Religion vs science, take # n + 1 [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

small axe

05-06-2009, 09:38 AM

Religion vs science, take # n + 1

I introduce the proposition that the title "Religion versus science" itself leads to error.

Because it is hopelessly broad and overly-general to the point of being meaningless.

One can be immediately challenged by the question "Which 'religion' are you talking about, in comparison to or as a supposed adversary of 'science' ???"

Allowing the issue to be so overly general from the very start seems to disqualify it as a fair and rational discussion.

So those practicing "science" have erased themselves from the conversation. Hitchins certainly can drag out his own assumptions and oozing intellectual and emotional wounds ("See?! See the void inside me where you claim God exists?! see?!" etc) in the interest of free speech and free thought, I suppose.

Science can certainly proclaim "We don't go there" (into non-materialist aspects of human existence) ... but Science cannot render a definite or valid argument that there is in fact no "there" there. :)

Specific "religions" of course can make all sorts of unfounded statements of fact, which Science is free to try to prove or disprove factually ... but there is no "versus" that can be applied by Science, there's only "in this one specific case, here is the factual evidence against this claim made by this specific religion."

* Science cannot present their evidence against the existence of God.
* Cannot present evidence against the existence of the Soul.
* Against the existence of an Afterlife or Reincarnation.
* Against the fact of PAST Miracles which, if you think about it, are Miracles because they occur so rarely or are unique, and not at Man's deciding.

Hitchens has a droll Brit accident, doesn't he?
He has the force of his own bias and convictions, and a literary ability to snark.

But even he cannot justify a "versus" where there is only a one way street. Science can defend itself with materialist facts, Faith doesn't need to where material facts fall flat or are empty or do not apply.

Science can certainly blunder beyond its own wise limits, in which case it is not bad Science but rather blind arrogance and hypocrisy. There, at its worst, I confess that it is sometimes accompanied by the arrogance and hypocrisy of those who reject science, also.

ETA: The hypocrisy of those who only pretend to practice good Science in their attacks against Religion, do not diminish the validity of truely good Science.

Too often, some seize upon the hypocrites out there pretending LOUDLY to practice certain religions ... to try to discredit ALL true and good religion.

In doing so, they themselves fall into error.

They should stop it. Many people I fear spout for or against religion or for or against science ... but are only doing it because it pays a pretty penny (or an ugly million $$$ or two)

I wonder who would fight the fight, if it PAID NOTHING?

Besides me, I mean. :) ME ... I'm in it for the crack-thrill high, and to dodge the terrible itching of addictions of not having the next high in my pocket! :)

Ruv Draba

05-06-2009, 06:09 PM

I don't at all mind a polemic, but ignorant polemics -- especially those lacking originality -- are tedious, attention-seeking and distracting.

Science is a method. You accept the method or you don't. Rational materialism is a philosophy that happens to make heavy use of scientific method. You can accept the scientific method without accepting rational materialism. These distinctions should have been put to bed centuries ago. Anyone who digs up the carcass of that deceased equestrian deserves to be reinterred with it. Not all atheists like science. Not all scientists like atheism. Pshaw.

Moreover, it should be very evident to anyone who cares to look that 'religion' cannot be 'the solution' to moral dilemmas. Firstly, 'religion' doesn't agree on morality -- even within a faith, morality can be in hot dispute and between faiths there may be little agreement at all. Secondly, nobody can prove that there's only one solution to human moral quandries (in fact there's no objective proof that there's even one solution, since every creed contains people who are floundering). Therefore the most one can respectfully say to someone not of one's own creed is that a creed might be a solution if people got smarter at working it.

Lastly, if you take the myth, dogma and custom out of morality then you're left with exercises in compassion and reasonableness. I for one can't tell a compassionate, reasonable atheist from a compassionate, reasonable theist of any stripe. Stripped of custom, good people seem to act like good people all over the world. But put the dogma back in and you're defining morality entirely by conformity to custom. If you do that then good luck in not looking like a xenophobic bigot to everyone outside your creed.

Blah.

Higgins

05-06-2009, 06:13 PM

I introduce the proposition that the title "Religion versus science" itself leads to error.

You're right, but in the sciences "error" is assumed to exist potentially in any task. You try to figure out what the error is. Is it in the measurement? Is it in the type of instrument you are using? Is it "noise"...is it indications of a bit of symbolic dynamics (AKA "chaos theory") in the mix...should your model have "error" (eg. variation in some parameter) introduced at stage A or Stage B? Is there a way to factor out the error? Should a new model or measurement be used?

It's only in the realm of religion that a little mental error
sends you straight to everlasting torment. Try telling God on Judgment Day you thought Jesus was merely the highest of created beings and not as Divine as the Father. Not only will admitting to such thoughts get your thread cancelled in the Christian subforum, but it will make God very mad at you. In the sciences, you deal with error and try to figure out what is going on.

ColoradoGuy

05-06-2009, 09:00 PM

ColoradoGuy

05-06-2009, 09:03 PM

You're right, but in the sciences "error" is assumed to exist potentially in any task. You try to figure out what the error is. Is it in the measurement? Is it in the type of instrument you are using? Is it "noise"...is it indications of a bit of symbolic dynamics (AKA "chaos theory") in the mix...should your model have "error" (eg. variation in some parameter) introduced at stage A or Stage B? Is there a way to factor out the error? Should a new model or measurement be used?

It's only in the realm of religion that a little mental error
sends you straight to everlasting torment. Try telling God on Judgment Day you thought Jesus was merely the highest of created beings and not as Divine as the Father. Not only will admitting to such thoughts get your thread cancelled in the Christian subforum, but it will make God very mad at you. In the sciences, you deal with error and try to figure out what is going on.
All true. But in my last life I was a practicing biomedical scientist. And it often seemed to me that tribal beliefs, dogma, and all the rest played a pretty big role in the day-to-day workings of at least that branch of science. The great ones (and I knew a few of those) rose above it, but not a few of the lessor ones hurled anathamas at one another rather than data from new experiments.

ColoradoGuy

05-06-2009, 09:15 PM

. . . Hitchens has a droll Brit accident, doesn't he? . . .
Perhaps, but he'd likely deny it.

Higgins

05-06-2009, 09:57 PM

All true. But in my last life I was a practicing biomedical scientist. And it often seemed to me that tribal beliefs, dogma, and all the rest played a pretty big role in the day-to-day workings of at least that branch of science. The great ones (and I knew a few of those) rose above it, but not a few of the lessor ones hurled anathamas at one another rather than data from new experiments.

I'm sure science -- after all it is a big set of human and social endeavors -- resembles religion in some ways. After all, even in the name of religion, people have been reasonable. Presumably absence from God's Love is torturing all those people now and for all eternity, but that's eschatology and not a scientifically well-grounded practice.

Ruv Draba

05-07-2009, 01:14 AM

in my last life I was a practicing biomedical scientist. And it often seemed to me that tribal beliefs, dogma, and all the rest played a pretty big role in the day-to-day workings of at least that branch of science.There's plenty of evidence that the scientific method converges to material truth; I've seen no evidence that it converges to decency. But why should it? That was never its intention.

What is a good way to converge to decency? Some folks say religion, but history shows us repeatedly that religion unchallenged does no better than science unguided.

I believe that decency is grown by observing our impacts, being compassionate and responsible for them, and by fostering the decent as our role-models and leaders. There's plenty of evidence that both science and religion will follow decency, if you demand that decency lead.

Higgins

05-07-2009, 01:22 AM

A big part of my interest in those particular reviews is that Stanley Fish, the inventor of Reader Response Theory, argues for Eagleton. Reader response is, if nothing else, the notion that each reader of a text brings his or her own meaning to it. Indeed, the text is incomplete until it is read. So if everything is a text (and we are all readers), how in the world can Fish posit any absolutes about anything?

Fish is also rightly famous for being fooled by the even more famous Sokal Hoax:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fooled-again/

Fish claims that the Hoax is now Sokal's career, but Fish remains ever-alert to signs of hoaxes, even in wine magazines.

Higgins

05-07-2009, 01:28 AM

Fish is also rightly famous for being fooled by the even more famous Sokal Hoax:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fooled-again/

Fish claims that the Hoax is now Sokal's career, but Fish remains ever-alert to signs of hoaxes, even in wine magazines.

Stuff on the Famous Hoax:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/sokal.html

Higgins

05-07-2009, 01:36 AM

Stuff on the Famous Hoax:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/sokal.html

I went to the museum of hoaxes and all I got was this boilerplate website thing:

http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/

Gehanna

08-31-2009, 12:05 PM

There's plenty of evidence that the scientific method converges to material truth; I've seen no evidence that it converges to decency. But why should it? That was never its intention.

What is a good way to converge to decency? Some folks say religion, but history shows us repeatedly that religion unchallenged does no better than science unguided.

I believe that decency is grown by observing our impacts, being compassionate and responsible for them, and by fostering the decent as our role-models and leaders. There's plenty of evidence that both science and religion will follow decency, if you demand that decency lead.

Decency is variable. What is your idea of decency?

Gehanna

Higgins

08-31-2009, 06:38 PM

Decency is variable. What is your idea of decency?

Gehanna

Good question. There are some pretty decent models for sea ice in the arctic and the real world seems to be falling apart faster than the standard deviation of the average model predictions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 07:39 PM

Am I the only one here who sees no conflict whatsoever between science and religion?

ColoradoGuy

08-31-2009, 08:38 PM

Am I the only one here who sees no conflict whatsoever between science and religion?
I don't see a conflict. For many years I did research in cellular and molecular biology. I'm retired from that, but now practice pretty high-tech intensive care medicine. In spite of that background, by my lights I'm quite religious.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 08:52 PM

Yeah, I work in medicine too. If anything, it just gives me more opportunities to appreciate G-d's work.

Mac H.

08-31-2009, 09:17 PM

Am I the only one here who sees no conflict whatsoever between science and religion?
There are plenty of areas where some religions and science clearly contradict each other. For example, I have spoken with people who have a firm religious belief that the fillings in their teeth were transformed into gold by a religious healing service. Science teaches that the fillings in their teeth have not been transformed into gold by the healing service.

Is there a conflict between the two beliefs?

(I appreciate that this may not be your religion and you may feel that their religious belief in their fillings is incorrect. But they truly believe it, and it is certainly a religious belief)

So clearly that is a conflict. The teachings of science do not agree with the teachings of that particular religion.

Now there may not be a conflict between YOUR particular religion and science, but can we agree that there definitely is between SOME people's religions and science ?

And in those cases, which do you believe?

Mac

AMCrenshaw

08-31-2009, 09:22 PM

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 09:30 PM

For example, let's look at rainbows.

There are several possible explanations. Not all of them can be correct.

The explanations include:
(1) It is a path made by Iris between Earth and Heaven.
(2) It is a slit in the sky sealed by the Goddess Nuwa
(3) It is the bow of the goddess of love
(4) It connects the realms of Asgard and Midgard
(5) It is the jewelled necklace of the Great Mother Ishta - a reminder that all the gods except for Enlil can come to the offering.
(6) It is the seven chackras.
(7) It is an effect due to the different refraction of different wavelengths of light.

Which explanations do you find are in conflict with each other? Or are all of them equally correct in their own way?

1-6 are crap. 7 is the physical explanation of how G-d creates it. There is no conflict.

So, ignoring the philosophical issues for a moment, if a religion teaches something that conflicts with science, what do you do? Accept the religious explanation, or the scientific one?

It really depends on the question, so you'll have to provide an example if you're really curious. Basically though, there's a reason why a lot of [even nominally] religious Jews become doctors or scientists. We see no conflict between science and religion. Science is merely our feeble attempt to explain how G-d does what He does; however, we can never really know, which explains our many errors.

An example of this would be a maklokes a friend and I had a few months ago. We were discussing evolution, more specifically human evolution. She wanted evidence, and I told her that what most people offer is the appendix. It is what is called a vestigial organ because it has no known function today and is seen as a product of evolution that will eventually disappear. Now, why would G-d create us with a body part that is useless? He wouldn't.

Well, an article came out a few weeks ago that cites some research done a few years ago. The new research has basically confirmed the previous study, which showed that the appendix actually has an active function that has become less important because of our societal changes; however, it still plays a role in our health. Viola. Conflict resolved.

If science conflicts with my religion, the first thought is that science is wrong. This is not to say that science will always be wrong, just that it hasn't quite gotten there yet. There is a midrash that talks about the Earth spinning and revolving around the sun that was written a good couple hundred years before Copernicus. The belief by almost everyone at that time was in a geocentric universe, and this Rabbi was speaking about a heliocentric universe. Eventually, science caught up. The same thing happened with the Big Bang, and the same thing is happening with evolution. It just takes time.

My second thought, however, is to look at what is actually in conflict. There are examples of conflicts between religion and science where no conflict exists at all; rather, the understanding of what the Torah says is incorrect. An example would be that there were no other humans on Earth before Adam and Eve 5770 years ago. There is no real disagreement there, because that's not what the Torah says at all.

And does it make a difference if it is your religion or someone else's ?

This will probably upset people, but since you asked, I feel that I have the right to answer. I view other religions as false, so it doesn't matter to me one bit if science conflicts with them.

There are plenty of areas where some religions and science clearly contradict each other. For example, I have spoken with people who have a firm religious belief that the fillings in their teeth were transformed into gold by a religious healing service. Science teaches that the fillings in their teeth have not been transformed into gold by the healing service.

Is there a conflict between the two beliefs?

(I appreciate that this may not be your religion and you may feel that their religious belief in their fillings is incorrect. But they truly believe it, and it is certainly a religious belief)

So clearly that is a conflict. The teachings of science do not agree with the teachings of that particular religion.

That doesn't bother me at all. As I said above, I view their religion as meaningless and irrelevant anyway. The only concern I have is if science conflicts with Torah.

Now there may not be a conflict between YOUR particular religion and science, but can we agree that there definitely is between SOME people's religions and science ?

And in those cases, which do you believe?

Mac

I believe the Torah. If there is a conflict between Xtianity or Islam or Buddhism or any of the other myriad religions and science, it means nothing to me. Torah is the only truth to me. If science and Torah match up, then science is correct. If they don't, then either science is misunderstanding what is going on or there really is no conflict, but just a misunderstanding in language.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 09:32 PM

science, assuming that I must take one to be "factually" true over the other. but "factually" true isn't the only kind of truth imo, so it's difficult.

if on the other hand it's as simple as, "is earth 6000 years old?" I might say, "Yes, and then some..." :)

AMC

Excellent example. The view that the Earth is only [almost] 6,000 years old is based on a misunderstanding of what the Torah actually says. There is, in reality, no conflict between the scientific age of the universe and Torah. In fact, Torah teaches us about relativity and the doppler effect through its language and account of creation.

By the way, the 5770 years is the count from the birth of Adam, not the creation of the universe.

AMCrenshaw

08-31-2009, 10:08 PM

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 10:25 PM

Or that angels or demons or six-armed devas exist; that a great flood wiped out creation so a god could start over without the dinosaurs; that a man might live to be 135, enlightened beings can levitate, etc etc etc

AMC

Exactly. The flood is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Bible. As far as the ages go, it depends on who (whom?) you're talking about. Even science says today that a person should be able to live until 120 (hmm, sound familiar?) if not for the things present today.

Angels and demons do exist though. ;)

Higgins

08-31-2009, 10:29 PM

Or that angels or demons or six-armed devas exist; that a great flood wiped out creation so a god could start over without the dinosaurs; that a man might live to be 135, enlightened beings can levitate, etc etc etc

AMC

I think various religions have traditionally collided with each other much more than they have with science. Since science is far from monolithic and isn't really built to collide with massive socio-ideological things...it is kind of hard for science (or any particular area of active research) to collide with things. I think people find this lack of collision a bit disturbing, but, you know, unless you are trying to say figure out how to understand bacterial genomes under the ocean deal with methane and you can't get funding because some other research group is already doing that...you aren't really going to collide with scientists who are busy working on something. Basically you have to be doing some kind of research somewhere near the cutting edge to actually collide with some subset of science.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 10:35 PM

I think that it's just a different type of collision. There hasn't been the bloodshed over whether or not G-d created the universe in 6 days or 16 billion years that their has been over the acceptance of jeebus, but there is still a problem between science and religion. There are fundamental differences in opinion regarding a number of subjects, and there is often not a clear cut answer. While no one is really dying because of this, it is causing some people to be affected quite powerfully on certain levels.

RainyDayNinja

08-31-2009, 11:08 PM

In the case of McLean v. Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas), Judge Overton ruled that science, by definition, must be "guided by natural law." As far as I know, this still stands as legal precedent, and I believe that some science and science education organizations hold to a similar criterion (although I couldn't find any references). This seems to indicate that science, as defined by the courts, is in conflict with ANY religious beliefs which claim that the supernatural has ever intruded into the physical world.

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 11:37 PM

AFAIK, that is because the constitution prevents any public institution from adopting a particular religion (e.g., public schools cannot be Catholic). The conclusion that science is directly in conflict with religion is a false one. And, even if the courts' opinions had any relevance in deciding things like that (which they don't), the opinion is about science education in public schools. It is NOT about whether science and religion agree on things.

Ruv Draba

08-31-2009, 11:46 PM

I've already posted to this topic and don't have anything more to add. I just wanted to post here that I agree with Semi... cos there have been various topics on which we've been arguing. :)

semilargeintestine

08-31-2009, 11:48 PM

I prefer the term debating. "Arguing" has such a negative connotation. :D

Mac H.

09-01-2009, 05:14 PM

1-6 are crap. 7 is the physical explanation of how G-d creates it. There is no conflict.So in other words ... those particular religious explanations are wrong. The scientific explanation is right.

That means that you agree that there is a conflict.

This will probably upset people, but since you asked, I feel that I have the right to answer. I view other religions as false, so it doesn't matter to me one bit if science conflicts with them.So we all agree that religions conflict with science.

Of course we think our own beliefs are right ... and so it would be unthinkable that our own beliefs conflict with reality !

Mac

semilargeintestine

09-01-2009, 05:49 PM

So in other words ... those particular religious explanations are wrong. The scientific explanation is right.

That means that you agree that there is a conflict.

I agree there is a conflict between those religions and science, but there is a conflict between them and my religions too. There is no conflict between my religion and the scientific explanation, which is all that matters.

So we all agree that religions conflict with science.

Of course we think our own beliefs are right ... and so it would be unthinkable that our own beliefs conflict with reality !

Mac

I agree with that, but not in the way you mean. I'd ask you to reread my post. That other religions conflict with science means little more to me than Cinderella conflicting with science. The only conflicts that are important are ones between Torah and science.

GeorgeK

09-01-2009, 06:50 PM

So we all agree that religions conflict with science.

Some religions, some science, not all of either, but mainly there are a lot of clergymen opposed to a lot of scientists and vice versa.

AMCrenshaw

09-01-2009, 08:24 PM

Higgins

09-01-2009, 09:49 PM

Ruv Draba

09-02-2009, 12:59 AM

Science conflicts with everything, even its own prior thought. Science proceeds by conflict.

If we take a whack and cut religion into 1) mythology of this reality, 2) mythology of other realities, 3) psychology and 4) morality, science will charge headlong at 1 and 3, ignore 2 unless it impacts 1 and have nothing at all to say about 4.

When religions make pronouncements on 1 and 3 they generally lose ground. It's a personal view, but I feel that religions oughtn't presume to say how this world is, or how human minds are. Religious scholarship, religious thought and religious thinkers are generally very weak on working out how stuff works. I'd much rather see religions follow science on 1 and 3 and stop trying to do a job for which they're not sufficiently talented, trained, or equipped.

Where religions are strong though are in inspiration and moral reflection -- so 2 and 4. That's not to say that I think they're always strong enough (I think that our morality should adapt to grow with our science), but religion has contributed valuably to human inspiration and morality and continues to do so today.

I would personally be delighted though if more religions got some humility and acknowledged that they don't have a monopoly on high-quality moral thinking -- that religions themselves can learn from other religious and spiritual thought, even if they don't accept each other's mythology. There are a few religions that do this, and far too many that don't. Religions that want to help people must adapt to what we know about them. I think that religions that just want to be right or in charge deserve to be forgotten.

Higgins

09-02-2009, 01:15 AM

Science conflicts with everything, even its own prior thought. Science proceeds by conflict.

Perhaps by controversy, but not exactly by conflict. One thing that Martin Rudwick shows (for example in The Great Devonian Controversy: review: http://www.friesian.com/rudwick.htm)

is that the conflicts get worked out in such a way that much of the actual erroneous detail is pushed into a narrative that covers up the conflict. I suspose this is conflict, but it is read (often) in science as a working out of consensus.

RainyDayNinja

09-02-2009, 01:32 AM

Religious scholarship, religious thought and religious thinkers are generally very weak on working out how stuff works.

I have to disagree with you here. Until the last 200 or so years, much of the scientific research in the world was performed by clergy, and most of the rest by otherwise devout people who believed that they were honoring God by exploring His creation. In fact, it was monotheism that allowed the European and Arabic cultures to conceive of an orderly universe, and pull so far ahead of the polytheists, pantheists, and animists in scientific pursuits.

I think that religions that just want to be right... deserve to be forgotten.

I'm still perplexed by this notion that it is an intolerable arrogance for a religious person to believe that he or she is right about their beliefs. If I didn't think I was right, I would believe something else.

AMCrenshaw

09-02-2009, 03:17 AM

The scientific explanation of folklore motifs comes under Anthropology, I think.

Is that I was asking about, motifs in folklore?

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-02-2009, 08:08 AM

Oh, then I'd love to hear the scientific explanation of Abraham living to at least 135; and I wouldn't mind scientific evidence of angels and demons either (maybe they don't exist anymore and all we need is to uncover their fossils).

AMC

Probably similar to the explanation of why my friend's grandmother lived to be 115 or how Jeanne Calment lived to be 122 (along with several others who have lived over 100).

I'd think you would take more issue with Methusela living to 969.

Also, Abraham lived to 175.

AMCrenshaw

09-02-2009, 08:24 AM

I'd think you would take more issue with Methusela living to 969.

Indeed I would.

Also, Abraham lived to 175.

Yeah, I spoke out my butt on that one. :) Point's the same.

AMC

Ruv Draba

09-02-2009, 09:05 AM

Until the last 200 or so years, much of the scientific research in the world was performed by clergyIf you said 'scholarly' rather than 'scientific' then I'd agree. And while it's true, despite being literate and scholarly, clergy generally haven't made great scientists.

Most of the enduring scientific thought was not delivered by clergy: Socrates, Archimedes, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein... many had religious or spiritual beliefs but virtually none of them were part of the religious mainstream. Heresy-hunting is bad for science, because our best science begins as heresy. Gregor Mendel is perhaps an exception -- a priest and geneticist of the 19th century. I don't know whether it's significant though that while he produced insightful results, his rigour was later shown to be scandalously flakey.

it was monotheism that allowed the European and Arabic cultures to conceive of an orderly universe, and pull so far ahead of the polytheists, pantheists, and animists in scientific pursuits.Rationalism, naturalism and materialism had their origins with Socrates and his pals -- who lived in a pantheistic culture. Mediaeval scholars picked up on it later.

I'm still perplexed by this notion that it is an intolerable arrogance for a religious person to believe that he or she is right about their beliefs. If I didn't think I was right, I would believe something else.I didn't use the words intolerance or arrogance. I said that religions that just want to be right or in charge deserve to be forgotten. There's a big moral difference between wanting to serve the truth and wanting to be right. One abandons bad ideas in favour of better ones; the other lies, plays politics and defends the indefensible. There's a big ethical difference between wanting to help people and wanting to be in charge. One provides service; the other amasses power.

To my mind, religions that lie, play politics with truth and amass power are forgettable. I can't see any basis for moral or ethical instruction that begins with power-grabs and institutionalised deception. To teach good, I think we first have to be good.

semilargeintestine

09-02-2009, 09:09 AM

snip

Same principle though. People live over 100 today. Society was different then. Also, you have to remember that not everything in the Torah is supposed to be taken literally. There is actually a long tradition of interpreting parts of Genesis (particularly Genesis 1 and 2) as metaphorical pieces that serve a deeper purpose. The Torah was written in Biblical Hebrew, which is a language where the very shapes of the letters have deeper meanings. Each word and verse can be read at multiple levels, and translations only touch on the very basic, literal meanings.

The ages in the Torah are an prime example of the plain text alluding to a much deeper meaning that have little to do with how long people lived.

semilargeintestine

09-02-2009, 09:14 AM

If you said 'scholarly' rather than 'scientific' then I'd agree. And while it's true, despite being literate and scholarly, clergy generally haven't made great scientists.

Most of the enduring scientific thought was not delivered by clergy: Socrates, Archimedes, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein... many had religious or spiritual beliefs but virtually none of them were part of the religious mainstream. Heresy-hunting is bad for science, because our best science begins as heresy. Gregor Mendel is perhaps an exception -- a priest and geneticist of the 19th century. I don't know whether it's significant though that while he produced insightful results, his rigour was later shown to be scandalously flakey.

Copernicus was a Catholic cleric actually.

I didn't use the words intolerance or arrogance. I said that religions that just want to be right or in charge deserve to be forgotten. There's a big moral difference between wanting to serve the truth and wanting to be right. One abandons bad ideas in favour of better ones; the other lies, plays politics and defends the indefensible. There's a big ethical difference between wanting to help people and wanting to be in charge. One provides service; the other amasses power.

To my mind, religions that lie, play politics with truth and amass power are forgettable. I can't see any basis for moral or ethical instruction that begins with power-grabs and institutionalised deception. To teach good, I think we first have to be good.

Agreed.

Ruv Draba

09-02-2009, 11:33 AM

Copernicus was a Catholic cleric actually.Er.. yes he was, and a dozen other things besides. I'd forgotten that. I picked him because of his influence of course, and because his heliocentric theory was denounced by his own church... not in the scientific fashion of 'this seems dubious and should be examined', but in the religious fashion of 'this is heretical and must be suppressed'. The charge of heresy didn't catch Copernicus -- it came out decades later -- but did catch Galileo, who followed his doctrine. Copernicus is a good example of why if you want to do revolutionary science, you might not want to also be a priest. According to some of the letters that survive, he had some support within the church, but in the end, it wasn't enough.

There's a famous (or infamous) letter (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) pointing out that in 1998, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences were non-theistic (up 20% from 1914). There's been a lot of speculation as to what this means. A popular conclusion is that 'smart people don't believe in gods', but that's not my conclusion for several reasons -- among which is that a fair number of the names above had religious or spiritual beliefs.

My conclusion is this: strong science requires a very skeptical mind, good at observing and analysing facts. Such a mind doesn't relish taking implausible matters on faith. Religions alienate skeptics by asking them to accept physical claims without questioning, and defending claims well past the time they're shown to be false. It's not simply that scientists are rejecting religion; by overstepping its competence and claiming authority it doesn't have or deserve, religion is failing to accommodate science.

Higgins

09-02-2009, 06:11 PM

Is that I was asking about, motifs in folklore?

AMC

The venerable age of venerable ancestors?

Gehanna

09-03-2009, 12:30 AM

To teach good, I think we first have to be good.

What does it mean to you to be good? Please don't get offended. I am detail oriented and attempting to understand your truths.

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 01:16 AM

What does it mean to you to be good? Please don't get offended. I am detail oriented and attempting to understand your truths.I think that to be good is to exercise compassion under the guidance of wisdom. I view compassion as a concerned understanding of how things are for other people -- what they need, how they feel. Our concern drives us to help our fellows meet their needs. Our wisdom ensures that our actions are effective and not detrimental. When we're understanding, concerned, wise in how we help then I think we're being good.

Religions are often good at helping people develop compassion -- except when they're busy doing something else, like claiming the unprovable or demanding unquestioning submission, or grabbing power, or attacking some other faith. I think it's fair to say that religions have helped people develop compassion more than any other kind of human activity... Unfortunately, they've also stunted and twisted that compassion too more than most other human activities.

My earlier comment was an assertion that religions would behave much better -- and be much better for us -- if they stuck to what they were good at, and avoided what they aren't. For example, religions don't create much food (though some claim they could in the past), but they are good at distributing food to people who need it. Claiming that their holy-people could once create food is not an act of compassion (actually I find it rather cruel to dangle such myths in front of the hungry), but distributing food to those who need it is an act of compassion.

Religions have done very little for medical research. Actually, they've retarded medical advances at every turn. However they are very good at delivering medicine once they've accepted that it's not immoral to use it. They are very conscientious at providing health-care once they learn what good health-care is. I'd suggest then that religion shouldn't dictate medical research, but that medical research should help religion help people.

