In the human quest to authenticate the validity of thy individual wisdom, some will confuse intellectual pursuit and the capacity to absorb knowledge with that of being the same as a divinely anointed savant.
The intoxication of such an illusion must first touch glass to lips and slowly sip and savor the dry tannin of thy earthly bounty of scholarly notions in order to become inebriated with such minuscule brilliance.
From there a methodical sedation begins the relinquishment of individual responsibility for one’s deductive reasoning in exchange for the comforting illusions of saintly veneration.
It is under such influence that the whole of society may be swayed by the profound effects that ensues while being placed under the spell of such brilliancy!
Historically the laws that govern mankind have all been predicated upon such premise, in that of bestowing the transmitted interpretative merits behind the law to a select group of individuals who are in charge of administering the meaning and weighted conviction for the law.
If you have any doubts about how intoxicated such brilliance becomes in wielding such power, just spend a day in traffic court or in a child custody proceeding or as a juror in a trial of one’s peers. Just watch as the scale of blind justice peeks out from behind the blindfold in an elevated seat above the courtroom and rationalizes the conviction of thy subjects.
After all, in order to convince others that one is worthy of being bestowed the deliberative powers to interpret and transmit thy verbatim intent behind divine providence, one must first become possessed with a belief that they themselves are anointed the power to do so, correct?
In the liberties taken from such a self-anointed inspiration, civilization divests it’s power over many of it’s decisions and passes that power to these collaborative appointments, for after all once again, the weight and burden of judgement is more easily carried by those who may possess a special scrutinizing intellect and commanding behavioral idiosyncrasy of superiority.
If the weight of a decision from one individual isn’t enough well then, the baton for such decision can be passed on to a circus court (my apologizes, Circuit Court) where more appointed brilliance may weigh in, thus putting any appeal to a decision further beyond reproach by any mere individual.
If for some reason the desires of man’s interpretations (again my apologies), what I mean to say is the translations for the meaning of the law can’t be prejudged well then, a Grand Jury can be convened in order to examine a narrower spectrum of evidence, and issue indictments, if they believe that there is enough subjective evidence for a trial. Realizing of course that there will be no representation of the defense in the presenting of any of this, only the prosecution.
If our constitution is anchored upon the foundational precept that all men are created equal, then why aren’t all men (and women) treated equal? What happen to the American justice system’s first commandment that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt? How much reasonable doubt can remain when the deck is stacked against you and only the prosecution is allowed to enter the evidence.
I’m no lawyer by any means (thank G_d!) but, what I’m getting at here is that too many assess their reckonings for comparisons as being superior to much of mankind’s ability to reason. This arrogance stems from an egocentric addiction to their appreciative yet narrow spectrum of intellect, which seemingly has been acquired in viewing the world from behind such eyes.
If one could actually take inventory of the “ALL POSSIBLE” vastness of an all knowing capacity would you suppose that these folks may mistakenly deem themselves something more or less in calculating an evaluation for such brilliance?
True it is that many examples of astute intelligence such as accredited doctors, lawyers, theologians and scientist have all come to learn about the Laws of Nature and the Nature of Laws but, how would an all knowing divine capacity who’d orchestrated the magnificence that spans the grand universe affix a GPA to these scholarly assertions of knowledge in each of their own particular curriculum’s of study? Where would each fall upon the Bell Curve of knowledge for the possibilities in an infinite comparison for all things possible…hum?
In scaling the weighted worth of acquired knowledge and weighing that substantive measure against an all knowing divine capacity (who’d conceived of the long math and equations for endless spans of grandeur), what measured worth would be seen on the head of the pin that man possess? Do you suppose this divinity would need to affix a contrived value to such scholarly assertions in order to authenticate thy validity of “I am” under such scrutiny…hum?
Thus, we as humans are really only able to comprehend a tiny fractional equivalent for the breadth of knowledge that would involve the ALL KNOWING, yet even in this infancy of KNOWING, which is barely measurable in the extended zeros to the right of the decimal point, we attempt to apply some form of law and order to the chaos that abounds us!
Too often we delegate the pursuit of knowledge to the self-proclamations being made by deputized academics, who in the absence of a truer knowledge apply the weighted bamboozling of phraseology or debated weasel words in order to bait and switch knowledge for what can appear as wisdom.
In turn, this offers us what can appear as a seemingly sound argument for the merit behind our “LAWS” but, in fact such examples fail miserably at providing a replicated exhibit for universal truth.
As an individual member of the JURY, shouldn’t one be asking at least a few questions before subordinating to the whims of earth bound brilliance?
a.) Who’s laws are these and for what purpose are these laws to be universally adhered to and respected?
b.) To whom is authority delegated for taking action in support of an argument that the law is the law?
In the practices of delegation to the jurisdictional officialdom’s of authority, do we engage as witnesses or as bystanders? Is our inspiration derived in that of validating our own individualized prejudices and perceptions for a given belief system or do we scale the weight of our decisions as incremental grams for each of the contingencies that could otherwise titter the scale of a real form of justice?
Who is really in charge of interpreting G_d’s authority over our earthly domain and as well, who acts whole-hardheartedly in an attempt to comply with the merit of the transmitted meaning of such laws?
Whether the laws originate from the Jewish 613 commandments of mitzvot in the Torah and as transmitted as G_D’s word to Moses (peace be upon him), or derived from the Sharia religious precepts of Islam in the Quran and the Hadith, as a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Realize of course that even just in these two examples, that the G_D of Abraham’s laws are a source of widely contested differences. It isn’t the laws themselves but, their interpretations and often the failure to respect such valued precepts, which were designed to regulate behavior or thought.
Yes, I know fairly obvious right? Unfortunately, obvious to whom, as when it gets left to lawful interpretation they only seem to incite the continuance of further tribal warfare…hum?
Both of these religious theologies share 24 of the 25 Prophets mentioned in their teachings, which are as follows:
- Idris (Enoch)
- Nuh (Noah)
- Hud (Heber)
- Salih (Methusaleh)
- Lut (Lot)
- Ibrahim (Abraham)
- Ismail (Ishmael)
- Ishaq (Isaac)
- Yaqub (Jacob)
- Yusuf (Joseph)
- Shu’aib (Jethro)
- Ayyub (Job)
- Dhulkifl (Ezekiel)
- Musa (Moses)
- Harun (Aaron)
- Dawud (David)
- Sulayman (Solomon)
- Ilias (Elias)
- Alyasa (Elisha)
- Yunus (Jonah)
- Zakariya (Zachariah)
- Yahya (John the Baptist)
- Isa (Jesus)
- Muhammad: (only recognized by Islamic belief as a Prophet)