The question is, what is God's judgment on the above?godelian wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:44 amJurisprudential questions are cases brought forward by the general public, leading up to jurisprudential rulings. Example:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:18 am There are pros and cons on whether rules related to human behaviors are related to principles or stipulated precisely for every possible human behavior.
On a first take, it is very irrational, not pragmatics [and idiotic = having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.] to cater for every possible human behavior.
Ruling on Appetite Suppressant Patches While Fasting. If the imaginable behavior is relevant, then someone will ask about it, and then there will be rulings. This results in a large database of rulings. If you never explore or search such databases, you will obviously have no clue about what they contain. It is irrational to have an opinion without doing any research whatsoever. What do you base your opinion on iin that case? Mere fantasy?
There are verses in the holy book related to fasting.
It one study the holy texts and if indicated Appetite Suppressant Patches are not appropriate in accordance to the verses, then one should avoid Appetite Suppressant Patches.
If believers want to follow the figh that is their discretion BUT the point is there is no compulsory dictate from God that a believer must follow the figh that is man-made.
An average person can read God's word by himself and made his own judgment whether Appetite Suppressant Patches are acceptable or not; then take personal responsible for his own interpretations on judgment day.
The point is there is no guarantee figh [fallible] is exactly or even reflect accurately what is God intention. As such a believer could be misled to behave wrongly and no one will help him on judgment day in being sent to hell.
My point is figh which is man-made is fallible and not idiot proof.
My point is you may have a large database of man-made figh but being fallible, they cannot be guaranteed to align with God's intention. Some may end up being evil laden.Well, we have a database with practical cases to consult for that. They may not have a database but we certainly do. That is the difference.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:18 am As I understand, in politics, laws are based on general principles and not every possible acts, and it is left to the judge or jury to decide.
Even within corporations, they have Standard Operating Procedures [SOP] which are authoritative and details in manuals with are only guides. It is then up to the management of the company to decide what is compliance and non-compliance.
It is the same with religions and other groups with their main constitution.
Again you are ignorant of the facts:That is how it works for you. In my case, I use a distributed online database with jurisprudential rulings.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:18 am As I had explained, morality-proper is about personal development of one's inherent moral function which is independent from laws, customs, religions, politics and group ideologies.
We reject the UN and politics. They are not a legitimate source for morality. Instead, we use a distributed online database with jurisprudential rulings.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:18 am But as it is, we need transitional ladders [UN, politics, religions, customs] to facilitate that personal development.
I believe that the so-called "generic human principles the UN was founded upon" is a pile of deceptive and manipulative lies that I reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn. The proof is even in the pudding. One of the first decisions made by the UN was to give away half of the land of the Palestinians, leading them to be expelled and ethnically cleansed out of their native lands. The UN is simply despicable; has always been and will always be.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:18 am You can spit on politicians and UN personnel, committees [the worst are those with Islamists in them] but not on the generic human principles the UN was founded upon.
How can you condemn the above generic human principles?AI wrote:The United Nations is founded upon several core human principles, outlined in its founding document, the Charter of the United Nations https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter. Here are some of the key principles:
Equal rights and self-determination of peoples: All nations, regardless of size or power, are seen as equal members.
Human rights and fundamental freedoms: The UN promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without discrimination.
Peace and security: The UN aims to maintain international peace and security and to settle international disputes peacefully.
Friendly relations among states: The UN encourages cooperation between nations to solve global problems.
Social progress and better standards of living: The UN promotes social progress and economic development for all.
The decision re Palestinians and Israel was a complex one and I believe that was the optimal decision based on condition during that time. This was also given, the Jews occupied those lands thousands years ago and were driven out.
I wish that division had not happened and the Jews were given land somewhere in US, Canada or some remote regions.
One point to note is, the Israelites did not not have that much more land than the Palestinians, how come the Israel progressed so well but not the Palestinians?
I read somewhere, when the IDF withdrew from the Gaze Strip, there was high hopes the Gazan could developed into something like a "highly developed nation" with the help of Israel.
What basically held them back was the doctrine of the religion [fasadin, occupation of land];
as we can see the amount of funds which could potential drove developments in Gaza were misdirected to build 300-500 km of tunnels which possible cost billions $$; this intent is supported by their figh and tafsir; all because of religious doctrines.
You also need to understand you are exercising very strong irrational bias due to the primal us vs. them inherent in you.