In Charlie Hebdo: One day, scholars of the Talmud were gathered to discuss divine law, God wanted to intervene in their debate. They rebuffed him by telling him that he had given them the law, but therefore it was up to them to interpret it.
This story shows that even for an honest believer the interpretation of divine law is not the law. Interpretation is fallible, marked by history, by the personality of the interpreter, tradition, evolutionary. I would say even or foremost, if the interpreter is a prophet.
In Charlie Hebdo: One day, scholars of the Talmud were gathered to discuss divine law, God wanted to intervene in their debate. They rebuffed him by telling him that he had given them the law, but therefore it was up to them to interpret it.
Why does this story interest you? If you are not a believer you must reject this story outright as false.
This story shows that even for an honest believer the interpretation of divine law is not the law. Interpretation is fallible, marked by history, by the personality of the interpreter, tradition, evolutionary. I would say even or foremost, if the interpreter is a prophet.
That is just sheer BS. A believer in God had trouble understanding God's Law and therefore reserved the right to interpret Divine Law?
As George Carlin observed : “What good is Divine Law if every Joe with a 2 dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up His Law?”
This story interests me because I am an unbeliever and because too many religious people try to present their dogmas and prejudices as god law … The story shows that when a man speaks he is the one speaking and not god, even if he invokes tradition.
This story interests me because I am an unbeliever and because too many religious people try to present their dogmas and prejudices as god law …. The story shows that when a man speaks he is the one speaking and not god, even if he invokes tradition.
Ahhh, I see. I can appreciate that.
I have posted this before but the irony it is topical in a way.
Does that matter? It just began to prove that scripture has been wrong all the time before.
And understandably so. To ignorant people natural phenomena seem caused by some invisible agency in the sky. And that is not completely incorrect, after all, causality of say, weather patterns occur in the atmosphere. They are just not caused by an intentional and motivated being that loves humans more than all other creatures on earth, but throws fire and rain from the sky when humans make him angry and can only be appeased by prayer and sacrificial offerings.
This is how God is described for thousands of years and is still so described, in spite of more recent scientific proof that this belief is false.
This is how knowledge evolves and replaces ignorant beliefs step by step until God has become a god of the gaps in scientific knowledge. But these gaps will also be filled someday and god will be proven to have no real existence except as a figment of human imagination and attempt to codify morality.
Yes, and they will pray in vain instead of listening to the scientists, as we can demonstrate with today’s pandemic and people refusing to listen to science and don’t get vaccinated , because God will provide.
But it is they who end up in the IC ward in hospitals and become a burden to the entire nation that is pledged to treat them regardless of their stupid beliefs and refusal to listen.
My views. The laws must be interpreted. That’s a fact. Reason is to keep up with the changes of the meaning of words. Let’s take the word “God” for example. Over time it has been used to mean people of knowledge (scientists), stars, animals, entities that were part animal and part human, people who could travel to the sun, humans who were leaders, humans who did miracles, the top of the upper caste, people who are worshiped.
There are 613 laws of god. America can’t even count the number of laws it has. Most Americans don’t live by the laws of god or government laws. They live by Natural Laws. John Locke was a Natural Law philosopher who influenced our Constitution with the Natural Law principles that were written down by Sir William Blackstone. An example, in 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which legitimized the slave trade. At that period in time the Pope was God’s representative on Earth. Blackstone 1753 - slavery is “repugnant to reason, and the principles of natural law” and that it has no place in English law.
Interpretation has always been a huge problem with the laws. Jesus and James wanted to fix the problem. But they never got the chance. Their ideas were kept alive, and America was designed to fix the problem of interpretation. That is why we have the Supreme Court.
As far as people not listening to the scientists. People don’t want to listen to political scientists. For example, herd immunity kicks in from 60-70%. We are there, therefore America is vaccinated. Is that not correct? If not then the scientists lied to us. This has nothing to do with God.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:15, topic:7860”]
Let’s take the word “God” for example. Over time it has been used to mean people of knowledge (scientists), stars, animals, entities that were part animal and part human, people who could travel to the sun, humans who were leaders, humans who did miracles, the top of the upper caste, people who are worshiped.
In scientific terms “God” is merely a metaphysical variable, without a fixed value. It can be applied to all universal phenomena without any demonstrated proof of effective functionality and therefore it really applies to nothing.
OTOH, The laws of mathematics are demonstrably functionally effective and appear to be applicable to most, if not all universal phenomena.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:15, topic:7860”]
As far as people not listening to the scientists. People don’t want to listen to political scientists. For example, herd immunity kicks in from 60-70%. We are there, therefore America is vaccinated. Is that not correct? If not then the scientists lied to us. This has nothing to do with God.
No, that is not correct. It may offer herd immunity to a specific strain but not necessarily to mutations.
Just look at the number of sick people crowding our hospitals with various new strains, whereas previously vaccinated people (with broad spectrum vaccination) already have a greater resistance and suffer less adverse effects from new strains, but can still become infected and the percentages go out the window
If don’t want to get sick, get vaccinated! The problem is not complicated. People’s belief systems are.
Scientists can err. What contradicts science is better science, not religion.
When scientists predicted herd immunity, they did not agree about the level of vaccination. And there were two things they could not predict;
that the level of immunity will drop fast after 4/6 months
-that some variants will be able to escape the immunity, at least partially
In fact, vaccination did not prevent the virus of circulating and muting. We would have needed that every one in the world be vaccinated in a very short time.
What remains is that if unvaccinated you have 10 more chances to be in hospital and in ICU that if you are vaccinated.
In Charlie Hebdo: One day, scholars of the Talmud were gathered to discuss divine law, God wanted to intervene in their debate. They rebuffed him by telling him that he had given them the law, but therefore it was up to them to interpret it.
This story shows that even for an honest believer the interpretation of divine law is not the law. Interpretation is fallible, marked by history, by the personality of the interpreter, tradition, evolutionary. I would say even or foremost, if the interpreter is a prophet.
[/quote]
My first impression is this may be satire on Rabbinical culture, i.e. argumentative and abrasive.
