Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

The factors which can apply to 'US':Q. Who was around when this was said, in context to the text?A. Heaven [angelic/spiritual beings]; animals and other life forms. And there is no reason to say that Gd only speaks to humans.The next applicable factor is to examine the said verse correctly - specially grammatically. Here we find, although the US is used in the aspect of a dialogue in the plural, the actual act of Creation is in the singular. This says, it is appropriate to include the present entities in this dialogue, and not including them would be inappropriate: a dialogue has to have recipients, and there were these.Via interaction of other verses in the same source,we can affirm whether it is correct, namely:'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' [Ex].That verse clearly signifies that the creation of life was a singularly act. And no other entity or factor can apply, because none eisted at one time, nor did anyone else prove creating life since then.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

In ancient times, Deities had names, thus Moses was told by the Pharoah he knew 70 deities but not the Gd of Abraham. In actuality, the names seen in the Mosaic are more like adjectives than nouns, being descriptive terminology, eg: Shield, AlMighty, High One, etc.But when Moses actually asked for Gd's name, he was given 13 Traits or Attributes [kindness, mercy, forgiveness, etc] - and the abbreviation of these traits are presented as a name - because it constituted a response to the question; this was later proposed by Christianity as Jehova - which is not an actual name or even a realword, but an abbreviation of a sentence [eg: FBI]. The Hebrews used abbreviation because of the 3rd Commandment, namely not to use the name in vain, which included dishonesty, false oaths and also casually.

"It means "I AM" as was explained to Moses or "the existing one/god".And that is hardly a pronoun, than an adjectival descriptive term. In the same passage, the Hebrews are told to refer to Gd as 'God of thy forefathers, Abraham..' The latter is a descriptive mode of God being transcendent of time and space - Abraham being 400 years ago and in another region. Similarly, the Hebrew letters for I AM is an abbreviation of the Tetragamation, or the 13 Attributes.Aside from this factor,when one is confronted with such revelation, the connectivity does not depend on any names, because the 2nd commandment clearly states, the Creator cannot be compared with anything within creation- so the terms used are for the recipient's benefit only. In Genesis, two names are used, one before the advent of humans [Creator of Nature],and thereafter a Holier name is used when a dialogue with humans occur. With Adam, this becomes a Pronoun only after Eve appears, and before this it is a generic reference to human. This shows all the names are descriptive, including names such as Abraham [father of many], Jacob [foot heel- because he came out of the womb clinging to Esau's heel], and Israel [one who strove with Gd]. Jerusalem is also a descriptive word. In the OT, the names can all be tracked to a root word.

The premise of the NT, which came 2000 years later, is different from that of the OT, although christians see both scriptures as inter-related, which is really a subjective issue, depending which scripture one is alligned with. The NT is also in conflict with Islam, which gives a totally different take on history and beliefs. Thus I am listing what the OT says, according to its own, independent texts. The only certainty here is that all three scriptures cannot be equally correct, and this is the non-alligned, and unbiased view.The OT names are descriptive only, but alligned with their context and history: there is no 'son' here, no Judaism or islam; your reference to son and spirit is thus a later, subjective blief,not what the text actually refers to, and you will find totally variant takes depending on who and which other later scripture is attached.Before the advent of humans, Genesis correctly uses a descriptive term which signifies this factor, namely by using US - which is a big picture view of creation and life forms predating all humans and their religions: here, figures such as Moses and Jesus do not enter the picture - animals and spiritual forces do; galaxies, suns and moons are listed; elements such as water and land are listed; humans become one dot in this scenario; religions do not feature in the first chapter. This is correct, because there is a treshold which transcends all religions.So whether we accept this or not, Genesis is talking, retrospectively, of a scenario devoid of humanity, as a background scenario. The OT is a very exacting and pristine document in this sense - it transcends the later, inter-group religious differentials.

True, they are also actual names we address people by. This is seen in Adam being a generic description [of the earth], before Eve emerged [there was no one to call him by that name], but this became an actual name later on. The Pronoun name came from the original descriptive name [as in blacksmith, tailor, etc]. We see this actual progression represented in Genesis, which contains numerous pages of names of generations - all authenticated by archeology, and being one of the prime factors to determine datings.Genesis back-tracts this progression to the very dawn of humanity, to a point when no names prevailed. Thus I say to those who reject that speech endowed humans are more than 6000 years old: I ask for a 'NAME' older than 6000, which is the definitive test for both history per se and of modern speech humans. A NAME does not depend on writings, but provable even by oral, traditional recall. This says, Genesis is not a mythical document, but appears to evidence itself by factual, historical and scientific evidencing.

