Do you accept Oral law as truth?

[SonofSonofGod]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you, or what a Rabbi tells you or what other accounts other then the main books of your religion like the Talmud if your Jewish, the Hadiths if your Muslim or extra books explaining the Bible if your Christian and so on and so forth.

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

 

[Riverwolf]

Our songs and tales are pretty much our only source beyond ourselves.

 

[Quintessence]

Dogmatism of any kind is almost nonexistent in Neopaganism, oral or written. None of us are receiving any "oral law" to begin with, so there is no oral law to accept or reject. Nor is there any oral law to accept or reject over a main religious book, as we don't have one of those either.

This isn't to say that analogous situations or issues don't arise in Neopaganism, but it's rare and it definitely doesn't arise in my own path. My "preacher" is myself and my "holy book" is penned by my own hands. It's inspired by dozens of different sources and experiences, and I am the final authority of my religious practices and philosophies. That's what Neopaganism is generally like: you're responsible for your own path and you get to be the final authority. There are groups out there, but most of them also tend to recognize the autonomy of individuals to be responsible for their own paths.

 

[sojourner]

Do you accept Oral law as truth?

I don't accept Anal law as truth. Why would Oral law be any different?

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Our songs and tales are pretty much our only source beyond ourselves.

Sing me a song of Prosperity if you know one

Dogmatism of any kind is almost nonexistent in Neopaganism, oral or written. None of us are receiving any "oral law" to begin with, so there is no oral law to accept or reject. Nor is there any oral law to accept or reject over a main religious book, as we don't have one of those either.

This isn't to say that analogous situations or issues don't arise in Neopaganism, but it's rare and it definitely doesn't arise in my own path. My "preacher" is myself and my "holy book" is penned by my own hands. It's inspired by dozens of different sources and experiences, and I am the final authority of my religious practices and philosophies. That's what Neopaganism is generally like: you're responsible for your own path and you get to be the final authority. There are groups out there, but most of them also tend to recognize the autonomy of individuals to be responsible for their own paths.

I think all of us can learn a lot by looking at nature. I often look and see the beauty in all of creation. Even the broken can be beautiful if we put together the pieces of our broken mind. I think we has humans share a collective amnesia and don't remember the sorrows our past has caused us and thus we continually repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sing me a song of Prosperity if you know one

Lughnasadh
It's the life and the death of the corn king
Lughnasadh
Life and rebirth of the corn king

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Lughnasadh
It's the life and the death of the corn king
Lughnasadh
Life and rebirth of the corn king

If corn died and wasn't reborn many of us would starve so I think that's a good thing to sing

 

[Riverwolf]

If corn died and wasn't reborn many of us would starve so I think that's a good thing to sing

It's by Damh the Bard, BTW.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

It's by Damh the Bard, BTW.

Ah good to know. I listened a song on youtube and it kinda reminded me of the old Irish folklore songs.

One of my favorite songs in like manor is Dana Lyons - A Drop of Water

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you, or what a Rabbi tells you or what other accounts other then the main books of your religion like the Talmud if your Jewish, the Hadiths if your Muslim or extra books explaining the Bible if your Christian and so on and so forth.

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

I listen to my wife.

 

[danieldemol]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you, or what a Rabbi tells you or what other accounts other then the main books of your religion like the Talmud if your Jewish, the Hadiths if your Muslim or extra books explaining the Bible if your Christian and so on and so forth.

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

Imo it would be better to use a less confusing term like "clergy law" or "preacher law", because all oral law means is law that was recieved by speaking. So for example if you are illiterate you can't follow "written law" because someone has to tell you about it - hence to you it is "oral law".

Also, some of the things which are written law (or written scripture) today may have initially had origins as oral traditions if I'm understanding this correctly;

Book of Deuteronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, perhaps a better term would be "exegetical law" since I think what you are basically referring to is law based on the interpretations or derivations of scriptural statements.

 

[danieldemol]

And to answer your question, I don't know that such things exist in the Baha'i faith so I would have to say no.

 

[1137]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you, or what a Rabbi tells you or what other accounts other then the main books of your religion like the Talmud if your Jewish, the Hadiths if your Muslim or extra books explaining the Bible if your Christian and so on and so forth.

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

I accept it as inspiration, not truth.

 

[gilligan8914]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you, or what a Rabbi tells you or what other accounts other then the main books of your religion like the Talmud if your Jewish, the Hadiths if your Muslim or extra books explaining the Bible if your Christian and so on and so forth.

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

Oral law? Something someone else tells you as if it were a fact? Do you not have the intelligence to decide for yourself what is true and what is not? Can you not look around and see reality for yourself instead of relying on somebody else to tell you what is real and what is not? Oral law or religious books are one and the same. Stated and written by those seeking power over others. Why do you think the books of the bible are not signed by the authors?

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Oral law? Something someone else tells you as if it were a fact? Do you not have the intelligence to decide for yourself what is true and what is not? Can you not look around and see reality for yourself instead of relying on somebody else to tell you what is real and what is not? Oral law or religious books are one and the same. Stated and written by those seeking power over others. Why do you think the books of the bible are not signed by the authors?

That is not entirely true, some of the books were signed in the original manuscripts by the authors but usually when copied the copiers would state which author it was from but some Bible books are from multiple authors so it's hard to state exactly what is from who in some situations.

