Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!debray
From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: religious obsolescence
Message-ID: <539@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Dec-83 13:49:16 EST
Article-I.D.: sbcs.539
Posted: Sat Dec  3 13:49:16 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 09:33:14 EST
References: <2656@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook
Lines: 29

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. It seems, then, that we could
either choose not to think of certain issues because the Bible/Gita/Koran
doesn't deal with them ("Cloning? Oh, the scriptures have nothing to say
about it, so let's not think about it!"), or we could re-examine our
religious laws and reevaluate them in today's context, and if something
should be found irrelevant because society has changed, change those laws to
make religion relevant to our times.

I don't think laws should exist because they "ARE there", I think laws
should exist because they "NEED TO BE there".
-- 

Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook
{philabs, ogcvax}!sbcs!debray