posted
I don't find that to be an impossible situation; she's perfectly capable of whacking the baby seal...it would just be a ridiculously bad idea. I love baby seals Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse the snark, but I couldn't leave this one lie:
quote: Originally posted by Ron Lambert If you tell lies habitually, or choose to live a lie, this can have an actual, physical effect on your brain. Your brain does adapt to the habitual patterns of thought you indulge. It is possible to unlearn wrong patterns of thought, and to establish healthy patterns of thought in their place.
Well then Ron, you've got your work cut out for you. Seems to me you've got a mighty lot of unlearnin' to do.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
I'm not sure it matters. If they did divorce their wives and remarry, that's hardly adultery.
Letter V Spirit argument. According to Jesus Moses initially did not want to allow divorce in Israel, but relented because of their iniquity.
For the Pharisees, their divorces were lawful, but to Jesus they were spiritual adultery. Hence divorce for any reason outside fornication was labeled adultery by Jesus.
I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
They still are.
It's like no-fault divorce -- not a good thing, certainly. But better than forcing a worse thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
They still are.
It's like no-fault divorce -- not a good thing, certainly. But better than forcing a worse thing.
I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
You are completely missing my point, but I have no interest debating this with you.
I don't take pot-shots at your religion, and I'll thank you to return the favor.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Letter V Spirit argument. According to Jesus Moses initially did not want to allow divorce in Israel, but relented because of their iniquity.
You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure why that would be amusing to you, Lisa, since you routinely use your religion as an authority on everything.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
You are completely missing my point, but I have no interest debating this with you.
I don't take pot-shots at your religion, and I'll thank you to return the favor.
It appears we have gotten each other all wrong. I would still like to understand then what you meant, but I respect your feelings if you don't want to touch this point anymore.
I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce. For that I apologize. To me it sounded like you were saying that rather then make couples learn to be married, it's better we give them a relatively easy opt out option. Were you saying that for example in cases of abuse a no fault divorce would be nice to have?
Lisa
quote: You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Part of me wants to throw this back of you ala "why yes I DO believe the man who GAVE the law in the first place was an expert on it." But since we obviously don't agree on that point I'll go elsewhere.
I'm willing to have this conversation with you Lisa, provided two things.
1: Don't act like I as a Christian have virtually no understanding of Judaism, I can read the Old Testament too, and though not in the original Hebrew, I have put alot of time into it.
2: I won't use New Testament sources for commentary on the Law of Moses as we both disagree on some fundamental assumptions that book brings to the table. And I admit it's a bit rude to use somebody you may consider a blasphemer as evidence that I am right.
First off Lisa, do you have any opinion on why God gave the Law of Moses in the first place? It's certainly not an eternal law, (in the sense that men have always obeyed it) as many righteous men who preceded Moses did not have it as far as we know.
For what purpose do you think the law was instated?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to go back to the matter of morality and marriage laws and point out that one of the major departures between Shi'a and Sunni Islam is that Shi'a permit temporary marriage contracts as lawful, which the Sunni see as trying to sanction prostitution under religious law.
How did we get on this subject, exactly?
Anyway, Blackblade, I don't really see that this is going to be a productive discussion, unless your answers to your questions are somehow different from mine. And mine, are of course, correct. That is to say, my answers to your questions would violate the TOS.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m going to try to head this one off at the pass – just because Jesus and some Pharisees were having a conversation/debate about what the possible grounds for divorce should be does not mean that “many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.” Just as you (BlackBlade) pointed out about polygamy, the fact that something is allowable does not mean it is commonly practiced. And the fact that someone (or a school of thought) argues that something should be legal does not mean that they are practicing it, much less that they are doing so “frequently.”
As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees. So throwing accusations at the Pharisees and claiming they aren’t shots at modern Judaism is pretty much equivalent to someone making accusations about the moral conduct of Jesus and his disciples and not recognizing that as a shot at Christianity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I disagree with everyone but rivka and dkw.
More specifically, I think Lisa knew very well what the objections to her "that's hardly adultery" post would be, but I'm sad that Black Blade took the bait. It's just bait - it's not a dig from a credible source. I think it's better not to respond in kind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a thread about that a while back. If you run a search on "divorce" in the subject by membername pooka, it should come right up. I forget if I linked to a story about it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And the fact that someone (or a school of thought) argues that something should be legal does not mean that they are practicing it, much less that they are doing so “frequently.”
As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees.
