How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

[dust1n]

I don't know how you got that, from what I wrote.

I didn't. That's why I'm asking a question for information. I'm not talking about people's interpretation of the various laws over time. If the passages mentioned in the OP are divinely inspired, or were at ever anyone on point time inspired or supported or validated by God, this is what I am interested in. If Jesus supposedly changed this law some thousands of years later doesn't really change the fact that Moses did (supposedly) impart these words, as a mediator of god himself, unto actually living beings.

 

[dust1n]

The premise is faulty. Most people practicing Judaism, do not follow all the laws in the Torah.

I'm asking for ethical validity for a set of scriptures that are presumably inspired by God or are in some way divine, from those who hold this to be true. If my "premise" needs to be adjusted, feel free to explain. But the way I see it, is that it's typically regarded as truth that Moses did in fact speak these words under inspiration for God. If you do not believe this, than I'm not particularly sure what to say?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm asking for ethical validity for a set of scriptures that are presumably inspired by God or are in some way divine, from those who hold this to be true. If my "premise" needs to be adjusted, feel free to explain. But the way I see it, is that it's typically regarded as truth that Moses did in fact speak these words under inspiration for God. If you do not believe this, than I'm not particularly sure what to say?

/standard answer, take one/
Jesu fulfilled the laws.

 

[dust1n]

/standard answer, take one/
Jesu fulfilled the laws.

Jesus fulfilled the laws. What does this mean?

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus fulfilled the laws. What does this mean?

It's a good question. some suggestions, since I don't want to have a hypothetical dialogue about this. /this aspect of theology is not my paradigm, in totality/ -ask in the Xian DIR -related question, ask in the Judaism DIRs, how the added laws are justified. I think I will leave it at that.

 

[dust1n]

It's a good question. some suggestions, since I don't want to have a hypothetical dialogue about this. /this aspect of theology is not my paradigm, in totality/ -ask in the Xian DIR -related question, ask in the Judaism DIRs, how the added laws are justified. I think I will leave it at that.

Alright.

 

[Aquitaine]

The One who decrees life, decrees death.

Pretty heavy gamble to base your morality on, especially when this One has no evidence supporting it's own existence.

You're supporting the execution of people based on a belief you have of some mythical creature, to me that sounds incredibly tragic for both the victim and the executioner.

Think of all the people who have been murdered throughout history for crimes such as "blasphemy", "idolatry" and "heresy" within countless different religions and belief systems, which (until proven otherwise) are essentiallly false - do you not find that upsetting?

 

[Tumah]

Pretty heavy gamble to base your morality on, especially when this One has no evidence supporting it's own existence.

You're supporting the execution of people based on a belief you have of some mythical creature, to me that sounds incredibly tragic for both the victim and the executioner.

Think of all the people who have been murdered throughout history for crimes such as "blasphemy", "idolatry" and "heresy" within countless different religions and belief systems, which (until proven otherwise) are essentiallly false - do you not find that upsetting?

They're religions are wrong and mine is right.
It sounds tragic to you because you believe that the basis of my belief, G-d, is mythical.
Its sounds fine to me, because I believe in G-d.
That's not a hurdle that we're going to get past.
If someone doesn't want to follow the religion, he shouldn't live in a theocracy that goes against what he wants to believe.

 

[Aquitaine]

They're religions are wrong and mine is right.

I don't think you fully realize just how powerful this admission is, and how ubiquitous this sort of thinking is within the religious community.

If someone doesn't want to follow the religion, he shouldn't live in a theocracy that goes against what he wants to believe.

I guess you could likewise say that if someone wants to live in a theocracy, they shouldn't be living in a democracy.

 

[Tumah]

I don't think you fully realize just how powerful this admission is, and how ubiquitous this sort of thinking is within the religious community.

You mean, because only non-theists are capable of realizing the implication of what theists say?

I guess you could likewise say that if someone wants to live in a theocracy, they shouldn't be living in a democracy.

How does that follow? Or are you just lashing out...?

 

[Aquitaine]

You mean, because only non-theists are capable of realizing the implication of what theists say?

No, I just admire how honestly you summed up the basis of religious conflicts/disagreements.

How does that follow? Or are you just lashing out...?

Not lashing out, but basically saying the same thing from the opposite direction.
If you want to live in an Abrahamic North Korea, you probably aren't going to enjoy living in a democracy.

 

[Tumah]

No, I just admire how honestly you summed up the basis of religious conflicts/disagreements.

You mean, there are some conflicts where the basis is not, "I'm right and you're wrong"?

Not lashing out, but basically saying the same thing from the opposite direction.
If you want to live in an Abrahamic North Korea, you probably aren't going to enjoy living in a democracy.

Again, I don't see why that should follow. I pray for the day that I can live in a theocratic state of Israel. Yet, life in the democratic state of Israel seems to be moving along just peachy. What's with the black and white?

 

[Aquitaine]

You mean, there are some conflicts where the basis is not, "I'm right and you're wrong"?

I understand your point, but it's a little more worrying when the arguement involves human claims of divine judgement and concepts of an eternal afterlife. Again though, your honesty is refreshing.

Again, I don't see why that should follow. I pray for the day that I can live in a theocratic state of Israel. Yet, life in the democratic state of Israel seems to be moving along just peachy. What's with the black and white?

So if someone prays to live in a democracy, yet life in a theocracy seems to be moving along just peachy, do you still think said individual shouldn't live there?

 

[Tumah]

I understand your point, but it's a little more worrying when the arguement involves human claims of divine judgement and concepts of an eternal afterlife. Again though, your honesty is refreshing.

My honesty notwithstanding, you're saying that you find arguments that involve fascism, nationalism, slavery, territorial disputes, or any of a hundred other causes of loss of life, to be less worrying?

So if someone prays to live in a democracy, yet life in a theocracy seems to be moving along just peachy, do you still think said individual shouldn't live there?

I think mortal danger has a tendency of adding mushy, brown spots to the peaches. So if said person is in mortal danger, leaving the country would probably be advisable. If that's not the case, then I don't see why they shouldn't remain.

 

[Aquitaine]

My honesty notwithstanding, you're saying that you find arguments that involve fascism, nationalism, slavery, territorial disputes, or any of a hundred other causes of loss of life, to be less worrying?

Nationalistic arguements tend not to claim involvement after a person's death, and I don't see many political institutions or nation states claiming to be the creators of the universe and the architects of some afterlife.
Don't get me wrong, the kind of thinking behind "my country is right, your country is wrong" worries me too, but not half as much as "my God is right, yours is wrong".

I think mortal danger has a tendency of adding mushy, brown spots to the peaches. So if said person is in mortal danger, leaving the country would probably be advisable. If that's not the case, then I don't see why they shouldn't remain.

That's very convenient for you of course, since in your 'ideal state' people would be in mortal for absolutely minor "crimes". Quite an easy way to keep your little theocracy "pure" if you put any one who deviates from the norm in mortal danger.

 

[Tumah]

Nationalistic arguements tend not to claim involvement after a person's death, and I don't see many political institutions or nation states claiming to be the creators of the universe and the architects of some afterlife.
Don't get me wrong, the kind of thinking behind "my country is right, your country is wrong" worries me too, but not half as much as "my God is right, yours is wrong".

And claims that involve the after-life worry you more than claims that have the potential to send one there?

That's very convenient for you of course, since in your 'ideal state' people would be in mortal for absolutely minor "crimes". Quite an easy way to keep your little theocracy "pure" if you put any one who deviates from the norm in mortal danger.

Whether that's an accurate depiction or not, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Aquitaine]

And claims that involve the after-life worry you more than claims that have the potential to send one there?

Claims that involve the afterlife usually are what send others to the grave.
Considering the religious debate is apparently about the "truth" of reality, I merely found it humorous that you so blatently admitted it boils down to nothing more than "my god is right, yours is wrong", that is all.

Whether that's an accurate depiction or not, what does that have to do with anything?

I am merely trying to gauge the full extent of your position. On the one hand you essentially said that (using this case) non-jews shouldn't belong to a Orthodox Jewish theocracy, however you appear to have recanted that somewhat, with the mortal danger stipulation.

 

[Tumah]

Claims that involve the afterlife usually are what send others to the grave.
Considering the religious debate is apparently about the "truth" of reality, I merely found it humorous that you so blatently admitted it boils down to nothing more than "my god is right, yours is wrong", that is all.

There are civil and world wars, as well as territorial disputes that may dispute your assertion.

I am merely trying to gauge the full extent of your position. On the one hand you essentially said that (using this case) non-jews shouldn't belong to a Orthodox Jewish theocracy, however you appear to have recanted that somewhat, with the mortal danger stipulation.

I think you just weren't following the thread of the conversation. If you go back and check, you'll realize that the original question was about mortal danger. Specifically, whether execution for idolatry is justified. All I did was reiterate it.
You are also wrong for assuming that non-Jews shouldn't belong to an Orthodox Jewish theocracy. As well, that the same issue an idol worshiping Jew would have as an idol worshiping non-Jew.

 

[Aquitaine]

There are civil and world wars, as well as territorial disputes that may dispute your assertion.

I did not state that religious extremism is the only reason. We were discussing some of these reasons earlier (nationalism, nation states etc).

I think you just weren't following the thread of the conversation. If you go back and check, you'll realize that the original question was about mortal danger. Specifically, whether execution for idolatry is justified. All I did was reiterate it.
You are also wrong for assuming that non-Jews shouldn't belong to an Orthodox Jewish theocracy. As well, that the same issue an idol worshiping Jew would have as an idol worshiping non-Jew.

Forgive me, I assumed when you stated "If someone doesn't want to follow the religion, he shouldn't live in a theocracy that goes against what he wants to believe" during our conversation regarding execution for idolatry, that you were including non-Jews.

 

[Tumah]

I did not state that religious extremism is the only reason. We were discussing some of these reasons earlier (nationalism, nation states etc).

I was only contrasting religious belief causing people to die, versus other reasons people die and wondering why you find religion more worrisome than any other reason people are killed.

Forgive me, I assumed when you stated "If someone doesn't want to follow the religion, he shouldn't live in a theocracy that goes against what he wants to believe" during our conversation regarding execution for idolatry, that you were including non-Jews.

No, I was excluding, idol-worshipers. Which relates to the question you originally asked me: whether I believe it is acceptable to execute someone for idolatry. From there we moved to discussion about theocracy.