Underpinning this is the following thought: in all our history, we have never had ethical institutions without they are accountable to ordinary human-beings. There is an ethical problem with many religions, because they tend to exempt themselves from accountability to people, but make themselves accountable to an ideal or a myth. And who interprets that accountability? Why, the heads of the very institutions who are being made accountable.

If that institution were a government or corporation we'd say it's a recipe for disaster. We'd expect to see hypocrisy, corruption, abuse, exploitation, fraud... and I think that's exactly what we see in those religions that don't hold themselves accountable to ordinary people. Outrageous claims that they never have to explain or defend; power-grabs; attacks on those who resist them; abuse; injustice; persecution; self-interest and lies to cover it up.

My answer? Humility, honesty, accountability. The recognition that whatever else it may believe, a legitimate religious institution must serve its community and be accountable for its decency to any community that sponsors it.

It's sometimes said that people get the governments they deserve. I feel that may be true of religion too. It's not enough to hold religious leaders to consistency with dogma. I think they need to be held to account for their humanity and civic responsibility.

Gehanna

09-03-2009, 05:52 AM

Thank you for your reply Ruv Draba. I've read it through more than once.

Are you familiar with the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan? I suspect that you may be, but if not, it can be found in Luke 10:25-37

What if the man who fell among thieves and was wounded was himself a known thief and a drunkard. And this same man, now half dead and in need of help, had also once stumbled from his drunkenness and fell on a child. The child, who nearly died from being crushed by the man, sustained an injury resulting in a permanent limb disability.

The priest who walked by knew who this man was as did the Levite. The third man, the Samaritan, is a friend of the family of the injured child. They are traveling together when they happen upon the half dead man. The Samaritan recognizes him and recalls the time this man fed him in his time of need.

What is the decent thing for the Samaritan to do while the child who sustained the injury and his family look on? What of the priest and the Levite? Are they good or not good for walking on? Who has the wisdom to be right in the eyes of all?

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 06:12 AM

My conclusion is this: strong science requires a very skeptical mind, good at observing and analysing facts. Such a mind doesn't relish taking implausible matters on faith. Religions alienate skeptics by asking them to accept physical claims without questioning, and defending claims well past the time they're shown to be false. It's not simply that scientists are rejecting religion; by overstepping its competence and claiming authority it doesn't have or deserve, religion is failing to accommodate science.

The bolded part is completely false regarding Judaism. Not only are there many orthodox Jewish scientists, but our ancient Torah scholars did everything in a very scientific manner. Torah study is done very logically and scientifically, and nothing is decided upon without a logical and convincing argument to back it up.

In fact, if you read it in the original Hebrew with the Oral Torah along with it, there is a LOT of science in the Torah. Read some of the Ramban's comments on Genesis, as well as some of the Midrash. The Ramban spoke of not only evolution, but Big Bang theory. He actually wrote that man evolved through a long process that started with basic life, went through complex animal life, to primitive manlike creatures, and finally to man as we know him. He also wrote that the universe started as a small speck, smaller than a mustard seed, and then there was a period of rapid expansion, during which the etheral matter of creation turned into the matter of the universe (which is Big Bang and Inflationary Theory); he also said that time is inherently linked to space, as it was created at the same time as the universe. He wrote this stuff almost 1,000 years ago.

There are many stories in the Midrash about science. Some of them are so far off, but are not supposed to be taken literally; however, there are some that are, and they are quite accurate. There is a midrash by a Rabbi almost 1,000 years ago that stated that all we know about the Earth and the Sun from the Torah is that the Earth rotates to create darkness on one side and light on the other, and that the Earth revolves around the sun--beyond that, we should not speculate. This was a century ago.

Diving deeper than the literal translation, one can also find the doppler effect as well as relativity. It's all there, you just have to know how to read it (in Hebrew, and with the commentary).

Ruv Draba

09-03-2009, 06:45 AM

The bolded part is completely false regarding Judaism.Unfortunately being me, I'd need links rather than assertions. Until I hit something with a hammer, I must reserve judgement. Which is not to say that I disagree. :)

But some religions do keep their claims modest and focus on serving people. When they do that they seem to have much less difficulty keeping up with modern thought. Some sects of Buddhism do this quite well and so do some sects of Christianity. Presumably (though I don't know) some sects of Islam, Hinduism and Judaism might too. Certainly, some individuals of those faiths manage it.

The sects that I look for that are driven by compassion rather than shackled by dogma tend to do certain things early and consistently:

They oppose war outright, or on a self-defence basis only, or they limit their involvement to healing;
They grant their women the same opportunities as their men;
They give their children free choice in what they believe, and don't excommunicate them just for believing differently;
They are not afraid to eject doctrine if better knowledge emerges;
They either have no clergy, or their clergy are directly accountable to their fellowship;
They are tolerant of gay and other relationships where those relationships are loving and respectful;
They don't encrust their clergy, rituals and meeting-places in ludicrous ostentation;
They let individuals find their place by merit and application, rather than constraining that place by birth, tribe or caste.
They read widely outside their own faith and entertain diverging thought;
They don't use claims of miracles or magic to demand submission.

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 08:23 AM

Unfortunately being me, I'd need links rather than assertions. Until I hit something with a hammer, I must reserve judgement. Which is not to say that I disagree. :)

Well, considering all the texts I quote from are books, I'm not really sure how to give you links. I can try my best though. Remember though that the opinions of the authors of the articles may not represent the majority opinion, or even a large minority. They are being used simply because they cite things I quoted.

For evolution, check this (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe.htm) out:

How about the origin of life? The Ramban (Nachmanides, 14th century Jewish scholar) understands Genesis as saying that the water, through its movement, metamorphosed into the creatures of the sea. This, then, is a description of a kind of evolutionary process. It's not just G-d says fish and fish are there. G-d directs a natural element to become fish, just as He directs the earth to sprout forth vegetation.

For big bang and time, read this (http://www.lbl.gov/today/2003/Feb/18-Tue/genesis-lecture1.pdf):

“Prior to the existence of the universe, time did not exist.” (Nahmanides5)...Schroeder’s account (ibid, p. 65) of Nahmanides, Commentary on the Torah, Genesis I.1, reads: “At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard."

And I hate to use Wikipedia, but it has a quote from a book that I can't link to:

...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occured. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

Gerald Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang has a lot of the info. The rest of it is Torah, Talmud, and Midrash. You can only find parts of the Talmud online, and only very few of them are good translations--the same is true of the Midrash.

But some religions do keep their claims modest and focus on serving people. When they do that they seem to have much less difficulty keeping up with modern thought. Some sects of Buddhism do this quite well and so do some sects of Christianity. Presumably (though I don't know) some sects of Islam, Hinduism and Judaism might too. Certainly, some individuals of those faiths manage it.

The sects that I look for that are driven by compassion rather than shackled by dogma tend to do certain things early and consistently:
They oppose war outright, or on a self-defence basis only, or they limit their involvement to healing;
They grant their women the same opportunities as their men;
They give their children free choice in what they believe, and don't excommunicate them just for believing differently;
They are not afraid to eject doctrine if better knowledge emerges;
They either have no clergy, or their clergy are directly accountable to their fellowship;
They are tolerant of gay and other relationships where those relationships are loving and respectful;
They don't encrust their clergy, rituals and meeting-places in ludicrous ostentation;
They let individuals find their place by merit and application, rather than constraining that place by birth, tribe or caste.
They read widely outside their own faith and entertain diverging thought;
They don't use claims of miracles or magic to demand submission.

You seem to have nailed Judaism pretty well, or at least Orthodox Judaism. Reform "Judaism" is pretty much a free for all.

Mac H.

09-03-2009, 08:21 PM

Some of them are so far off, but are not supposed to be taken literally; however, there are some that are, and they are quite accurate.
How do you know which bits are supposed to be taken literally?

For example, a person who doesn't believe that Noah's ark was real, but believes that the Torah is accurate will be adamant that the Torah should not be taken literally when it speaks of that event. However, someone else who believes in Noah's ark will argue that that part SHOULD be taken literally.

Either way, in previous generations Noah's ark was believed.

So how can we tell which bits were 'intended' to be taken literally without just forcing our own 21st century opinions on the writing?

Diving deeper than the literal translation, one can also find the doppler effect as well as relativity. It's all there, you just have to know how to read it (in Hebrew, and with the commentary).That's my point. Being able to find things in ancient texts ONCE YOU KNOW THEY ARE THERE is easy. Using that technique you can see references to relativity in Shakespeare's writings as well. It is an indication of knowledge in the READER - not necessarily in the texts.

Torah study is done very logically and scientifically, and nothing is decided upon without a logical and convincing argument to back it up.In that case, how is it logical and convincing for Ramban to be 'logically and scientifically arguing' that 'the universe started as a small speck followed by a period of rapid expansion' back in the 13th century?

It might be logical and convincing NOW because it fits in so well with the mathematical modelling of black body radiation, but they didn't have that information then.

So either:
1. The claim was not based on logic -or-
2. The claim never happened

I'm probably wrong, but the claim seems too pat for my liking. The references I can find that Ramban ever said that date to the last few decades.. not the 13th century.

The references I can find to what he ACTUALLY said in the 13th century seems to be full of 13th century astronomy (now discredited). eg: Modeling the universe as layers of spheres.

The only real web reference I can find is this: http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenRamban.html

Lots of references to discredited science (eg: Elements being earth/fire/water/air) but no Big Bang theory.

Mac

Mac H.

09-03-2009, 08:46 PM

They are tolerant of gay and other relationships where those relationships are loving and respectful
You seem to have nailed Judaism pretty well, or at least Orthodox JudaismIs that true?

Is Orthodox Judaism really tolerant of gay relationships?

To quote a certain infamous Wiki:

When Steven Greenberg, who received Orthodox rabbinic ordination, publicly announced that he was homosexual, there was a significant response from rabbis of all denominations reported in the Jewish newspapers. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a leading rabbi at Yeshiva University, stated "It is very sad that an individual who attended our yeshiva sunk to the depths of what we consider a depraved society,"Even the more accepting modern orthodox view seems to be 'homosexuals should be viewed as diseased and in need of compassion and treatment' and that 'Under no circumstances can Judaism suffer homosexuality to become respectable'

Is that really tolerance ?

Mac
(Obviously I'll defer to your experience to the widespread tolerance of gays in Orthodox Judaism. If you say it is respected, then it is respected.

But I'm just surprised that your account seems totally different to everything else I've heard and seen)

semilargeintestine

09-03-2009, 10:52 PM

How do you know which bits are supposed to be taken literally?

If you read it in Hebrew along with the Talmud and the commentary, it's pretty obvious.

For example, a person who doesn't believe that Noah's ark was real, but believes that the Torah is accurate will be adamant that the Torah should not be taken literally when it speaks of that event. However, someone else who believes in Noah's ark will argue that that part SHOULD be taken literally.

That is not a Jewish belief.

Either way, in previous generations Noah's ark was believed.

We still do.

So how can we tell which bits were 'intended' to be taken literally without just forcing our own 21st century opinions on the writing?

We don't interpret for ourselves which parts are meant to be taken literally. We go with what the Torah (Talmud included) says as well as the Sages of blessed memory. Some people may be uncomfortable with taking certain things literally (Numbers 31 for instance), but individual interpretation without a basis in Torah means nothing, so 21st century influences are irrelevant.

That's my point. Being able to find things in ancient texts ONCE YOU KNOW THEY ARE THERE is easy. Using that technique you can see references to relativity in Shakespeare's writings as well. It is an indication of knowledge in the READER - not necessarily in the texts.

That's not the same thing. I'm not talking about finding things in the words, I'm talking about being able to read and understand the Hebrew. Evolution was obvious to the scholars along with other things, and they hadn't even been proposed by the secular world yet.

In that case, how is it logical and convincing for Ramban to be 'logically and scientifically arguing' that 'the universe started as a small speck followed by a period of rapid expansion' back in the 13th century?

It might be logical and convincing NOW because it fits in so well with the mathematical modelling of black body radiation, but they didn't have that information then.

So either:
1. The claim was not based on logic -or-
2. The claim never happened

I'm probably wrong, but the claim seems too pat for my liking. The references I can find that Ramban ever said that date to the last few decades.. not the 13th century.

The references I can find to what he ACTUALLY said in the 13th century seems to be full of 13th century astronomy (now discredited). eg: Modeling the universe as layers of spheres.

The only real web reference I can find is this: http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenRamban.html

Lots of references to discredited science (eg: Elements being earth/fire/water/air) but no Big Bang theory.

Mac

You completely ignored my references, but nice try. There were many people who bought into the astronomy of the time. The scientists throughout the ages have been wrong on many accounts because they went by what was popular at the time. Do we discredit all of them or everything they said? Einstein believed in a static universe. We now know this is not the case. Should we completely dismiss his work on relativity and chalk it up to a lucky guess because some of the stuff he said was incorrect?

If you can find it online, let me know, because I can't. Go to a Jewish bookstore or a synagogue and get Ramban's Commentary on the Torah: Genesis. Read his commentary to Genesis 1 and 2. He discusses both a universe that started small, an expanding universe, time started at the creation of the universe, and the evolution of man. I'm not sure where you can find that stuff online, as I have the actual books.

You can also read this (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx), which has references to some of the comments made by Ramban, Rashi, and Rambam. It is not really a logical argument to say that because Rambam believed in spheres that everything he said is crap. As I said before, scientists have believed some really crazy and incorrect stuff, and we don't discredit science or even their accurate discoveries.

Is that true?

Is Orthodox Judaism really tolerant of gay relationships?

To quote a certain infamous Wiki:

Even the more accepting modern orthodox view seems to be 'homosexuals should be viewed as diseased and in need of compassion and treatment' and that 'Under no circumstances can Judaism suffer homosexuality to become respectable'

Is that really tolerance ?

Mac
(Obviously I'll defer to your experience to the widespread tolerance of gays in Orthodox Judaism. If you say it is respected, then it is respected.

But I'm just surprised that your account seems totally different to everything else I've heard and seen)

Homosexuality is not a sin, and the Torah and Orthodox Judaism does not view it as a sin. Male homosexual sex is a sin, and female homosexual sex is somewhat of a sin, albeit much less so. There are plenty of gay orthodox Jews; however, it is their challenge in life to not succumb to their desires.

