:
|
Yeah but I don't see how a set of rules can be at all useful if anyone can change them ever so slightly when they see fit.
Like, the original rule might be 'Murder is bad'. But 100 years later someone needs an excuse and makes 'Murder is bad... unless it's black people'. Or something, I dunno.
I get that it keeps the religion dynamic, but what's the point of having rules if they aren't documented in any way?
|
True. I've glossed over the finer detail of processes though. The fundamental books of the Oral Law (which were codified in the first 500 years AD) - the Talmud - aren't lists of
Do this, do that. They're actually a series of discussions on the various issues and topics that set down the parameters of the Oral Law and how its interpretted. Any topic will list all viewpoint and will be argued thoroughly with individuals being forced to back up their opinion with relevant texts and proofs.
To clarify what I said earlier; people would not simply change a law to fit current circumstances. They'd interpret the law as they knew it through the perspective of their current lives. Because back then it was not written down, that meant that the law could subtly develop over time.
However, this was not the man on the street making these decisions. They were scholars and judges who had dedicated their lives to studying and discussing the law. Ultimately decisions would be made by majority consensus following their own rules and with sufficient logical argument to make their case.