I dont think so. The first name [Elokim] is used when humanity was non-existent as we know it, namely to have speech and conduct intelligent dialogue. Thus this name is alligned with nature, or pre-modern human laws, being 'event' related. We see the text uses an extended name and abides by this for the rest of the five books, after the advent of dialogue addressed to humans.The name El is not a name per se, but refers to the then used generic term for Sir, Boss, Lord, High One, etc. El Shadai = Boss with is a shield of protection. Here, the texts is speaking in the language of the people, and grammatically and historically correct.The 'US', stated before the advent of modern humans - or at least stated not to humans, would only relate to spiritual beings - which we see are able to talk, which is contained in 'the heavens' - which predated the earth [V1], and which is referred to as angels today.Also, you have assumed that the OT was taken from Canaanite beliefs, ignoring the fulcrum factor here: that Monotheism was a direct opposition premise from the Canaanite Polytheism, a factor for numerous wars throughout ancient history [with Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome].Also, numerous sources, though not the majority, say that the Hebrew alphabetical writings predate Canaanite, Phonecian and sumerian writings; eg: Encyclopedia of Britanica. Also, the Greek writings, said to have emerged from the phoenecian - appears incorrect - the Greeks themselves say they got their alphabeticals from the Hebrew, and so does the 2000 year old Josephus documents. I say - prove the point, by producing a sumerian or phoenecian or Greek alphabetical book older than the Hebrew! I think one should seperate any bias here, and there is surely a bias when a post-dated religion is inclined on negating a pre-existant religion, to validate its own premise.

What you refer to as plural, means PLENTIFUL in the Hebrew. Chiefely, in the verse, 'THEFULLNESS OF ALL THE UNIVERSE IS HIS GLORY'. This refers to a premise different from singular/plural.The term [YKWH] is a later adaption by christianity, and does not actually exist, and never used as Jehovah pre-christianity. What happened was, christianity, not being adept with Hebrew in its liturgy, "spelled out" an abbreviation used by Jews- namely the 4 alphabets represent a full, long sentence, considered ineffable, and not mentionable casually ['NOT TO TAKE THE NAME IN VAIN'/The 10 Cs].IOW, christianity took an abbreviation such as FBI - and made it a name by sounding it phonetically. When tracked back, it is a total fiction. But no doubt the intent is honorable.

quote:

---

Elohim is not a proper name. It is a generic word which can be applicable to any god/gods.

---

Not so. This refers to the word, EL only.

quote:

---

The descriptive term "us" is used once so far as I'm aware

---

Correct, just once, and before the emergence of speech endowed humans. It is 'event' related.

quote:

---

whereas Jehovah/YHWH is used over 6000 times.

---

Not true. The name Elokim, is always attached to ADNAI, being an extention at all times, signifying the Gd of both Nature [Elokim] and humanity, namely the ONE God. After the advent of humanity and dialogue, the name Elkim is never given on its own.

quote:

---

Adonai, again is not a proper name. It's also descriptive meaning lord/master.

---

Not correct. This word was given when Moses asked God what was his source of power. It is a descriptive abbreviation of the 13 Attributes given to Moses for the first time. Abraham was not given this, as he never asked for it, as did Moses. There is really no such word as Adnai, except when used as an abbreviation, each letter representing attributes [descriptions].

quote:

---

As to whether the NT and OT being equally correct, many OT as well as most NT scholars believe they are. One needs to be aware of the messianic prophecies of the OT, with the understanding that the NT era is the dispensational fulfillment of the OT.

