How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

dust1n said:

Here are two commandants:

Remember/Observe Sabbath
Do Not Murder

If the 10C's or laws provided were not meant to dictates in line with objective ethics, then god would be commanding a dictate outside to parameters of what is objectively ethical. Was I wrong to assume that God commands people not to murder because murder is wrong, or is the reasoning behind this commandment lost to humanity as well? As far as why God found it important enough that the Sabbath was kept; no idea.

Click to expand...

Although I think the first two commandments (two believe in G-d and not to worship idols) already put the question to the moral thread that supposedly passes through the commandments, the commandment for the Sabbath definitely tears that thread.
I would have said that because G-d commanded not to murder, murder is the wrong thing to do. That's not a moral statement, that's transgressing a command.
I don't think the reasoning can be said to be lost to humanity when humanity as a whole didn't have them in the first place, just the Jews did.

dust1n said:

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?

Click to expand...

You say "us", but understand that Jews don't believe that the Bible was given to non-Jews. Its contents was meant for the Jews (who it was presented to) not the world.
That aside, the reason why we follow the commandments is because G-d told us to. And also the reward for doing so is beneficial to us.

dust1n said:

Was I wrong to assume that God commands people not to murder because murder is wrong, or is the reasoning behind this commandment lost to humanity as well? As far as why God found it important enough that the Sabbath was kept; no idea.

Click to expand...

An Israelite was not allowed to take another man's life illegally - what we would call murder. Each sovereign state has a legal definition for what is allowable killing and what is illegal. Our moral code may be offended or it may not. But murder is defined legally as death by illegal means. As an aside, It was illegal to provide false witnesses in a court. If the crime being judged would lead to death, that intended death would come back on the false witness if the law was applied correctly.

The Sabbath was set aside as a day to not work for one's own profit. It provided a day, or week, or year (depending on the type of Sabbath) of focus on showing love to neighbor and love for God. Consideration was mandated for the needs of others, including the need for rest among the beasts of burden.

dust1n said:

By the way, could a mod replace "interrupt" with "interpret". That was a new word switch for me.

Click to expand...

Done.

Tumah said:

Although I think the first two commandments (two believe in G-d and not to worship idols) already put the question to the moral thread that supposedly passes through the commandments, the commandment for the Sabbath definitely tears that thread.
I would have said that because G-d commanded not to murder, murder is the wrong thing to do. That's not a moral statement, that's transgressing a command.
I don't think the reasoning can be said to be lost to humanity when humanity as a whole didn't have them in the first place, just the Jews did.

Click to expand...

So you'd disagree with this assessment? (I know it seems like we are digressing, but I'll pull it around in a second.)

"There are 603 more Torah commandments. But in giving these ten—with their wise insight into the human condition—God established a standard of right and wrong, a powerful code of behavior, that is universal and timeless."

Living Judaism: The Complete Guide to Jewish Belief, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 31–33. HarperCollins (1995).

You say "us", but understand that Jews don't believe that the Bible was given to non-Jews. Its contents was meant for the Jews (who it was presented to) not the world.
That aside, the reason why we follow the commandments is because G-d told us to. And also the reward for doing so is beneficial to us.

Click to expand...

I didn't say "us" as to imply that the rules were intended for everybody, but just clarifying that we all are equally unable to ascertain the reasoning by the ten commandments. But thanks. It's an interesting perspective that God's dictate for not murdering is not necessarily predicated on any moral consideration and that the reason people follow out it are not out of any ethical consideration, but that of because it says to do and it says we get a reward for doing it.

Tumah said:

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?

Click to expand...

Lol

Kolibri said:

An Israelite was not allowed to take another man's life illegally - what we would call murder. Each sovereign state has a legal definition for what is allowable killing and what is illegal. Our moral code may be offended or it may not. But murder is defined legally as death by illegal means.

Click to expand...

So the Ten Commandments dictum not to murder, is less about killing people, and more about following the laws when killing people?

The Sabbath was set aside as a day to not work for one's own profit. It provided a day, or week, or year (depending on the type of Sabbath) of focus on showing love to neighbor and love for God. Consideration was mandated for the needs of others, including the need for rest among the beasts of burden.

Click to expand...

I guess, I understand this. This would imply that Sabbath is a moral consideration.

dust1n said:

So the Ten Commandments dictum not to murder, is less about killing people, and more about following the laws when killing people?

Click to expand...

The Hebrew word translated as "murder" in the English translation of the 10 commandments is the same word translated to kill in other areas. It is the context that determines if it is just or injust or baring justice...legal.

It could be said as "You must not kill outside of the times and situations where it is mandated by the Law I am giving you."

George-ananda said:

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

Click to expand...

The theistic lifestyle can sometimes be called the "Abrahamic" lifestyle. To leave it is to leave theism entirely.

