you could certainly make an historical case that these kind of Laws found in the Torah came from Egypt.
However, I see nowhere in Egyptian or later ancient history that this was even vaguely any kind of governing principle.
Perhaps you could also source that idea?

Whether or not it was a governing principle is something you attached to original claim after I already questioned it. Your original claim, "Do you have any idea that this "Golden Rule" is a unique aphorism that is NOT practiced by any other culture on planet Earth and was not known outside of its culture before this "Golden Rule" came into existence?" doesn't mention governing principles, it mentions unique aphorisms that get practiced.

 

[dust1n]

There's your answer right there! For us, who live in the 21st century First World, there are no circumstances where such a thing would be moral. The mistake we make is in superimposing our (fluid) morals onto those who lived in the ancient Near East. Their life-situation and culture were completely different from ours. They perceived God far differently than we do. Therefore, it's rather disingenuous to simply assume that their perception of God is (or ought to be) the same as our perception of God. Similarly, it's also disingenuous to insist that that bible be an implacable image of who God "ought" to be, rather than a historical, written record of how God has been perceived during the time period in which the texts were written. It's not realistic to hold post-modern Christians -- or Jews -- to such perceptions of God, as Tumah pointed out.

Hey sojourner, I like forward to responding to your reply, but in order to address fully, I guess I need to understand your conception of the nature between God and people and their written texts.

 

[dust1n]

Christians don't follow them, exactly. They've been amended to suit our circumstances, such that the intent is preserved in a way that's meaningful and useful for us.

I think that preservation might be the problem. The rules may have been amended. But these means the validity of these new rules derive from the same source that enforced the old rules. How does one reconcile that the same source of ethics that now grants them the amendments to the old rules they have now, with the fact the same source provided validity for ancient people to kill their own children for even recommending worshiping a god of a different name or stature?

 

[dust1n]

So what's your beef? That God "shouldn't have been portrayed in that way by the ancients?"

I guess this comes to a question of the Bible being wholly human with little no divination. If the portrayals of things that obvious wrong to us can be taken for granted as obviously wrong, then how can the portrayals of things that are obviously right to us be taken for granted as obviously right? In other words, if we can't trust this instance of validity in the text as divinely inspired, how can be any instance been considered so?

Or that the bible "shouldn't accurately represent the POVs of its writers?"

Well, I assume that a writer always accurately represents their POV in their writings. But I have no particular judgment about whether it should be so or now, because my inquiry will remain the same whether Bible represents accurately POV's of its writers.

 

[dust1n]

I am curious. When people ask such questions in such a manner, it implies that they really find the idea of the Divine ridiculous and beneath worthy intellectual consideration.

Just curious, but don't basically the majority of religious adherents find the idea of the divine as anyone else outside their religion as ridiculous and beneath worthy intellectual consideration? I mean, there are religious scholars and stuff, but the general religious public pay other religions literally worthy of no divine respect.

What values do you live by? Where do you think your values come from?
In your value system, it everything all the same? Is murder; torture; beheadings; stealing; every kind of sexual lust forced on the willing or unwilling; the joy of destruction for its own sake; kidnapping; the abuse of children; abortion as birth control; etc. - all the same as the opposite of these acts; being more virtuous than these acts?
If it's not all the same - why not? Have you ever considered the question?
Just curious.

In my value system, everything is not the same, otherwise I wouldn't posit an OP positing the legitimacy of God commanding people to kill their children for suggesting any other God viable for worship.

 

[sojourner]

Hey sojourner, I like forward to responding to your reply, but in order to address fully, I guess I need to understand your conception of the nature between God and people and their written texts.

It's simple. The texts are nothing more or less than the collected, written record of history, poetry, narrative, and prophecy of people who count themselves as the community of God's people. I believe that the writers were inspired to write their truth, but those truths are in no way infallible or intractable, or absolute.

 

[sojourner]

Hey sojourner, I like forward to responding to your reply, but in order to address fully, I guess I need to understand your conception of the nature between God and people and their written texts.

It's simple. The texts are nothing more or less than the collected, written record of history, poetry, narrative, and prophecy of people who count themselves as the community of God's people. I believe that the writers were inspired to write their truth, but those truths are in no way infallible or intractable, or absolute. B

I think that preservation might be the problem. The rules may have been amended. But these means the validity of these new rules derive from the same source that enforced the old rules. How does one reconcile that the same source of ethics that now grants them the amendments to the old rules they have now, with the fact the same source provided validity for ancient people to kill their own children for even recommending worshiping a god of a different name or stature?

Because that "authority" is the community of people, themselves. As the community changes, so do the rules.

 

[sojourner]

Hey sojourner, I like forward to responding to your reply, but in order to address fully, I guess I need to understand your conception of the nature between God and people and their written texts.

It's simple. The texts are nothing more or less than the collected, written record of history, poetry, narrative, and prophecy of people who count themselves as the community of God's people. I believe that the writers were inspired to write their truth, but those truths are in no way infallible or intractable, or absolute. B

I think that preservation might be the problem. The rules may have been amended. But these means the validity of these new rules derive from the same source that enforced the old rules. How does one reconcile that the same source of ethics that now grants them the amendments to the old rules they have now, with the fact the same source provided validity for ancient people to kill their own children for even recommending worshiping a god of a different name or stature?

Because that "authority" is the community of people, themselves. As the community changes, so do the rules.

I guess this comes to a question of the Bible being wholly human with little no divination. If the portrayals of things that obvious wrong to us can be taken for granted as obviously wrong, then how can the portrayals of things that are obviously right to us be taken for granted as obviously right? In other words, if we can't trust this instance of validity in the text as divinely inspired, how can be any instance been considered so?

"Divinely inspired" does not mean "absolute" or "unchangeable." Nor does it mean that all texts are granted the same level of importance or priority. You're taking the tack that it's the bible that dictates morals. I don't take that tack with the texts. The bible merely records what the people, inspired by God, say; it doesn't "dictate" anything.

Well, I assume that a writer always accurately represents their POV in their writings. But I have no particular judgment about whether it should be so or now, because my inquiry will remain the same whether Bible represents accurately POV's of its writers.

Well, we have to start somewhere, and we begin with the assumption that the texts faithfully represent the POV of its various authors.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Just curious, but don't basically the majority of religious adherents find the idea of the divine as anyone else outside their religion as ridiculous and beneath worthy intellectual consideration? I mean, there are religious scholars and stuff, but the general religious public pay other religions literally worthy of no divine respect.

I'm not sure - trying to make sense of this statement.
Are you saying that most religious people of one particular religion do not have respect for the THEOLOGY of other particular religions?
I suspect that is correct.
However, if you are saying that most religious people of one particular religion do not have respect for the VALUES of other particular religions, I suspect that is incorrect - depending upon which "religion" being discussed.

In my value system, everything is not the same, otherwise I wouldn't posit an OP positing the legitimacy of God commanding people to kill their children for suggesting any other God viable for worship.

I understand your point of view. However, the Torah, from which this point of view is sourced, does NOT command "people to kill their children for suggesting any other God viable for worship."
Your; Christian; popular Western - point of view DOES suggest that your interpretation is the correct one.
It is not.