Homosexual relationships are not sins either. They are frowned upon because there is no potential for children, and so gay marriages will never be accepted in Orthodox Judaism (or the state of Israel for that matter, since there is no concept of civil marriage there); however, heterosexual marriages that are not permissible are not recognised either. A kohein cannot marry a convert, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew, etc. It's not a dig at gays specifically, it's just that the union isn't even considered a marriage.

I will say that there are some more ultra-orthodox Jews who view homosexuals as sinners even in the absence of transgression; however, that is their attempt to justify their personal opinion of homosexuals with Judaism. Unfortunately for them, there is no basis in Torah to discriminate against or hate a person just because his is gay. In fact, a person with such a struggle is supposed to be looked at as a very holy person, for only an incredibly holy person would be given such a struggle.

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 05:25 AM

Ruv Draba

09-04-2009, 06:12 AM

You seem to have nailed Judaism pretty well, or at least Orthodox Judaism. Reform "Judaism" is pretty much a free for all.Having read your following commentary Semi, I think you interpreted my words to mean whatever you wanted them to.

I think that tolerance of gay disposition without tolerance of gay sex is like tolerance of Judaic faith without tolerance of Judaic worship. Tolerance of gay disposition without recognition of gay unions is like tolerance of invidual Judaism without the recognition of Judaic families. You wouldn't call that tolerance, I think. Neither do I.

A quick search for orthodox Jewish gay sites threw up scores of them. Most of these are support sites for people who are trying to reconcile their orthodoxy with their sexual disposition. They want to be good Jews and whole people too. I think it's disingenuous for you to represent that orthodox Judaism has the answers here when it's obvious from the comments of those who are living with this struggle that it has yet to find them.

Mac H.

09-04-2009, 06:50 AM

If you can find it online, let me know, because I can't. Go to a Jewish bookstore or a synagogue and get Ramban's Commentary on the Torah: Genesis. Read his commentary to Genesis 1 and 2. He discusses both a universe that started small, an expanding universe, time started at the creation of the universe, and the evolution of man. I'm not sure where you can find that stuff online, as I have the actual books.I'll look for it. I didn't really trust Schrodoeder's account (I'm a sceptic at heart!) .. I wanted to read the original.

It is not really a logical argument to say that because Rambam believed in spheres that everything he said is crap.That wasn't what I was trying to say - although it probably sounded like that.

Here's a comparison - Most people who follow the Book of Mormon claim that it was written on gold plates by a Jewish splinter culture thousands of years ago, and only translated by Smith in the 1830s.

However reading it today it doesn't read AT ALL like something timeless - or even something from thousands of years ago. It reads just like something written in 1800s America. (Particular the Angel's dialogue!)

In the same way, when I read the little of Ramban that I have read, it reads just like the writings of the 13th Century. It doesn't come across as 'timeless' with insights ahead of their time.

I'll see if I can track down the full commentary - I'm looking forward to changing my point of view. (It would be sad if we went through life never changing our minds)

Thanks for the fascinating discussion!

Mac
(PS: Anyone have any idea why I can't seem to find the older commentaries on the Torah in Project Gutenberg? They are certainly out of copyright now - there's no reason that they shouldn't be there)
(PPS: I think it might be here: http://aleph500.huji.ac.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001323853.html )

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 07:20 AM

Yeah but in modern times being gay sometimes describes the whole person, you understand, which includes what they do in the bedroom -- so indeed Orthodox Judaism would be intolerant of men or women who have sex with the same sex, which is of course part of freely being gay.

AMC

Hence the rules about actually imposing penalties upon someone for having gay sex. You need two people who were actually there to witness it happening in order to actually do anything about it. There are many laws where the punishment is so hard to actually dole out because G-d doesn't really want any of us to actually be killed for sinning (for the most part--there are a few exceptions).

Having read your following commentary Semi, I think you interpreted my words to mean whatever you wanted them to.

I knew what you meant. I just wanted to make it known that there is not an intolerance for gays. In fact, as I stated, we view them as holy people whether or not they are actually able to control the urge.

I think that tolerance of gay disposition without tolerance of gay sex is like tolerance of Judaic faith without tolerance of Judaic worship. Tolerance of gay disposition without recognition of gay unions is like tolerance of invidual Judaism without the recognition of Judaic families. You wouldn't call that tolerance, I think. Neither do I.

It is not up to us to "tolerate" it or not. We would not banish a Jew for having gay sex, as we would most likely never know it was happening. That is a sin that he will have to answer to the Boss for, and that's it.

A quick search for orthodox Jewish gay sites threw up scores of them. Most of these are support sites for people who are trying to reconcile their orthodoxy with their sexual disposition. They want to be good Jews and whole people too. I think it's disingenuous for you to represent that orthodox Judaism has the answers here when it's obvious from the comments of those who are living with this struggle that it has yet to find them.

Orthodox Judaism has the answer. Don't do it. G-d commanded us not to do it, so we don't do it. If you are a gay person, it is your mission in life to overcome that inclination. By doing so, you are creating all kinds of good things and joy in heaven and the spiritual world. People with that kind of struggle do wonders for the spiritual plane whenever they are able to abate their yeitzer hara. I look up to them because they are obviously holier than I am; however, I don't envy them because I know I am probably not at the level where I could just never have sex again in order to fulfill my mission.

I'll look for it. I didn't really trust Schrodoeder's account (I'm a sceptic at heart!) .. I wanted to read the original.

Schroedinger's account is pretty accurate. He will obviously take bits from all the scholars and apply them to his theory; however, what they said remains what they said.

That wasn't what I was trying to say - although it probably sounded like that.

Here's a comparison - Most people who follow the Book of Mormon claim that it was written on gold plates by a Jewish splinter culture thousands of years ago, and only translated by Smith in the 1830s.

However reading it today it doesn't read AT ALL like something timeless - or even something from thousands of years ago. It reads just like something written in 1800s America. (Particular the Angel's dialogue!)

In the same way, when I read the little of Ramban that I have read, it reads just like the writings of the 13th Century. It doesn't come across as 'timeless' with insights ahead of their time.

So when Ramban wrote in the early 13th century--600 years before Darwin--that man evolved from simple sea life into the complex, sentient creature we are today using ONLY the Torah, you don't find that as an insight ahead of his time? How can it not be?

I'll see if I can track down the full commentary - I'm looking forward to changing my point of view. (It would be sad if we went through life never changing our minds)

Thanks for the fascinating discussion!

Mac
(PS: Anyone have any idea why I can't seem to find the older commentaries on the Torah in Project Gutenberg? They are certainly out of copyright now - there's no reason that they shouldn't be there)
(PPS: I think it might be here: http://aleph500.huji.ac.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001323853.html )

The reason it's hard to find this stuff online is that this stuff is not for the world to read. This stuff is for Jews to learn and that's it really. I encourage people who are actually interested in learning because they want to incorporate it into their lives to check out these scholars, because without them it is almost impossible to understand what is going on in the Torah. They are able to bring so much knowledge to every verse, and when one combines Rashi, Rambam, and Ramban, one really gets a lot of understanding.

By the way, Rashi is the foremost Torah scholar--he is the one that everyone references. He--as well as other scholars--makes it perfectly clear in his commentary to Genesis 1 that the creation story is not to be taken literally. It is a generalised story to let the world know that G-d created the universe and rules over everything. Within the text are the secrets of creation, but the literal, plain meaning is just a metaphor with much deeper meaning than how the universe was created.

Ruv Draba

09-04-2009, 08:07 AM

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]It is not up to us to "tolerate" it or not. We would not banish a Jew for having gay sex, as we would most likely never know it was happening. That is a sin that he will have to answer to the Boss for, and that's it.It's not it, because orthodoxy dismisses the legitimate social identity of gay people and focuses on the sinfulness of gay sex acts. This creates a culture of secrecy and neglect -- which is why there are so many underground frum gay websites. Apparently, there's increasing discussion about this -- the best of which I could find here (http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/file/33). Quote below. The hyperlink is mine. The Orthodox community has largely overlooked or ignored gays in
the past, while Reform and Conservative Jewish leaders have
formally and publicly grappled with homosexuality. But the issue is
getting harder to ignore. Later this year with the release of the
documentary film Trembling Before G-d (http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/), the painful lives of gay
Orthodox Jews will play out unflinchingly on movie screens
nationwide. The film, which is slated to open in New York this month,
premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah in January.

[...]

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which
the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity.
"Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an
act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."

Individual rabbis have counseled gay men and women on how to
cope with their desires—mainly by advising them to suppress their
homosexual tendencies or to get help. There is an informal "don't
ask, don't tell" policy operating in the more liberal Orthodox
synagogues, allowing gays to receive aliyot and to daven from the
pulpit. "If someone comes to my shul, I don't ask those kinds of
questions," says Freundel. "If someone told me in confidence [that
they were gay], it wouldn't have an impact on their standing in the
shul."

But few Orthodox rabbis have ever stood up and publicly addressed
the issue or provided any halachic (Jewish legal) parameters beyond
the standard "It is an abomination." No rabbi wants to be seen as
possibly condoning an act that has been outlawed by God in the
Torah.

The marginalization of gays exists to a much lesser degree in
Judaism's other denominations. As far back as 1977, Reform rabbis
passed a resolution "encourag[ing] legislation which decriminalizes
homosexual acts between consenting adults and prohibits
discrimination against them as persons."

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 08:19 AM

It's not it, because orthodoxy dismisses the legitimate social identity of gay people and focuses on the sinfulness of gay sex acts. This creates a culture of secrecy and neglect -- which is why there are so many underground frum gay websites.

I think you are getting the impression that this is a big issue. I have discussed this with you far more than I have ever even heard it mentioned in my community. We know it goes on, but it is not our business to judge. There are people who do, but they are not following halacha.

What we don't like is people professing that the Torah allows for homosexual sex and marriage; however, we take much less issue with that than the view of reform and conservative "Judaism" which denies most of the 13 principles of faith. To be honest, gay Jews really just isn't high on our priority list. We're more concerned with Moshiach coming than whether or not a Jew gets his groove on with another dude.

Apparently, there's increasing discussion about this -- the best of which I could find here (http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/file/33). Quote below. The hyperlink is mine. [/left]

That's his opinion. There are people in the orthodox community who do not differentiate between homosexuality and the sex acts; however, that is NOT the majority opinion. In fact, I have only met one person who holds that way, and I've only ever "met" him online.

What IS true is that Judaism is a religion based on deeds, not thoughts. One can think about building a house all day, but unless he actually does it, he'll have no house in which to live. Likewise, a person who thinks about keeping the commandments doesn't actually accomplish anything unless he actually goes out and does them. In addition, we are expected to be tempted to sin. If no one had any desire to sin, there would be no point to life and the commandments. Being homosexual is NOT a sin. THAT is the Torah view and the Jewish view. Anyone who says otherwise is just projecting their own opinions onto the subject.

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 08:31 AM

Since you like links, I figured I'd give you something to look over (http://www.lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf). See the quote (bolding is mine):

Judaism separates between the desire to sin and the sin itself. In every realm of life, Judaism recognizes that Jews, as normal human beings, have desires to commit sins. The premise of the concept of the inner battle between the good inclination and bad inclination is based on man’s normal desire to sin. It is only because of the great desire, which is normal that the Torah prohibits every Jewish man from being alone with a woman (Yichud). Similarly, because the Torah recognizes the normal desire among men to have sexual activity (in certain societies) the Halacha prohibits them to be together (in those societies). But the Torah says repeatedly (Numbers 15:39, for example) not to ACT and not to follow those desires. While the desires are normal and not prohibited, ACTING UPON THOSE DESIRES violates Jewish principles and Jewish law.
Thus, while it is normal for a heterosexual married man to desire a beautiful married woman who is not his wife, ACTING upon this desire violates the seventh of the Ten Commandments.

Similarly, while the Torah may understand the homosexual desire, acting upon it is forbidden. Therefore, the Midrash specifically says (SOURCE #16) that a Jew should NOT say “I have no desire for that which is forbidden (pork or even another man),” but a Jew SHOULD say “what can I do, since God has commanded me not to act upon these desires.” EVERY society, even secular society demands that sexual desires be held in check and regulates man’s acting upon his sexual desires. Judaism does so as well, and thus prohibits man to act on his homosexual desire.

Here (http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm) too:

It is important to note, however, that it is homosexual acts that are forbidden, not homosexual orientation. Judaism focuses on a person's actions rather than a person's desires. A man's desire to have sex with another man is not a sin, so long as he does not act upon that desire. In fact, it could be said that a man who feels such desires but does not act upon them is worthy of more merit in that regard than a man who does not feel such desires at all, just as one who refrains from pork because it is forbidden deserves more merit than one who refrains from pork because he doesn't like the taste.

This (http://www.aish.com/sp/so/48949396.html) is just one person's struggle, but I liked a quote from the end:

There are several distinct advantages unique to the Jewish struggler with homosexuality:

Judaism views people as basically good. There is no concept of original sin, which makes it easier to forge a healthy, positive view of oneself and the world.

Ruv Draba

09-04-2009, 08:45 AM

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 09:01 AM

Semi, I find it interesting that you've said in previous posts that you'd be willing to die for your faith, but in this thread that you wouldn't give up your heterosexual identity for your faith. That should be enough for you to recognise the pain inflicted on gay people by such a prohibition.

There are three sins (or groups of sins) that we are required to die before committing, and one of them is sexual sins. Homosexual sex is included in that, so I would die before doing such a thing.

As a humanist I hold religions to account for what they believe. After all it's only the opinion of men as to what dogma is legitimate and what is not -- else there wouldn't be variation in opinion and your Torah wouldn't need interpretative notes. Whenever we put dogma above compassion we fall into traps of intolerance. You've doubtless seen this in other religions, but I think that all religions run this risk. It falls to the wise of those religions to decide what to do -- err on the side of compassion, or hold the dogmatic hard-line. World history tells us what the outcome of these decisions typically is. Ultimately, unless people think their gods talk to them directly, all interpretation is human and ethically I feel it should be accountable to humanity for what it says.

The Torah doesn't need interpretive notes regarding this. It is VERY clear. The need to clarify comes from the fact that the majority of Jews live as members of other societies where homosexuality is prominent and not viewed as a bad thing.

Last time I checked, Jews haven't killed anyone for being gay.