---

This is well outside the parametres of this thread. However, the prophetic writings, eg Isaiah, has many things never addressed by those who use it as an evidence. Fact is, nothing in Isaiah alligns with a divine human, and almost every verse contradicts such a premise. The people of this vicinity, including Islam, reject any allignments made by christians. However, this does not have any impact that christian belief is genuine and Godly inclined. Isaiah or any prohetic writings of the OT, are certainly not talking NT premises of trinity, the latter being more a mysterious compulsion which allowed Pagan Europe a path which suited this peoples.The jews were not wrong the way they observed and interpreted their scriptures, which predate the NT by 2000 years, and incurred many wars to defend their premise. The terrible delima humanity faces is that both cannot be sustained, and unless a new or revealed manifestation occurs, there is only conflict ahead. I am certain there will be a resolvement, as all are genuine in their beliefs, and these two religions have the most in common,with only a single but pivotal disagreement. Here, an honest disagreement is better than a dishonest agreeement.

quote:

---

Regarding Islam, the Quran is compatible with neither the Hebrew or Christian scriptures

---

Islam fell in love with Judaism, after they saw jewish beliefs in their midst when Babylon exiled them. Instead of alligning with the OT adherants, there was an ego factor, which turned into disdain that Judaism and israel returned after 2000 years. No one wants to see the witness for the prosecution being resurrected - because it is seen as a negation of core factors held and cherished a long time. It appears the Messengers of Islam and the NT have fully harkened to the biblical God with Israel's return - only the adherants of those messengers see it otherwise.

The first instance of potential wrong for consideration is, what if the premise of the NT being read as an extention of the OT is incorrect. Ultimately, one is obligated to consider this factor, and ponder what impacts will be resultant, specially that will christians still continue harkeing to the OT. It is a view.There have been many errors in this regard. The widespread belief of Isaiah being alligned with the gospels has now been put to rest as a fiction, even by christian scholars, making the question both obligatory and dire to confront. What IF applies.

Its not a plularity - it means plentiful. The former reading contradicts every other verse, statute and law in the OT. One cannot read the OT in consequence of the NT - it should be the other way around.However, humanity is subjected to contradicting, self-preferential paradigms, while every one of those contradictions are also backed by the most sincere intentions. Yet all cannot be right - which is an awful realisation, making the present full of chaos and conflict, and the future no better. Somethings got to give - this scenario cannot prevail forever. Someone's going to get hurt - and we should not be gleeful of it: this is the test for humanity. Here, whoever wins is the bad guy: that was never the point.

quote:

---

IAJ can argue till the cows come home that the name isn't the proper OT name for the god of Israel but he's whistling in the wind. I've decided to let him rant on. To address all his nonsense leads too far off topic.

---

That statement says, there is absolutely no conflict and contradiction between the OT and NT? Since when is that so - my history knowledge says the Jews and the Greeks had numerous wars - all over the premise of Monotheism.200 years before christianity emerged, the Greeks proposed an amalgamation of the two religions, and they proposed making Moses a universal figure. However, this sublime premise fell on its head when the Greeks conditioned it to melting both religion's dieties, Zeus and Jehova, and making a new one representing both. That contradicted the OT laws and Monotheism.The greeks never forgave the jews for their rejection, but they did succeed in making their premise prevail via the Gospels, perpertrated via the Roman empire. Christianity dutifully attached the name Roman as the prefix to Catholicism - as if it was a merit to allign with Rome's divine emperors, and villify the jews for monotheism. The result is, true monotheism is totally rejected by christianity - because it was attached to its core doctrines. IOW, if the original OT followers are right - then the NT premise falls. Thus its like whilstling in the dark to impress in such a situation. No contest.This is the reason none of the OT laws are attached to a name, and Moses or God does not appear in the OT laws: they are pristine and can stand on their own for all peoples. The issue concerning different names about the Creator is a moot one, and does not dent the ONE-NESS premise whatsoever. The law which precedes all moral and ethical laws is that of HONESTY - the 3rd commandment, not to mention the name in vain refers to honesty. This is put before respect of parents and love: for what kind of respect or love when it is not resultant from honesty?And hinesty means, ultimately the buck stops with ONE - here, all agents and middlemen must take a back seat. Thus Moses was told to stand down with the people when the greatest, open revelation occured. Christians can thus use any names they like in their journey, which is no doubt sincere and Gdly inclined - but this does not alter the destination. In the end, all prophets, messengers and revered ones become superfluous. If they were still around or could speak tous - they would confirm this without qualifications. its not a rant.FOR THE STRAIGHT HE MAKES THE ROAD STRAIGHT - FOR THE CROOKED HE MAKES THE ROAD CROOKED.

quote:

