simple goodness and the abrahamic tradition

I think it is best that we be considerate, wise and healthy.
It’s really simple, when compared to all the culture and paradigms out there.
I think considerateness, wisdom and health are real things. They are not fantasy. They will always be good, and always were good.

I’ve met some people who think that judaism, christianity and islam all have a common message, to be good to people, and that is their main message.
I don’t think that is true, but when someone clumps all the abrahamic tradition together, then says kindness is the main best message, I do agree with that part of it.

Although the truth seems illusive and complex, virtue seems quite simple in general. It is something which is profitable to life in general.

I don’t think there’s a common consensus on this. Abrahamic religions are famous for not getting along … lot’s of wars.

I think the Abrahamic message is mixed. Example :

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

And right away, in the following chapters :

Exo 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exo 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exo 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Exo 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Exo 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Exo 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Until :

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

So I’m confused about this “common message, to be good to people.” Which is it? Thou shalt not kill? or kill everything that breatheth?

What you describe is reason for me not thinking the statement is true.
However, it is a positive statement.

Dude, - I think that You’re overthinking this thing wayy too much. O:)

What these passages basically confer to you is that it’s O.K. to be a Total hypocrite, - as long as you’re doing for the Big Guy. 8-[

Its basically like having an Unlimited Get-out-of-Hell-Free Card, - as long you sign your Name on the dotted line. :handgestures-fingerscrossed: :banana-angel: :angelic-green:

In the beginning the divine spoke:
“Don’t be an asshole.”
The End

[size=85]P.S.
“And stop fucking the sheep!”[/size]

But Lord, the sheep don’t talk back … like Eve in the garden …

But the Real question is, - Did he Really mean it? :teasing-wedgie: :banana-dance:

Likhlukh Chapter 2:3-5
3. “But Lord, the sheep don’t talk back, like Eve in the garden”, spoke Midvar.
4.“You can’t hear them” Said the Lord, “But their cries to my ears are never-ending from your lust.” 5. Later, the Lord returned and spoke saying, “The lamb screams loud in heaven and his name is Jesus.”*

[size=85]Editor’s Note:
Likhlukh 2:5 is the traditional rendering, unfortunately, this rendering is derived from a theological reading by Medieval scribes with fragments of the text, causing a strange implication that man was defiling Jesus in their perversion.
However, the original texts with full sections of this segment show that 2:5 is better translated as the following:
Later, the Lord returned and spoke saying, “I mean, do you know what the hell a screaming sheep sounds like up here? Jesus!”[/size]

Likhlukh Chapter 2:28-36
28. The days past and the people stirred, 30. still concerning over what the all mighty divine had spoke. 31. During a Parah dance, an elder named Shneur, which means he is of two lights, asked to the people, “The real question is, did he really mean it?”
32. An earthquake arose thereafter and came from the heavens a 33. thunder, 34. and the divine spoke, “No, J/K! #godlovespranks!”. 35. From that day and into today, thus has been held the sacred symbol of the mighty one’s cross:
48.

I can agree with that. Not too far fetched the idea that all the major religions have a comparable message. Think that first of all there is a common origin in all these narratives and that is man and his situation.
In specific, both Christianity, and Islam drew from the Judaism of their time. If someone sees a basis for comparasion then I think it is not an unnecessary imposition.

I think that the bible contains passages that make the brutality of those times a temporary necessity, while the command to not kill remains an eternal requirement.

Also, that’s a misnomer.
The “not kill” command isn’t “kill” as we understand the word in vague concept in our culture.

The word is ratsach, meaning “to murder” or when applied to a person, “a murderer”.

The instruction was not to murder, it had nothing to do with all forms of killing.

The reason that you see all the following sub-clauses, V, is because the “10 commandments” can be seen as headers to the rest of the Laws, of which under the heading of “not murder”, you have what kinds of killings are allowed and not considered murder.

“Murder” was, in their culture, more of an act of one of their own killing one of their own without a justified motive under the law.

Which ends up being a tautology - not saying this to disagree with you, I agree.

You shouldn’t kill immorally.
Well, duh.

Not coveting thy neighbor’s wife is less of a duh. That is if the translation of the Hewbrew to covet - which entails a shift from action to thought - is correct.

How is it a tautology?

Murder includes the idea that it is wrongful killing.
That it is wrong is already built into the word.
One shouldn’t do things that are wrong
doesn’t really give any information.
Thou shalt not kill, however would give new information. But as you say, that is not what was meant.

Ah, well, they hadn’t any laws yet that were unified on what was considered “wrong”; there were varying familial based “laws” prior to these, and then if there was a dispute, then there would be conflict over whether the act was wrong or not.
These attempted to spell it out, like amendments to a sort of constitution of the varying groups of Hebrews.

It wasn’t really a tautology to them because prior to this, “murder” wasn’t outlined in unified definition precisely as to what wasn’t murder, and “obvious” or “common sense” law wasn’t really the Hebrew culture’s way of doing things.

Ahahaha. - Oh man you Truly Are good. :banana-guitar: If you wrote a testament, - I would definitely believe it. O:)

Well, - that makes a lot more sense and would be seemingly far more useful, - especially when you’re concerned with dishing out some major Genocide on the daily. [-o< :banana-dance:

:stuck_out_tongue: I’ll gladly take the compliment.

They sure talked a good talk right?
Yet…I’m not really certain the bragging was exactly accurate. Either way, though, yeah…you kind of have to pardon wiping out people for taking their lands so you can call home…I mean…America…

Okay, I guess we give ‘em a free pass for living the values of their times. But we don’t live those values in todays’ times.

Will someone please tell Israel, Christians, Muslims, and all others that are living by The Book?

Strong’s :
H7523
רצח
râtsach
raw-tsakh’
A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).