Precisely -- on both points.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Out of curiosity, is no-fault divorce part of Judaism?
Yes, and no.
Essentially, a man can try to give his wife a divorce without any reason. However, she can refuse to accept it. And unless he has a good reason, she is likely to get backing by any rabbis who get involved, as well as community support.
If both husband and wife want the divorce, while the rabbinical court will (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.) try to talk them out of it (may insist on counseling, for instance), they cannot actually refuse to allow them to get divorced.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I made a thread about that a while back. If you run a search on "divorce" in the subject by membername pooka, it should come right up.
pooka, IMO that article you linked in that thread made all kinds of assumptions and statements that are not accurate. I resisted debating it at the time (I don't see the point), but I guess I will if you insist.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't insist - I'm mostly ignorant of what may have been the case - mostly I saw it as a boon to people laboring under this desire to be biblical literalists not considering any reason to divorce.
If you really don't think that's what they meant, you should certainly make that known. I referred them to dig up the thread themselves because I'm not feeling forceful about it and don't have much to say of myself on the matter. It was just like "hey, I read something about that a while back and linked it over here."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to put this back on track or anything, but the Obama campaign has reached one million donors.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I’m going to try to head this one off at the pass – just because Jesus and some Pharisees were having a conversation/debate about what the possible grounds for divorce should be does not mean that “many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.”
I am operating under the assumption that Jesus would only discuss the particulars of adultery if it was a matter that needed address. It seems unlikely that he would discuss things that were not germane to the society that he lived in. When pressed for a sign of his divinity he responded with, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after signs..." I take that to mean that he believed adultery was prevalent to Jewish society in Jerusalem at that time.
quote:As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees. So throwing accusations at the Pharisees and claiming they aren’t shots at modern Judaism is pretty much equivalent to someone making accusations about the moral conduct of Jesus and his disciples and not recognizing that as a shot at Christianity.
Please note that I already said in my previous post, "I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce. For that I apologize."
Though I am unaware how much the Pharisees and Sadducees of the first century have influenced current Jewish thought, it occurred to me that much of their philosophy may be current today; and so I apologized.
The divorce Rivka describes does not sound like the divorce I was objecting to.
But it does not sound like anyone really wishes to continue this line of thought, and so I will say sorry for any offense I have created, and bow out for now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The divorce Rivka describes does not sound like the divorce I was objecting to.
It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not really sure why that would be amusing to you, Lisa, since you routinely use your religion as an authority on everything.
I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm. Not only am I not thrilled by the NAFTA criticisms, I'm deeply bothered by the potential hypocrisy. Here's hoping they've got a good explanation for it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce.
That's exactly the point. "Authorized". You're dissing us for the rules that God gave us.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Part of me wants to throw this back of you ala "why yes I DO believe the man who GAVE the law in the first place was an expert on it." But since we obviously don't agree on that point I'll go elsewhere.
I'm willing to have this conversation with you Lisa, provided two things.
No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: First off Lisa, do you have any opinion on why God gave the Law of Moses in the first place? It's certainly not an eternal law, (in the sense that men have always obeyed it) as many righteous men who preceded Moses did not have it as far as we know.
For what purpose do you think the law was instated?
God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
As to why He gave it at all, the Torah is the expression of God's Will and Intent. By knowing Torah, we come to know God and to make ourselves more like Him. On a national level, we also make it possible for others to know God and make themselves more like Him. That's God's goal for Creation. For us to be in His image.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Lisa:
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Was I worth the price of admission? You could have simply said something like, "Hey BB that's alittle rude/hurtful." Rivka's response was more then enough for me to see that I had overstepped my bounds.
quote:No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
I'm not sure what you mean. My faith would be completely invalidated if the Jews disappeared completely at any point in time. Besides that, the Jews are still the chosen people, I'm not sure why you think my scriptures say otherwise.
quote:God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
It sounds like we are not using the same word, so I'll go with your definition. Would you say then that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and down to Moses all had Torah it just was not as fully realized until Moses?
quote:As to why He gave it at all, the Torah is the expression of God's Will and Intent. By knowing Torah, we come to know God and to make ourselves more like Him. On a national level, we also make it possible for others to know God and make themselves more like Him. That's God's goal for Creation. For us to be in His image.
