[Edit -- removed rather inappropriate thread subject. I'd rather let the reasonable discussion continue, without the unnecessary stereotyping (whether in jest or not). --PJ]
[ May 01, 2009, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it is pork farmers who run the world.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Anyway, the moment I heard about that business in Israel, I knew the Muslims were going to go full speed ahead complaining. I guaran-frakkin-tee you that if it'd just been Israel, they wouldn't have cared. But note that the article mentions "governments" in the plural.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Also, the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health has requested that the name be changed (link). Because as we all know, Jews are ever so popular in France.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are a freaking moron. (Hedwig)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Let's face it, "influenza A (H1N1)" is too long for anyone to use in conversation, especially in the news media.
But it is unfair to Mexico to call it "Mexican Flu." The Mexicans surely did not invent it. Patient Zero was merely living among them (a little girl, as it turns out, who has since recovered). And she did come into contact with pigs. Swine. Uh-oh.
I know--we can call it "Babe Flu." Remember the movie about a cute little piggy who wanted to be a sheep dog?
Of course, then beautiful women might take offense. And some people might get the idea it is an STD.
You know, since it seems to have originated in Mexico, we could call it "North American Flu." That's right--Mexico is a part of North America. The small countries south of Mexico are called Central America, so Mexico must be a part of North America.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm a bit confused by some reactions here in this thread. I don't really remember Hedwig, but was this thread anything but a joke?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rak, pretty sure Hedwig is a more frequent poster's alt for when they want to post something irritating and/or nasty.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ron Lambert!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Let's see how much abuse we can heap on the bigoted SOB's head before Pops gets around to killing the thread.
Seriously, though, I hope Hedwig doesn't mind me posting this picture of him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm hungry, and I dont even eat pork myself unless its in dumplings.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<makes fixed expression of pretend-mirth, emits noises that sound like written descriptions of laughter "huh huh huh huh" in a halfhearted way then snaps mouth shut and changes subject>
I'm so glad the drought in the southeastern US is finally over, aren't you?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I heard (essentially) the same joke this afternoon about Rastafarians.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You know, since it seems to have originated in Mexico, we could call it "North American Flu." That's right--Mexico is a part of North America. The small countries south of Mexico are called Central America, so Mexico must be a part of North America.
Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am posting in this high-quality thread.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am posting in this high-quality thread.
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am posting in this high-quality thread.
Pork barbeque is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy (except jews, sorry jews, lool)
OOPS did I not say that with an alt??
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
One thing I don't understand is how can the fact that WHO removed the word "swine" from the flu's name be seen as a Jewish thing? The objections to that name were made because it seems to say it has been transmitted from pigs and that eating pork right now can be unsafe. Removing the word means the WHO is not endorsing the transmission from pigs theory. So?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Obviously I don't think so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Corwin, don't ruin a good (?!?) conspiracy theory with LOGIC!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Pork barbeque is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy (except jews, sorry jews, lool)
OOPS did I not say that with an alt??
Wah! I miss sausage pizza. And ribs.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what about turkey sausage?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Ron, sometimes your political rhetoric is so arcane and meanderingly pointless, I have trouble telling what part of reality or any actually current or relevant issues it pretends to deal with. This is one of those times.
Wow, that was unnecessarily hostile.
Obviously I don't think so.
Obviously more than one person disagrees with you.
I thought it made perfect sense, and was a decent way to raise some questions brought up by the name change. There are already reports of backlash against the Mexican-American population. Quite often people in the US seem to forget (perhaps deliberatly) that Mexico is part of North America.
Notice no one is volunteering to change the name to NA flu, because WE don't want this flu associated with us.....yet we mock people who object to it being called swine flu, or Mexican Flu.
I am hardly one of Ron's biggest fans, but I thought he made a decent point, in an understandable manner.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Isn't Egypt ordering pork farmers to kill their livestock? Since apparently they don't listen to what scientists are saying, changing the name of the disease so the dumb and reactionary don't draw false conclusions is a great idea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have heard speculation (from international students here) that since the only people in Egypt who raise pigs are part of a minority and already somewhat oppressed group the Egyptian government's decision has less to do with medical misunderstanding and more to do with the fact that they don't want pigs there anyway. Deliberate misunderstanding, or siezing the oportunity. I don't know enough personally to know if that's a conspiracy theory or not.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then again, getting rid of chickens and pigs as food crops would remove the main nonhuman vectors for human influenza. Pigs act as intermediating reaction vessels between humans and birds in mixing flu viruses into forms that are transmissible to humans, and into forms that are transmissible to birds. Birds are the main long-distance carriers. ie The main recombination loop is: wild birds <-> domesticated fowl <-> pigs <-> humans <-> pigs <-> domesticated fowl <-> wild birds
Could be that a few smarter-than-average Jews (aka prophets) noticed that 4,000years ago. Just as they could have noticed that filter feeders (clams, etc) and bottom-feeders (catfish, non-scaled fish, lobsters, etc) concentrate the heavy metal (waste from smelting), toxic chemicals, and pathogenic bacteria (from human and animal sewage) dumped into nearby rivers by civilization/cities. And that fish, shrimp, filter feeders, etc would concentrate toxins from algae blooms (red tide / "blood on the waters", etc) -- and contaminated waters that produce algae blooms -- to a level poisonous to humans. (A tradition of seafood dishes solely for the guests of honor at the Festival of the FirstBorn?) Etc.....hence kosher rules.
People were ignorant back then, not unobservant&stupid. Heck, with so many people looking out for our*interests, we can afford to be unobservant&stupid in ways that woulda killed folks in earlier times.
* Or rather their own enlightened self-interest. eg: The more I help others to avoid catching the flu, the less likely it becomes that I will catch the flu. Then even if I do catch the flu, fewer flu patients means more medical attention is available for my benefit.
[ May 01, 2009, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All domestic animals carry and transmit diseases (Cowpox, for instance, has its name for a reason.). Wild animals as well, but the domestic ones are the ones that get us.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm looking forward to some good sales on ham, pork chops, roast pork, and BBQ pork. Bring on the discounts!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Prevent Swine Flu. Eat a Pig!
You folks should really lighten up past "my side" thinking though. Then you woulda noticed the humorous irony in the topic: Israelis (aka "Zionists") controlling a major organization of the "Zionism is racism!!!" UN, the WHO.
[ May 01, 2009, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
So, without any idea of bacteria, viruses, contagions, and mircobiological theory, they noticed that something they couldn't have known about was mutating (a concept they couldn't have known) via antigen shift (...) and infecting humans?
LOL
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Could be that a few smarter-than-average Jews (aka prophets) noticed that 4,000years ago. Just as they could have noticed that filter feeders (clams, etc) and bottom-feeders (catfish, non-scaled fish, lobsters, etc) concentrate the heavy metal (waste from smelting), toxic chemicals, and pathogenic bacteria (from human and animal sewage) dumped into nearby rivers by civilization/cities. And that fish, shrimp, filter feeders, etc would concentrate toxins from algae blooms (red tide / "blood on the waters", etc) -- and contaminated waters that produce algae blooms -- to a level poisonous to humans. (Traditional seafood dishes for the guests of honor at the Festival of the FirstBorn?) Etc.....hence kosher rules.
I have been told here on Hatrack that this interpretation of kosher rules is somehow objectionable. Personally I give it a lot of credit, but I've been told that some Jews don't appreciate the speculation.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So, without any idea of bacteria, viruses, contagions, and mircobiological theory, they noticed that something they couldn't have known about was mutating (a concept they couldn't have known) via antigen shift (...) and infecting humans?"
Yeah, they noticed that the people who raised and/or ate more of certain specific foods died more often, or lived more painfully, or didn't live as long. Nobody knew much about biochemistry* back in the latter 1800s either, and some physicians still noticed that cigarette smokers comprised the overwhelmingly VAST majority of lung cancer victims.
* Or about genes, or much of anything else the presentday medical profession thinks of as a minimum knowlege base.
[ May 01, 2009, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...been told...that this interpretation of kosher rules is...objectionable...that some Jews don't appreciate the speculation."
Some Jews believe that God gave them rules. Other Jews believe that God gave them enough brains to figure out the rules.
[ May 01, 2009, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Prevent Swine Flu. Eat a Pig!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "...been told...that this interpretation of kosher rules is...objectionable...that some Jews don't appreciate the speculation."
Some Jews believe that God gave them rules. Other Jews believe that God gave them enough brains to figure out the rules.
I know Jews (observant Jews) who are not only not offended by such speculations about the origins of Kosher laws but who make such speculations themselves. I can understand why Jews would reject that sort of interpretation or wish to make it clear that health is not their reasons for following the laws. But its sort of silly to get offended when non-Jews question the divine origins of Judaism.
People who take offense when those who do not adhere to their religion speculate about possible non-divine sources for their religion are in general taking offense way too easily.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: what about turkey sausage?
So not the same. But just as much of a problem on pizza.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Well, there is a difference between the two statements:
1. There are health reasons that make the kosher laws make sense. Perhaps that is some of the reasoning. I may never completely understand.
2. There are health reasons that make the kosher laws make sense. Those must be all of the reasoning behind them. I don't buy the health reasons in a modern world. Therefore, they are now irrelevant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All domestic animals carry and transmit diseases (Cowpox, for instance, has its name for a reason.). Wild animals as well, but the domestic ones are the ones that get us.
Actual, transmission of disease between animals and humans is relatively rare. Transmission of a disease from animals to humans and then continued transmission of the disease between humans is extremely rare. Cowpox, for example, was transmitted from cows to milkmaids but not transmitted from milkmaids to other humans.
The primary exceptions I can think of are diseases that are spread by insects and in this case its not so much a case of an animal disease jumping to humans as it is animals and insects acting as a vector for transmission of a human disease (i.e. the animals and insects that transmit the disease rarely suffer any ill effects).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then the statement I was responding to REALLY doesn't make any sense.
However, the point in general holds, even if there is a step between them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hedwig: [Edit -- removed rather inappropriate thread subject. I'd rather let the reasonable discussion continue, without the unnecessary stereotyping (whether in jest or not). --PJ]
Thanks, Papa.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Then the statement I was responding to REALLY doesn't make any sense.
However, the point in general holds, even if there is a step between them.
No the statement you were responding to makes sense because it was talking specifically about flu and flu is one of the exceptional diseases which does frequently jump between birds to pigs to humans and because it mutates quickly, an influenza virus that jumps from domesticated pigs to humans will frequently be spread from human to human.
Furthermore, modern industrial chicken and pig farms which confine huge numbers of animals in a very limited space form an almost ideal breeding ground for deadly diseases. In the wild, a virus that kills its host quickly, or even makes the host too sick to move about, won't spread very far. Highly virulent disease tend to be self limiting in the wild. But in a factory farm, (or the trenches in WW I), the hosts are packed in so close that a very deadly disease has a chance to spread very rapidly. Eating pigs and chickens that are raised in mega-industrial farms does in fact present a threat to human health that is not at all similar to other diseases that might be carried or spread by animals and insects.
So when you imply that there is no reason to differentiate between domesticated chickens and pigs and other animals because all animals can transmit diseases, you are simply wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are reading more into his statement than is justified.
Your second paragraph would not have applied a few thousand years ago.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You are reading more into his statement than is justified.
I don't see how. But perhaps I was reading more into yours than was justified. Your statement seemed to imply that there was no more reason to consider pigs and chickens as more likely to spread disease than other domesticated animals. If this was not your intent, I apologize.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ah-ha. I think I now understand both Kwea's and katharina's (essentially same) objection.
Sorry, I was mixing the results seen and corrections made by people back then with the explanations that presentday people see for those results and corrections without pointing out that I was doing so. eg Negative result seen by the people of the past: People who eat bottom-feeders and filter-feeders get ill more often, and/or are weaker more often, and/or become weak-minded more often, and/or etc than those who do not. Corrective action: Put a ban on eating bottom-feeders and filter-feeders. Presentday Explanation: Waters near those centers of civilization got strongly contaminated by heavy metal from smelting. (Anytime you separate gold, silver, or copper from their ores, you get lead and/or mercury and/or several other toxic contaminants in the leftover slag. Which goes into the nearest apparently "self-cleaning" dump, the river. Even if it didn't, the next set of heavy rains would wash some of those contaminants into the river, eventually. Unfortunately, rivers are not as self-cleaning as they appear to be. And much of those contaminants would settle&mix into the soil at the river bottom where they would continue to bleed small amounts into the water for many years after the original dumping). Bottom-feeders (because they're the closest and thus live&feed in the most strongly contaminated volume) and filter-feeders (because they siphon through LOTS of water to obtain their food needs) concentrate those heavy metals and other toxins. People who eat those bottom-feeders and filter-feeders also end up eating (more)concentrated heavy metals and other toxins. Which causes them to become less healthy (Heavy metals poison the body's organs, lowers the brains processing capabilities, and causes insanity at the strongest non-fatal dosages), more susceptable to other illnesses (Heavy metals also suppress the immune system), and shortens lifespan (with a sufficiently high dose, very quickly). Presentday conclusion: The ban totally makes sense even at the purely physical level alone.