1AOA1 said:

The theistic lifestyle can sometimes be called the "Abrahamic" lifestyle. To leave it is to leave theism entirely.

Click to expand...

That is totally wrong thinking in my eyes. It seems the enemies of the Abrahamic faiths want to marry the worst of the scriptures (to modern culture and logical perspective) to religion. Religions can be living evolving things around the core of the message of brotherly love and why should they not be influenced by modern thinkers too? I don't see where God locked any scriptures in time; that was man's doing. We still can use our heads thankfully.

Kolibri said:

The Hebrew word translated as "murder" in the English translation of the 10 commandments is the same word translated to kill in other areas. It is the context that determines if it is just or injust or baring justice...legal.

It could be said as "You must not kill outside of the times and situations where it is mandated by the Law I am giving you."

Click to expand...

Seems like theres a lot of times and situations where god granted a lot of leniency for people to kill. Sometimes with explicit instructions, and other times with non-specific ones that could be easily abused:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15)

This is just the Torah. It's not even a portion of the rest of the New Testament.

dust1n said:

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Click to expand...

A clarification is needed here. She was not burned to death. She died in another way, but the corpse would be burned as a warning to onlookers. An example of such a 2-step process involving the command to burn was seen in the book of Joshua. Death by means of the Law was never meant to be prolonged torture. It was swift. The God of the Bible finds purposely burning people to death disgusting.

"And the one who is caught with the thing devoted to destruction will be burned with fire, he and all that belong to him, because he has violated the covenant of Jehovah and because he has committed a disgraceful act in Israel."
- Joshua 7:15

"Joshua said: 'Why have you brought disaster (or "trouble; ostracism.") upon us? Jehovah will bring disaster upon you on this day.' With that all Israel stoned him, after which they burned them with fire. Thus they stoned all of them."
- Joshua 7:25

"Furthermore, they built the high places of Ba'al in the Valley of the Son of Hin'nom, in order to make their sons and daughters pass thru the fire to Mo'lech, something that I had not commanded them and that had never come into my heart (or "had never entered my thoughts.") to do such a detestable thing, causing Judah to sin."
- Jeremiah 32:35

Kolibri said:

A clarification is needed here. She was not burned to death. She died in another way, but the corpse would be burned as a warning to onlookers. An example of such a 2-step process involving the command to burn was seen in the book of Joshua. Death by means of the Law was never meant to be prolonged torture. It was swift. The God of the Bible finds burning people alive disgusting.

"And the one who is caught with the thing devoted to destruction will be burned with fire, he and all that belong to him, because he has violated the covenant of Jehovah and because he has committed a disgraceful act in Israel."
- Joshua 7:15

"Joshua said: 'Why have you brought disaster (or "trouble; ostracism.") upon us? Jehovah will bring disaster upon you on this day.' With that all Israel stoned him, after which they burned them with fire. Thus they stoned all of them."
- Joshua 7:25

"Furthermore, they built the high places of Ba'al in the Valley of the Son of Hin'nom, in order to make their sons and daughters pass thru the fire to Mo'lech, something that I had not commanded them and that had never come into my heart (or "had never entered my thoughts.") to do such a detestable thing."
- Jeremiah 32:35

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what connection you are making here. This isn't a reference to a specific girl who was burned to death. This is God commanding Moses to say to Aaron to tell the priests (among other things) if your virgin daughter has sex, to burn her to death. Also, he should only marry a virgin from his village, and if his kid is a crippled, they shouldn't be a priest:

1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them:

‘No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his people, 2except for his relatives who are nearest to him, his mother and his father and his son and his daughter and his brother, 3also for his virgin sister, who is near to him because she has had no husband; for her he may defile himself. 4‘He shall not defile himself as a relative by marriage among his people, and so profane himself. 5‘They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh. 6‘They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the LORD, the food of their God; so they shall be holy. 7‘They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God. 8‘You shall consecrate him, therefore, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the LORD, who sanctifies you, am holy. 9‘Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.

10‘The priest who is the highest among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not uncover his head nor tear his clothes; 11nor shall he approach any dead person, nor defile himself even for his father or his mother; 12nor shall he go out of the sanctuary nor profane the sanctuary of his God, for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is on him; I am the LORD. 13‘He shall take a wife in her virginity. 14‘A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, 15so that he will not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctifies him.’”

16Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17“Speak to Aaron, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. 18‘For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, 19or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. 21‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. 22‘He may eat the food of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, 23only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.’”

dust1n said:

I'm not sure what connection you are making here. This isn't a reference to a specific girl who was burned to death

Click to expand...

Leviticus does not stipulate that she die by the fire, only that she be burnt. We see an example of the command to burn being applied after death, not to death.