---

Elohim is singular

---

More impacting, the word 'create', appearing in the same verse, is in the singular. IOW, whether one reads Elkim as singular or plentitude, the creating was done by a singular entity.The OT is like a maths equation, everything is intergrated. If a certain conclusion is seen as contradicting another factor in the OT, it signifies an incorrect path of understanding.Now the 'US' in the said verse, is not a plural for the Creator even when that US is read as a plural. This verse appears after the creation of Heaven [and heavenly/spiritual beings such as Angels], and after all other life forms were already created. At this pre-human point, we find a 'dialogue' being contained in the narratives, begging the question, who is God speaking to? The answer is obvious: to the other created biengs - and it would be inappropriate for us to assume that God does not communicate with them. IOW, God is including the other life forms in the picture of Creation.That God considers the animals, for example, is seen with some 20 laws in the OT which forbids ill-treatment of them. This is to such an extent, that even the animal's emotions are taken into consideration, even when they are used for consumption. All animal rights laws come from the OT, including feeding an animal before the owner, not to take the mother and offspring together, not to leave a hole in an animal's vicinity, not to overload an animal, and not to forbid an animal to eat when food is around the animal.In the past few months of scientific experiments, it was found that animals do possess emotional pains when mistreated.Genesis says the animals were blessed - so why should they not be regarded when creation is occuring, and they are about to be transcended and made subserviant? We find an analogy here: when Sodom was to be destroyed, this information was not witheld from Abraham - who strived with God to save them.So I see the fulcrum factor in that verse as God creates in the sungular - and everything else must allign with this factor. the issue here is, that some belief systems are alligned with a premise which contradicts a strict Monotheism premise - most cannot sustain their beliefs without images and agents. This is fine, because one can be a bad monotheist and another can be a good polytheist: but there should be no confusion or distortion of what Monotheism says, regardless of one's preferred beliefs.

quote:

---

Just as the temple in the OT had an outer court, a holy place, and a holy of holies; so man was also crafted in like manner having a physical body (the outer court), a soul (the holy place), and a spirit (the holy of holies).

---

I see this as a fine analogy. It is also represented in genesis, which signifies both a connection with the source, and a seperation treshold, seen in all the acts of the created process, eg. seperating of light/darkness, water/land, day/night, etc. It is also what is referred to as sanctified, which refers to what is seperated from normal usage. This seperation treshold between the physical and spirtal realms cannot be broken voluntarilly by man: the reason Genesis opens with the 2nd alphabet ['B'] and we are told to go forward - the 'A' factor being barred.There has been only one instance of this treshold being broken, which refers to an OPEN form of unity between the physical and spiritual realm, and this occured at Mount Sinai. All other forms of revelation, by their own declarations, comes under visions, omens, angels, etc. None were OPEN and DIRECT revelations, and today this is the only form of Revelation which can satisfy and resolves the various groups of contradicting belief systems; a preferred representatives of any particular religion will not convince or resolve - each will seek their own, and the cycle will continue as at the last 2000 years.

quote:

---

After Christ died on the cross the veil of separation between the holy place and the holy of holies was torn in two, effectively opening the way for us to contact God through Christ, which was previously blocked when God cast Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (note the Cherubims and a flaming sword which are also quite significant).

​

So I think it is also important to consider why man was created in God's image.

---

This is a later belief, limited to the gospels, and made retrospectively. Although it is a genuine, Gdly inclined belief - it is not shared by the rest of humanity. In fact, Jesus was only one of 1.1 Million other jews who also had their lives sacrificed in an equally, or more terrible, manner, and it remains a sad error of its omission, and its distortions, seen in the gospels. The mode for interaction was not opened 2000 years ago, nor was revelation to humanity.All that occured was that the west's time came to forego its polytheism, as happened to the pre-islamic arabian peoples with islam, and this was given them in a mode they would understand ['He speaketh in the language of men; He understandeth the nature of man; Abraham shall be the father of many nations'/OT]. Europe was not able to take on board the OT as intended, and there was a compromise made, to assist those who for a long time were embedded in hellenism and romanism: these numerously rejected Monotheism and its stringest requirements, which contradicted their traditions.In the final count, all forms of messengers, dieties, and instruents, even the Gospels, will be directed to Monotheism in an absolute form, al beit via their own circuitous routes, be this via Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Krishna, Jesus or even the atheist BBT adherants - the buck will stop at ONE. The shortest distance between two dots is when there are no dots in between.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Elohiym is plural

