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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this mean that if you could go back in time to say 1930 and kill Adolf Hitler, the Mosaic law would prohibit it?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