There are similar unstated breakdowns into negative result seen by the people of the past, their corrective action, presentday explanation, and presentday conclusion for the other examples that I mentioned.
(I'm staying away from the psychological, cultural, and spiritual levels in this particular posting. I'll leave that for my response to Minerva; IF I can figure out how to phrase it in a manner that won't anger everyone, and I mean that quite literally.)
So do any of you still want a fuller explanation about pigs and the flu and bans?
[ May 01, 2009, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Actually, it's the apex predators that have the highest levels of heavy metals. There's a reason they caution pregnant women to not eat much tuna, shark, swordfish, etc. It's because they are very high in mercury, because mercury and other heavy metals bioaccumulate more and more as you go higher in the food chain. It's mainly in the organs and fat of those predators, though, that the really high levels are found. Heavy metals tend to accumulate in the organs and fat more so than muscle meat and other body parts.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've been eating pork products pretty much non-stop since I heard about this swine flu, or whatvere they're calling it now.
When it doesn't become pandemic in the US, you can all thank me.
I regret that I have but one side of bacon to eat for my country.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
The "flesh eating bacteria" scared me so much that I stopped eating humans.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I always thought this instruction given to ancient Israel was a bit amusing: "You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner." (Deut. 14:21; NRSV)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's amusing about it, Ron? There are certain things that we're not allowed to derive any benefit from. This is explicitly not one of them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I propose we rename it Manpigflu.
Or if they insist on making it sound more scientificish... Manpigflu A.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Twitter people have come up with all kinds of amusing ideas: hamthrax sowmanella oinkageddon aporkalypse snoutbreak the other white flu #namethatflu Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
While we're at it, can we rename the hantavirus the Hannahvirus?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:I regret that I have but one side of bacon to eat for my country.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: the other white flu
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Oh, come on, Lisa. You know why Deut. 14:21 would be amusing. Because anything that died of itself is most likely to be unhealthful (diseased, whatever), and such can be readily fed to those who are not Jews. Thanks, but I will continue to comply with Leviticus 11, because I figure the Creator should know what is most unhealthful for humans to eat. There are clear benefits for anyone who abides by Lev. 11. Go ahead, hog it all to yourself.... Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1) You are assuming that the kosher rules are strictly about health. Under your assumption, Jews should sell milk only to Jews because nonJews have a habit of melting cheese onto hamburgers. 2) There is nothing in the kosher rules which obligates Jews into forcing nonJews to stay kosher. NonJews eat lots of things that kosher-observant Jews do not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I second manpigflu. (Good one! LOL)
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I propose we rename it Manpigflu.
Or if they insist on making it sound more scientificish... Manpigflu A.
Half man, half pig, half flu? Or half man-pig, half flu?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
On second thought, Al Gore doesn't need another Nobel prize.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Oh, come on, Lisa. You know why Deut. 14:21 would be amusing. Because anything that died of itself is most likely to be unhealthful (diseased, whatever), and such can be readily fed to those who are not Jews.
That's dumb. If you go hunting and shoot an animal, and then it bleeds out, it's considered "an animal that dies of itself". Because getting shot isn't guaranteed to be fatal. So this means that a Jew can hunt animals, but can only sell or give the kills to non-Jews, because it's forbidden for a Jew to eat such meat.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Thanks, but I will continue to comply with Leviticus 11, because I figure the Creator should know what is most unhealthful for humans to eat. There are clear benefits for anyone who abides by Lev. 11. Go ahead, hog it all to yourself....
Oh. I see. So you like Leviticus 11, but not Deuteronomy 14. I guess you figure God was only semicompetant.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I heard on the news that a herd of pigs actually caught it from a human. And all I could think was that the pigs are going to go into a panic over this outbreak of human flu.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Oh, come on, Lisa. You know why Deut. 14:21 would be amusing. Because anything that died of itself is most likely to be unhealthful (diseased, whatever), and such can be readily fed to those who are not Jews.
That's dumb. If you go hunting and shoot an animal, and then it bleeds out, it's considered "an animal that dies of itself". Because getting shot isn't guaranteed to be fatal. So this means that a Jew can hunt animals, but can only sell or give the kills to non-Jews, because it's forbidden for a Jew to eat such meat.
Huh. Wait really?? How would that work if you were living in an environment in which hunting provided you with the best source of food? Did Jews never in history travel outside the range of a convenient meat market or 7/11? I also seem to recall that the story goes that Moses and the Jews in the desert ate wild quail. Did they have to capture it alive and then kill it in a Kosher fashion? Not that I buy the whole wandering in the desert for 40 years business, but seriously, how does a person sustain himself in that situation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you go hunting and shoot an animal, and then it bleeds out, it's considered "an animal that dies of itself". Because getting shot isn't guaranteed to be fatal.
What if you run up to the dying deer and slit its throat or bash in its skull? Could you then eat the meat? What if you actually shot it in the brain or heart in the first place?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I actually don't know as much as I should about the methods of preparing meat, since in Jewish culture, the lay-man has stopped preparing his own meat for many years now.
But I know that Jews cannot eat any meat that was not ritually slaughtered. We can't eat meat that was bashed or shot at, etc.
Jews trap animals and then slaughter them.
Also consider that the majority of meat that Jews eat are domesticated animals - sheep and cattle.
That is what accounts for a large part of kosher issues. The whole blessed by a rabbi thing is nonsense - the reason why a Jew can't buy a steak at a restaurant is largely because the animal wasn't properly killed.
Edit - The quail, right. You can trap them. But also, it was divinely brought. Commentaries say the sky was so thick with quail that you could reach your hand out and grab one.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Historically, I'm pretty sure that Jews were sheperds.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I wish they called it, "Pig Fever"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was initially trying to look for a synonym of 'illness' that started with 'O', so I could suggest, "Oinker..." I couldn't think of one, and was gratified to not find any on thesaurus.com despite going through illness, sickness, malady, malaise, unwell, and plague.
So now I suggest 'Porker Plague', but that's not as good.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Oh, come on, Lisa. You know why Deut. 14:21 would be amusing. Because anything that died of itself is most likely to be unhealthful (diseased, whatever), and such can be readily fed to those who are not Jews.
That's dumb. If you go hunting and shoot an animal, and then it bleeds out, it's considered "an animal that dies of itself". Because getting shot isn't guaranteed to be fatal. So this means that a Jew can hunt animals, but can only sell or give the kills to non-Jews, because it's forbidden for a Jew to eat such meat.
Huh. Wait really?? How would that work if you were living in an environment in which hunting provided you with the best source of food? Did Jews never in history travel outside the range of a convenient meat market or 7/11?
<shrug> If hunting provided the best source of food, we'd go with the second best source. Them's the rules. Trapping, okay. Hunting, not okay. Except, of course, for selling to others.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I also seem to recall that the story goes that Moses and the Jews in the desert ate wild quail. Did they have to capture it alive and then kill it in a Kosher fashion? Not that I buy the whole wandering in the desert for 40 years business, but seriously, how does a person sustain himself in that situation?
Yep. We had to catch them and kill them in a kosher manner. But there was manna every day anyway, so quail was extra.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you go hunting and shoot an animal, and then it bleeds out, it's considered "an animal that dies of itself". Because getting shot isn't guaranteed to be fatal.
What if you run up to the dying deer and slit its throat or bash in its skull? Could you then eat the meat? What if you actually shot it in the brain or heart in the first place?
Nope. If it would have died of the wound had you not slit its throat in the correct way first, it counts as an animal that died of its own.
In fact, I don't know if you've ever heard of the term "glatt kosher". Glatt is Yiddish for "smooth". It refers to checking the lungs of the animal to make sure there were no adhesions. The idea is to ensure that the animal was absolutely healthy. That the only cause of death in any way was the ritual slaughtering.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So it's not just that the animal had to die in a way that ensured it could not have died naturally? It also has to die in a specific ritual way?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yep.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I heard on the news that a herd of pigs actually caught it from a human."
quote:Mixing Vessel Pigs are an ideal breeding ground for new forms of the flu, including the new H1N1 virus, Nancy Cox, chief of the flu division at the CDC’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said at the briefing. The running hypothesis among scientists has been that the new flu -- a combination of four strains from swine, birds and humans -- started inside a pig, she said.... ...Pigs serve as a "wonderful mixing vessel" for bird, human and swine viruses, Cox of the CDC said.
"If pigs are infected with this new virus, and some of the swine influenza viruses that are already circulating, there could be additional reassortments of them," she said. "Likewise if a human were co-infected with one of the seasonal influenza viruses, and this new H1N1 virus, we could have a virus reassortment which emerged that has slightly different properties than either of the two parental viruses."
Reassortment "is of major concern" in the new virus, Schuchat said. Even if symptoms remain mild, the ease with which the illness can spread among a world population with little natural immunity still makes it a threat, she said.
(Apparently), all this has happened before and it will happen again.
quote: For a long time it was thought (and I learned in medical school) that the 1918 pandemic was caused when the virus jumped from pigs to humans. It is only recently, with advanced methods for analyzing the family tree of viruses, that there is good evidence we got the direction wrong: the virus came originally from birds to humans and we then gave it to pigs (Taubenberger et al.; Vana and Westover).
The trick is knowing which of the times it happens will lead to a particularly pathogenic mutation, and which will not -- and reliably so.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Well, I came here to say that the best name I'd heard so far was Colbert Flu (you know, since he's always trying to get things named after him and he managed to frak up those of us who were trying to get the new space station pod named "Serenity"...)
But then I saw manpigflu.... that wins...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT: Being able to do that sounds kinda improbable. What do you know (or can link to) about that area?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Well, I came here to say that the best name I'd heard so far was Colbert Flu (you know, since he's always trying to get things named after him and he managed to frak up those of us who were trying to get the new space station pod named "Serenity"...)
But then I saw manpigflu.... that wins...
I think you can clearly blame NASA for that for deciding on their own will to not go for the second most popular choice after Colbert. Its not Colbert's fault that NASA didnt make any sense.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, are you deliberately trying to be dense? Or do you actually believe that God proscribed certain kinds of meat just to deprive you of something good so you could have a special "covenant" relation with Him? Must you deny what is evident to everyone else, that the meats said to be unclean in Lev. 11 are unclean for scientifically valid reasons--they are predominately carnivores or scavengers, which tend to concentrate toxins and diseases in the food chain? Some animals said to be unclean have toxic amounts of vitamin A in their livers--you eat the liver of a bear, or dog, and you will probably die. The livers of cows or chickens will not kill you. Shell fish are forbidden too, because as filter-feeders, they concentrate heavy metals and certain diseases such as Hepatitis, if they are anywhere near a sewage outlet.
One of the key parts of "kosher" preparation of meats is to rid the meat of all the blood possible, since "the life is in the blood" and eating blood is forbidden. But truly kosher meat is pretty bland and leathery. It is so much less trouble just to go whole hog and be vegetarians. (Sorry, I had to say that.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I like "The Porker Plague." The problem is that I wish we could use porker as the last word, but I can't figure out how to make it work. "The Manipig Pandemic" attains a sort of appalling grandeur.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"Peste porcina" is Spanish for swine flu. Or we could mingle the linguas and call it porcina flu. That's one less syllable, and flows better, than "H1N1 Flu," which is what the newsfolk are calling it lately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But truly kosher meat is pretty bland and leathery.
You are so eating in the wrong restaurants.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, are you deliberately trying to be dense?
Ron, are you deliberately trying to be obnoxious?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or do you actually believe that God proscribed certain kinds of meat just to deprive you of something good so you could have a special "covenant" relation with Him?
Who said that? God commanded us what He commanded us. Perhaps you feel you can sit on judgement over your Creator, but we don't have that kind of hubris.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Must you deny what is evident to everyone else, that the meats said to be unclean in Lev. 11 are unclean for scientifically valid reasons--they are predominately carnivores or scavengers, which tend to concentrate toxins and diseases in the food chain?
There are many, many commandments that simply have no "scientifically valid" reason that we can see. For example, the fact that the ashes of a red heifer purify someone who is in a state of defilement, but paradoxically defile someone who is in a state of purity. Explain that for us, O All Knowing Ron.
You want to put your Creator in a box. You want to wall Him in to make yourself feel comfortable. Honestly, I don't see a big difference between you and King of Men, except that he's a bit more honest about things. You don't accept God, who defines you. You want a god that you can define.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some animals said to be unclean have toxic amounts of vitamin A in their livers--you eat the liver of a bear, or dog, and you will probably die.