---

There is only one operating factor here. That Elokim creates in the 'singular' - the verb in the verse is singular. There is no allignment or inference here of the trinity - which appears the only reason this issue is even raised, retrospectively, to render the OT follow the NT. But its the other way around: consider that the NT does not follow the quaran, while this is equally demanded of the NT as it does of the OT. Who's right - of course this depends on who's asking whom - and who decides?The problem appears to be that the NT premise is cushioned in a manner whereby it is wholly dependent on the trinity factor and a name - even it seems more so than the factor of Monotheism, and it becomes negated unless this is upheld via a series of accumulated and complex manouverings of the OT text and of every coherence. It is plain obvious the OT cannot be made hostage to two religions which came 2600 years later - with no interim observence of the OT, and while both the NT and Quran are in polar contradiction of each other. Worse, there is no seeming benefits of this: it becomes akin to first joining a VIP club before entry into salvation. Instead, humanity must find its path via their allignment to sacred laws, instead of its reverse mode. This makes all belief inclined and stopped at ONE - else chaos results - as has been seen from the past till today.The issue of Monotheism is not even rendered by the varied interpretation of a verse in Genesis: there is the entire body of writings from Abraham and Moses to Micah to consider, and numerous Prophets and sages - and a singular break away from its stringent requirements cannot pass eventually. So where does this bring humanity to? Obviously, the MY GD IS BETTER THAN YOURS is not the right way, and only ends up in cyclical disunity: but this is only applicable when names are used, and they disappear when beief is made subject to laws. Why should a christian or muslim or jews have a problem if the message is followed - with no names attached?What is required here is how does humanity unite in one belief, to go forward, without kicking anyone in the soul. I have not an answer obviously, and to be sure - no one else has either. Each belief system is stuck and trapped, not able to move to or fro - so this quagmire is assured to continue.I would throw some feelers here, with the clear understabding humanity is as yet not able to sustain such requirements, but which has no alternatives eventually. Here goes:The main problem appears when the Messenger is made transcendent of the message. When we look at the OT laws, we find no names attached to those laws - eg: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. These are laws of DOs and DONTs, which do not require names - they are pristine and can be understood by all. But we have such factors as, Gd of Israel; No salvation but tru JC; No Gd w/o Mohammed, etc. Obviously, we cannot expect a Norwegian or Chinese to harken to a tribal family in Canaan 4000 years ago - nor would such harkening have any meanings, aside from policitickings. At the same time, it is just about impossible to ask one not to heed their sacred and revered ones - because the entire belief in the Creator has been attached to a 'NAME' - as opposed what that name says. This is a quagmire for humanity, when seen from a zoomed out aerial view.The price paid for this quagire is enormous upon humanity - it cannot go forward. Nothing can happen if one messenger from one belief systems reveals something, with the condition attached the messenger is transcendent of the message. There are one to many messengers and thus no message anymore. Chaos is the result.
Believe it or not, but if a scripture does not have the mandated command NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - it means they can ADD AND SUBTRACT! This is not subject to traditions or beliefs, but requires a written, mandated law which says so. The OT has this law. I suspect there is a deep reason for it, other than what some see as a Zealous/Jealous God.Eventually, all of humanity must propose laws applicable for mankind - and all humanity must vote, and all agree to apply those as the laws of a universal belief system. Further, any changes outside of what humanity as a whole decides, must come not from a reveation by one group or nation, but from ONE God to all humanity. This means, if one religion's messiah was to appear - we have to say, no sir - we want only the Creator to address all humanity simultainiously. This will put any messiah on the line to deliver or go away: but it raises the value of humanity a 1000 fold.This is how a judiciary court operates on earth - laws agreed to by the Government, by its peoples. There should be no problem expecting Heaven to accept this. I suspect if such happens, nay - when it happens - the resultant agreed laws of humanity will parallel the OT more than any other - but it need not be that way to make the premise a good one. But this is the case today - the world turns by the OT laws - not a single one comes from elsewhere - and mysteriously, the OT declares this as a command - so it occured by itself.There is confusion that the aspect of LOVE is not a law: it is, and well contained in numerous OT laws. But what is important here, is that the eliminations of NAMES and the replacement of LAWS - effects all belief systems equally. I think the greatest impact will be felt by Christianity, to be fair here, but if this is for a higher cause - it is the only Gdly way to go. It's rejection says, christians do not feel they have any laws or messages from their messenger - which is also a telling negative factor equally effecting christians. The same issue impacts muslims and jews equally - perhaps more so because these religions are more fastedious on Monotheism, but who also rever the preferred names of their prophets and messengers. Here, the ultimate sacrifice for God must be evidenced by humanity, not by their messengers. This calls for the sacrifice of names of messengers - and the clinging to the message instead. This is perhaps even greater than a messenger from one sector coming and kicking others in their sincere beliefs. This may be the test upon huanity. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Some belief not shared yet by "the rest of humanity" may be belief in what is the truth.

