Those things, which are presented unequivocally as absolutes, are based on the understanding that we have more or less made all the fundamental physics discoveries our universe has to offer, which is a profoundly stupid and arrogant thing to believe.

He got modded down because he made it absurdly obvious that he is astroturfing.

If that's true, a valuable part of your investigation should probably be how they interpret it as well, since it helps you understand the impact that such an example serves to that person.

Morals are almost entirely subjective. Ethics are the ones that we consider to be a social standard. :)

It's my opinion that figuring out if they are "being moral" can only be done within the context of a story, as a story encapsulates the morals of the culture or person who recorded the story. I do believe that a quite lively debate about if they are "being ethical" could be had however.

And for the record, I'm not religious. So... yeah. Nice try though.

No, I was not claiming other interpretations of the story were wrong, I was claiming that my interpretation was just AS valid, and that believing there are not multiple valid interpretations is wrong. The original post that I made was essentially to explain that the person I was replying to was completely wrong in asserting that his interpretation was the only valid one, and I did that in part by presenting another valid interpretation.

Unfortunately, my database needs are much too intense for a shared server. :) I peg my DB limits almost instantly.

I'll get it back up sometime soon.

My point was that, being a person who believes the characters to be fictional, you should be interpreting the story for yourself, or you should not care. Basically... why bother spending effort and time arguing about how ethical a fictional character is, instead of trying to find an interpretation of the story itself that makes sense to you?

Re my sig: I wish I could get it back up... I was using an algorithmic approach (like Netflix) to recommending stories. Unfortunately people didn't donate, and now I had to take the server offline. It might be back up in about a month.

You want evidence of an interpretation? Do you understand what an interpretation is?

All stories have value. This one particularly so because of its historical impact. I think you were trying to say that it has no net positive value, which is an opinion that you are free to hold. I suppose thinking people who disagree with you are stupid/crazy is also an opinion you are free to hold, but it's not very logical, reasonable, or productive.

Suggesting that it has no value is not only disingenuous, it is willfully ignorant. You cannot possibly believe that to be a true statement, other than by convincing yourself of its truth through decision. More than a billion people believe in that story. Most of them don't go around murdering people because the voice in the sky told them to. Clearly it has a value, and just because you do not see it does not mean it's there.

And for the record, I am not religious. It's not "my God".

I don't give a damn about justifying anything in the story. What does interest me is what the sociological reasons for telling this story were, and what value it has in today's culture.

I'm neither religious, not suggesting that it's the most accurate view. That you didn't understand that is sad.

Then this story served its function. You disagree at a core level with the historical and literal accuracy, so it has helped you further understand what the things are that you do believe in.

You have belief... in yourself, in your morals clearly. Stories like these are what let you test your beliefs against a backdrop, and discover what the limits of your belief are. You don't believe in the idea that any person should ever truly believe in the ethics of another person... or rather, that no one can provide you better ethics than yourself. That's a great thing to know about yourself. Religion is not necessary for that at all... but it can certainly be useful for it to some people.

That is all that spirituality and religion are. Seeking definition for your own experiences.

The story of Abraham isn't one that I particularly care about when it comes to belief. I trust my experiences, when it comes to my own belief. I was illustrating what the context and social structures of the story are about, but none of that should be taken to mean I believe in the story itself.

Which creator, and which morality? There are thousands of branches.

Well, since we're specifically discussing the context of the Torah, I'd say the Jewish God in this case.

Funny thing, I seem to arrive at entirely different conclusions.

Then it appears that you can safely discard the historical or literal accuracy of the text for yourself.

Oh great, an armchair psychologist! I must admit it's a fun game to play, but you fail rather badly at it.

I'm not stressed, I'm having fun. I enjoy having arguments with people. Sometimes I try to convince the audience, but often all I'm looking for is a discussion with a specific person, and for getting things started sometimes just a few sentences suffice. Depending on how things go I may write in more detail on my opinions later.

My time's limited, so unfortunately I can't type a full treatise on morality in every comment.

Alright, I won't challenge you on this. What you are displaying is emotional reaction to a fictional character that is causing you to interact negatively with real people. If that is not what you feel, then I suppose while you don't have time to write any treatise, you certainly seem to have time to be... selfish I suppose. Spreading negative emotion to other people because it amuses you when it is not an emotion you actually hold is quite... well, anti-social I suppose. Although this is Slashdot.