The fact that this isn't much discussed in orthodox circles isn't evidence that there isn't a problem and may be evidence that there is. Firstly, gay people are a significant minority -- about 1% of US couples are same-sex (http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm), and that doesn't count gay people not in committed relationships, where numbers are often quoted in double digits. Secondly, there were times in history when slavery and female suffrage weren't much discussed. We consider those to be times of blindness. Thirdly, it's being discussed a lot online -- it's just not seeing official air. That tells me that your rabbis may be in denial.

I doubt there is a large gay orthodox population. I'm sure there are gay orthodox Jews, but I don't think they are a large number. As it's said in the Talmud, Jewish men are assumed to not have those urges or to at least be able to control them to the point where they won't rape another man. The fact that any mention of it at all from the Rambam's writings implies that there was a small population of people that had to deal with it.

I've followed some of the frum gay discussion in the on-line forums, just out of humanistic curiosity. I would say that I hold out more hope for orthodox Judaism growing more tolerant than some other faiths who are going through the same problems just now. I recognise that Judaism prides itself on its tolerance and kindness. I think that the question here is will orthodox Judaism walk the walk, or just talk the talk. :)

I hope not. We are tolerant in the way that we can be. A gay Jew can be a gay Jew with no consequences; however, a gay Jew should not have sex with another man. G-d has mandated that He views it as an abomination, and therefore it is against the Torah to claim that we should be tolerant of it. Should we start persecuting these people? No, I think it is G-d's job to judge those kinds of sins; however, becoming more tolerant of it is an apologist position not unlike softening our position on the possibility that other religions could be correct simply because it is not PC to claim that all other religions are crap. Do you think the Jews in the Second Temple Period catered to political correctness when they were being killed for denying the Roman gods? This is why it is a generally accepted principle that each generation is a little lower than the one before it.

Ruv Draba

09-04-2009, 09:58 AM

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 10:06 AM

ColoradoGuy

09-04-2009, 10:10 AM

As a general principle, Semi 'We're as tolerant as we can be within the limits of our dogma' can be claimed by just about everyone, including witch-hunters and suicide-bombers.
I don't think it's fair to conflate intolerance with persecution of others
It doesn't actually mean that one is tolerant; it just means that ones dogma enshrines ones intolerance.I'm not sure what you mean by tolerance. If you mean granting another religious viewpoint to be equally valid as your own, few religions are tolerant. If you mean by tolerant that one does not molest or harm those of opposing viewpoints, I think on balance Judaism has an excellent record. I'm tolerant of many religious viewpoints that I think are wrong.

Bartholomew

09-04-2009, 10:12 AM

Am I the only one here who sees no conflict whatsoever between science and religion?

Scientists tend to like to test phenomena. Religions often purport that untestable phenomena exists. Why, on occasion, wouldn't they clash?

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 10:18 AM

As a general principle, Semi 'We're as tolerant as we can be within the limits of our dogma' can be claimed by just about everyone, including witch-hunters and suicide-bombers. It doesn't actually mean that one is tolerant; it just means that ones dogma enshrines ones intolerance.

I take extreme issue with you comparing Judaism to witch-hunters and suicide-bombers. That is a completely absurd analogy that I am tremendously offended by.

From what I've read, orthodox Judaism is more tolerant in some respects than other traditional Abrahamic religions, but less tolerant in many respects than some Christian sects and many Buddhist ones. Against mediaeval thought I think its tolerance stood out fairly well. Against modern thought though, it's not leading the pack.

We don't care about modern thought. Our goal is to stay as far from modern thought as possible if it means we stay true to the Torah. This is why our book of laws tells us to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world as much as possible (e.g., we cannot dress in the style of the Gentiles). Assimilation only leads to the bastardization of the Truth, as can be seen by the reform and conservative movements.

Simply because the modern world views something as being okay doesn't make it so. The modern world condones or glorifies many things that shouldn't be. Look at all the movies that romanticize adultery as a spiritual journey to find one's "soul mate." The prohibition against adultery is one of the ten commandments! Living with your partner and having sex before marriage is not only completely acceptable, but actually recommended now in modern society. It is interesting to me that in American culture, the divorce rate is a little below 50% while in the Chassidic community, it is between 5 and 10%. I think this is related to the above.

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 10:24 AM

I guess I just don't see how we can accept that homosexual acts are universally 'sinful' the same way murder is. Please clarify why homosexual acts are more sinful than say wearing two types of clothing, which, iirc, is a violation of Mosaic code as much as two men doin it together.

No mitzvah is greater than another, and so the prohibition of wearing linen and wool (not any two types of clothing, just those two together) is just as big of a commandment as homosexual sex; however, there is also a commandment to die before engaging in illicit sexual relations (including pre-marital heterosexual sex). The purpose of sex is to mimic creation. The explanation is very Kabbalistic, but basically it mimics the way G-d created the universe. A homosexual sex act between two men is a desecration of that.

By the way, murder is one of the three commandments we are required to die before transgressing. The other one is idolatry.

I don't think it's fair to conflate intolerance with persecution of others.

Thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean by tolerance. If you mean granting another religious viewpoint to be equally valid as your own, few religions are tolerant. If you mean by tolerant that one does not molest or harm those of opposing viewpoints, I think on balance Judaism has an excellent record. I'm tolerant of many religious viewpoints that I think are wrong.

Agreed. I think you will be hardpressed to find any sort of persecution at the hands of Jews throughout history. Last time I checked, there were no Jewish crusades or holocaust against goyim.

Scientists tend to like to test phenomena. Religions often purport that untestable phenomena exists. Why, on occasion, wouldn't they clash?

I guess because Judaism doesn't require blind faith. Everything is done in a logical fashion, including the inclusion of science in the Torah.

Bartholomew

09-04-2009, 10:55 AM

I guess because Judaism doesn't require blind faith. Everything is done in a logical fashion, including the inclusion of science in the Torah.

I suspect that you and I define our terms differently.

Regardless, even a devoutly Jewish scientist can not use the scientific method and arrive at God. Hence my post.

Ruv Draba

09-04-2009, 11:07 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by tolerance. If you mean granting another religious viewpoint to be equally valid as your own, few religions are tolerant. If you mean by tolerant that one does not molest or harm those of opposing viewpoints, I think on balance Judaism has an excellent record. I'm tolerant of many religious viewpoints that I think are wrong.Actually I don't mean either of those things.

To me, tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with others, and it means more than simply not attacking them. It means making space for them, whether we agree with them or not. It means as much as possible, to allow people to thrive, prosper and be fulfilled. To be meaningful beyond mere lip-service, tolerance must mean equity.

The world has made leaps and strides on tolerance in the last centuries. Many faiths have been part of that and we can be proud of that, Judaism not the least. But we still struggle with residual problems.

Of the religious oppression we see nowadays I think that there's actually more through intolerance sustaining inequities than there is through active persecution. But the impact of sustained inequity on human freedoms can be every bit as high as from periodic persecution. For example, intolerance and infliction of guilt and shame for things that we cannot change can produce huge amounts of self-loathing. People suicide because of it.

From ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jortho.htm):
While there are no statistics available on the community's suicide rate, every gay Orthodox person interviewed for this article told me she or he knew of at least one Orthodox homosexual who had attempted or committed suicide. Experts say the suicide rate among gay Orthodox Jews is likely to be even higher than for the gay community at large, owing to the more restrictive and tight-knit atmosphere of Orthodox communities.

Is fear of admitting one's sexuality somehow less concerning than fear of admitting one's faith? Is pressure to heterosexualise gay Jews (one of the movements to come out of orthodox Judaism in recent years) any less inhumane than pressure to Christianise Jews in the Middle Ages?

Semi, CG, I thought that my second paragraph made the meaning of my first clear, but sorry if it didn't. There's no conflation between oppression by neglect and oppression through violence because they both quack like the same duck; one's just more blatant than the other.

there is also a commandment to die before engaging in illicit sexual relations (including pre-marital heterosexual sex).

Semi, it seems that your rabbinim are preaching 'better dead than gay' and that some of your people are taking them at their word. :( If that's not the Judaism you want to be part of then your rabbinim need to find a better way.

In my opinion, the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 07:29 PM

I suspect that you and I define our terms differently.

Regardless, even a devoutly Jewish scientist can not use the scientific method and arrive at God. Hence my post.

One can certainly use science to show the huge probability of G-d and the almost zero probability that there isn't. Plenty of people have. The faith part is going from almost zero to zero.

Actually I don't mean either of those things.

To me, tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with others, and it means more than simply not attacking them. It means making space for them, whether we agree with them or not. It means as much as possible, to allow people to thrive, prosper and be fulfilled. To be meaningful beyond mere lip-service, tolerance must mean equity.

The world has made leaps and strides on tolerance in the last centuries. Many faiths have been part of that and we can be proud of that, Judaism not the least. But we still struggle with residual problems.

Of the religious oppression we see nowadays I think that there's actually more through intolerance sustaining inequities than there is through active persecution. But the impact of sustained inequity on human freedoms can be every bit as high as from periodic persecution. For example, intolerance and infliction of guilt and shame for things that we cannot change can produce huge amounts of self-loathing. People suicide because of it.

From ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jortho.htm):

Is fear of admitting one's sexuality somehow less concerning than fear of admitting one's faith? Is pressure to heterosexualise gay Jews (one of the movements to come out of orthodox Judaism in recent years) any less inhumane than pressure to Christianise Jews in the Middle Ages?

Semi, CG, I thought that my second paragraph made the meaning of my first clear, but sorry if it didn't. There's no conflation between oppression by neglect and oppression through violence because they both quack like the same duck; one's just more blatant than the other.

You are way off the derech here my friend. Telling gay Jews they need to suppress their urges and torturing, murdering, and expelling Jews from your country because they won't convert to Xtianity are NO WHERE near the same thing, and it disturbs me greatly that you equate informing gay Jews of what the Torah says to the mass genocide of Jews. That is beyond words.

Semi, it seems that your rabbinim are preaching 'better dead than gay' and that some of your people are taking them at their word. :( If that's not the Judaism you want to be part of then your rabbinim need to find a better way.

In my opinion, the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

It's not the rabbis, it's G-d. You keep trying to make it seem as though it is the Jewish people who decided being gay is worse than being dead (which is not at all what I've said, actually, since being gay is fine so long as you don't act on it). This is the word of G-d we are talking about, not some random decision made by a dude.

On a related note, I understand that you are a secular humanist. However, you have to put aside your view that there is no G-d (c''v) and place yourself in the mindset of an Orthodox Jew, where every word in the Torah was dictated to Moses by G-d Himself.

Also, you need to stop ignoring my posts that Judaism does not view homosexuality as a sin. That is Xtianity. Judaism is NOT the same as Xtianity, and differs from it in almost every way. I posted multiple links from Orthodox Jewish websites showing that the majority opinion--and more importantly, the Torah view--is that just being gay is not deserving of any punishment, but will actually merit greater reward in the afterlife. Just because you don't want to believe that is true, that doesn't mean you can simply ignore that fact and blast away at Judaism with your own warped ideas of the faith.

One thing I will not stand for is the comparison of the Jewish faith to genocide and the slaughter of innocent people. Judaism has never advocated the oppression or killing of anyone simply because they have a different faith or practice. It is actually quite the opposite. Rather than go out and try and convert them, we simply ignore their ways and allow them to go about their business so long as they allow us to go about ours. That is starkly different from the other two mainstream religions who at one point held the belief that all who were not of their faith should either convert or die (and in a certain part of the world, that is still true with one of them).

ColoradoGuy

09-04-2009, 08:28 PM

Rather than go out and try and convert them, we simply ignore their ways and allow them to go about their business so long as they allow us to go about ours. That is starkly different from the other two mainstream religions who at one point held the belief that all who were not of their faith should either convert or die (and in a certain part of the world, that is still true with one of them).
This deserves repeating.

Bartholomew

09-04-2009, 09:26 PM

One can certainly use science to show the huge probability of G-d and the almost zero probability that there isn't. Plenty of people have. The faith part is going from almost zero to zero.

Show me the scientific method you've used to almost find God.

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 09:38 PM

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes (some say 30,000 genes). That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x 1012) proteins in all life (the actual number is vastly lower). What is the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming randomly? Remember that the Cambrian explosion shows us that that not all combinations of proteins are viable.

Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20300 or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10390. Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10390 proteins, the the 1.5 x 1012 proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.

And so the probability of life randomly starting on earth is almost zero. So what caused life to start even though the probability of it happening is so low? That's the jump to G-d.

That's just one example.

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 10:00 PM

And so the probability of life randomly starting on earth is almost zero.

OK, granted, but this points to a mystery, not a god.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 10:06 PM

Hence my last statement. The faith part is believing that the extra push to such an improbable happening is G-d.

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 10:17 PM

Hence my last statement. The faith part is believing that the extra push to such an improbable happening is G-d.

There is a logical fallacy here: you've established fairly well the improbability of life on earth, but you haven't asserted in any direction why an improbable universe must "be designed" -- that's the first leap of faith - because it's without positive evidence - and it's a God-serving one to be sure.

I suspect this is the ever-popular "there must be a legislator or king for there to be a law" or "there must be a designer in order for there to be a design" or "since the universe is so clearly not random it must be designed" argument with one part of it supported by science and the rest taken a priori as a matter of course.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 10:27 PM

And there's logic in saying that despite the probability of it occurring randomly being virtually zero, it definitely happened randomly? That makes no sense at all. The improbability of it all points to something other than randomness. Just because the answer is G-d doesn't make it illogical or wrong.

ColoradoGuy

09-04-2009, 10:39 PM

There is a logical fallacy here: you've established fairly well the improbability of life on earth, but you haven't asserted in any direction why an improbable universe must "be designed" -- that's the first leap of faith - because it's without positive evidence - and it's a God-serving one to be sure.
I think you're using the wrong toolkit for this particular discussion. This is not a debate about Intelligent Design or such things -- if you want that, go over to P&CE where we have hashed and rehashed the question. Much of religious thought is not "logical" in the sense you demand. So "logical fallacy" is a non-sequitur here.

Not to pick on you AMC, but as a general statement I'm not going to allow this forum to turn into a scene in which believers of all varieties are cross-examined by non-theists. Listen to the explanations, be thankful for the gift of the large amount of time folks like Semi spend composing them. Ask questions to clarify when you don't understand what they are writing, but don't accuse faith-based thinking of flawed logic.

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 10:51 PM

And there's logic in saying that despite the probability of it occurring randomly being virtually zero, it definitely happened randomly?That makes no sense at all.