---

Can you give any reasons why this should be the case? It did not happen for 2000 years, was not accepted by two major religions before and after christianity emerged: does it means all the other are less believers than christians? One cannot rely only on a religion's adherents, for the entirety of humanity - this leads only to chaos and calamity, and is basically self centred and verly rightious to a point of becomeing self deficient. Eventually, my understanding is that all names will go and only the Creator will reign - so if christians really and truely believe their own beliefs - they loose nothing - they do not and cannot loose the Creator - and this is so regardless of the premise christianity has via accumulation and periodical layers, made an allignment of their revered one with the Creator - in fact this factor leaves no excuse not to deflect from names! This is the higher view here, at least humanity must direct it that way and opt for it. Yhe names and rituals are only bridges relating to each religious group - nothing more than that.

quote:

---

Certainly "the rest of humanity" doesn't share some of the opinions you have expressed here either.

---

Your wrong. The most believed scripture is the OT, by period of time, concencus and impact [15M jews, 2 B christians]. The most believed human is Moses [add 1.2 B muslims to that fig]. This is greater than all scriptures and revered ones in geo-history.Of course one religion's adherants will not accept a view which is different - and vice versa; and the only way out is not via one's preferred beliefs, but by engaging humanity as a whole - this is the ultimate quest, and it transcends the localised. Thus if humanity is going to make sacrifices for humanity, and forego belief in names, for belief in Gdly laws and to bring peace to all - the one who will be most effected here is Judaism: measure the time period of belief and their awesome sacrifices for adhering to it: twice that of christianity. We can be assyred the jews will refuse this premise far more than any other when push comes to shove. As I said, humanity is not ready for such a premise - but that this is inevitiable in the future. Such views come only when we zoom out and look at things from afar.When you think about it - it is a very easy stroke for Heaven to clear up any confusion - one simple direct revelation will do it. No one is going to NOT BELIEVE a direct and open revelation as per Sinai, made to all humanity - simultainiously. It is something any genuine human must accept for humanity. However, if any savior or messenger comes along from any one religion, it won't change a thing: we saw this when christianity rejected Islam - and while both adherents were sincere to a degree that makes their belief at a par margin, and when both equally believe the truth of their religion. Yet we know that all beliefs cannot be true. To reduce belief to a name is not one of great merit anyway, and if it is not limited to a name - this has to be made evidenced and manifest - for a higher cause. Any Messnger worth his salt will agree on that if we had the previligae of asking - its we humans who are the frail and ego effected, and hooked on a spiritual security blanket.So this premise of one saying their religion is the truth becomes a moot point in the big pic. To boot, christianity is the least provable religion - it is based solely on belief, though a very sincere one. Why would you feel that adhering to a message is less transcendent to the messenger - or put in the reverse, why would you feel that believing in the message but not the messenger is wanting? Would you rather that one believes in a name, but not in say a sacred law - such as not to murder? I'm sure not. And surely a messenger's name is not a message to anyone but that who was inculcated that way.My point is not against any religion, but to save all believers who are Gdly inclined or Creator inclined - as well as those who have variant beliefs and even no beliefs but would accept sacred laws. The best way to examine this premise is to ask yourself if you would condone another religionist telling you only their religion is the truth and the only truth? That answer is blatant.There is a great difference in the premises of'DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU' - and - 'DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU'. The former allows one to enforce their will on someone - the other negates this possibility. Billions of innocent humans have perished on the former - not one with the latter.The same applies to LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR - and - LOVE THE STRANGER. The former becomes self-serving - the other self-less and far more demanding. There is arguably no merit in the former. It all boils down to one question: what laws and concepts a religion has, other than the names of its revered ones? Here, the OT has a most telling episode.Genesis says, on a particularly hot day in the desert, Abraham was assisting some famished travellers who needed urgent assistance. At this point, Abraham is confronted with a revelation from God and is called upon. Abraham says, SORRY, I CANNOT COME NOW - PEOPLE NEED MY HELP. The next verse says:'AND THE LORD WAITED ON ABRAHAM'.