• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Torah laws & metaphor

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The "laws" may circumstancially not be kept perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric. This also means the either intentionally or by accident, any jew or other person trying to follow the laws, is going to be making some choices as to which laws they arent following.
 
Last edited:

Tumah

Veteran Member
No person can keep the "laws" perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric. This also means the either intentionally or by accident, any jew or other person trying to follow the laws, is going to be making some choices as to which laws they arent following.

Your mom had 17 cups of coffee yesterday and because of her caffeine high, she ended up crashing her car into the river and almost drowning.

Oh wait... you want me to prove what I'm saying is true? Why???
 

Eliab ben Benjamin

Active Member
Premium Member
Smile , wow to both of you, Rav. Tumah, despite you not being one that was a very
Rabbinic response, so good to see.

No person can keep the "laws" perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric.

List me those laws i cannot keep, discounting me of course those for the opposite gender,
and those for priests ..


This also means the either intentionally or by accident, any jew or other person trying to follow the laws, is going to be making some choices as to which laws they arent following.

This is perhaps why we have Talmud and
various Rabbinate's to guide us when the society or culture around us cause confusion .
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
No person can keep the "laws" perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric. This also means the either intentionally or by accident, any jew or other person trying to follow the laws, is going to be making some choices as to which laws they arent following.
Your premise is flawed because it is based on a lack of knowledge of the laws. It is also predicated on a lack of knowledge of the expectations on each individual. However, you can make the exact same claim about the American legal system if you want.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Your premise is flawed because it is based on a lack of knowledge of the laws. It is also predicated on a lack of knowledge of the expectations on each individual. However, you can make the exact same claim about the American legal system if you want.
You didnt actually contradict my premise.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Smile , wow to both of you, Rav. Tumah, despite you not being one that was a very
Rabbinic response, so good to see.



List me those laws i cannot keep, discounting me of course those for the opposite gender,
and those for priests ..




This is perhaps why we have Talmud and
various Rabbinate's to guide us when the society or culture around us cause confusion .
Talmud is an indication towards my premise, in and of itself. Perhaps you can keep all the laws, however why would the expectation be that /you could keep all the laws, and the op is broad as to audience. I didnt specify any groups law adherence
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
You didnt actually contradict my premise.
OK, your premise is that no one can keep the law perfectly.
This requires certain assumptions:
1. That you know what the law is
2. That everyone is required to keep it in a way you would consider perfect
3. That no one can keep it perfectly
4. That not keeping it invalidates it as having been given with the intent of being kept

Since none of those four is proven true (and number 4 is, as your conclusion, textually contradicted) your overarching inference, that the law, therefore must be metaphorical in at least parts, fails.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
OK, your premise is that no one can keep the law perfectly.
This requires certain assumptions:
1. That you know what the law is
2. That everyone is required to keep it in a way you would consider perfect
3. That no one can keep it perfectly
4. That not keeping it invalidates it as having been given with the intent of being kept

Since none of those four is proven true (and number 4 is, as your conclusion, textually contradicted) your overarching inference, that the law, therefore must be metaphorical in at least parts, fails.
Thats actually true, the op is too broad. That being said, an invalidation isnt required for the premise, in its less broad contex. So your sort of right but youre overreaching as well.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
OK, your premise is that no one can keep the law perfectly.
This requires certain assumptions:
1. That you know what the law is
2. That everyone is required to keep it in a way you would consider perfect
3. That no one can keep it perfectly
4. That not keeping it invalidates it as having been given with the intent of being kept

Since none of those four is proven true (and number 4 is, as your conclusion, textually contradicted) your overarching inference, that the law, therefore must be metaphorical in at least parts, fails.
Note:
My premise doesnt state that the law is invalidated. The subject here is the keeping of the law, /contextually
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Note:
My premise doesnt state that the law is invalidated. The subject here is the keeping of the law, /contextually
Here is your statement and inference:

"The "laws" may circumstancially not be kept perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric."

Premise 1: The laws may circumstantially not be kept perfectly

This is subject to the first 3 points I made.

Conclusion: That by definition, the law is not literally "law" because it MUST be metaphorical, thus invalid as a literal law. Your language is "This means" -- this fails because the causal link is in no way present. So even were the premise solid and not subject to criticism, the conclusion you draw from it would be flawed because it claims to be true by definition.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Here is your statement and inference:

"The "laws" may circumstancially not be kept perfectly. This means that the laws are in some way metaphoric."

Premise 1: The laws may circumstantially not be kept perfectly

This is subject to the first 3 points I made.

Conclusion: That by definition, the law is not literally "law" because it MUST be metaphorical, thus invalid as a literal law. Your language is "This means" -- this fails because the causal link is in no way present. So even were the premise solid and not subject to criticism, the conclusion you draw from it would be flawed because it claims to be true by definition.
Thereby leaving the following of the law up to subjectivity, thusly allowing for a metaphoric inference, anyway. One of rhe reasons that this thread is in general Abrahamic DIR.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Thereby leaving the following of the law up to subjectivity, thusly allowing for a metaphoric inference, anyway. One of rhe reasons that this thread is in general Abrahamic DIR.
Who said the law is left up to subjectivity?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
This also means the either intentionally or by accident, any jew or other person trying to follow the laws, is going to be making some choices as to which laws they arent following.

Is this reflected in the different form in which religion is practiced, i.e. Orthodox, Reform, etc.?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
No, you stated it in post 11. If it is anyone's inference, it is yours. I never said anything of the sort.
Heres a question. Real life example.Two basically not very religious Jews; one has a couple tattoos, not overtly satanic, but not exactly jewish themed either. Other guy tells me, he has no tattoos, because of the /Torah reference to such.

Whos right?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Heres a question. Real life example.Two basically not very religious Jews; one has a couple tattoos, not overtly satanic, but not exactly jewish themed either. Other guy tells me, he has no tattoos, because of the /Torah reference to such.

Whos right?
Right in what sense? A guy who has no tattoos says "I have no tattoos." He is right. He has no tattoos. If the guy WITH the tattoos says "I DO have tattoos" then he's right. He has tattoos.
 
Top