Some. And some don't. And some animals that are said to be clean have health issues that the unclean ones rarely have. Anthrax, for example, is a much bigger issue for cattle than it is for swine.
So, Ron, if God doesn't meet your requirements for explainability, will you simply reject Him?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The livers of cows or chickens will not kill you. Shell fish are forbidden too, because as filter-feeders, they concentrate heavy metals and certain diseases such as Hepatitis, if they are anywhere near a sewage outlet.
Hmm... because there were a lot of "sewage outlets" in the Sinai desert. You're kind of funny, Ron. Funny in the humorous sense, too.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One of the key parts of "kosher" preparation of meats
Why the scare quotes, Ron?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: is to rid the meat of all the blood possible, since "the life is in the blood" and eating blood is forbidden. But truly kosher meat is pretty bland and leathery. It is so much less trouble just to go whole hog and be vegetarians. (Sorry, I had to say that.)
You're an idiot. Truly kosher meat is only bland and leathery if it's overcooked. Just like non-kosher meat.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But truly kosher meat is pretty bland and leathery.
You are so eating in the wrong restaurants.
Heh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Now I really want to go to Shiloh's. Which my pocket cannot afford.
Alas!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Honestly, I don't see a big difference between you and King of Men, except that he's a bit more honest about things.
To be fair, Lisa, I see a lot more in common between you and Ron on this topic than I do between Ron and KoM.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But truly kosher meat is pretty bland and leathery.
You are so eating in the wrong restaurants.
I don't know if I've ever eaten in a kosher restaurant, but the beef I've had at botmitzvas and such has been really good.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's when 'bots come of age.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Now I really want to go to Shiloh's. Which my pocket cannot afford.
Alas!
Wow... you have some nice restaurants in LA. We have Shallots here, which is the highest end kosher restaurant in the city (and has sweetbreads to die for), but it doesn't look nearly as nice as that. I'm jealous. And you even have one of the kosher Subways, too (to go to the other extreme). I ate at the one in Cleveland, but apparently, Chicago doesn't count.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Honestly, I don't see a big difference between you and King of Men, except that he's a bit more honest about things.
To be fair, Lisa, I see a lot more in common between you and Ron on this topic than I do between Ron and KoM.
Sure. You may see Lisa and Ron as stubborn religious fanatics. But Lisa is not arrogant enough to think that she knows why God commands what God commands. I mean, often the bible explains why a certain command has been issued, while other times, it is silent. I think Lisa deserves a great measure of respect for her level of religious consistency. She may hold her head higher than the rest of mankind, but she bows her head before her creator.
What Ron is doing by using his own judgment on a seemingly illogical part of why God commands what he commands is apologetically explaining the restrictions that make him uncomfortable.
What Lisa is saying is that Ron serves himself, not the creator, in the same way KoM serves himself. I respect KoM more for that as he is not pretending to be something that he is not.
This goes back to our discussion on the other thread about the principles of a religious person. The fundamentals have to be in place. God defines morality, not a human. To be religious isn't to rely on moral intuition, it is to TOTALLY submit yourself to a power that you know to be greater than you. Perhaps the most basic trait of a religious person is humility.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron--thanks. I needed a good laugh, and a person of faith attempting to Logic another person out of their faith is about as humorous as I could handle right now.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm personally a prime-grill fan...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm personally a prime-grill fan...
Prime Grill L.A. or NY? If the former, Shiloh's is better. If the latter, comparable.
Lisa, we do have some nice kosher restaurants (but no Indian! alas!!!) When I was in Chicago a few years back, I was very disappointed by the quality of the kosher places.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That seems so strange to me. I don't know what the Jewish population of Chicago is, but it has to be large enough that there would be money to be made catering to it with good, high end kosher restaurants. Am I wrong in thinking that, or is there some reason why this void hasn't been filled handily by now?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
There are no kosher restaurants where I live. *whimper*
If someone wanted to drive me 45 minutes I could get to a pizza place...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:God defines morality, not a human.
Suppose one of the commandments was to sacrifice your firstborn by tearing out his living heart, Aztec-style, on his eighteenth birthday. Would that be moral? Would you obey?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To be religious isn't to rely on moral intuition, it is to TOTALLY submit yourself to a power that you know to be greater than you.
Just as a side note: it is precisely for this reason that religious fundamentalism scares the crap out of me, as I suspect it would scare anyone who doesn't believe such a power actually exists. The idea that someone would subjugate their own moral intuition in this manner is something I find absolutely horrific.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, we have quantity. We also lack an Indian place, which is a real shame. We have Taboun, which is an excellent Israeli steakhouse (though if the place were a person, it probably wouldn't be allowed into Shiloh's). Very, very loud, but the food is good. We have pitzi little places like Tel Aviv Pizza and Great Chicago Food and Beverage. And there's Ken's Diner, which has to give us some points. Burger Buddies rock my world.
But yeah, even the quantity is down, and the quality has never been mi yodeah ma.
I used to daydream about starting a kosher restaurant here that'd be different nationalities on different days of the week. Dennys style (pancakes and eggs and waffles in the morning, burgers in the afternoon, and evenings) on Sundays, Mexican on Mondays, Indian on Tuesdays, Italian on Wednesdays (because Wednesday is Prince spaghetti day, natch), Chinese on Thursdays, and Deli on Fridays. Of course, there's the issue of how to do parve burgers that are worth the energy needed to chew and swallow, but I thought it'd be nice. It'll never happen, of course.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
NY. I've heard L.A. wasn't as good as N.Y.
Speaking of Indian, I went to Madras Mahal with a friend and it was delicious! I never had Indian before and I was blown away. I spoke to a Rebbe of mine afterward and he told me the hechsher wasn't so reliable. Do you or Lisa know of a reliable Indian place in NYC?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:God defines morality, not a human.
Suppose one of the commandments was to sacrifice your firstborn by tearing out his living heart, Aztec-style, on his eighteenth birthday. Would that be moral? Would you obey?
Yes. I hope I would.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That seems so strange to me. I don't know what the Jewish population of Chicago is, but it has to be large enough that there would be money to be made catering to it with good, high end kosher restaurants. Am I wrong in thinking that, or is there some reason why this void hasn't been filled handily by now?
Kosher meat is really expensive to begin with. And we have a bunch of low and medium end places, so there isn't much call for high end ones. I mean, there's Shallots if you really want to splurge.
But I don't really know. Chicago is weird.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: NY. I've heard L.A. wasn't as good as N.Y.
Speaking of Indian, I went to Madras Mahal with a friend and it was delicious! I never had Indian before and I was blown away. I spoke to a Rebbe of mine afterward and he told me the hechsher wasn't so reliable. Do you or Lisa know of a reliable Indian place in NYC?
The only kosher Indian place I've ever run across was Mekom HaSheva in Beit Agron in Jerusalem.
Also, when I lived in NY, I was more of a Kosher Delight, Kosher Star kind of person. Mendys sometimes, because I worked at Stern and it was so close, but that was unusual.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To be religious isn't to rely on moral intuition, it is to TOTALLY submit yourself to a power that you know to be greater than you.
Just as a side note: it is precisely for this reason that religious fundamentalism scares the crap out of me, as I suspect it would scare anyone who doesn't believe such a power actually exists. The idea that someone would subjugate their own moral intuition in this manner is something I find absolutely horrific.
I agree with you. It's gotta be scary if you don't believe. The best I can tell you is that the God I believe in did NOT tell me to sacrifice my kid on his 18th birthday, nor did He bid me proselytize, nor try and conquer the world with the sword.
The best I can do to ease your mind is to let you know me. The reason people are afraid of religious fundamentalists is that often times they do not know them. There are religious fundamentalists without any judgment and there are religious fundamentalists with judgment and heart. Get to know me and make a decision based on that. I know a lot of my coreligionists who I think are idiot jerks.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Ah-ha. I think I now understand both Kwea's and katharina's (essentially same) objection.
Sorry, I was mixing the results seen and corrections made by people back then with the explanations that presentday people see for those results and corrections without pointing out that I was doing so. eg Negative result seen by the people of the past: People who eat bottom-feeders and filter-feeders get ill more often, and/or are weaker more often, and/or become weak-minded more often, and/or etc than those who do not. Corrective action: Put a ban on eating bottom-feeders and filter-feeders. Presentday Explanation: Waters near those centers of civilization got strongly contaminated by heavy metal from smelting. (Anytime you separate gold, silver, or copper from their ores, you get lead and/or mercury and/or several other toxic contaminants in the leftover slag. Which goes into the nearest apparently "self-cleaning" dump, the river. Even if it didn't, the next set of heavy rains would wash some of those contaminants into the river, eventually. Unfortunately, rivers are not as self-cleaning as they appear to be. And much of those contaminants would settle&mix into the soil at the river bottom where they would continue to bleed small amounts into the water for many years after the original dumping). Bottom-feeders (because they're the closest and thus live&feed in the most strongly contaminated volume) and filter-feeders (because they siphon through LOTS of water to obtain their food needs) concentrate those heavy metals and other toxins. People who eat those bottom-feeders and filter-feeders also end up eating (more)concentrated heavy metals and other toxins. Which causes them to become less healthy (Heavy metals poison the body's organs, lowers the brains processing capabilities, and causes insanity at the strongest non-fatal dosages), more susceptable to other illnesses (Heavy metals also suppress the immune system), and shortens lifespan (with a sufficiently high dose, very quickly). Presentday conclusion: The ban totally makes sense even at the purely physical level alone.
There are similar unstated breakdowns into negative result seen by the people of the past, their corrective action, presentday explanation, and presentday conclusion for the other examples that I mentioned.
(I'm staying away from the psychological, cultural, and spiritual levels in this particular posting. I'll leave that for my response to Minerva; IF I can figure out how to phrase it in a manner that won't anger everyone, and I mean that quite literally.)
So do any of you still want a fuller explanation about pigs and the flu and bans?
Sort of, but not really. Since the average person back there had no training in the scientific method, I doubt this happened. I am not saying people back then were stupid, but that tehy lacked a modern perspective.
Even people who choose to not use it know what the scientific method is, and take it's existence for granted. In a time where not only record keeping was not used, and most people were not literate, people were FAR more likely to find a supernatural reason for things than to accidently stumble across an actual scientific reason.
Bottom feeding fish only collect metals these days because of our widespread smelting and our heavy use of metals. In the time frame you are talking about the amount lost to ground water would have been so low as to be unmeasurable even with todays equipment.
And as even domesticated animals were not kept in the same conditions as they are kept these days (nor were they kept in the same numbers, confined) they were far less likely to have these issues.
I think it is more likely that you are using a modern context superimposed on ancient history. We lack the perspective doing that to even come close to seeing the world the same way our ancestors did.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:God defines morality, not a human.
Suppose one of the commandments was to sacrifice your firstborn by tearing out his living heart, Aztec-style, on his eighteenth birthday. Would that be moral? Would you obey?
Yes. I hope I would.
Yes and no. See, my obedience to God follows my conviction that God is God and is entitled to my obedience, and that my obedience is good for me and the world. If one of the commandments was like that, I strongly suspect that I'd never have gotten there.
And yes, I know that sounds like I'm subjecting God to my morals, but it's not so. There are things in Judaism that taken in a vacuum might bug me on a moral basis. But the fact that it is so overwhelmingly pro-life (not in the abortion sense, but in the sense of furthering life as a value) and so fundamentally good in every rational way I can see... these lead me to conclude that the few areas where I might have had qualms are reasonably considered as things where I just don't have sufficient data to understand why they're right.
Pirkei Avot 2:4 says "Do His will as if it was your will so that He may do your will as if it was His will. Nullify your will before His will so that He may nullify will of others before your will." But Judaism understands that we have brains and a basic moral sense. I remember being taught that during the conquest of Canaan, God actually performed a miracle by preventing the men doing the conquering from becoming cold and coarsened by the violence. Because it's simple nature that committing that kind of violence, even on God's orders, can warp one as a person.
Remember Abraham and the cities of the plain. He didn't say, "You're gonna nuke those cities? Awesome!" He said, "Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?"
With all due respect, Armoth, I think you answered too quickly. And I understand why you answered that way; I've done so myself. But I don't think it's quite that simple.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are religious fundamentalists without any judgment and there are religious fundamentalists with judgment and heart.
But what you just said was this: that to a truly fundamental fundamentalist, judgment and heart should not matter. In other words, the more fundamental they are, the less I should care about their personal judgment and heart.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To be religious isn't to rely on moral intuition, it is to TOTALLY submit yourself to a power that you know to be greater than you.
Just as a side note: it is precisely for this reason that religious fundamentalism scares the crap out of me, as I suspect it would scare anyone who doesn't believe such a power actually exists. The idea that someone would subjugate their own moral intuition in this manner is something I find absolutely horrific.
