dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/04/83)
>> From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) >> Dave Sherman (utcsrgv!dave) says: >> >> "The bottom line on why we observe the [religious] laws ... is >> that they are there." >> >> Yes, but it seems to me that any thinking human would want to know what the >> raison d'etre for these laws are. >> >> Let's face it - many (possibly all: but let's not bring my personal biases >> to bear) of the laws (of any of the major religions) were formulated under >> social and cultural environments very, very different from the ones we live >> in today. The people who wrote those laws down didn't dream of heart >> transplants, brain surgery, recombinant DNA research, Neutron bombs, ... >> and they couldn't, therefore, possibly have considered the philosophical and >> religious implications of these developments... That's where you err. Our view is that the laws were not written by people, but by G-d. Being omnipotent, G-d obviously knew what the world would be like today. The religious observance is just as relevant to today's life as it was 3000 years ago. The raison d'etre of the laws, if you want to call it that, is that they are part of the divine commandment to our people. Note that the same applies to the "Oral Law", handed down through Moses at the same time the Torah was given. This is the Mishnah, which with its commentary the Talmud (Gemara) sets out the details of observance which the "Written Law" (the Torah) covers in sometimes only general terms. >> I don't think laws should exist because they "ARE there", I think laws >> should exist because they "NEED TO BE there". Taken from our point of view, we don't have much choice as to whether the laws should exist or not. We have free choice as to whether to observe them or not, but that will not change their existence. Dave Sherman Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave