Do you accept Oral law as truth?

[SonofSonofGod]

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don't know what it is, most people who believe in the "law of gravity" don't realize that this concept is a century outdated, and most people are not familiar with most of evolutionary processes.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.

Theories are not proof of anything except that the human mind can think of things that are silly, non-factual and not to be trusted without ample evidence to make it a fact. Theories without backing evidence are nothing more then fairy-tales for grown-ups yet people want to believe it.

Religions are guilty of holding on to inaccurate antiquated ideas but so are Scientist. People are people and Science forms Religion and Religion influences Science. It's a imperfect system and the only clear reality we can definitely see as fact is that we are here and the World is messed up quite badly.

 

[Moishe3rd]

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?

Based on your above description and therefore probably your understanding - no, I don't believe in your oral law.

In Judaism we learn that G-d gave Moses the Oral Torah along with the Written Torah (commonly know as the first five books of the bible).
The Oral Torah is the explanation of the Written Torah. It was passed on verbally for about 1500 years.
Discussions; remembrances; arguments; questions; and explanations of the Oral Torah were written down from around 200 CE to 500 CE and compiled in what is called the Talmud.
The Written Torah; Tanach (the "old testament"); the Talmud; and Commentaries written on Torah,, Tanach, and Talmud for the last 1500 years comprise Jewish Law.
Jewish Law is Judaism. There is no "other than the main books" in Judaism. The Mishna Berura, written by the Chofetz Chaim in the 20th Century is as much a mainstream of Jewish Law as is the Talmud.

 

[Aamer]

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 is man overstepping his bounds. Oral law is man sticking his dirty hands into Gods perfect message. No to Hadith. No to Talmud.

 

[philbo]

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

Because they're less likely to be talking out of their backside?

 

[Muffled]

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 no other authority than that provided to me by Jesus. I do not go by commentaries but allow the Holy Spirit to teach me what the Bible and Qu'ran says.

 

[philbo]

I accept no other authority than that provided to me by Jesus. I do not go by commentaries but allow the Holy Spirit to teach me what the Bible and Qu'ran says.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is teaching you?