I agree with you. It's gotta be scary if you don't believe. The best I can tell you is that the God I believe in did NOT tell me to sacrifice my kid on his 18th birthday, nor did He bid me proselytize, nor try and conquer the world with the sword.
The best I can do to ease your mind is to let you know me. The reason people are afraid of religious fundamentalists is that often times they do not know them. There are religious fundamentalists without any judgment and there are religious fundamentalists with judgment and heart. Get to know me and make a decision based on that. I know a lot of my coreligionists who I think are idiot jerks.
Also, it isn't arbitrary. God's laws are what they are. You don't have to worry that some prophet will come along and say, "Well, that was great for 33 centuries, but now God wants you to go out and slaughter the infidels." If that happens, the only person who's going to get slaughtered is the false prophet. Judaism is so locked down that God Himself can't change it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa - Yes. You are right. I responded too quickly. I'll echo your sentiments. It is difficult to discuss the hypothetical - but yea. I believe that in Judaism you have a relationship with God. It is overwhelmingly good and strikes one as good. But I think that our relationship is tested to prove that we do indeed serve God and subjugate our wills to Him as opposed to God merely being an expression of our wills.
[Edit - I meant to put this paragraph in: When i said tested, I didn't mean I am waiting for God to tell me to sacrifice anyone. I was just saying that sometimes it is valuable when a relationship is tested. I know who my real friends are because they stuck by me through troubled times. And I know my faith in God has been tested because it is a lot easier to worship God when you can see the goodness in life, but a lot harder when you are asked to accept the death of loved ones.]
If God did not demonstrate that He is a good God and simply wreaked havoc on humanity, I wouldn't want to exist and thus, I would not fulfill that command. But if the God I know commanded me that, I would hope I would comply. (Especially with Abrahamic precedent).
Tom:
It is not as simple as you are making it. There are a lot of religious fundamentalists who are humble in their subservience. They are fundamentalists because it is easy. But Judaism and the service of God is difficult. There is AMPLE room for judgment and heart in the execution of God's will. God Himself commands that one should do what is "right and good in your eyes." Also, much of the Jewish curriculum is centered around teaching good judgment, wisdom and discernment so that a person can make a complex decision when facing a complex world.
Fundamentalists who see the world as black and white are scary - that's what I am saying.
[ May 04, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That seems so strange to me. I don't know what the Jewish population of Chicago is, but it has to be large enough that there would be money to be made catering to it with good, high end kosher restaurants. Am I wrong in thinking that, or is there some reason why this void hasn't been filled handily by now?
As far as I've been able to tell, it's a question of expectations. The kosher restaurants in Chicago cater almost exclusively to people who keep kosher, and who are grateful for what they can get. (And sneak off to NYC every so often for better. ) In L.A., there are many many non-strictly-kosher people eating in the kosher places (for a variety of reasons), and if they are lousy, they don't stay open. (Sadly, many not-lousy places have short lives as well.)
Indian restaurants may or may not require much in the way of a hechser. CYLOR, of course, but they: don't use wine or rennet-based cheese, are stricter about bugs than we are, and are strictly vegetarian. (The non-vegetarian ones are never kosher.) I wouldn't eat in one with no hechsher, but I would rely on hecherim I wouldn't accept at any other type of restaurant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If God did not demonstrate that He is a good God and simply wreaked havoc on humanity, I wouldn't want to exist...
See, that's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't want God to exist. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rivka is probably right. I think there's really only one kosher restaurant in the Chicago area that people who don't keep kosher go to (and are probably the bulk of the clientele), and that's Mizrahi Grill in Highland Park. The best mizrachi food outside of Israel, and around meal times, it's completely filled. And just using the kippah test, I'd say that people who keep kosher are definitely a minority there.
Whereas most other kosher restaurants here are places you probably wouldn't bother with if you didn't keep kosher.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If God did not demonstrate that He is a good God and simply wreaked havoc on humanity, I wouldn't want to exist...
See, that's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't want God to exist.
But if you're convinced that He does, that isn't an option.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If God did not demonstrate that He is a good God and simply wreaked havoc on humanity, I wouldn't want to exist...
See, that's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't want God to exist.
See - that's what I've been trying to say. I will not deny reality in either situation. I believe that there is a God. That means i KNOW i won't be escaping Him. He's God! That's why in this reality, I try and subjugate my will to His. In the reality of an evil God. I don't even think in terms of HIM not existing because that is not reality. (I know you probably meant it as a joke, but I wanted to shed the whole fundamentalist suicide implication).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Given my understanding of what God is, saying that God doesn't exist would be like saying that existence doesn't exist, which is irrational.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe that there is a God.
Heck of a lot easier to just stop believing, since there's no evidence of His existence.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that there is a God.
Heck of a lot easier to just stop believing, since there's no evidence of His existence.
Oh come on. Do we have to do this on every thread? We think that there is evidence of His existence. We didn't just "pray on it."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, you don't think there's evidence. Nothing you can point to. You have the promises of people long-dead.
You can simply conclude that all those people were wrong and go on with your life instead of believing that God is evil and you should die.
I'm just saying that we know people can change what they believe with a little effort. Given the alternative, it seems like the obvious choice in that scenario.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Judaism is so locked down that God Himself can't change it.
This is clearly wrong. Your god cannot change its religion by the means it has used in the past. Nothing prevents it from just editing every Torah (including the parts stored in human memories) in the world. Indeed, for all you know, the prohibition on pork dates only from yesterday, and you were having a delicious pork barbecue last week. Or, less drastically, it might just appear simultaneously to every Jew in a new mass revelation; no prophets required.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
And you, KoM, might have been Ron Lambert last week and had just gained consciousness this morning complete with the body, memories and quick-wit of KoM.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that there is a God.
Heck of a lot easier to just stop believing, since there's no evidence of His existence.
Well, see, that's where I disagree with you. I think there's ample evidence of His existence. None of it "proof", but so what?
I could no more start thinking, given what I know right now, that there isn't a God than I could start thinking that George Bush is an alien lizard creature disguised as a human. Both are nutty, and neither one is something that I'm in any position to prove one way or the other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And you, KoM, might have been Ron Lambert last week and had just gained consciousness this morning complete with the body, memories and quick-wit of KoM.
Yes. This is precisely the problem with postulating omnipotent beings.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Judaism is so locked down that God Himself can't change it.
This is clearly wrong. Your god cannot change its religion by the means it has used in the past. Nothing prevents it from just editing every Torah (including the parts stored in human memories) in the world. Indeed, for all you know, the prohibition on pork dates only from yesterday, and you were having a delicious pork barbecue last week. Or, less drastically, it might just appear simultaneously to every Jew in a new mass revelation; no prophets required.
A difference which makes no difference is no difference. God isn't bound by time. If God wants to change the Torah, He can do so ab initio. But to us, that's transparent, since we are bound by time.
It's amazing to me that someone like you can consider the possibility of what you just suggested to be more plausible than the simple existence of God. I guess when some people chafe against the idea of God, Occam's Razor turns out to be a little dull.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No, you don't think there's evidence. Nothing you can point to. You have the promises of people long-dead.
Oh, Tom. You're like a broken record. There's no plausible way that all of those people lied about what they experienced. And there's plenty of evidence. Look around you. There's a story in the Talmud of a Roman (possibly named Tomus Davidsonus) who said the same thing to Rabbi Meir during an argument. On his way out, the Roman noticed a beautiful and complex line drawing on Rabbi Meir's wall, and asked who the artist was. Rabbi Meir said, "That? No, I just spilled my ink on the parchment, and it happened to come out like that." The Roman snorted and said, "Yeah, right. What are the odds of that?"
And see, you'd have told Rabbi Meir that the odds were actually calculable. Which they probably are. But I have a hard time even comprehending the kind of blinders that would let someone think that the one in gazillion chance of the world working out like it is today is more likely than it having been created by design. That's just seriously kooky, Tom.
Sure, it's "possible" that the world just happened. But I lack the ability to suspend my disbelieve far enough to buy it.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You can simply conclude that all those people were wrong and go on with your life instead of believing that God is evil and you should die.
Except that God isn't evil. Maybe if He did command us all to rip the hearts out of living children, He would be. But that's lame. He didn't, and now He can't. It's a ridiculous "what if".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm just saying that we know people can change what they believe with a little effort. Given the alternative, it seems like the obvious choice in that scenario.
People who change what they think to be true because it's convenient for them are pretty much worthless as human beings. In my opinion. Of course, that may be most people, but there you are.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's amazing to me that someone like you can consider the possibility of what you just suggested to be more plausible than the simple existence of God.
I didn't say it was more plausible than your god existing; for one thing it requires that existence, so it is less probable for any value of the probability that your god exists. I merely said that it contradicted your claim that Judaism was unchangeable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There's no plausible way that all of those people lied about what they experienced.
Ridiculous. In the first place, the lie does not have to be placed on the "two million" at Sinai; the lie could just as easily be the guy writing down the story of the two million, and - lo and behold - now you require only a single liar. In the second place, all the witnesses to miracles of other religions must presumably be lying, their gods being false; what makes your witnesses so remarkably truthful, in a world full of people reporting unlikely things?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Discussion on the Renaming of Swine Flu
it's dumb, hth
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
totally
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:There's no plausible way that all of those people lied about what they experienced.
Ridiculous. In the first place, the lie does not have to be placed on the "two million" at Sinai; the lie could just as easily be the guy writing down the story of the two million, and - lo and behold - now you require only a single liar. In the second place, all the witnesses to miracles of other religions must presumably be lying, their gods being false; what makes your witnesses so remarkably truthful, in a world full of people reporting unlikely things?
Now you have to explain how a single guy with a book about mass revelation to 2 million people got people to accept his book. Especially considering that the author claims their parents are one of the 2 million people (and they never heard this from their parents), AND that the commandments in the books are REALLY annoying and some of them are nonsensical.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I agree with you. It's gotta be scary if you don't believe. The best I can tell you is that the God I believe in did NOT tell me to sacrifice my kid on his 18th birthday, nor did He bid me proselytize, nor try and conquer the world with the sword.
The best I can do to ease your mind is to let you know me. The reason people are afraid of religious fundamentalists is that often times they do not know them. There are religious fundamentalists without any judgment and there are religious fundamentalists with judgment and heart.
And yet you just admitted that if, for whatever reason you believed God wanted you to, you would kill your own child.
I can understand why you say that, because all you're doing is using your own sense of morality and expressing it through a filter of religious belief. You would never have a god command you to do anything you didn't want to do or didn't think was right because then it would never be the "true" voice of god. God only convinces you to do the things you would do anyway- that's why religions split according to the practical needs of the believers.
I'll take living with the knowledge that I am not the center of the universe, rather than the elaborate fantasy that what I do, for the good of myself and my species, is somehow cosmically vital and significant. It's only important to me that what I do *feels* significant, and that there exists an imperative I do not fully understand that drives me to act as I do- "god" is a name for that, with a lot of shiny window dressing to help sell the image.
I read novels and listen to music, and you go to church. It's all part of the same desire.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: There are no kosher restaurants where I live. *whimper*
If someone wanted to drive me 45 minutes I could get to a pizza place...
It was like that for me when I lived near Santa Cruz. I had to go up to San Jose or San Francisco to find a kosher restaurant. I had to drive an hour and a quarter each way up to Palo Alto to get so much as a slice of kosher cheese.
Other than family, that's one of the reasons I'm living in Chicago now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:There's no plausible way that all of those people lied about what they experienced.
Ridiculous. In the first place, the lie does not have to be placed on the "two million" at Sinai; the lie could just as easily be the guy writing down the story of the two million, and - lo and behold - now you require only a single liar.
Nope. Then you have to find a way for that single person to convince an entire nation of stubborn people that not only is it true, but that they've always known it was true. That their parents, and their parents before them, knew it as well. It's ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In the second place, all the witnesses to miracles of other religions must presumably be lying, their gods being false; what makes your witnesses so remarkably truthful, in a world full of people reporting unlikely things?
Yeah, all one witness to the Muslim revelation? All... what, twelve? thirteen? witnesses to the Christian one?
Not to mention the obvious fact that credo quia absurdum isn't anything you'd hear a Jew saying. And what's so unlikely about these things, other than the fact that they'd disturb you personally?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Now you have to explain how a single guy with a book about mass revelation to 2 million people got people to accept his book.
Dude, have you seen what Joseph Smith got people to believe in? And that's in an age of science and progress, when most people were literate! Not to mention that even more audacious scammer, Ron Hubbard. The sad fact is that people will believe (or profess to believe) practically anything, if a confident male with a loud voice repeats it a few times. Especially if it makes them look good.
