How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

[George-ananda]

but why was it written? these texts are put forth as being the ''word of God.''
if it's not the word of God, then people should stop suggesting that it is.
if it is the word of God, then so be it. But, God looks bad in certain passages, and people make excuses for that.
one of the many reasons I walked away from faith, George. lol

Please re-read my original comment that you responded to:

Well having been an Abrahamic, I would view my religion as an evolving understanding not married to ancient texts.

 

[Aquitaine]

The easy gymnastics is understanding that this is just what an ancient human writer wrote about God.

There are plenty of Theists from all different faiths who will beg to differ, to them, the texts are "divine communications".

 

[George-ananda]

There are plenty of Theists from all different faiths who will beg to differ, to them, the texts are "divine communications".

The thread question I was responding to was: How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

I was explaining that they do not need to believe in Bible literalism or infallibility and do not need to understand and interpret every verse. I never said all Abrahamics would agree with how I answered.

 

[Aquitaine]

The thread question I was responding to was: How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

I was explaining that they do not need to believe in Bible literalism or infallibility and do not need to understand and interpret every verse. I never said all Abrahamics would agree with how I answered.

Fair enough, my apologies.

 

[Deidre]

Then why bother with these texts at all? If these texts are inaccurate, or can be interpreted a variety of ways, then why not the rest of the book?
It is easier and far more logical to simply admit...this is the work of mankind during that time period. Inventing a deity as a convenient tool to scare people into following rules. That is far more likely than to believe any of it is remotely the 'word' of an actual supernatural being. (my opinion)

 

[Aquitaine]

Then why bother with these texts at all? If these texts are inaccurate, or can be interpreted a variety of ways, then why not the rest of the book?
It is easier and far more logical to simply admit...this is the work of mankind during that time period. Inventing a deity as a convenient tool to scare people into following rules. That is far more likely than to believe any of it is remotely the 'word' of an actual supernatural being. (my opinion)

I completely agree with you.

 

[rosends]

Do you think skepticism is healthy?

I guess it depends about what. When my parents told me that if I stuck my hand in a fire, I would get burned, I chose to believe and not be skeptical. I sense that skepticism there might not have been healthy.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Do you think skepticism is healthy?

Reciprocation. Humans are social creatures after all, it's been observed in other social species too.

I disagree, it appears to be practiced to some degree in virtually every society. Otherwise societies wouldn't progress. Reciprocation is one of the fundamental aspects which are essential for social creatures to live together.
Probably not.

You're funny.

Reciprocation: to make a return for something...
Hillel's "Golden Rule:" "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.
Jesus' "Golden Rule:" Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Now, I will admit that people get along through "reciprocation" such as: give me your wife or your money or your land and I will not kill you and your whole family. Indeed, I think that there are a few cultures where there are enough people on the killing side that the "society" can actually progress...

But maybe you would like to give me an example of a society that progresses based on "Reciprocation."
I'd be interested.

 

[Aquitaine]

You're funny.

Reciprocation: to make a return for something...
Hillel's "Golden Rule:" "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.
Jesus' "Golden Rule:" Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Now, I will admit that people get along through "reciprocation" such as: give me your wife or your money or your land and I will not kill you and your whole family. Indeed, I think that there are a few cultures where there are enough people on the killing side that the "society" can actually progress...

But maybe you would like to give me an example of a society that progresses based on "Reciprocation."
I'd be interested.

Paying taxes in exchange for public services, which happens in almost every developed nation. Yeah that wasn't hard. . . . .

 

[Aquitaine]

I guess it depends about what. When my parents told me that if I stuck my hand in a fire, I would get burned, I chose to believe and not be skeptical. I sense that skepticism there might not have been healthy.

Are you skeptical towards say, Xenu and the Church of Scientology?

 

[Moishe3rd]

Paying taxes in exchange for public services, which happens in almost every developed nation. Yeah that wasn't hard. . . . .

I love it!

