4 ms·

At some point you have to accept that relgious scholars can’t answer everything. There is simply no premise for this in texts written thousands of years ago.

naravara 8y ago
There are religious groups that take a literalist stance on scriptures and interpret the rules therein as checklists of arbitrary codes to adhere to because reasons, but that's not really how most serious theology or religious thought works. Generally religious scholars are scholars because they're trained in an intellectual tradition that involves understanding the underlying logic behind the rules so that they can be applied to the changing times and evolving contexts. That's the whole point of having a clergy in the first place. If it was just rote memorization of a rule book you wouldn't need them. Talmundic law has managed to continue updating itself based on extrapolations of the underlying logic behind restrictions in the source text. Here is an example: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ And in Hinduism, the dietary restrictions are based on practical considerations around how the food is produced and its perceived metabolic impact on the body and mind. There is an established framework for evaluating any food by these standards.
- flukus 8y ago
  > Talmundic law has managed to continue updating itself based on extrapolations of the underlying logic behind restrictions in the source text. Here is an example: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ Isn't the ban on pig products thought to have been based on it being a disease vector? Considering that this is no longer relevant with modern sanitation and medicine it would seem they're using it as a checklist rather than applying any sort of logic.
  - naravara 8y ago
    The disease vector is more modern speculation/post-hoc rationalization for the rules. It's not really anywhere in the text itself aside from references to the animals being 'unclean.' It's likely that a variety of factors went into the rules, not least of which were probably just wanting to maintain some social and cultural separation from the communities around them.
tachion 8y ago
Unfortunately, they can answer everything, the only problem there won't ever be any logic nor sound reasoning behind it.
- apta 8y ago
  I apologize, but this is quite an ignorant thing to say. The way rulings are deduced can get very specific and intricate. There is a system and methodology behind how people arrive at rulings, how texts are interpreted and meaning derived from them.
  - exolymph 8y ago
    It's still all predicated on believing in the existence of deities.
    - apta 8y ago
      That is for the subject at hand here. The discussion is about logic and soundness on deducing rulings from texts
apta 8y ago
People draw analogies to things present at that time to derive rulings today. I read somewhere that way before the advent of flight, Muslim scholars thought about how would one pray if they were flying. Today, rulings about how to pray on a plane are derived from rulings about how people used to pray when they were traveling in caravans, riding camels or horses etc.

naravara 8y ago

There are religious groups that take a literalist stance on scriptures and interpret the rules therein as checklists of arbitrary codes to adhere to because reasons, but that's not really how most serious theology or religious thought works. Generally religious scholars are scholars because they're trained in an intellectual tradition that involves understanding the underlying logic behind the rules so that they can be applied to the changing times and evolving contexts. That's the whole point of having a clergy in the first place. If it was just rote memorization of a rule book you wouldn't need them. Talmundic law has managed to continue updating itself based on extrapolations of the underlying logic behind restrictions in the source text. Here is an example: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ And in Hinduism, the dietary restrictions are based on practical considerations around how the food is produced and its perceived metabolic impact on the body and mind. There is an established framework for evaluating any food by these standards.

flukus 8y ago
> Talmundic law has managed to continue updating itself based on extrapolations of the underlying logic behind restrictions in the source text. Here is an example: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ Isn't the ban on pig products thought to have been based on it being a disease vector? Considering that this is no longer relevant with modern sanitation and medicine it would seem they're using it as a checklist rather than applying any sort of logic.
- naravara 8y ago
  The disease vector is more modern speculation/post-hoc rationalization for the rules. It's not really anywhere in the text itself aside from references to the animals being 'unclean.' It's likely that a variety of factors went into the rules, not least of which were probably just wanting to maintain some social and cultural separation from the communities around them.

tachion 8y ago

Unfortunately, they can answer everything, the only problem there won't ever be any logic nor sound reasoning behind it.

apta 8y ago
I apologize, but this is quite an ignorant thing to say. The way rulings are deduced can get very specific and intricate. There is a system and methodology behind how people arrive at rulings, how texts are interpreted and meaning derived from them.
- exolymph 8y ago
  It's still all predicated on believing in the existence of deities.
  - apta 8y ago
    That is for the subject at hand here. The discussion is about logic and soundness on deducing rulings from texts

apta 8y ago

People draw analogies to things present at that time to derive rulings today. I read somewhere that way before the advent of flight, Muslim scholars thought about how would one pray if they were flying. Today, rulings about how to pray on a plane are derived from rulings about how people used to pray when they were traveling in caravans, riding camels or horses etc.