I would also draw your attention to a parallel which might surprise you a bit: String theory. You know the general thrust of it; all matter is made up of little vibrating thingummybobs; the patterns of their vibrations are the quantum numbers of the Standard Model; there are 11 dimensions of which 7 are rolled up too small to see. Now this is not stuff for which any evidence can be procured at the moment, which is why most particle physicists of my acquaintance tend to either shrug and go "yeah, whatever, come back when you have a test" or else "Pff, ridiculous." (I don't speak to a lot of theorists, it's true.) But some considerable percentage of the reading public believes this stuff, and consider Brian Greene to be the leading scientist of his day. (No diss on Dr Greene, he can't help it if people exaggerate his reputation.) And why? Because fundamentally, this doesn't matter to them. The difference between having 4 dimensions and 11 dimensions is completely irrelevant for anyone but a particle theorist. And therefore people will take anything that comes out of a respected physicist's mouth for good fish. And if there's a bit of controversy attached - "Dr X claims that there are not in fact 11, but only 10, dimensions") then so much the better. Conflict, drama! Apart from the mere humdrum march of actual technology, this is what people want from scientists.
So now back to origin stories, the cosmology of the ancient world. It is precisely the same: It does not matter for daily life whether your great-great-grandparents really actually heard the voice of God at Sinai. It sure makes a great story, though! (Notice I say nothing about parents; any liar knows better than to claim "X did Y" with an X who can actually be interrogated about it. And since the earliest scrolls we have are nowhere near parent-range of the claimed Sinai event, well then.) So people will shrug and say "Ok", much as they do for string theory - or they could even become enthusiastic about it, as my father-in-law does for string theory. And there's all kinds of good conflict to the story, golden calves and slitting the throats of the priests of Baal and whatnot.
Now, I admit it does matter for daily life whether you can eat pork or not. But it doesn't take much for plain irrational prejudice to get entrenched in human custom; consider those tribes outside of Judaism which circumsize (male or female, take your pick). You can't tell me they have a good reason for doing so; they do it "because we always have". Same for eating pork. Then, if you can weave that custom into your origin story, why, Robert is your mother's male sibling.
Any account of why Judaism is true based on the 'witness' accounts of Sinai has to account for why all the other religions, based on similar 'witness' accounts, are false. There's a Catholic story of a mass revelation/miracle/something in fairly modern times; 70000 people are supposed to have seen the Sun move around the sky in distinctly non-orbital ways. Do you believe this? No? Then why believe some single person's account of '2 million' (logistically ridiculous anyway) people hearing something?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I agree with you. It's gotta be scary if you don't believe. The best I can tell you is that the God I believe in did NOT tell me to sacrifice my kid on his 18th birthday, nor did He bid me proselytize, nor try and conquer the world with the sword.
The best I can do to ease your mind is to let you know me. The reason people are afraid of religious fundamentalists is that often times they do not know them. There are religious fundamentalists without any judgment and there are religious fundamentalists with judgment and heart.
And yet you just admitted that if, for whatever reason you believed God wanted you to, you would kill your own child.
Actually, what he "admitted" was that he answered your silly hypothetical too quickly.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I read novels and listen to music, and you go to church. It's all part of the same desire.
Yeah, you know, not a lot of Jews go to church. That's a Christian thing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: Being able to do that sounds kinda improbable. What do you know (or can link to) about that area?
Right. It was my attempt at being sardonic.
That's the trick -- but we likely can't perform it. Sucks to be us. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Actually, what he "admitted" was that he answered your silly hypothetical too quickly.
Not my hypothetical. I don't like asking a lot of silly hypotheticals- it never turns out that well when I do.
quote: quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I read novels and listen to music, and you go to church. It's all part of the same desire.
Yeah, you know, not a lot of Jews go to church. That's a Christian thing.
Tomato, Tomahto. Religious observances of many kinds apply here. [QUOTE]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Now you have to explain how a single guy with a book about mass revelation to 2 million people got people to accept his book.
Dude, have you seen what Joseph Smith got people to believe in? And that's in an age of science and progress, when most people were literate! Not to mention that even more audacious scammer, Ron Hubbard.
But again, neither of those were audacious enough to claim that said revelation was witnessed by millions, and that it was passed down uninterrupted from that point until now.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So now back to origin stories, the cosmology of the ancient world. It is precisely the same: It does not matter for daily life whether your great-great-grandparents really actually heard the voice of God at Sinai.
And that's what you utterly misunderstand about us. Because Judaism stands or falls on that fact. If they didn't hear the voice of God at Sinai, then all of Judaism is a crock. It isn't just a philosophical question for us. "Moses received the Torah at Sinai and passed it on to Joshua. And Joshua to the Elders and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly." That's how we know it's true. It's how we've always known it. Check Jewish literature of thousands of years ago, and you'll see that we looked at this exactly the same way. It isn't just historical trivia.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Now, I admit it does matter for daily life whether you can eat pork or not. But it doesn't take much for plain irrational prejudice to get entrenched in human custom; consider those tribes outside of Judaism which circumsize (male or female, take your pick). You can't tell me they have a good reason for doing so; they do it "because we always have". Same for eating pork. Then, if you can weave that custom into your origin story, why, Robert is your mother's male sibling.
The Muslim thing about pork came from us. Muhammed took quite a few things from us when he was trying to get us to join him. And Abraham circumcized Ishmael, too. Not to mention all of the sons he had with Keturah after Sarah died. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to see circumcision outside of the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Any account of why Judaism is true based on the 'witness' accounts of Sinai has to account for why all the other religions, based on similar 'witness' accounts, are false. There's a Catholic story of a mass revelation/miracle/something in fairly modern times; 70000 people are supposed to have seen the Sun move around the sky in distinctly non-orbital ways.
<sigh> Source, please.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Do you believe this? No? Then why believe some single person's account of '2 million' (logistically ridiculous anyway) people hearing something?
Why logistically ridiculous?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And that's what you utterly misunderstand about us. Because Judaism stands or falls on that fact. If they didn't hear the voice of God at Sinai, then all of Judaism is a crock. It isn't just a philosophical question for us.
And do you really intend to claim that this was a life-changingly important point for the average goat-herder of 1000 BC? I remind you that the Old Testament is one long account of the Hebrew people taking up other customs, and this, that or the next prophet coming down from the hills to chide them for it. (And this is well after the purported events at Sinai, at that, when they are settled in modern Israel.) It does not seem, then, that the median Hebrew thought his religion was a huge part of his identity, since he was apparently quite ready to abandon it, or at least its purest forms, if that seemed convenient. I also remind you that there is a strong tendency to assume other humans are like ourselves; you, for example, clearly do have a lot of your identity bound up with being Jewish, but there are many Jews even in the modern world of whom that is not true.
quote:Why logistically ridiculous?
:blink: Seriously? The Roman Empire at its height didn't keep 2 million men under arms, much less concentrated in one place with enough grass to feed two goats. Imperial Germany kept something like 2 million men with rifles on the Western front at all times, and they were running trains flat-out (granted they had to transport ammunition as well) and had their civilian population (not to mention large tracts of the Ukraine, after Brest-Litovsk) on starvation rations to do it.
quote:The Muslim thing about pork came from us. Muhammed took quite a few things from us when he was trying to get us to join him. And Abraham circumcized Ishmael, too. Not to mention all of the sons he had with Keturah after Sarah died. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to see circumcision outside of the Jews.
I don't quite see what the Moslems have to do with it; I was addressing the beginnings of the custom. As for circumcision, female as well? If not, you're going to have to explain what idiot thought up that piece of shit, and then managed to convince his people it was ritually necessary. And when you've done that, you can explain why this procedure would not work for the 2-million and pork-eating bits.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's a story in the Talmud of a Roman (possibly named Tomus Davidsonus)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:And that's what you utterly misunderstand about us. Because Judaism stands or falls on that fact. If they didn't hear the voice of God at Sinai, then all of Judaism is a crock. It isn't just a philosophical question for us.
And do you really intend to claim that this was a life-changingly important point for the average goat-herder of 1000 BC?
The average Jewish goat herder? Absolutely. And it's BCE, btw.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I remind you that the Old Testament is one long account of the Hebrew people taking up other customs,
With vast stretches of time going completely undescribed, precisely because we were doing what we were supposed to be doing. It's only the exceptions that made it into the book. Because those were the ones we needed to learn from.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: and this, that or the next prophet coming down from the hills to chide them for it. (And this is well after the purported events at Sinai, at that, when they are settled in modern Israel.)
And...?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It does not seem, then, that the median Hebrew thought his religion was a huge part of his identity, since he was apparently quite ready to abandon it, or at least its purest forms, if that seemed convenient.
That's like saying the US Constitution is meaningless to Americans because of the way in which it's abused by some people. The average Jew was not at all ready to abandon it. Even those Jews who mistakenly worshipped Baal generally worshipped God and Baal. It was a really hard custom to stamp out.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I also remind you that there is a strong tendency to assume other humans are like ourselves; you, for example, clearly do have a lot of your identity bound up with being Jewish, but there are many Jews even in the modern world of whom that is not true.
Your point being...?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Why logistically ridiculous?
:blink: Seriously? The Roman Empire at its height didn't keep 2 million men under arms,
Who said anything about 2 million men at arms? There were only a little more than 600,000. The 2 million includes men under 20 or over 60, women, servants, converts, etc.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: much less concentrated in one place with enough grass to feed two goats. Imperial Germany kept something like 2 million men with rifles on the Western front at all times, and they were running trains flat-out
Well, see, we were lucky. No trains.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The Muslim thing about pork came from us. Muhammed took quite a few things from us when he was trying to get us to join him. And Abraham circumcized Ishmael, too. Not to mention all of the sons he had with Keturah after Sarah died. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to see circumcision outside of the Jews.
I don't quite see what the Moslems have to do with it; I was addressing the beginnings of the custom. As for circumcision, female as well? If not, you're going to have to explain what idiot thought up that piece of shit, and then managed to convince his people it was ritually necessary.
The same kind of idiots who were debating only 200 years ago whether women had souls or not. The same kind of idiots who denied women the vote. The same kind of idiots who had a hard time imagining such a thing as a female orgasm.
Do they really consider it "ritually necessary", or is it a custom, even according to those who do it?
Cool. And maybe something did happen that they took as a miracle. But it was contentless, even according to the witnesses. Just a lightshow. It's a little different.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
:blink: Seriously? The Roman Empire at its height didn't keep 2 million men under arms, much less concentrated in one place with enough grass to feed two goats. Imperial Germany kept something like 2 million men with rifles on the Western front at all times, and they were running trains flat-out (granted they had to transport ammunition as well) and had their civilian population (not to mention large tracts of the Ukraine, after Brest-Litovsk) on starvation rations to do it.
Haven't you ever heard of the manna?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Lisa: It's interesting how readily you dismiss a supposed large scale miracle, especially with the reports of visions of Jesus et al blessing people.
I mean, I don't actually disagree with your point, and don't find that particular miracle any more convincing than you do. I mean, among other things, it IS kind of a weak miracle, especially compared to the one at Sinai.
It's one thing that makes me wonder. I mean, why is it that wherever newspapers and, more recently, video cameras are available, the kinds of miracles that supposedly occurred throughout ancient history no longer happen?
But it's still interesting, from the perspective of one who fairly doubts the less well-documented miracles you profess occurred, it's interesting.
Still, though of course your particular miracle is different than Joseph Smith's stories of a continent's worth of events, or Hubbard's stories of Thetans, alien nukes, etc, the point remains that they prove that it's fairly easy for a single person to get large numbers of people believing something that we both agree is most likely not true. (Well, not easy meaning anyone could pull it off, but that it's both possible, even in the modern day, and has multiple highly popular examples of it succeeding swimmingly.)
Now, I won't say the miracle you believe in didn't happen, however, considering that in the modern era people have begun agreeing with Scientology's... erm, weird things, does it seem that hard to get a rural culture with no writing and an oral history to believe that some centuries previously, their ancestors received a vision from God, which coincidentally confirms their current beliefs are correct, and adds to the narratives already growing about the eras before?
To me, it doesn't seem impossible, in light of many things people believe today. (flat earthers, for example?)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well Megabyte, it's fairly clear to anyone who is a student of human nature how "miracles" become miracles. Douglas Adams had an interesting thought on this- I forget now where I read it, but he came up with a proposed mathematical formula for judging the likleyhood of miraculous events spread out over a person's lifetime.
For instance, the sudden call from the friend you had just been thinking about, but had not spoken to in 20 years. If you take as a given that you have perhaps 100 people in your life that you have known and are likely to think about, and you think about 10 of them each week, and you assume that the likleyhood of any of them calling you in any given week is perhaps one in a hundred (assuming they call once every 2 years), then the likelyhood of you thinking of each one of those hundred people and having that same person call you in the same week would be one in a thousand- pretty random and seldom.