But why not assert, using the scientific method you are clearly capable of employing, how "not random" refers to "designed by a designer"...

The improbability of it all points to something other than randomness. Just because the answer is G-d doesn't make it illogical or wrong.

No I don't think that jump is illogical (or right or wrong; it's impossible to say one way for a fact one way or the other); but you provided scientific explanation for why the universe isn't random, not how one can nearly prove god exists. That's all I'm saying.

Not to pick on you AMC, but as a general statement I'm not going to allow this forum to turn into a scene in which believers of all varieties are cross-examined by non-theists. Listen to the explanations, be thankful for the gift of the large amount of time folks like Semi spend composing them. Ask questions to clarify when you don't understand what they are writing, but don't accuse faith-based thinking of flawed logic.

I think it's within my rights here to push for more. SLI said that was but "one example" but that example wasn't what he claimed it was. Bart requested the scientific method for which SLI almost found God and he provided something that was not a scientific method for almost finding God but for describing the improbability of life on earth.

Sorry to say, but SLI was the one to place his form of Orthodox Judaism in this framework of logic when he said:

There is no conflict between my religion and the scientific explanation, which is all that matters.

in light of certain beliefs which are clearly in conflict with scientific explanation.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 11:07 PM

But why not assert, using the scientific method you are clearly capable of employing, how "not random" refers to "designed by a designer"...

To me, the fact that if it were to occur randomly, we'd still be waiting for it to happen logically means that something had to make it happen, i.e., it wasn't random.

The fact that the age of the universe isn't even long enough for a single protein chain to come together randomly let alone a complex organism like a human being seems to be obvious evidence that something must have put the right pieces together.

No I don't think that jump is illogical (or right or wrong; it's impossible to say one way for a fact one way or the other); but you provided scientific explanation for why the universe isn't random, not how one can nearly prove god exists. That's all I'm saying.

To me, it isn't even nearly. That's just a concession for skeptics. The proof is that the creation of life couldn't have been random. By definition, that means that something caused it to happen when it did. What are your other explanations for what did that?

I think it's within my rights here to push for more. SLI said that was but "one example" but that example wasn't what he claimed it was. Bart requested the scientific method for which SLI almost found God and he provided something that was not a scientific method for almost finding God but for describing the improbability of life on earth.

So the improbability of life on earth is not evidence that something guided the creation of life? I don't see the logic in that.

Sorry to say, but SLI was the one to place his form of Orthodox Judaism in this framework of logic when he said:

in light of certain beliefs which are clearly in conflict with scientific explanation.

AMC

There is no scientific explanation for life starting on Earth. We know how life forms, but there is no scientific explanation for why life was able to start despite the almost impossibility of it happening at all. Science can tell you how proteins join together and form DNA, but it can't tell you why things worked out the way they did. That's G-d.

I see no conflict because I see the scientific explanations as being just the details of how G-d does what He does. How does a rainbow work? It is sunlight reflecting off of raindrops. According to wikipedia,

The light is first refracted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) as it enters the surface of the raindrop, reflected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28physics%29) off the back of the drop, and again refracted as it leaves the drop. The overall effect is that the incoming light is reflected back over a wide range of angles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle), with the most intense light at an angle of 40°–42°. The angle is independent of the size of the drop, but does depend on its refractive index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index). Seawater has a higher refractive index than rain water, so the radius of a 'rainbow' in sea spray is smaller than a true rainbow. This is visible to the naked eye by a misalignment of these bows.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#cite_note-1) The amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength), and hence its colour. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. You may then think it is strange that the pattern of colours in a rainbow has red on the outside of the arc and blue on the inside. However, when we examine this issue more closely, we realise that if the red light from one droplet is seen by an observer, then the blue light from that droplet will not be seen because it must be on a different path from the red light: a path which is not incident with the observer's eyes. The blue light seen in this rainbow will therefore come from a different droplet, which must be below that whose red light can be observed.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it seems logical. Anyway, the Torah tells us that G-d created a rainbow after the deluge as a symbol of the covenant with man that He would never again destroy the world. So the Oral tradition tells us that whenever He feels the Earth warrants destruction, He creates a rainbow. I see no conflict between the two. G-d creates a rainbow for a particular reason, but the way He does it is by reflecting sunlight through raindrops. It's a mistake to assume that by putting G-d into the picture we are eliminating science. Science just explains how it works.

ColoradoGuy

09-04-2009, 11:22 PM

I think it's within my rights here to push for more
Of course you can ask for more. My point is that this forum is about explaining and trying to understand each other. Tone matters very much. As I said, I don't mean to pick on you. I just want people reading (and many, many more read than post) to feel free to post without fear of explanations being demanded of them, as opposed to clarifications requested of them. It's perhaps a fine distinction, but it is a real one.

Gehanna

09-04-2009, 11:26 PM

Are we all willing to agree that there is no scientific explanation for life starting on Earth?

It would be nice to have a reference to the unanimously agreed upon subjects versus those which remain debatable.

Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 11:33 PM

So the improbability of life on earth is not evidence that something guided the creation of life?

Yeah, sure, but not evidence of a god -- nothing remotely close, which is what Bart requested and what you tried to answer, but didn't.

It's a mistake to assume that by putting G-d into the picture we are eliminating science. Science just explains how it works.

I both understand and really like this idea, even though I don't believe in God. But it wasn't what I was talking about just now. Your argument was that the improbability of life forms on the earth pointed to first a designer-God and second to the existence of the much vaguer something that guided the creation of life ... but in reality you didn't provide evidence leading just-up-to a designer god so much as a very vague "something" which anyone is capable of admitting without too much concern. It's a larger leap of faith than you let on, so why mask it in science that only supports the idea that "something" -- as opposed to scientific support of a Someone, which, again, was the request you obliged to-- "guided the creation of life" ?

AMC

AMCrenshaw

09-04-2009, 11:39 PM

Of course you can ask for more. My point is that this forum is about explaining and trying to understand each other. Tone matters very much. As I said, I don't mean to pick on you. I just want people reading (and many, many more read than post) to feel free to post without fear of explanations being demanded of them, as opposed to clarifications requested of them. It's perhaps a fine distinction, but it is a real one.

I wasn't the one to ask for the explanation, for the record, except in a jest that I communicated to SLI through rep a couple of days ago (about literalism and metaphor, etc). And I wasn't the one to explain either. I was the one to point out that the explanation asked for wasn't the one given even as it was being asserted that it was -- here, why misrepresent both science and religion simultaneously? That one has given "nearly enough" scientific evidence of a designing Someone (which was modestly changed to a vague "something") when really one has not. That's all, that's everything I was getting at. That the question wasn't answered and I was still interested in the answer to the question actually posed.

AMC

semilargeintestine

09-04-2009, 11:59 PM

Yeah, sure, but not evidence of a god -- nothing remotely close, which is what Bart requested and what you tried to answer, but didn't.

It's answer enough for me. It won't be for the skeptic, but I'm not trying to convince anyone. Bart asked me for my application of science to almost proving G-d. She didn't ask me to prove it to her. Big difference.

I both understand and really like this idea, even though I don't believe in God. But it wasn't what I was talking about just now. Your argument was that the improbability of life forms on the earth pointed to first a designer-God and second to the existence of the much vaguer something that guided the creation of life ... but in reality you didn't provide evidence leading just-up-to a designer god so much as a very vague "something" which anyone is capable of admitting without too much concern. It's a larger leap of faith than you let on, so why mask it in science that only supports the idea that "something" -- as opposed to scientific support of a Someone, which, again, was the request you obliged to-- "guided the creation of life" ?

My argument is that the improbability of life forms points to a greater cause for life. There is no scientific explanation for it. The Torah gives a very clear answer, and there is no scientific evidence to disprove it. In fact, I have posted before how one can use relativity and the Doppler effect to prove that Genesis is in accordance with the scientific age of the universe. The fact that science can confirm that what the Torah says is possible but cannot point to any other explanation should lead a person naturally to conclude that what the Torah says is the answer.

And before you say that it means nothing, I ask you to think about how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun. We actually don't. We know that they circle each other in some way (just like the moon and the earth circle each other); however, thanks to GR, the concept of a stationary Earth or Sun is irrelevant. The calculations can work either way, it is simply much easier to work with them assuming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Also, because the rest of the planets are revolving around the sun, it makes logical sense that we are too. However, the only evidence that the Earth moves around the sun is that the concept of everything else following really complicated and dramatic orbits to circle the Earth is improbable. Because of this, we say that the Earth goes around the Sun. Sound familiar?

Ruv Draba

09-05-2009, 02:26 AM

You are way off the derech here my friend. Telling gay Jews they need to suppress their urges and torturing, murdering, and expelling Jews from your country because they won't convert to Xtianity are NO WHERE near the same thingWell, it's not my intention to anger you, and I'm sorry that I have. P'raps it's time to revisit why we're discussing this at all.

Semi, your spiritual lineage has been among the world's most tolerant for a long time. So has CG's and so has mine. The only reason we can have this conversation in the first place is that the same sorts of things concern us. If we can't talk about tolerance here without getting prickly then we ought to all go home. Change the forum name to 'religious research' or something. :tongue

I was reflecting this morning that part of what makes this conversation so hellishly difficult are the blunt and ugly tools we have for understanding oppression in the first place: women's inequity, the persecution of religious, sexual and intellectual minorities, slavery, and genocide. A charming assiette of concepts, but as little as three hundred years ago we wouldn't have had even those to play with. Your spiritual ancestors were having property confiscated; CG's were discussing the possible immorality of slavery while fending off the persecution of their puritan brethren and mine were in prisons and insane asylums.

From the outset I haven't been talking about persecution or genocide. CG introduced the one term, you introduced the other. But we sometimes need to draw on those concepts for wisdom because those are all we have. At our present point in social development we still (most of us) only recognise intolerance when it involves beatings and firebombings. That's the problem I'm wrestling with in trying to discuss this.

My concern is not what Orthodox Jews believe, but what they do with what they believe, and my concern only arises if I see someone getting hurt from it. I feel like the neighbour who sees some kids starving from neglect, makes a comment and then is yelled at over the fence, 'I don't MISTREAT my KIDS! You see BRUISES on these KIDS?'

Here's my central point: You have a god who hates gay sex. It beats me why, if he hates gay sex, all the mammals he ever created indulge in it, but that's not my concern. My concern is that rabbis think it's okay to speak on your god's behalf here... and the message they're delivering is that doesn't matter how you were born, death is better than buggery.

Not all rabbis are saying this -- just the orthodox ones. And it's the frum gays who are killing themselves over it. I don't believe for a minute that this is the intended consequence, but I do feel that there is a moral accountability for rabbis to be aware of and responsible for their impacts, regardless of where they think G-d does and doesn't want a schmeckie put.

This line was triggered off a claim you made about tolerance which I didn't believe and which (being me) I went off and hit with a hammer. Then having found something morally concerning I'm now pursuing it. It doesn't invalidate your faith, but it did call into question the accuracy of your claims, and it raises some concern for me about the awareness and conscience of your rabbis.

I read your responses carefully, Semi, and I saw denial. There isn't a problem, you're saying. We hardly have any gays. And if they're killing themselves, it's not the rabbis' fault. It can't be as bad as all that. Nothing to see here. If G-d wants it, you've been saying, your rabbinim have to push it. My counter-argument is simply this:

No, they don't.

semilargeintestine

09-05-2009, 03:06 AM

Well, it's not my intention to anger you, and I'm sorry that I have. P'raps it's time to revisit why we're discussing this at all.

Equating Judaism to suicide-bombers is a funny way to not anger someone.

Semi, your spiritual lineage has been among the world's most tolerant for a long time. So has CG's and so has mine. The only reason we can have this conversation in the first place is that the same sorts of things concern us.

I was reflecting this morning that part of what makes this conversation so hellishly difficult are the blunt and ugly tools we have for understanding oppression in the first place: women's inequity, the persecution of religious, sexual and intellectual minorities, slavery, and genocide. A charming assiette of concepts, but as little as three hundred years ago we wouldn't have had even have those to play with. Your spiritual ancestors were having property confiscated; CG's were discussing the possible immorality of slavery and mine were in prisons and insane asylums.

My spiritual ancestors were being murdered, enslaved, expelled, and having their properties stolen, burned, and destroyed. This has been happening for 2,000 years, and it continues to happen today.

From the outset I haven't been talking about persecution or genocide. CG introduced the one term, you introduced the other. But we sometimes need to draw on those concepts for wisdom because those are all we have. At our present point in social development we still (most of us) only recognise intolerance when it involves beatings and firebombings. That's the problem I'm wrestling with in trying to discuss this.

YOU were the one who introduced the comparison of Orthodox Judaism to suicide-bombers, and YOU were the one who likened the Jewish view of homosexuals to the Xtian Crusades. The Crusades were carried out by forcing Jews (and Muslims) to either convert or die. That is not only completely opposite from the Jewish view on homosexuality, but it is tantamount to libel. It is not far from the claims that Jews kidnap Xtian first born sons on Pesach or steal organs from dead Palestinians. There is no basis of fact in any of it, and it serves only to perpetuate anti-Semitism.

My concern is not what Orthodox Jews believe, but what they do with what they believe, and my concern only arises if I see someone getting hurt from it. I feel like the neighbour who sees some kids starving from neglect, makes a comment and then is yelled at over the fence, 'I don't MISTREAT my KIDS! You see BRUISES on these KIDS?'

Orthodox Jews don't do anything with what we believe regarding homosexual sex. We don't have a sandhedrin, so even if we wanted to institute the punishment for having gay sex, we couldn't. Gay frum Jews are told what the Torah position is and given options for controlling their urges; if they choose not to, that is something they have to deal with. You seem to want there to be some sort of physical persecution when there exists none. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we don't kill people for being gay like Xtians and Muslims do.

Here's my central point: You have a god who hates gay sex. It beats me why, if he hates gay sex, all the mammals he ever created indulge in it, but that's not my concern. My concern is that rabbis think it's okay to speak on your god's behalf here... and the message they're delivering is that death is better than buggery.

Man and animal are not the same. Man has free will and the ability to choose whether or not to follow His commandments. Animals have no commandments to follow other than to be fruitful and multiply.