I agree that we should definitely look around with our own eyes to try and see if what others see is true or not, life is full of dead ends though so it's hard to navigate without making mistakes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By Oral law I mean like what your preacher tells you

I am the only member of my immediate family who isn't Catholic. And the rest are seriously Catholic (they go to church every sunday and holy day of obligation, two of them went to Catholic universities, my brother is the only fundamentalist Catholic I've met, and my father converted despite being fostered intellectually by a borderline atheist German Jew). So while I don't keep up with what the local archdiocese is up to, or even what the pope is, I do know something of the structure of authority in the Catholic faith. It is not an "oral law". The pope's word is not usually that of god, and there is a specific and little used formalized ritual for when the pope speaks for god. As for most Christian sects, they are defined by conceptions like sola scriptura, where the preacher can say whatever she or he wishes, but what matters is the bible. It's been almost 1,500 years since the Talmudim were written. Rabbis have, of course, continuously studied the Torah and rabbinic commentary, but it is not oral law. As for aḥādīth, these are already categorized into very specific groupings. Also, Ibn Shaq's life of Muhammad (PBUH) was never oral but has shaped Islamic understanding for centuries.

It seems as if you are applying a 1st and 2nd Jewish concept to religions in general or at least those related to Judaism. But I'm not sure how applicable this is. =

If you do accept Oral law do you place it over your main religious book or do you place the main religious book over oral law?

I can't speak for myself, but I know that at least officially the Roman Catholic church has the "authority" to speak for god, while the bible is only inspired by god.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

I am the only member of my immediate family who isn't Catholic. And the rest are seriously Catholic (they go to church every sunday and holy day of obligation, two of them went to Catholic universities, my brother is the only fundamentalist Catholic I've met, and my father converted despite being fostered intellectually by a borderline atheist German Jew). So while I don't keep up with what the local archdiocese is up to, or even what the pope is, I do know something of the structure of authority in the Catholic faith. It is not an "oral law". The pope's word is not usually that of god, and there is a specific and little used formalized ritual for when the pope speaks for god. As for most Christian sects, they are defined by conceptions like sola scriptura, where the preacher can say whatever she or he wishes, but what matters is the bible. It's been almost 1,500 years since the Talmudim were written. Rabbis have, of course, continuously studied the Torah and rabbinic commentary, but it is not oral law. As for aḥādīth, these are already categorized into very specific groupings. Also, Ibn Shaq's life of Muhammad (PBUH) was never oral but has shaped Islamic understanding for centuries.

It seems as if you are applying a 1st and 2nd Jewish concept to religions in general or at least those related to Judaism. But I'm not sure how applicable this is. =

I can't speak for myself, but I know that at least officially the Roman Catholic church has the "authority" to speak for god, while the bible is only inspired by god.

It's interesting that you bring up Catholics because I know some of them had said that the Churches teachings were above and beyond that which the Bible teaches. It seems the same with many Jewish sects especially those who adhere to the Talmud. Even mainstream Christians teaches many non Biblical doctrines like Once Saved, Always Saved. The Immortal Soul Doctrine and even some the Non-Divinity of Jesus or the Evil Jehovah doctrine, some weird stuff is out there so that it is very important to search and see what is backed from multiple Biblical sources and what is the ramblings of crazy people.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's interesting that you bring up Catholics because I know some of them had said that the Churches teachings were above and beyond that which the Bible teaches.

Yes. But the Church is not oral law. It hasn't been for centuries. I'm not disagreeing that Catholics equate the bible to the Church, or even the bible as less than the Church, just not oral law.

It seems the same with many Jewish sects especially those who adhere to the Talmud.

The Talmud was written around 700 CE. Some of the material in it is based on oral tradition before Jesus was born. But we have no reliable methods for dating most of the material. And "oral law" was around over 700 years before the Talmud.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Yes. But the Church is not oral law. It hasn't been for centuries. I'm not disagreeing that Catholics equate the bible to the Church, or even the bible as less than the Church, just not oral law.

The Talmud was written around 700 CE. Some of the material in it is based on oral tradition before Jesus was born. But we have no reliable methods for dating most of the material. And "oral law" was around over 700 years before the Talmud.

I guess I'm using Oral Law quite loosely if O-Bongo tells you to please the Nine Divines in Heaven you must do 9 push-ups, 9 jumping jacks and 9 sit-ups are you really going to listen to something that sounds silly like that even if he writes it down on stone tablets?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

if O-Bongo tells you to please the Nine Divines in Heaven you must do 9 push-ups, 9 jumping jacks and 9 sit-ups are you really going to listen to something that sounds silly like that even if he writes it down on stone tablets?

I've come across a fairly large number of people who scoff at "deniers" of global warming, who ridicule those who don't believe in "the theory of evolution", and who use gravity as an example of how a theory really is proof. The problem is that all such points are always wrong. Most people who believe in anthropogenic global warming don't know what it is, most people who believe in the "law of gravity" don't realize that this concept is a century outdated, and most people are not familiar with most of evolutionary processes.

I personally don't care whether one is misinformed because of "science" or "religion". I care about accuracy, and idiotic inquiries into some "oral law" that was relevant 2,000 years ago just to raise problems with religiously-based epistemologies is a waste of time and effort without any substantive claims. Lot's of people support well-established theories that they don't actually really know about. The fact that I think these theories are correct, as do those far more intelligent than I, is utterly irrelevant. Playing sciences against religions is such a waste.