Still, that means that in 20 years, you are likely to receive at least one call from each person on the week that you have been thinking about them. The power of the mind to recognize patterns, even where they do not exists, is powerful. And aside from that, the chances of your thinking about and being called by a distant friend is not governed by random chance. A mutual friend is likely to die in that time, an event on TV may remind both people of each other, and spark communication, a holiday may increase the likelihood of contact, if both people are the same age, a milestone birthday may increase their thoughts of old friends and increase the likelihood of contact.
In short, though these events may appear to the casual observer to be random, they are in fact not- miracles and exceptional events happen precisely at the moments in which we are most watchful for them- when it really matters that they happen. 50,000 people a year die in car crashes, but of those, there are inevitably the cases in which the person is thrown completely clear of the car, over a fence, and into a hay-bale uninjured, where he meets his future wife milking the cows. If you flip a coin enough times, it lands on its side. Then people with far too little sense are far too much energy start talking about miracles, but there has never been a miracle I have read of that did not fit in with the governing principles of the universe as I know them. Unlikely, yes, but never impossible.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Lisa: It's interesting how readily you dismiss a supposed large scale miracle, especially with the reports of visions of Jesus et al blessing people.
But I didn't dismiss it. I suspect they did see something. That doesn't make it a miracle, and like I said, it had no content. None that the people there all agreed on, at any rate.
Back in the early 90s, I was living in a town called Maalei Adumim, in Israel. One day, it must have been a Friday, because it was about 4 in the afternoon and I'd just gotten off the van from work (we got out early on Fridays, but we worked Sundays, which is normal for Israel), I was walking up the street from where the van had let me out. And up in the sky...
I'm totally not kidding about this. The clouds in the sky, which were bright pastels of pink and purple, looked like something out of a Greek mythology book. There was an enormous guy sitting on a throne. There was what looked like a massive stalactite (not the thin kind but almost like an upsidedown cone) with what looked like someone chained to its front. There were other figures that looked like giant people.
And I stood there, gobsmacked. And amused. And as I watched over the next 10 minutes or so, the edges softened and the shapes distorted, until it was all just clouds again.
Now, this wasn't something that a ton of people saw. It was just me. But for me, that's worth more than a ton of people, obviously. And all I could think was, if a big crowd of people had seen this 3000 years ago, it could have started a religion.
But it had no content. Just like the thing in KoM's wikilink. It didn't come with the necessary miraculous add-ons that would allow an enormous group of a couple million people to live in a desert for 40 years. It didn't come with an extensive corpus of law and lore. It was just pretty lights.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I mean, I don't actually disagree with your point, and don't find that particular miracle any more convincing than you do. I mean, among other things, it IS kind of a weak miracle, especially compared to the one at Sinai.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: It's one thing that makes me wonder. I mean, why is it that wherever newspapers and, more recently, video cameras are available, the kinds of miracles that supposedly occurred throughout ancient history no longer happen?
They've no longer happened for a lot longer than modern media has been around. In Deuteronomy 31:18, God says "I will surely hide My face on that day." That state of "the hiding of God's face (presence)" is a situation that's pertained for many centuries. There were miracles that happened on a daily basis in the First Temple that didn't happen in the Second Temple. Skeptics might say that means they never really happened in the First Temple, either. But then, the Ark of the Covenant was in the Holy of Holies in the First Temple, and was missing from the Second Temple. That doesn't lead people to assume that it never existed in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: But it's still interesting, from the perspective of one who fairly doubts the less well-documented miracles you profess occurred, it's interesting.
Still, though of course your particular miracle is different than Joseph Smith's stories of a continent's worth of events,
Right, but again, that was one person. There were no people who perked up their ears and said, "That's right! My parents told me that their parents told me, etc, that that happened to them!"
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: or Hubbard's stories of Thetans, alien nukes, etc,
Which is kind of a cool story, no? You can tell he was a science fiction writer.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: the point remains that they prove that it's fairly easy for a single person to get large numbers of people believing something that we both agree is most likely not true. (Well, not easy meaning anyone could pull it off, but that it's both possible, even in the modern day, and has multiple highly popular examples of it succeeding swimmingly.)
Still, getting people to believe that something happened is one thing. Getting people to believe that their entire nation has known about it ever since it happened is another.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Now, I won't say the miracle you believe in didn't happen, however, considering that in the modern era people have begun agreeing with Scientology's... erm, weird things, does it seem that hard to get a rural culture with no writing and an oral history to believe that some centuries previously, their ancestors received a vision from God, which coincidentally confirms their current beliefs are correct, and adds to the narratives already growing about the eras before?
When it comes with a vast number of laws that really affect your life substantially every time you eat, or any time you do just about anything else, yes, I think it'd be pretty hard to get people to buy it.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: To me, it doesn't seem impossible, in light of many things people believe today. (flat earthers, for example?)
Different, for the reasons I've already explained.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I knew this thread wasn't going to be about renaming Swine Flu to something more appropriate! Religion explains why it's three pages long.
For the record, given the crazy response that Egypt had to the name, I think it's actually warranted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's no plausible way that all of those people lied about what they experienced.
How many people does it take to write a book claiming lots of people saw something? I mean, thousands of people now say they saw Mary down in Mexico, and that was even within a couple of generations nowadays. For that matter, how many people in my parents' generation actually went to Woodstock? There are going to be tens of thousands of people in my generation telling their children, in absolute sincerity, that their grandparents went to Woodstock with no idea that it's a complete and total fabrication.
------
quote:People who change what they think to be true because it's convenient for them are pretty much worthless as human beings.
Why?
quote:Then you have to find a way for that single person to convince an entire nation of stubborn people that not only is it true, but that they've always known it was true.
For one thing, it's entirely possible that the Jews of yestereon weren't quite as stubborn as the Jews of today. Six thousand years of bragging about your stubbornness might well have selected for and enhanced that particular trait. For another: there's no reason to believe that the lie necessarily started out claiming two million, or even that it was necessarily believed by everyone who otherwise subscribed to the religion. I mean, look at the kind of "proofs" we see in the Bible; I can very easily imagine a prophet saying something like "Surely two million people saw this -- and if I'm lying, may God strike me down! If I'm not, may God light this ceremonial fire!" and then, as the flames erupt from the kindling, arguing successfully that this was proof of the original claim. Seriously, that's what appears to pass for logic in the early going.
quote:And that's what you utterly misunderstand about us. Because Judaism stands or falls on that fact.
I wouldn't say that KoM misunderstands that at all. I think he understands that perfectly, and rightly observes that this is a very flimsy thing on which to base your entire assertion of validity.
quote:It didn't come with the necessary miraculous add-ons that would allow an enormous group of a couple million people to live in a desert for 40 years
Or, rather, since there's very little archaeological evidence for two million people having done so, we might conclude that a substantially smaller number of people were actually involved, and that the numbers cited were (as so many numbers in the Bible seem to have been) heavily fudged.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It seems remarkable to me how some people can jump to all sorts of conclusions when sensible reasons are presented why everyone, and not just Jews, should follow the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11. I suggested that there might be real health advantages in the counsel God gave to ancient Israel, and then the illogical reactions are expressed that I am somehow denying that God required obedience of His covenant people, or that I am trying to put God in a box.
It seems evident that some Jews wish to keep all the blessings of God to themselves, instead of sharing them with the world as God expressly meant for them to, but it is amazing how deliberately unthinking and blind some people get about this, so that they have to lash out at anyone who suggests that God might have had good reasons for the things He proscribed to ancient Israel. I believe that God is good, and loving. He never takes anything away from us without giving us something better in its place. He is not arbitrary or "authoritarian," even though He has supreme authority. But perhaps it is my Christian faith that makes it easier for me to have this view of God.
In view of what some have said about kosher meats, I should in all candor admit that I was going by what I have heard some others say, since I do not eat kosher meat myself, and don't even know where to buy any. I am glad if kosher meats can be prepared so they are good-tasting. But that again fits in with my view of God, that He means for us to be happy and have good things, even as we avoid those things that might harm us.
I believe that God ordained the Jews to set good examples for all the human family. I wish that Jews would set a better example when it comes to attitude toward God and toward their fellow human beings.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: Being able to do that sounds kinda improbable. What do you know (or can link to) about that area?
Right. It was my attempt at being sardonic.
That's the trick -- but we likely can't perform it. Sucks to be us.
Ah, thats what I kinda thought, but I wasn't 100% sure, or if you were ready to pull out something funky you had just read Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:People who change what they think to be true because it's convenient for them are pretty much worthless as human beings.
Why?
Seriously? Because if you don't base what you think to be true on what seems to be true, you're a dishonest git. Or utterly irrational. Pretending that you think one thing is true when you actually think something else is true, maybe for reasons of peer pressure or fear... that's one thing. It's sad, but it happens. But to actually change your beliefs or convictions because it's more convenient to do so... I don't even understand your question. A person who does that is barely a person.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A person who does that is barely a person.
I think the research on this shows that people who do not do this are in a vanishingly small minority.
Obviously, I would argue that most people do not consciously do this. But I think anyone who thinks they manage to consistently avoid this behavior is either a paragon of principle or, as is far more likely, in simple denial.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I believe that God ordained the Jews to set good examples for all the human family. I wish that Jews would set a better example when it comes to attitude toward God and toward their fellow human beings.
I agree with you.
Just know that we believe God is complex, but we believe He is good. The dietary restrictions probably do have some value - but I doubt they are in the physical realms. Perhaps they teach a subconscious level of sensitivity to something important, and perhaps they have some spiritual importance. Or perhaps they have no relevance and it is merely a test. I don't know. But neither do you.
The problem is when someone ascribes a reason to God's law. Then, when people find that a principle no longer applies - they shirk God's law. That's not cool. So we try to stay away from giving reasons to things which God Himself did not give reason to.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
God didn't state a reason for the fine structure constant either, yet I hear no objections to finding out the why behind it. And the fine structure constant is a much stricter law than the Law of Moses, which are subjected to constant interpretation by mostly uneducated men.
[ May 05, 2009, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Point of order: The fine structure constant can't be changed by any large amount without messing up chemistry. You would then have a rather different form of life. So if you think that a hypothetical god has a reason for wanting humans, in particular - "in his image", perhaps - then the fine structure constant is constrained. If you think that any old life would have done, that's different. I suspect the Orthodox Jews here likely feel that humanity is special relative to all possible intelligent life-forms, though.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: God didn't state a reason for the fine structure constant either, yet I hear no objections to finding out the why behind it. And the fine structure constant is a much stricter law than the Law of Moses, which are subjected to constant interpretation by mostly uneducated men.
I don't know what you are talking about. We're talking about claiming a reason for a law God communicated to us. A commandment. The fine structure constant is not a commandment. You seem to think that I implied that Jews cannot ask why. We can.
But asking "why" and claiming that you know the reason for a law when there is very little logic to it or reason provided is something we don't do.
And just because the law of Moses is subject to uneducated men doesn't mean we care at all for their interpretations. The chain of transmission and interpretation of Jewish law is incredibly strong and the differences in interpretation are relatively small.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:It seems evident that some Jews wish to keep all the blessings of God to themselves, instead of sharing them with the world as God expressly meant for them to, but it is amazing how deliberately unthinking and blind some people get about this, so that they have to lash out at anyone who suggests that God might have had good reasons for the things He proscribed to ancient Israel. I believe that God is good, and loving. He never takes anything away from us without giving us something better in its place. He is not arbitrary or "authoritarian," even though He has supreme authority. But perhaps it is my Christian faith that makes it easier for me to have this view of God.
Am I the only one who found this insulting to Jewish people? Lets have fun and break it down.
quote:It seems evident that some Jews wish to keep all the blessings of God to themselves, instead of sharing them with the world as God expressly meant for them to,
This can be read as the standard "Greedy Jew", but I give Ron the benefit of the doubt. Instead I read this as, "God showed you Jews the best way to do things and you don't share it with the world." Yet the Torah specifically requires that some laws be kept by Jews and others by people as a whole. No where is it asked, or "expressed" that they should go out and spread their laws to those not of the tribes.
Yet the Jews never hid their Torah from the rest of the world, unless it was from Christians or Muslims intent on destroying it and any who had it in their possession.
When it was taken by the Christians, one of the earliest things they did was explain away why Leviticus wasn't actually important anymore.
Sorry Ron, I don't see anyone hiding the good news here. Nor do I see a requirement that God wants them to spread the laws either.
quote: but it is amazing how deliberately unthinking and blind some people get about this, so that they have to lash out at anyone who suggests that God might have had good reasons for the things He proscribed to ancient Israel. [/God]
Read closer Ron. They were not saying that God did not have good reasons for things He proscribed. They were saying that God had good reasons, but we mere mortals are too small to try and understand them. They were saying that God proscribing them was good enough reason by itself. Finally they are saying that when you try to cherry pick what you think are laws that have good reasons you are tempted not to follow those that you don't know have a good reason.