An important distinction is that G-d wants us to let ourselves be killed before committing a sexual sin (or idolatry or murder). That is much different than killing ourselves or others before they do so. We are never allowed to kill another person unless they are actively trying to kill us or another. If I were to see a Jew about to have sex with another male Jew, I would first question why I am in a position to see such a thing, since it would likely be in their home; second, I would tell them that I am not comfortable with that, make a comment about how it's not what G-d wants, and leave. I am in no position to do anything, and even if I wanted to, two witnesses are required to effect any sort of punishment (as well as a sanhedrin, which we don't have). Any other frum Jew would do the same.

Not all rabbis are saying this -- just the orthodox ones. And it's the frum gays who are killing themselves over it. I don't believe for a minute that this is the intended consequence, but I do feel that there is a moral accountability for rabbis to be aware of and responsible for their impacts, regardless of where they think G-d does and doesn't want a schmeckie put.

The moral accountability for Rabbis is NOT to cater to what American society deems is acceptable. It is to make sure frum Jews know what is acceptable to G-d. We are not here to serve you, we are here to serve G-d.

This line was triggered off a claim you made about tolerance which I didn't believe and which (being me) I went off and hit with a hammer. Then having found something morally concerning I'm now pursuing it. It doesn't invalidate your faith, but it did call into question the accuracy of your claims, and it raises some concern for me about the awareness and conscience of your rabbis.

I read your responses carefully, Semi, and I saw denial. There isn't a problem, you're saying. We hardly have any gays. And if they're killing themselves, it's not the rabbis' fault. It can't be as bad as all that. Nothing to see here. If G-d wants it, you've been saying, your rabbinim have to push it.

No, you're putting words into my posts that aren't there. I highly doubt that there are many gay frum Jews in the world. The ones that are have a terrible plight, but they are some of the holiest people, and they can handle it.

I NEVER said that a Jew should kill himself before having sex with another man. I said a Jew should DIE before doing such a thing. You are the one that inferred I meant committing suicide. That is never condoned.

What you are arguing is that we should take what modern society deems is acceptable and change our beliefs to reflect that. If we did that, we would no longer be here. It is only because we have not done so (and through the mercy of G-d) that the Jewish people even still exist. The modern world views wanton execution and killing, actively waging war, adultery, pre-marital sex and harlotry, greed, lying and cheating people, and a general "me first" attitude as perfectly normal. Should Jews stop condemning these things too because people think it's no big deal?

Every day, a Jew wakes up and chooses to keep the Torah, and each day G-d chooses to keep His covenant with us. We cannot pick and choose which commandments we want to follow. When we were offered the Torah, we said, "We will do, and then we will listen." This meant that we accepted the entire Torah without even knowing what was in it. Now it is binding upon all Jews, both from birth and converts. The word of G-d does not change to cater to a society circling the drain of morality.

However, one of the commandments is to not hold a grudge or hatred for a fellow Jew. If someone does not keep some of the commandments, they are still Jewish, and they are still doing good work by keeping what they can. Everyone should strive to keep the whole Torah, but not everyone is able to do so. That doesn't justify sinning though. It just means we are forgiving of sins, and we understand that G-d is too so long as we confess our sins and hope to be better.

My counter-argument is simply this:

No, they don't.

No, you're counter-argument is that they shouldn't. You want us to engrain modern views into our beliefs to satisfy your own view on the world. Jews have a 4,000 year history, and the Torah has been unchanged since we received it 3,300 years ago, and it will be the same for the next 1,000.

There's a reason why Mark Twain wrote:

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Persian, rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dreamstuff and passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed, made a vast noise and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up, held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weaking of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal, but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he remains.

Ruv Draba

09-05-2009, 03:21 AM

Semi, I was surprised and distressed to see you more angry rather than less... Despite me trying to separate one thing from another, you've read stuff into my conversation that I neither said nor intended and now it seems that I can't persuade you otherwise. I'm going to address one matter and then let this drop. I think there is a real concern here, but you've persuaded me that you're not the one to discuss it with. I'll find someone else to talk to about it.

You want us to engrain modern views into our beliefs to satisfy your own view on the world.My only concern on this line of discussion is that your gay kids stop killing themselves from guilt. I don't have a template world-view that I want people to conform to. I strongly believe that we get to shape those things as we go, by discussing them. I also feel that we're accountable for what we choose, regardless of why we've chosen it.

I've realised that you don't want that discussion, and so I'll stop. Please accept my thanks for the links you've provided and for your thoughts, Semi. For all that this conversation isn't working, I value the information and viewpoints you've provided.

semilargeintestine

09-05-2009, 03:40 AM

Semi, I was surprised and distressed to see you more angry rather than less... Despite me trying to separate one thing from another, you've read stuff into my conversation that I neither said nor intended and now it seems that I can't persuade you otherwise. I'm going to address one matter and then let this drop. I think there is a real concern here, but you've persuaded me that you're not the one to discuss it with. I'll find someone else to talk to about it.

I'm not angry. I'm sorry that was the impression you got. I am certainly disturbed that you seemed to be equating Jewish views on Torah to suicide bombers and Xtian Crusaders, but I'm certainly not angry with you or in general. :)

My only concern on this line of discussion is that your gay kids stop killing themselves from guilt. I don't have a template world-view that I want people to conform to. I strongly believe that we get to shape those things as we go, by discussing them. I also feel that we're accountable for what we choose, regardless of why we've chosen it.

I've realised that you don't want that discussion, and so I'll stop. Please accept my thanks for the links you've provided and for your thoughts, Semi. For all that this conversation isn't working, I value the information and viewpoints you've provided.

If you mean my kids personally, I'll help them deal with that if, c''v, it comes up. If you mean in general, I hope they do too if they are, because they don't have to, and we don't want them to (kill themselves, that is). We'd rather them be here and queer than dead, c''v.

Ruv Draba

09-05-2009, 04:02 AM

I'm not angry. I'm sorry that was the impression you got. I am certainly disturbed that you seemed to be equating Jewish views on Torah to suicide bombers and Xtian Crusaders, but I'm certainly not angry with you or in general. Thanks for this comment and for your rep-comment, Semi. There was no 'equating'. I made a point of logic and I think you took it for something else.
We'd rather them be here and queer than dead, c''v.Unquestionably. :Hug2:

Bartholomew

09-05-2009, 10:03 AM

ColoradoGuy

09-05-2009, 10:23 AM

That's also not scientific method.
True. I think it would more properly called a variety of inductive reasoning (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htm). Conclusions reached by induction generally need verification, which is impossible in this case.

Bartholomew

09-05-2009, 10:57 AM

That's also not scientific method. No offense.

True. I think it would more properly called a variety of inductive reasoning (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htm). Conclusions reached by induction generally need verification, which is impossible in this case.

I'm not trying to be combative. I'd love it if SemiLargeIntestine wrote a Nobel prize winning post on our forums.

##

The flaw I see in that reasoning, by the way, is that it assumes that life is rare. We don't know if that's the case. Life may form everywhere; we keep finding it in stranger and stranger places here on Earth; who's to say Jupiter isn't riddled with organisms, or that every other star hasn't harbored human-like life at some point or another?

semilargeintestine

09-06-2009, 09:29 PM

That's also not scientific method. No offense intended.

None taken. Despite what it seems like, I'm not claiming to be some amazing scientist that can prove G-d. I'm simply saying that science can point to the presence of something other than randomness, and for me, that makes it obvious that G-d exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not trying to be combative. I'd love it if SemiLargeIntestine wrote a Nobel prize winning post on our forums.

##

The flaw I see in that reasoning, by the way, is that it assumes that life is rare. We don't know if that's the case. Life may form everywhere; we keep finding it in stranger and stranger places here on Earth; who's to say Jupiter isn't riddled with organisms, or that every other star hasn't harbored human-like life at some point or another?

We've yet to find it, and I don't think we will. However, if we did, that wouldn't change anything. Judaism doesn't say that life only has to exist on Earth.

semilargeintestine

09-06-2009, 09:31 PM

Thanks for this comment and for your rep-comment, Semi. There was no 'equating'. I made a point of logic and I think you took it for something else.
Unquestionably. :Hug2:

To be fair, I think it was pretty easy to take the wrong way. But I know what you meant now, so no problem as they say. :D

I enjoy debating with you because I know you'll actually think about what I say. Most people who want to debate religion don't actually listen to the other side.

ColoradoGuy

09-06-2009, 10:02 PM

I'm not trying to be combative. I'd love it if SemiLargeIntestine wrote a Nobel prize winning post on our forums.
They give a Nobel in Midrash?

semilargeintestine

09-06-2009, 10:07 PM

They give a Nobel in Midrash?

They should. :D

Gehanna

09-07-2009, 12:37 AM

A moment of peace. Very Nice.

Hey uhhh, wasn't the Nobel the result of a man who messed around with nitroglycerin and invented dynamite? A pacifist who invented explosives. LOL! I love it. :D

So now back to the subject...

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 03:54 AM

ColoradoGuy

09-07-2009, 04:15 AM

On a related note, I once had a dream that time was circular. This was way before I became religious--like, I barely believed in G-d at the time. I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out a way to prove it, but I gave up. After I became religious, I found out that Judaism views time as circular--that the actions we do in the future have the ability to reduce or cancel out the actions we did in the past.

Go figure.
Interesting you'd say that. In the largest sense (putting aside questions of atonement like the one you raised) I'd always thought of both Judaism and Christianity as essentially linear, in that they proceed in a defined historical context from a beginning to an end (certainly traditional Christianity does, anyway). It's the Eastern religions that always struck me as circular in their view of time, what with those symmetrical mandalas and all.

ColoradoGuy

09-07-2009, 04:21 AM

Hey uhhh, wasn't the Nobel the result of a man who messed around with nitroglycerin and invented dynamite? A pacifist who invented explosives. LOL! I love it. :D.

Gehanna
Yes, I think the reason for his establishment of the prizes was in some sense to atone for that. Nobel's discoveries made possible many useful things, but they also led to an immediate quantum leap in the destructive force of artillery shells, for one example. The fruits of Nobel's discovery led to 70% of all casualties in World War I.

Ruv Draba

09-07-2009, 05:32 AM

Not to pick on Semi's or anyone else's logic here but it's a recognised problem in rational thinking to take something where we know we have ignorance (e.g. how the first life formed) and then fill it with whatever we'd most like to believe.

If we seek to serve truth rather than just our prejudices we need to try and explore options thoroughly. For instance, a scientist might need to consider three broad classes of answers:

Life formed spontaneously -- we're just not sure the mechanism yet
Life was introduced from somewhere else -- we just don't know how yet
Neither of the above
In practice, scientists will first try to thoroughly explore 1) and 2) before considering 3, because it's hard to know how to investigate 3 at all.

There are in fact scientific lines of enquiry on 1) and 2) and both look quite promising. For instance, proteins can appear spontaneously from precursor acids -- you just have to keep them in the dark for around 20 years for this to happen. Likewise there are some interesting and unexpected things found in the tails of comets and in the stone of meteors. It's still entirely possible that life-precursors are so abundant in the universe that far from being inexplicable, life on earthlike planets is almost inevitable. It may be our understanding of mechanisms and probabilities that is in error.

At what point do scientists get to 3)? They'll only do so if either avenues 1) and 2) are utterly exhausted, or if 3) offers a new testable premise. Else they'll simply say 'We don't know'.

It's very important from a position of scientific integrity to admit when we don't know. This is where religions and science often come to grief. Religions have difficulty separating dogma (which they normally hold incontestable) with scientific knowledge (which is highly contested and scrutinised). When religion tries to insert its own lore into scientific lore it can make for great poetry but it generally makes for bad science.

Gehanna

09-07-2009, 06:28 AM

Yes, I think the reason for his establishment of the prizes was in some sense to atone for that.

Atonement and/or the influence of a woman.

Nobel's discoveries made possible many useful things, but they also led to an immediate quantum leap in the destructive force of artillery shells, for one example. The fruits of Nobel's discovery led to 70% of all casualties in World War I.

**Please read the following with a neutral tone otherwise it will come off as being rude.**

In keeping with Ruv Draba's logic, as I perceive it, would it be correct for me to respond to the above with the following, "This atrocity was caused by science." Or, am I way off base? If I am way off base, would Ruv or someone else please help me understand why?

As a heretic, I need all the help I can get.

Gehanna

ColoradoGuy

09-07-2009, 06:39 AM

In keeping with Ruv Draba's logic, as I perceive it, would it be correct for me to respond to the above with the following, "This atrocity was caused by science." Or, am I way off base? If I am way off base, would Ruv or someone else please help me understand why?
I think it would be more correct to say I've pointed out an association that may or may not reflect causality. I'm sure plenty would still have been killed in WW I with old-fashioned cannon balls.

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 07:08 AM

Interesting you'd say that. In the largest sense (putting aside questions of atonement like the one you raised) I'd always thought of both Judaism and Christianity as essentially linear, in that they proceed in a defined historical context from a beginning to an end (certainly traditional Christianity does, anyway). It's the Eastern religions that always struck me as circular in their view of time, what with those symmetrical mandalas and all.

Well it's not like we believe that if you give it enough time, we'll meet Shakespeare again. It's more on a spiritual level than anything.

Not to pick on Semi's or anyone else's logic here but it's a recognised problem in rational thinking to take something where we know we have ignorance (e.g. how the first life formed) and then fill it with whatever we'd most like to believe.

If we seek to serve truth rather than just our prejudices we need to try and explore options thoroughly. For instance, a scientist might need to consider three broad classes of answers:

Life formed spontaneously -- we're just not sure the mechanism yet
Life was introduced from somewhere else -- we just don't know how yet
Neither of the above

In practice, scientists will first try to thoroughly explore 1) and 2) before considering 3, because it's hard to know how to investigate 3 at all.

There are in fact scientific lines of enquiry on 1) and 2) and both look quite promising. For instance, proteins can appear spontaneously from precursor acids -- you just have to keep them in the dark for around 20 years for this to happen. Likewise there are some interesting and unexpected things found in the tails of comets and in the stone of meteors. It's still entirely possible that life-precursors are so abundant in the universe that far from being inexplicable, life on earthlike planets is almost inevitable. It may be our understanding of mechanisms and probabilities that is in error.

At what point do scientists get to 3)? They'll only do so if either avenues 1) and 2) are utterly exhausted, or if 3) offers a new testable premise. Else they'll simply say 'We don't know'.