My own values of "morality" - are paying taxes in exchange for public services!!!
"The Golden Rule" is paying taxes for public services!

Yes, that does indeed answer my question... Thank you.

 

[serp777]

Well having been an Abrahamic, I would view my religion as an evolving understanding not married to ancient texts.

No, you just pick and choose stuff. Evolving is only your moral preconception. If you can pick and choose anything you want you can justify anything using these books. Ancient books like these are completely worthless in terms of moral guidance. You get your morals from secular society and make your interpretations of your fallacious books adapt to the parameters of your secular morality.

 

[rosends]

Are you skeptical towards say, Xenu and the Church of Scientology?

depends what you mean by "skeptical." I am sure that Scientology exists. I do not have faith in their claims. Belief is about choosing your expert and relying on him/it while rejecting other, often similar, experts. We do it all the time.

 

[Moishe3rd]

No, you just pick and choose stuff. Evolving is only your moral preconception. If you can pick and choose anything you want you can justify anything using these books. Ancient books like these are completely worthless in terms of moral guidance. You get your morals from secular society and make your interpretations of your fallacious books adapt to the parameters of your secular morality.

"Secular morality?" You are positing a world where morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be.
That does not seem very conducive to what many people believe about morality.
China; Syria; Egypt; Mozambique; Russia; Venezuela; Congo; Libya; Burma; and much of the rest of the world are all living or dying in a horrible, tortuous manner based on your secular morality.

 

[George-ananda]

No, you just pick and choose stuff. Evolving is only your moral preconception. If you can pick and choose anything you want you can justify anything using these books. Ancient books like these are completely worthless in terms of moral guidance. You get your morals from secular society and make your interpretations of your fallacious books adapt to the parameters of your secular morality.

Religious morality involves taking spiritual principles and using reason and intelligence to determine what is best in the practical world. Reason and intelligence evolve as humanity matures through education and exposure. This is true for secular and religious thinkers.

For example, neither religious nor secular thinking in Biblical times would meet today's political correctness on many issues like homosexuality, women, etc.. Both types of thinking evolve although I would agree many times secular thinking does lead the way and religious thinking is slower to change.

 

[Aquitaine]

I love it!

Yes, that does indeed answer my question... Thank you.

I answered your question: you told me to provide you with an example where reciprocation is in play and helps groups of people develope and progress as a society.
We didn't used to have public services, but nowadays we do. Take the NHS for example: paid for by the people to be used by the people - that's reciprocation on a national scale, that's progress.

 

[Aquitaine]

depends what you mean by "skeptical." I am sure that Scientology exists. I do not have faith in their claims. Belief is about choosing your expert and relying on him/it while rejecting other, often similar, experts. We do it all the time.

True, but most of us do it with (for example) media outlets, or "diet experts".
When it comes to trying to justify murdering children for someone else's idolatry, that's when skepticism is really needed.

 

[Aquitaine]

Religious morality involves taking spiritual principles and using reason and intelligence to determine what is best in the practical world. Reason and intelligence evolve as humanity matures through education and exposure. This is true for secular and religious thinkers.

For example, neither religious nor secular thinking in Biblical times would meet today's political correctness on many issues like homosexuality, women, etc.. Both types of thinking evolve although I would agree many times secular thinking does lead the way and religious thinking is slower to change.

I would add that the reason religious thinking is slow to change is because it attributes itself as divine and infallible.

Take Islam for example: thinks it's the solution to all the world's problems, claims it's prophet is "God's final messenger", it's gonna be pretty darn hard for that kind of arrogant thinking to change.

 

[rosends]

True, but most of us do it with (for example) media outlets, or "diet experts".
When it comes to trying to justify murdering children for someone else's idolatry, that's when skepticism is really needed.

We do it with health and well being on a physical level all the time. Religion does it with the spiritual health and well being also. Though where do you see "murdering children for someone else's idolatry"?

 

[dust1n]

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?

Um... source?