[reallydontask]

I can't find the exact quote but I think a comedian once said something along the lines of (large pinches of salt on the quote and whether it was said by a comedian):

You think your god is all knowing, etc.. but at the same time stupid enough to fall for these work arounds

[pron]

Halakhic Judaism isn't about faith or what God knows. It's about obeying laws (Halakha [1]) made by people based on a God-given "constitution." Employing "loopholes" is fine -- it means you care about the law and try to obey it, which is the point. Worship is expressed not with faith but in a process of interpreting and creating laws and then following them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

[Majromax]

See also acoup.blog's series on Polytheism (https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polythei...). It's obviously not a direct analysis of Judaism, but the series discusses the idea of 'orthopraxis' (correct practice) as the relevant concept compared to the idea of 'orthodoxy' (correct belief). The latter, of course, is the central concept of modern Christianity.

[pbhjpbhj]

> The latter, of course, is the central concept of modern Christianity. //

I'd say that "salvation by faith" is the central concept of Christianity, faith does not require knowledge per se, not in the way that belief requires knowledge.

"Even the devil believes [...]" as the author of the Epistle of James writes.

Christianity as revealed in Scripture is far less about rigid concepts.

On a side-note Catholicism demands significant orthopraxis, but that is heterodox wrt Scripture.

Your supposition requires a form of gnosticism that's really not Christian and is quite contrary to the Gospel IMO, heretical some would say/have said.

[Udik]

It's more that for Judaism it seems God's laws are legal boundaries devoid of any ethical meaning. The important thing is to respect their letter, not their spirit.

[pron]

I wouldn't say that they're devoid of ethical meaning but rather that their ethical meaning might be unknown or can only be speculated, and whose understanding, in any event, is not pertinent to keeping the letter of the law, which is the central tenet. What you do is what's important, not what you believe or think or even what God thinks. Once His laws were given to humankind, they're out of His hands. There's even a famous story [1] in the Talmud where God argues with the Rabbis over Halakha, and the Rabbis tell God that what they say should prevail because Torah was given to man, and God concedes. From Wikipedia:

> [T]he work of law is a work of human activity, and... the Torah itself supports this legal theory. The Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai

[WJW]

God can't be stupid since (by axiom) he is all-knowing, perfect and presumably cares about the laws he sets. Therefore, any loopholes in the laws were put there on purpose and the believer is actually extra virtuous for paying close enough attention to notice the workarounds.

[reallydontask]

How do we know that the laws were set by him and not say a person who thought god was talking to him and somehow convinced people that they came from god?

How do we know that the loopholes are not there to test the to the letter followers versus the spirit of the law followers?

and how do we know which of those groups does god prefer?

[WJW]

Those are all fair questions, but they are about axioms and whether you should accept them or not. I was trying to describe the thought process of someone who has already accepted the axioms as set out in the old testament and is now trying to interpret the rules for modern times in an internally consistent way.

[reallydontask]

that's fair enough but say that we accept that the rules do come from god and he is all knowing, etc ..., the second question still stands and is the gist of the comedian's jibe

How do we know that to the letter vs to the spirit following is the right course of action for the follower of the religion?

[LegitShady]

>letter vs to the spirit

What is the inherent spirit of the law in only eating animals that chew their cud and have split hoofs? Or fish that only have scales and fins? The inherent spirit of not wearing linen and wool together?

There are plenty of places where religious jews go beyond what the law says because rabbis have deemed it important. The prohibition of not eating meat and milk together come from "not eating a kid in its mother's milk" but rabbis said it applies to all meat and all milk.

I'm not sure how legitimate it is to think you know or can determine the spirit of religious laws you don't know the details of.

[reallydontask]

> I'm not sure how legitimate it is to think you know or can determine the spirit of religious laws you don't know the details of.

That is precisely my point. Rabbis might say X or Y, that doesn't mean that it pleases God one way or another.

You can take the view that the loopholes are there to be found and thus prove your commitment, the opposite view or just the view that some are ok and some are not, this is all very theoretical given the impossibility of knowing what the relevant God thinks, as arguments could be made for both situations.

[rsynnott]

On a similar note, from Terry Pratchett's Discworld, on (an analog of) Pascal's Wager:

> Upon his death, the philosopher in question found himself surrounded by a group of angry gods with clubs. The last thing he heard was 'We're going to show you how we deal with Mister Clever Dick around here…'

(As mentioned elsewhere, while this particular example may not be great, this sort of thing is accepted practice.)

[knolax]

It's the thought that counts. Like a teenager choosing not to swear front of their parents.