[quote]I believe that God is good, and loving. He never takes anything away from us without giving us something better in its place. He is not arbitrary or "authoritarian," even though He has supreme authority. But perhaps it is my Christian faith that makes it easier for me to have this view of God.
Hmmm, how many good Christian cults, churches, and whole religious sects have had arbitrary and authoritarian leaders who demanded allegiance and support from their followers? How many Jewish? While your Christian faith may make it easier to have your view, too many Christian churches make it harder.
Finally, a last zinger:
quote:I believe that God ordained the Jews to set good examples for all the human family. I wish that Jews would set a better example when it comes to attitude toward God and toward their fellow human beings.
What attitude toward God have they set that could do better here? They have spoken of respect, awe and obedience to God. Toward fellow human beings they share their kosher food with any who want to purchase it, at no extra Non-Jew markup. Is it their fault that even you admit to not partaking of it?
I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that Christians would follow in his ideals and set good examples for all the human family. I wish that Christians would set a better example whti it comes to attitude toward God and toward their fellow human beings.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No. Knowing a reason, or even several reasons, is not justification for claiming that one knows all of the reasoning behind a law. And thus not justification for ignoring that law by avoiding that small portion about which one does know.
eg "Trichinosis" was often cited even way-back-in-the-days as the reason for the ban on pork. It wasn't until the 1990s that "pigs are the perfect reaction vessel for recombination of flu viruses" became a part of the general knowlege base. That time separation between the two alone should give warning that even knowing "trichinosis" and "perfect reaction vessels" does not make it impossible for there to exist a third (or fourth or...) health-related-only reason for avoiding the use of pigs as a food crop. So no justification has been created to ignore the ban. And that's not even considering psychological, cultural, or spirtitual reasons which may exist.
What I object to is "Don't ask why." Consider: Most highly-observant Jews consider it to be okay to be in their home on the Sabbath. They also consider it to be wrong to use devices automaticly timed to replace human labor during the Sabbath. Both the home and the automatic devices can be built with labor performed on non-Sabbath days. Yet using the work performed by the home (sheltering one from the weather) is kosher, while using the work performed by an automatic device (eg a timer that turns house lights or a television or an oven or a kiln on and off) is not. (Personally, I believe that the ban on the second is a sensible interpretation of the Sabbath rule.) But there is no explicit "Thou shalt not use pre-programmed devices on the Sabbath." You can't get from the ruling on the home to the ruling on the automatic devices without examining the underlying reasoning behind the ban upon working on the Sabbath. In other words, one must ask "Why?" or risk being non-kosher because of ignorance. I'd put it even more strongly. God's gift of intelligence places a geas upon one to ask "Why?" when confronted with a Law of God. To do otherwise is an attempt to thwart God's Will.
The fine structure constant is an example of an obvious Law of God; ya can't break it. Others, such as the Law of Moses, are not so obvious cuz ya can break those pretty easily... ...though the lawbreaker can be subject to pretty harsh consequences, at least some of the time. For the strongest, often enough to make the risk too high for the possible gain.
[ May 05, 2009, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Back on the first page I said
quote:People who take offense when those who do not adhere to their religion speculate about possible non-divine sources for their religion are in general taking offense way too easily.
In light of Ron's behavior, I'd like to recant. While I have seen plenty of cases where religious persons take offense when no offense is justified, Ron demonstrates that sometimes offense is fully justified.
Part of being a person of faith is humbly recognizing the limitations of human intelligence and learning to trust God. Along with that comes a willingness to obey his commandments simply as a sign that we trust him and belong to him. God may give commandments for physical reasons and he may give commandments solely to test our obedience or as a sign of a covenant. I don't know. God's ways are higher than our ways. I have accepted that I simply don't have the intelligence or the data needed to understand why God does what he does but I have come to trust his wisdom despite my lack of a full understanding.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Aspectre.
First, your explanation of the Sabbath and timed devices is not exactly true. Many Orthodox Jews DO use timers on the sabbath.
Even people who do NOT use timers on the sabbath abstain from using them for rabinic reasons and not because they believe that the timers violate the will of God. The timers have to do with external rabinnic prohibitions that are intent on preserving the sanctity of the sabbath. That's the same reason why you can't leave a television on.
Using your home would not disrupt the sanctity of the sabbath.
The activities that are prohibited on the sabbath are creative activities. The idea behind the abstention is a testimony to the fact that we are not the creator, but rather God is the Creator. Thus, we abstain from 39 basic creative activities. While we do not ignite a fire or turn on a light, some people prohibit (again, rabbinicaly) allowing a timer to turn on a light because it goes against the spirit of the day.
Now back to your argument.
First, the reason for Sabbath is given in the bible (even though the 39 creative activities are not specifically mentioned). Orthodox Jews believe in the Oral Law which goes into the basic principles of all these laws and their implementation.
Your problem is an implementation issue. Not a "reason behind the law" issue.
By the way - I'm all for asking why. But it takes a little bit of good judgment to know when to ask.
God says that you should love your neighbor as you love yourself. I think it behooves everyone to reason as to why. He also says that even if someone you hate is having trouble loading his donkey - you must not hide from him, you must help him load it. These are things to think about and to draw the moral principles out of.
Dietary laws based on becoming impure? There's nothing to reason there other than God says you are impure because that's what He says!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Consider: Most highly-observant Jews consider it to be okay to be in their home on the Sabbath. They also consider it to be wrong to use devices automaticly timed to replace human labor during the Sabbath.
False. I have lights going on and off on a timer every Shabbos, and many (possibly most) Orthodox Jews do so.
You are also making the mistake of conflating the concept of "melachah" with the English word "work" -- i.e., effort. That's not what it means. Just as a physicist means something different when they say "work" than the layperson, so to does "work" not = "melachah".
Furthermore, the laws of Shabbos are part of a class of Laws called "edos" (or "edot"; best approximation: testimonies) and the reasoning is fairly well understood. Kashrus is in the category of "chukim", commandments we are specifically told to do without being given a reason.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Armoth, depending on who you hold by, turning on a light may be d'oraisa.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Armoth, depending on who you hold by, turning on a light may be d'oraisa.)
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. I was saying that any timer problems would be, at best, dirabanan.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I should add that I agree with aspectre about continuing to ask why. My recognition that I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to understand everything God does, does not mean I don't keep trying. By seeking answers to those questions we can in fact gain a greater understanding of God even if that understanding will never be perfect.
Oh, and I appreciate the explanation that "died of itself" means was not properly ritually butchered. I had presumed that "died of itself" meant simply died of disease or old age and if that had been the meaning then the scripture really does seem to justify knowingly selling bad meat to your non-Jewish neighbor. Surely you can understand why Ron or others might find it difficult to believe that God finds it acceptable for you to knowingly sell diseased meat to people as long as they aren't Jews. Understanding that the scripture was referring to any animal that wasn't ritually butchered gives it a very different meaning. Saying that it is OK to sell meat to non-Jews even if it hasn't gone through the proper rituals is quite different from saying its OK to sell bad meat to non-Jews.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The fine structure constant is an example of an obvious Law of God; ya can't break it.
Actually, it may be a little bit of a quibble, but the Jewish view of natural laws like that is not that they are laws, but rather that they are oaths. Oaths made by God. Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman wrote some interesting stuff on this subject.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for clarifying, Armoth. I misread you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Armoth, depending on who you hold by, turning on a light may be d'oraisa.)
Is makkeh b'patish d'Orayta or d'Rabbanan? It's a tolada of boneh, but does that make it d'Rabbanan?
The people who say it's fire are a small minority, and if they're right, then turning on a light on Yom Tov ought to be permitted, since it's only ha'avarah, no? It's not like you're creating the electricity on the spot.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth said: "The problem is when someone ascribes a reason to God's law. Then, when people find that a principle no longer applies - they shirk God's law. That's not cool."
But I never suggested that health considerations were the only reasons for keeping God's dietary laws (though I would distinguish such counsel from the Ten Commandments). Of course we should do what God says because He says it, and that reveals whether we have faith in Him.
Obviously there are good reasons for keeping most of the Ten Commandments--societies cannot function for long if they tolerate murder, theft, purjury, etc. And no one who is at all a professed believer in God is going to worship some other God, or take God's name in vain, etc. The only one of the Ten Commandments not rooted in nature or in some obvious necessity is the one that specifies the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. While it may be argued that there is a health concern in keeping some day of rest every seven days, the Sabbath Commandment specifies keeping the seventh day of the week as the memorial of Creation, because on day seven of creation week God set aside the Sabbath, and blessed and sanctified it. Thus keeping the seventh day Sabbath is the only commandment that rests solely and completely upon respect for God's authority.
Many Christians believe they can keep Sunday instead as their weekly rest-day, because (just as Armoth suggested) they are assuming that the health need for resting one day in seven is all that matters, so they think nothing of violating the commandment to suit their convenience and follow their traditions.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth said: "The problem is when someone ascribes a reason to God's law. Then, when people find that a principle no longer applies - they shirk God's law. That's not cool."
But I never suggested that health considerations were the only reasons for keeping God's dietary laws (though I would distinguish such counsel from the Ten Commandments). Of course we should do what God says because He says it, and that reveals whether we have faith in Him.
Obviously there are good reasons for keeping most of the Ten Commandments--societies cannot function for long if they tolerate murder, theft, purjury, etc. And no one who is at all a professed believer in God is going to worship some other God, or take God's name in vain, etc. The only one of the Ten Commandments not rooted in nature or in some obvious necessity is the one that specifies the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. While it may be argued that there is a health concern in keeping some day of rest every seven days, the Sabbath Commandment specifies keeping the seventh day of the week as the memorial of Creation, because on day seven of creation week God set aside the Sabbath, and blessed and sanctified it. Thus keeping the seventh day Sabbath is the only commandment that rests solely and completely upon respect for God's authority.
A commandment which is explicitly given to Jews only. At least that's God's view of the issue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you are refusing to accept God's own statement that He created the Sabbath as the memorial of Creation. This is explicitly stated in the Sabbath Commandment, which says: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex. 20:11.) And referring back to the precedent (first mention in Scripure), we find that God created the Sabbath when Adam was the only man living, thousands of years before Abraham was born. See Gen. 2:1-3. This is why Jesus said: "The Sabbath was made for man...." (Mark 2:27) He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews. Therefore all who believe in Jesus should believe that the Sabbath was made for all humanity. But even Jews who do not accept Jesus have no excuse for denying to others the blessings God placed in the Sabbath.
For Jews to say that non-Jews should not keep the Sabbath because somehow it was not for them and only for the Jews, is necessarily implying that Marriage is not for all humanity either, only for the Jews, because the Sabbath and Marriage are the two institutions God established in Eden before the entrance of sin. If one is only for the Jews, then so also must the other be. If one is for all humanity, then both must be.
Lisa, Rivka, Armoth, et.al., would any of you dare to claim that only Jews have a right to get married? How then can you claim that only Jews have a right to keep the Sabbath?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Armoth, depending on who you hold by, turning on a light may be d'oraisa.)
Is makkeh b'patish d'Orayta or d'Rabbanan? It's a tolada of boneh, but does that make it d'Rabbanan?
The people who say it's fire are a small minority, and if they're right, then turning on a light on Yom Tov ought to be permitted, since it's only ha'avarah, no? It's not like you're creating the electricity on the spot.
Makeh B'Patish is a separate melocho entirely. It is not a toldah of boneh.
I was talking about having a timer do a melocho. That is a grama, at best, which is automatically dirabanan, at best.
As for turning on lights - it is either havara (which you can't do on yom tov anyway), or boneh - i don't remember if it was related to Makeh bipatish.
I think that actually a majority of opinions hold it is havara dioraysa in non-florescent lights.
I should check this up...
Lisa/Rivka - could someone address TheRabbit on shchitah? I don't know that I know enough about it. I mean, I could put together an answer, but if one of you knows more...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Makeh b'patish is not a toldah; it is the 39th av melachah. The debate is whether turning on a light qualifies as makeh b'patish (which doesn't fit so well with the category) or boneh (in which case there is further debate as to whether it is a toldah or a d'rabanan). I don't think anyone argues that sparks are a primary issue, although there is a psik reishah issue.
(For those who, like my spellcheck, cannot make heads or tails of that -- sorry!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that actually a majority of opinions hold it is havara dioraysa in non-florescent lights.
Because of the glowing filament? You know, I think that's true, but it doesn't apply to almost any other electric appliances.
