If religion can be a form of gaining or keeping power it is not surprising any creed has had divisions. I assume that the ones in the first group were possibly fewer and less fractious. Combining religion and nationalism would probably also create division. How much division is needed to be a schism may be a matter of opinion.
Again, I don’t know enough religion to properly assess the statements but I agree some contradiction is possible if the statements are taken in their simplest form. There may not be much contradiction, however, if the statements are intended to be gross simplifications, which do not really say whether a given group is lightly or heavily emphasizing specific teachings, even if the summaries are more true than not.
I can see coveting. But the others are defnitely actions. “Thou shalt have no other God before me” This isn’t a command of belief, but of action- pray to Me. Honor thy mother and thy father- through your actions. It doesn’t say ‘love them’ but ‘show them honor through word and deed’
Not to say that I agree with its not being a commandment of belief, but even by your understanding, do you not see a presumption of belief in a command to pray to an entity?
Is it possible to do so when the entity making the commandment says “TO ME”? And defines itself (in the prior verse) as the G-d that took them out of bondage in Egypt?
It is certainly possible to mouth words while having in mind Pascal’s wager rather than firm belief. However, I don’t think it’s possible to say that the statement in the Ten Commandments (even if interpreted strictly as prayer) can be read so as to include doing so in an agnostic manner.
Nothing in #4 about Christianity makes any sense to me and seems to make no reference to the commonly accepted ideas about this religion and its various schisms.
[quote=“DocCathode, post:23, topic:953797”]
“Thou shalt have no other God before me” This isn’t a command of belief, but of action- pray to Me.[/quote]
I’m not sure that the Law even mentions the word “pray”, so that seems like quite a leap from the text.
Are you aware of some God-derived statement (e.g. not the interpretation of some Rabbi who may have decided to unilaterally lower the standards) that God meant to say something different than he seems to have said?
If a woman tells me to hold her above other women, I don’t think that I would interpret it as “dinner and movies with her, but sex with others is okay and I’m magnificently free to spend my time with her wishing that I was with just about any other woman.” Such a leap, to me, tells us the listener’s intent but not the intent of the asker unless there was some sort of much greater, documented understanding that this relationship is purely transactional on both sides of the fence.
Without any critique of the accuracy of these summaries, one of them (number 3) is not like the others. Summaries 1 and 2 attempt to describe things in a way that still works if you don’t have any idea of the context.
Summary 3 only works if you know something about the references.
I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing, but it sort of stood out as a thing.
Speaking for Brahmanism generally, the goal (and there is no huge consensus, by purpose) is the pursuit of the truth. Sort of like the US constitution where the goal is the pursuit of the truth.
The pursuit of truth means different things to different people - and a general framework is presented. Rigid definitions of “right action or way of living” is frowned upon.