How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

[Aquitaine]

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"?

Wouldn't suprise me if it's happened in the past, and don't you tihnk it sets a poor ethical standard by claiming such "justice" as "divine"?
If an orthodox Jewish theocracy ever rose to power, who knows - it could happen.

 

[rosends]

Wouldn't suprise me if it's happened in the past, and don't you tihnk it sets a poor ethical standard by claiming such "justice" as "divine"?
If an orthodox Jewish theocracy ever rose to power, who knows - it could happen.

So you are encouraging skepticism in response to something which hasn't happened? I don't think that deferring to the divine has set a bad precedent any more than deferring to any other expert.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Yes, I agree that religion has to understand that its social teachings can change with the times and different societies. Islam, for example, should realize that many things that were appropriate for the populations of the Arabian peninsula a thousand years ago may not be appropriate for all places and all times.

 

[serp777]

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.

Exactly so the books are totally morally worthless and can be interpreted to justify any morality. Again though, evolving is just your interpretation. It could be that future socities will look back and call us moral barbarians worse than those in ancient times. The idea that our morality is evolving assumes you know what the ultimate moral ideal is to strive to.

 

[George-ananda]

Exactly so the books are totally morally worthless and can be interpreted to justify any morality. Again though, evolving is just your interpretation. It could be that future socities will look back and call us moral barbarians worse than those in ancient times. The idea that our morality is evolving assumes you know what the ultimate moral ideal is to strive to.

No, what I am saying is that there are spiritual laws of brotherly love and compassion (the Golden Rule for example) that are universal and never change. What can change is the best way to apply eternal laws to all the many social situations in the various times and societies.

 

[Aquitaine]

So you are encouraging skepticism in response to something which hasn't happened? I don't think that deferring to the divine has set a bad precedent any more than deferring to any other expert.

The difference though is that an "expert" doesn't (and isn't) infallible, whereas "the divine" claims itself so.
There's a difference between "FOX News told me to think this" and "The all-knowing, all-wise, one-and-only Supreme Creator of the Universe and everything in it told me to think this".

D'ya get where I'm coming from with this?

 

[rosends]

The difference though is that an "expert" doesn't (and isn't) infallible, whereas "the divine" claims itself so.
There's a difference between "FOX News told me to think this" and "The all-knowing, all-wise, one-and-only Supreme Creator of the Universe and everything in it told me to think this".

D'ya get where I'm coming from with this?

Yes -- you lack a faith that I have. That's a chasm which won't be bridged just because you say that something doesn't make sense to you any more than it will when I say that it does make sense to me.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Um... source?

I can't source a negative.
But, I am happy to be proved wrong by someone else sourcing a culture or people that did create a governing principle that said: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

 

[roger1440]

Sure, how could a being that would make such a commandment be considered moral, let alone, morally better than a number of religion political leaders in human history?

God has nothing to do with history. history bound in time, God is not.

 

[dust1n]

I can't source a negative.
But, I am happy to be proved wrong by someone else sourcing a culture or people that did create a governing principle that said: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

What you've done is used inductive reasoning.

Because you aren't aware of an example of the past when the golden rule is employed, doesn't actually mean it wasn't around.

Similarly, I've only ever seen white geese, so I can conclude only white geese exist, using inductive reasoning. However, black geese exist.

Black geese don't exist. I've never seen one. How can I prove a negative.

It either regard:

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule



Leviticus was written supposedly around 1440-1400 BC.

 

[dust1n]

God has nothing to do with history. history bound in time, God is not.

But he supposedly interacts with history, at certain fixed points in time?

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes -- you lack a faith that I have. That's a chasm which won't be bridged just because you say that something doesn't make sense to you any more than it will when I say that it does make sense to me.

It isn't just about the faith aspect though, it's the supposed authority given to "the divine". When one claims to know the preferences and morality of the creator of all things, that's quite a heavy statement of authority compared to (for example) the preferences of a unicorn, goblin or other mythical entity.

 

[rosends]

It isn't just about the faith aspect though, it's the supposed authority given to "the divine". When one claims to know the preferences and morality of the creator of all things, that's quite a heavy statement of authority compared to (for example) the preferences of a unicorn, goblin or other mythical entity.

Yes, very heavy. Of course. I'd prefer to say that I am following the dictates of the morality of the divine than on a human ruler what with his fallibility and all.

But if you have any insight into the moral rulings of a unicorn who created the world, feel free to latch on to that. I'm all set with a godhead.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes, very heavy. Of course. I'd prefer to say that I am following the dictates of the morality of the divine than on a human ruler what with his fallibility and all.

But if you have any insight into the moral rulings of a unicorn who created the world, feel free to latch on to that. I'm all set with a godhead.

But your "Godhead" is a product of fallible human imagination.
Actually, no, nevermind, perhaps this indeed is the unbridgeable chasm between us.
I guess there isn't really much else we can say on this matter.

 

[Moishe3rd]

What you've done is used inductive reasoning.

Because you aren't aware of an example of the past when the golden rule is employed, doesn't actually mean it wasn't around.

Similarly, I've only ever seen white geese, so I can conclude only white geese exist, using inductive reasoning. However, black geese exist.

Black geese don't exist. I've never seen one. How can I prove a negative.

It either regard:

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule



Leviticus was written supposedly around 1440-1400 BC.

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?

 

[sojourner]

Quick question. Under what circumstances, outside of immediately harming another human being, would you consider it moral and just to kill your own child?

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.

 

[leibowde84]

The first case is when an individual Jew worships and idol. The second case is where an entire town worships idols. They are put to death.
Idol worshiping is not allowed in the Jewish religion on pain of death.
What is your question?

Do you agree with this law? If so, do you accept it on faith alone?

 

[sojourner]

Are moral precepts depending on culture, from a Christian point of view?

Of course they are.

 

[sojourner]

Do you agree with this law? If so, do you accept it on faith alone?

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.

 

[sojourner]

Do you think it is righteous to shun a man child because his parents did not circumcised it?
Is it righteous to dispatch bears to kill kids that made fun of a bald guy?
Is it righteous to cut the belly of pregnant women that happen to belong to another tribe?
Etc.

These are things ordained by God, so they must be righteous, and unlike morality, be independent of cultures or situations.

Correct?

Incorrect. These things are highly dependent upon culture. Not even Orthodox Jews would view such things as righteous within their particular context. That's partly the reason why they have Talmud and why madras is so important. These things comment and teach precepts of Torah within one's context. Similarly, Christianity also relies heavily upon commentary and ongoing teaching to place the texts firmly within a historical context that may, or may not be applicable in current circumstances.