And I don't know any details about shechitah, except which ones I do and don't buy. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Doesn't the Talmud say it is good to do good on the Sabbath? Then, isn't it a good thing to turn on a light as you enter a dark room, so you don't trip on something and break your neck?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or you could plan ahead, and either leave the light on or not booby-trap your room.
Waiting for your eyes to adjust is also an option.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Doesn't the Talmud say it is good to do good on the Sabbath? Then, isn't it a good thing to turn on a light as you enter a dark room, so you don't trip on something and break your neck?
That's why one of the major reasons why we light candles on friday night. (We also leave our electric lights on).
Rivka - I believe that for the electric things without lights, boneh or makeh-b'patish makes the most sense because the useless objects "come alive."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Doesn't the Talmud say it is good to do good on the Sabbath? Then, isn't it a good thing to turn on a light as you enter a dark room, so you don't trip on something and break your neck?
Defining turning on a light to reduce your own chance of tripping as "doing good" seems to reduce the whole concept to the point of uselessness. As I understand it, a big part of Sabbath observance is preparing all things before hand so that there is no need to do work on the Sabbath. Exceptions should only be made for true unanticipatible emergencies. Correct me if I am wrong rivka and lisa, but I understand that if your child woke up during the night having an asthma attack, it would be perfectly acceptable to turn on a light, press the buttons on the inhaler, and even drive a car to the hospital if necessary. But that is an emergency situation and caring for a sick child fits everyones definition of doing good.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: CT: Being able to do that sounds kinda improbable. What do you know (or can link to) about that area?
Right. It was my attempt at being sardonic.
That's the trick -- but we likely can't perform it. Sucks to be us.
Ah, thats what I kinda thought, but I wasn't 100% sure, or if you were ready to pull out something funky you had just read
If only I could! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: if your child woke up during the night having an asthma attack, it would be perfectly acceptable to turn on a light, press the buttons on the inhaler, and even drive a car to the hospital if necessary.
Certainly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you are refusing to accept God's own statement that He created the Sabbath as the memorial of Creation.
That's not a commandment.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is explicitly stated in the Sabbath Commandment, which says: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex. 20:11.) And referring back to the precedent (first mention in Scripure), we find that God created the Sabbath when Adam was the only man living, thousands of years before Abraham was born. See Gen. 2:1-3. This is why Jesus said: "The Sabbath was made for man...." (Mark 2:27) He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews.
Not that Mark matters a whit, but even there, it was in the context of a dichotomy between whether keeping Shabbat supercedes the needs of people or not. It has nothing to do with who is commanded to keep it.
The Ten Commandments start with "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt." Who did God take out of the land of Egypt, Ron? The same people He's talking to throughout the Ten Commandments. And Exodus 31:16 says "And the Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath." Not "and everyone shall observe the Sabbath."
Why did He command us to do so? As a remembrance of the fact that He created the world in seven days.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For Jews to say that non-Jews should not keep the Sabbath because somehow it was not for them and only for the Jews, is necessarily implying that Marriage is not for all humanity either, only for the Jews, because the Sabbath and Marriage are the two institutions God established in Eden before the entrance of sin.
Complete non-sequitur. God didn't establish Shabbat in Eden. He rested on the seventh day. Shabbat, which He commanded the Jews to follow later, is a remembrance of that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If one is only for the Jews, then so also must the other be. If one is for all humanity, then both must be.
Nope. That doesn't follow at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Doesn't the Talmud say it is good to do good on the Sabbath? Then, isn't it a good thing to turn on a light as you enter a dark room, so you don't trip on something and break your neck?
Defining turning on a light to reduce your own chance of tripping as "doing good" seems to reduce the whole concept to the point of uselessness. As I understand it, a big part of Sabbath observance is preparing all things before hand so that there is no need to do work on the Sabbath. Exceptions should only be made for true unanticipatible emergencies. Correct me if I am wrong rivka and lisa, but I understand that if your child woke up during the night having an asthma attack, it would be perfectly acceptable to turn on a light, press the buttons on the inhaler, and even drive a car to the hospital if necessary. But that is an emergency situation and caring for a sick child fits everyones definition of doing good.
There are only 5 commandments which supercede the need to save a life, and Shabbat isn't one of them. The five that can't be set aside for the sake of saving a life are (1) Murder, (2) Certain sexual acts, like incest, adultery, etc., (3) Idolatry, (4) Desecrating God's Name in public, and (5) an obligatory war, such as a war of self-defense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm a little unclear on how to parse that. To be clear, is this a correct expansion of what you said?
"You must save a life unless saving a life involves murder" (or 2,3,4) "You must save a life unless saving a life involves avoiding service in a war of self-defence" (or other obligatory wars, I'm unclear on what that means)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, in all honesty I have to say that I am not impressed with the quality of your reasoning when it comes to understanding what the Bible says. Even the plainest statements you try to explain away with mere assertions. I guess I have nothing further to ask you or say to you.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm a little unclear on how to parse that. To be clear, is this a correct expansion of what you said?
"You must save a life unless saving a life involves murder" (or 2,3,4) "You must save a life unless saving a life involves avoiding service in a war of self-defence" (or other obligatory wars, I'm unclear on what that means)
Yeah. That was a little weird phrasing for me too. You are supposed to die rather than commit murder, adultery, and the service of foreign gods, etc.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, in all honesty I have to say that I am not impressed with the quality of your reasoning when it comes to understanding what the Bible says. Even the plainest statements you try to explain away with mere assertions. I guess I have nothing further to ask you or say to you.
So miracles do happen.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, in all honesty I have to say that I am not impressed with the quality of your reasoning when it comes to understanding what the Bible says. Even the plainest statements you try to explain away with mere assertions. I guess I have nothing further to ask you or say to you.
Tease. You shouldn't make promises unless you intend to keep them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm a little unclear on how to parse that. To be clear, is this a correct expansion of what you said?
"You must save a life unless saving a life involves murder" (or 2,3,4) "You must save a life unless saving a life involves avoiding service in a war of self-defence" (or other obligatory wars, I'm unclear on what that means)
Sorry. What Armoth said. In the case of the first four, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "Do this or I'll blow your brains out," you still can't do it. You can do your damnedest to take the idiot out, but you can't give in.
You know the ethics question they often ask, where you're standing by a railroad switch, and you can throw the switch and move the oncoming train to another track. And there's an adult standing on the track that's currently safe, and a child standing on the track where the train is running. Do you throw the switch? And the Jewish answer is, "Absolutely not". We can't choose between lives like that. We can't do any act that's going to kill someone, even if it's for the purpose of saving someone else.
In the case of the fifth, well, people die in wars. So if we were to say that the saving of life takes precedence over obligatory wars, there'd be no such thing as obligatory wars.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Does this mean that if you could go back in time to say 1930 and kill Adolf Hitler, the Mosaic law would prohibit it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You know the ethics question they often ask, where you're standing by a railroad switch, and you can throw the switch and move the oncoming train to another track. And there's an adult standing on the track that's currently safe, and a child standing on the track where the train is running. Do you throw the switch? And the Jewish answer is, "Absolutely not". We can't choose between lives like that. We can't do any act that's going to kill someone, even if it's for the purpose of saving someone else.
This seems a bit arbitrary to me because I see the choice not to act as a choice. It gives inaction moral precedence over action which I find indefensible. It also can also lead to some rather illogical conclusions.
For example, suppose you have two button in front of you. If you push button A, you will kill an innocent child, if you push you will kill a con man. If you push neither button within the next minute, both will die. As I understand your argument, Mosaic law would require you push neither button since pushing either button would be taking a life.
But all we have to do is reword the problem and you end up with a different answer to the dilemma. Now you have two buttons in front of you, if you push button B you save the life of a child. If you push button A, you save the life of a con man. If you push neither or both, both will die. Now by simply rewording the question, we find that ethics and the Mosaic law demand a different behavior.
This isn't really a comment on Mosaic per se but a criticism of any moral system that treats the choice not to act differently than the choice to act.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What are obligatory wars in Jewish custom? Do they have to be declared by a king with a temple, or is the secular authority of the region enough? It seems to me that Jews have served in European wars; were they breaking Mosaic law to do so?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This seems a bit arbitrary to me because I see the choice not to act as a choice. It gives inaction moral precedence over action which I find indefensible.
I think it can be coherant in a moral system when purity is paramount. Refusing to act is a choice, it's a choice to remain morally pure, to not be a collaborator in evil, even if the result of that collaboration would be to save lives.
Of course, one can claim that holding moral purity above the value of lives is a poor premise, and most modern people would, but if one holds that premise, I think that it would follow that not lifting a finger is the better choice than collaborating to save a life.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What are obligatory wars in Jewish custom? Do they have to be declared by a king with a temple, or is the secular authority of the region enough? It seems to me that Jews have served in European wars; were they breaking Mosaic law to do so?
In general, I believe that this is the authority of the Sanhedrin - kind of like the supreme court. They were a panel of 71 judges that sat in the temple.
There is a lot of law surrounding the declaration of war - so I can't give the best of answers. But I know that there are self-defense wars that are obviously obligatory. I'd assume that the wars to restore territory in the land of Israel are obligatory. And that there are the wars of Kings that were not obligatory but were permissible.
In general, nowadays, without this Sanhedrin, no secular authority can declare such an obligatory war.
If I were to make an educated guess about the wars nowadays, they would likely be lawfully justified on the basis of self-defense. There is a concept in Jewish law such as that of the "rodeff", literally "chaser." If someone chases after you to kill you, you must rise to kill them before they can kill you.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This seems a bit arbitrary to me because I see the choice not to act as a choice. It gives inaction moral precedence over action which I find indefensible.
I think it can be coherant in a moral system when purity is paramount. Refusing to act is a choice, it's a choice to remain morally pure, to not be a collaborator in evil, even if the result of that collaboration would be to save lives.
Of course, one can claim that holding moral purity above the value of lives is a poor premise, and most modern people would, but if one holds that premise, I think that it would follow that not lifting a finger is the better choice than collaborating to save a life.
It should be noted that Judaism legislates against inaction as well. One is required not to stand by the blood of your bother - you are required to save a life.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does this mean that if you could go back in time to say 1930 and kill Adolf Hitler, the Mosaic law would prohibit it?
Nope. Or rather, that'd be an interesting question. Generally, we say "if one rises up to kill you, kill him first". I know that may seem to contradict the whole "you can't murder to save a life" thing, but that's the difference between killing and murdering.
The same reasoning actually applies in both cases. You kill someone who is trying to kill you because "is his blood redder than yours?" And you aren't allowed to murder someone to save your life, because "is your blood redder than his?" You can also kill someone who is pursuing someone else to murder them.
So if time travel were possible, the question would be, does certain foreknowledge that Hitler would become a rodef (one who rises up to kill us) make him a rodef, or is he not a rodef until he actually does it? Jewish law hasn't addressed questions of time travel yet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Jewish law hasn't addressed questions of time travel yet.
Sure it has. Because one it does, it will always have done so.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lisa: Thanks for explaining.
This bit raises a question in the case of the fifth case though.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... It should be noted that Judaism legislates against inaction as well. One is required not to stand by the blood of your bother - you are required to save a life.
Is it:
1) One "may" take part in a war of self-defence, even if it means killing (rather than saving) lives. Or 2) One "must" take part in a war of self-defence ... Or something completely different?
Alternatively, to what extent is one required to save a life? i.e. Would pacifism in the Gandhi sense of laying down one's life rather than doing violence actually conflict with that legislation?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You must take part in a war of self-defense. It's also known as an "obligatory war", which makes it clearer.
Ghandian pacifism conflicts with Jewish law (and common sense).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Does this mean that if you could go back in time to say 1930 and kill Adolf Hitler, the Mosaic law would prohibit it?
If I had the means to go back in time and kill Hitler, I'd have the means to go back in time and stop Hitler. I wouldn't have to kill him, just stop his power play, or teach him to be a better person, or something similar.
I have a short story written where a man goes back in time and kills Hitler, only to find out that the NAZI's took control of Germany, and killed even more Jewish folks, because a Jew killed their founder--martyred Hitler.
So another person goes back in time and kills the first person.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... Ghandian pacifism conflicts with Jewish law (and common sense).
Well, I think the latter half is kind of complicated since "common sense" is highly dependent on your cultural background and assumptions about how the world works.
But thanks for clarifying the first part. Thats interesting.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:Does this mean that if you could go back in time to say 1930 and kill Adolf Hitler, the Mosaic law would prohibit it?
If I had the means to go back in time and kill Hitler, I'd have the means to go back in time and stop Hitler. I wouldn't have to kill him, just stop his power play, or teach him to be a better person, or something similar.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) In L.A., there are many many non-strictly-kosher people eating in the kosher places (for a variety of reasons), and if they are lousy, they don't stay open. (Sadly, many not-lousy places have short lives as well.)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)