I must say it's nice that I can completely agree with some of your post. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a term for this well, "capitalization creep"? I mean, I understand and can deal with God, Him, His. On a good day, I can even take Creation. But Will and Intent? C'mon ... you've got to be pulling my leg now.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Was I worth the price of admission? You could have simply said something like, "Hey BB that's alittle rude/hurtful." Rivka's response was more then enough for me to see that I had overstepped my bounds.
Maybe I should have.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
I'm not sure what you mean. My faith would be completely invalidated if the Jews disappeared completely at any point in time. Besides that, the Jews are still the chosen people, I'm not sure why you think my scriptures say otherwise.
Um... 2000 years of history?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
It sounds like we are not using the same word, so I'll go with your definition. Would you say then that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and down to Moses all had Torah it just was not as fully realized until Moses?
They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
By the standards you're using for mockery here, not only have you mocked other people's religions in the past, you make a habit of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She does regularly mock other people's religions, even when (especially when?) she's ignorant of them. I'm surprised that even being questioned. Of course she does - that's why her comments are not credible.
My thought is that it's a good thing for the image of Judaism on this board that rivka and Ela came first.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't see how. It is a completely different idea than what Mormonism believes.
Lisa:
quote:Maybe I should have.
Maybe. For my part I retain no offense.
quote:Um... 2000 years of history?
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820. I am also reasonably certain that from 1820-2008 persecution of the Jews has not been a feature of my faith. Beyond that, our scripture justifies the persecution of the Jews NOWHERE.
quote:They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
So they did not have the Torah to the full extent that God later revealed through Moses?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Because the Talmud (which is where the discussion of the minimum requirements for a halachically valid divorce are found, including the "even if she burns his food" part) almost always discusses boundary conditions -- it is theory much more than practice, and it was always meant to be. That is often very different from what was actually permitted in day to day practice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Because the Talmud (which is where the discussion of the minimum requirements for a halachically valid divorce are found, including the "even if she burns his food" part) almost always discusses boundary conditions -- it is theory much more than practice, and it was always meant to be. That is often very different from what was actually permitted in day to day practice.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820.
I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong
Heh. Well, someone will be along to correct you shortly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820.
I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong
Yes I am a Christian. That does not mean I think the persecutions of the Jews were acts sanctioned by Christ through an authorized church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Anyways, Mormons are Christians and Christians did exist in 100AD, no?
Christian did exist at that time yes. Leaders of the church however at that time were starting to die/be murdered and were not replaced as fast as they were disappearing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820. I am also reasonably certain that from 1820-2008 persecution of the Jews has not been a feature of my faith. Beyond that, our scripture justifies the persecution of the Jews NOWHERE.
I'm speaking of the really bad track record that Christians have in terms of vilifying Jews. That includes vilification in the Christian scriptures themselves.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
So they did not have the Torah to the full extent that God later revealed through Moses?
posted
BB: Nevertheless, Lisa is technically correct when she says that your faith did have 2000 years of history with her's since you are in fact a Christian Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucas: Nope, if say Muslims starting devouring pork in direct defiance of their religious texts could we say that the religion of Islam was persecuting pigs? Sometime after 100AD I consider the entire religion of Christianity to be in a state of apostasy. No offense intended to Catholics and Protestants.
Lisa:
quote:I'm speaking of the really bad track record that Christians have in terms of vilifying Jews. That includes vilification in the Christian scriptures themselves.
The Jews are not villified in my scriptures. Yes there are Jews who do vile things, but that is true of any group of people. It certainly does not say that the Jews need chastisement at the hands of Christians.
quote:Nope
Interesting. So in terms of getting more complex, could the Torah be extended? Can it be revised? What would have to happen for either to occur?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Interesting. So in terms of getting more complex, could the Torah be extended? Can it be revised? What would have to happen for either to occur?
The Torah is what it is. But as a system, it's dynamic, responding to new situations. The laws themselves don't change, but specific practice can.
For example, when we have access to the location of the altar on the Temple Mount, we're obligated to bring a whole slew of sacrifices. When we don't, we're not. The law hasn't changed, but practice has. When we regain access, it'll change again.
The Torah itself commands us not to add to it or subtract from it. That's iron clad. Rabbinic laws are always -- obsessively -- marked as being rabbinic. Even when there's no practical difference, since we have to follow Jewish law whether it's rabbinic or from Sinai, we maintain the distinction diligently.
The revelation at Sinai was a discontinuity. It wasn't an adding onto what the patriarchs had. On the contrary, you can consider what the patriarchs had as a teaser-trailer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That is to say, my answers to your questions would violate the TOS.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