Kolibri said:

Leviticus does not stipulate that she die by the fire, only that she be burnt. We see an example of the command to burn being applied after death, not to death.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really trying to emphasize to actual burning, because really the common theme of whether one burns their daughter for having sex as a form of killing them, or after killing them, is that a priest is being instructed to kill ones own daughter if she has premarital sex. Am I mistaken in this?

dust1n said:

if his kid is a crippled, they shouldn't be a priest:

Click to expand...

to a Christian this makes perfect sense because the Law arrangement foreshadows better things. Our High Priest is Jesus, and his brothers after they have endured faithfully and received their reward (at which time they will serve as his underpriests) will also be without blemish. All of these, the Levitial priests, Jesus and those that serve as priests before him are ministering before the God of perfection, and so needed to be without blemish.

However, those that were of the Aaronic bloodline under the Law Covenant arrangement but were disqualifed by means of a physical defect were still provided for. They were still shown kindness and not left destitute.

"Because he has a defect, he may not approach to present the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God from the most holy things and from the holy things."
- Leviticus 21:21b; Leviticus 21:22

dust1n said:

I wasn't really trying to emphasize to actual burning, because really the common theme of whether one burns their daughter for having sex as a form of killing them, or after killing them, is that a priest is being instructed to kill ones own daughter if she has premarital sex. Am I mistaken in this?

Click to expand...

Yes there were times when the parents were to be the first to cast the stone. It was very hard emotionally no doubt. The parent had to make the same choice Adam made regarding his wife Eve, to let sentiment rule or to obey the one that has the power to restore life. These ones that died were devoted to destruction, but that does not mean that the death is absolutely permanent. The 13th chapter of Hosea notes that the Ephramites being spoken to would not avoid their punishment. They would die but they were promised a resurrection in the future.

Kolibri said:

to a Christian this makes perfect sense because the Law arrangement foreshadows better things.

Click to expand...

So killing a daughter who had premartial sex makes perfect sense because doing so means that better things are going to happen? So, killing is okay when it confers some sort of benefit to the person killing?

Our High Priest is Jesus, and his brothers after they have endured faithfully and received their reward (at which time they will serve as his underpriests) will also be without blemish. However this was no allowance for showing these Levites unkindness. All of these, the Levitial priests, Jesus and those that serve as priests before him are ministering before the God of perfection, and so needed to be without blemish.

However, those that were of the Aaronic bloodline under the Law Covenant arrangement but were disqualifed by means of a physical defect were still provided for.

Click to expand...

I mean, this is sort of a separate issue, but I really fail to see why a paraplegic couldn't be a minister. I'm not sure what sort of blemish-free approach that's suppose to be, but it's a side issue, and one that doesn't specifically to be addressed.

"Because he has a defect, he may not approach to present the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God from the most holy things and from the holy things."
- Leviticus 21:21b; Leviticus 21:22

Click to expand...

"only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries." I mean, I'm not even sure how I'm suppose to pretend like that blind people being disqualified for speaking on behalf is somehow defensible. But, not that pertinent. I'm more interested in trying to understanding the rationale for why God order the genocide of entire towns was okay, or that this is supposedly a being of morality and or worthy praise. The only one I've gotten so far is that we simply don't have access the supposed reasons and morality of god's actions. That, and I guess all those laws were totally okay and can be reasoned away with context. I.E. Blind people can't be preists, because they are blemished and would blemish the church being a representative of God, despite any other capabilities or qualities they may have.

Kolibri said:

Yes there were times when the parents were to be the first to cast the stone. It was very hard emotionally no doubt. The parent had to make the same choice Adam made regarding his wife Eve, to let sentiment rule or to obey the one that has the power to restore life. These ones that died were devoted to destruction, but that does not mean that the death is absolutely permanent. The 13th chapter of Hosea notes that the Ephramites being spoken to would not avoid their punishment. They would die but they were promised a resurrection in the future.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I still fail to see how the "destruction" of premarital sex is worse than the murdering of one's own kids. But I appreciate your sincere answers to my many endless questions.

This makes perfect sense is in regard to what is in that specific post, regarding priests needing to be unblemished because they foreshadowed the arrangement under the new covenant. And all of them, both under the old and the new minister before a God w/o defect.

dust1n said:

Thanks. I still fail to see how the "destruction" of premarital sex is worse than the murdering of one's own kids. But I appreciate your sincere answers to my many endless questions.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the added burning applied to the daughters of the priesthood was due to the priest's responsibility to teach the people God's law. With greater responsibility comes stiffer punishment. He, who was tasked to look after the spiritual needs of the entire nation, failed to provide to the spiritual needs of his own household. Even under the new arrangement, no one that continues to practices sex outside of the marriage arrangement will receive the reward of everlasting life on a cleansed earth, nor a heavenly reward for those born from spirit to have that hope. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) As one of the unrighteous many may get the resurrection, but may not stay if they don't adjust at that time.(Acts of the Apostles 24:15)

No problem. I do not mind answering as best I am able while I am still here.