It's very important from a position of scientific integrity to admit when we don't know. This is where religions and science often come to grief. Religions have difficulty separating dogma (which they normally hold incontestable) with scientific knowledge (which is highly contested and scrutinised). When religion tries to insert its own lore into scientific lore it can make for great poetry but it generally makes for bad science.

The fact is, it doesn't matter what science says about the creation of life. G-d doesn't work against science, He works through science. The Torah doesn't say that life just appeared fully formed. The story of creation is incredibly vague for a reason. The actual secrets of creation were not written down, even in the Talmud. They are a part of the Oral Torah that only a couple of people know (and there is a chance it was lost), and they are duty bound to keep it a secret.

The story of six days and all that isn't supposed to be taken literally, although many people do. Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rambam all say in their commentaries that the purpose for the plain text of the creation story (including the Garden of Eden) is to provide something Israel could point to when the nations accused them of plundering and occupation. G-d created the world and Eden and then drove out Adam and Chava because they sinned. So too did G-d eventually drive out the Canaanites and the other 6 nations because they sinned.

I think it would be more correct to say I've pointed out an association that may or may not reflect causality. I'm sure plenty would still have been killed in WW I with old-fashioned cannon balls.

The civil war was pretty brutal with just cannon balls.

Gehanna

09-07-2009, 07:38 AM

A statistician might say something like, "You think you know something until you do the numbers." lol

Cannon balls - another scientific creation.

More correct? I do not understand more correct. Is that a scientific or religious principle?

I am not trying to provoke you ColoradoGuy. Truth is, I am lousy at writing gently.

My preference, still, is to say that man (which includes women), not science or religion, is to blame for the good or bad they choose to do.

Do I think I am right and all of you are wrong? No, I just prefer the logic in my statement better than any of yours and would be willing to trade it in for something better, if found. Mind you, I am only speaking of logic. Some things I'll not give up, for better or worse.

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-07-2009, 07:46 AM

In keeping with Ruv Draba's logic, as I perceive it, would it be correct for me to respond to the above with the following, "This atrocity was caused by science."The cause of murder is our desire to kill. The means of murder can be dynamite, a pointed stick or our teeth. Humans cause atrocities, but technology magnifies them.

Science has often been described as amoral but I don't entirely agree. Our primary objective in science is to acquire knowledge, but a strong reason we pursue knowledge is self-interest. We study medicine because we don't want to be sick. We study weather because we want to live safely and for our crops to grow. A lot of science is done with some particular benefit in mind. In other words, a lot of it is intended for the good and that's evident when you talk to scientists. They like interesting problems, but they also like the idea that their knowledge will help someone. But science doesn't distinguish between private and public benefit. Arming myself may increase my security but decrease yours.

Historically, science has a tradition of sharing its lore -- partly because science benefits from broad collaboration, partly because trading in knowledge is very lucrative. Historically, humanity has been a major beneficiary of that sharing.

Curiously, many of the motives that drive us toward religion (a desire to be safe, healthy, well-fed, prosperous, have good relationships) also drive us toward science. Science and religion have been natural competitors in delivering certain human benefits -- and science has been winning hands-down on anything tangible and systematisable. Religion lost its hold of the heavens with Galileo, of medicine with the germ theory, of genesis with geology and archaeology, of weather with meteorology and so on...

Religious apologists now spend their time denying that their religions ever made literal claims of how stuff works (generally untrue), trying to inject mysticism in the whitespace between scientific statements (which always looks a bit self-demeaning to me) or trying to prove that scientific discoveries were prophesied (generally obscurantist and hard to swallow, not to mention credit-theft and blatant metooism).

It just seems to me that this is the wrong approach for religion to take. Religion is poetry, inspiration and if it's done well, kindness and compassion. The universe is a wonderous place and if a faith wants to revere it as an artefact of God then I think they should be able to, as long as they're not arrogant or silly enough to say how God built it.

Religion is also about creating vision for how people should live. Science doesn't attempt to do that. It has something to say about what people want and need and why they want or need it, but it has nothing to say about how we should balance wants and needs, or my needs with yours.

Religion has always had thoughtful, often very insightful things to say about such balancing. (In fairness, philosophy has had too.) Religion is not the only game in town in shaping vision for life, but it's our most poetic vision-making activity. As soon as it can get over its supremacism, triumphalism, envy, xenophobia and outright fraudulent grabs at authority (built historically on utterly false claims on how stuff works) I think and hope it should see a renaissance.

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 07:59 AM

Science has often been described as amoral but I don't entirely agree. Our primary objective in science is to acquire knowledge, but a strong reason we pursue knowledge is self-interest. We study medicine because we don't want to be sick. We study weather because we want to live safely and for our crops to grow. A lot of science is done with some particular benefit in mind. In other words, a lot of it is intended for the good and that's evident when you talk to scientists. They like interesting problems, but they also like the idea that their knowledge will help someone. But science doesn't distinguish between private and public benefit. Arming myself may increase my security but decrease yours.

I doubt many scientists are actively pursuing knowledge with the intent to use it for "evil." I think most scientists really want to further scientific knowledge in the hope that it will do some good to someone somewhere.

Curiously, many of the motives that drive us toward religion (a desire to be safe, healthy, well-fed, prosperous, have good relationships) also drive us toward science. Science and religion have been natural competitors in delivering certain human benefits -- and science has been winning hands-down on anything tangible and systematisable.

I don't see that at all.

Religion lost its hold of the heavens with Galileo,

Science is able to provide us with so much knowledge of the universe and how it works, but it still can't explain why. How is great, but people want why, and that's why 95% of the world believes in a god of some sort.

of medicine with the germ theory,

Xtians have definitely lost control of medicine. Judaism's view of medicine has traditionally been "consult your physician and then get back to me." This hasn't changed.

of genesis with geology and archaeology,

Archeology and geology have proven that a huge deluge took place, that the earth started out without a definitive form, and that oceans covered the planet in its early stages. They have also shown that life started in water and then moved onto land. None of that is in conflict with the Torah.

I think it's probably in conflict with Xtian belief though, as they tend to be super literal with Genesis 1-3 when they shouldn't be.

of weather with meteorology and so on...

Weather? When did religion claim to control the weather?

Religious apologists now spend their time denying that their religions ever made literal claims of how stuff works (generally untrue),

Except that the 3 giants of Torah scholarship all claimed that Genesis was not to be taken literally way before any of the scientific breakthroughs happened (Rashi died in 1105, Rambam in 1204, and Ramban in 1270--Copernicus wasn't even born until 1473).

trying to inject mysticism in the whitespace between scientific statements (which always looks a bit self-demeaning to me) or trying to prove that scientific discoveries were prophesied (generally obscurantist and hard to credit).

Give me an example of this.

It just seems to me that this is the wrong approach for religion to take. Religion is poetry, inspiration and if it's done well, kindness and compassion. The universe is a wonderous place and if a faith wants to revere it as an artefact of God then I think they should be able to, as long as they're not arrogant or silly enough to say how God built it.

The Torah tells us that G-d created the universe. We don't know how, and we're not supposed to speculate. There are a few people who know, but it is beyond the comprehension of any of us.

Religion is also about creating vision for how people should live. Science doesn't attempt to do that. It has something to say about what people want and need and why they want or need it, but it has nothing to say about how we should balance wants and needs, or my needs with yours.

Religion has always had thoughtful, often very insightful things to say about such balancing. (In fairness, philosophy has had too.) Religion is not the only game in town in shaping vision for life, but it's our most poetic vision-making activity. As soon as it can get over its supremacism, triumphalism, envy, xenophobia and outright fraudulent grabs at authority (built historically on utterly false claims on how stuff works) I think and hope it should see a renaissance.

More accusations without examples.

Gehanna

09-07-2009, 08:18 AM

Will you excuse me while I beat my head into a concrete slab? OH wait! I think I now understand the concept of more correct.

Example:

Men rape women - a correct statement.

Men who feel powerless rape women - a more correct statement.

Am I getting the hang of it?

Religion is also about creating vision for how people should live.

While science is about creating vision for how people should think? yes, no

Religion and Science are both beginning to look like a means of forced control to me. :guns:

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 08:27 AM

Will you excuse me while I beat my head into a concrete slab? OH wait! I think I now understand the concept of more correct.

Example:

Men rape women - a correct statement.

Men who feel powerless rape women - a more correct statement.

Am I getting the hang of it?

More correct just means more accurate. Example: A square and a rectangle are the same--actually, it would be more correct to say that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle doesn't have to be a square.

While science is about creating vision for how people should think? yes, no Science doesn't care what you think. It's just telling you its version of the truth.

Religion and Science are both beginning to look like a means of forced control to me. :guns:

Gehanna

I'm sure some in both camps want control, but that's not the core of either.

Gehanna

09-07-2009, 08:45 AM

I agree, Science doesn't care what a person thinks, only people care about what people think.

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-07-2009, 09:09 AM

While science is about creating vision for how people should think? Science is both a discipline and some lore that the discipline has produced. To be a scientist you don't have to accept all the lore, but you must understand the discipline and practice it. No ifs or buts. If we don't do that then we're just clowns in lab-coats.

Most people don't want to be scientists and shouldn't have to be. On the other hand, I believe that anyone who offers expert professional advice (from social-workers to financial planners, priests and astrologers) needs a sound foundation in science, and the same ethical standards to which accountants, engineers and scientists are held. Entertainers don't need to be scientists, but professionals do.

Religion and Science are both beginning to look like a means of forced control to me.Science proceeds by enquiry and disagreement, so if you force someone to believe something then you're not doing science. On the other hand, science doesn't accommodate beliefs that are contradicted by physical evidence. Poetically it might be tolerable to claim that the earth is flat. Scientifically it's not.

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 09:21 AM

It's not anymore you mean.

Ruv Draba

09-07-2009, 09:30 AM

Science is able to provide us with so much knowledge of the universe and how it works, but it still can't explain why. How is great, but people want why, and that's why 95% of the world believes in a god of some sort.Actually the secular population is rated at around 1.1B, so around 16% don't believe in much at all*. Of the balance, some have spirits and not deities.

*Added: This figure counts people of no religion. About half of them are theists, and half non-theists.

From a personal perspective I feel that if the answer to 'why' is 'gods', then there's something wrong with the question. :)

Weather? When did religion claim to control the weather?Farmers and sailors the world over have prayed for good weather since ancient times. Many still do. Some deities like Zeus and Poseidon had weather specifically listed in their deific portfolios.

Give me an example of this.Intelligent Design (the Christian revisionist version) and the prophecies of Nostradamus.

More accusations without examples.I didn't mention examples because I thought we'd all know them, but here they are...

Supremacism: faiths prophesying the destruction of other faiths and the elevation of their own. Triumphalism: faiths gloating over the destruction of their enemies. Envy: faiths squabbling over land, taxes, social privilege and adherents. Xenophobia: faiths finding scriptural bases for ethnic or religious discrimination. Fraudulent grabs at authority: strident claims of divinely-mandated truths about how stuff works that subsequently prove to be false.

Alas, but religious history is full of such stuff. Human history is too of course, but religions have been neck-deep in it. I think it adds nothing to the value of the religion to be wallowing in such muck. If you think that I'm saying all religions suffer this all the time, I'm not, but to me the history of world religious thought has been a history of slowly-emerging wisdom marred by scurrilous politics, closed-minded ignorance and egregious self-interest.

Ruv Draba

09-07-2009, 09:34 AM

It's not anymore you mean.Correct. Not tolerable any more because evidence has moved on. Tolerable once upon a time because contrary evidence hadn't been assembled.

Mac H.

09-07-2009, 02:51 PM

The story of six days and all that isn't supposed to be taken literally, although many people do.Agreed - there are many people who take it literally.

And when I speak to them, they are sure that it should be taken literally.

When I speak to you, you are sure that it isn't supposed to be taken literally.

It seems that whenever we decide that part of the Torah is wrong, we simply reclassify that part as being 'non-literal', thus preserving its accuracy.

That doesn't seem like an effective way of discovering truth about the universe.

Mac

semilargeintestine

09-07-2009, 07:53 PM

Actually the secular population is rated at around 1.1B, so around 16% don't believe in much at all. Of the balance, some have spirits and not deities.

I was mistaken. It is actually 12% that are non-religious. I was almost positive I had seen something somewhere that said 95% are at least believing in a deity. Still, when 88% of the world professes to believe something that gives them a why instead of just a how, there you go.

From a personal perspective I feel that if the answer to 'why' is 'gods', then there's something wrong with the question. :)

Not at all. The why is not as simply as G-d. We will never know the why. Why was the universe created? Because G-d wanted to create it. Why did He want to do that? We can't know, and we shouldn't bother ourselves trying to figure it out--He isn't human and doesn't have human emotions, so we'll never understand.

Farmers and sailors the world over have prayed for good weather since ancient times. Many still do. Some deities like Zeus and Poseidon had weather specifically listed in their deific portfolios.

Gotcha. Yes, we pray that G-d will give us rain when we need it and not when it would be detrimental.

Intelligent Design (the Christian revisionist version) and the prophecies of Nostradamus.

I'm not entirely familiar with the Xtian version of ID. I believe in a literal creation. I believe that G-d literally created everything. But I don't know how, and while I believe it is in the Torah, I believe that it takes someone with complete understanding of the Torah to be able to see it--that's not me.

I didn't mention examples because I thought we'd all know them, but here they are...

Supremacism: faiths prophesying the destruction of other faiths and the elevation of their own.

I wanted specific examples. You have claimed Judaism is supremacist, yet our Torah tells us very specifically that we are not to think we were given the land of Israel because of our merits. Our entire nation right now is waiting anxiously for Moshiach so that there will be an end to war and all nations will live in peace--there is no destruction there. I wanted a specific example of how Judaism is supremacist.

I agree that many religions are though. That I definitely agree with, and I think it is a big problem right now.

Triumphalism: faiths gloating over the destruction of their enemies.

We have many holidays that are celebrations of our victories over our enemies; however, they all have one thing in common--our enemies were only our enemies because they attacked us first. Hanukkah is the celebration of the Macabees retaking the Temple and defeating the Hellenizers. Purim is about Esther convincing the King that the Jews could defend themselves against a nation who planned on eliminating them.

There are certainly religions who do this though, I agree.

Envy: faiths squabbling over land, taxes, social privilege and adherents.

Well, while I can't really deny this, I don't think it's envy. We were put into Israel over 3,000 years ago. We have been attacked and forcibly removed (almost completely--luckily, some Jews have always lived in Israel). I think it's a little understandable that we're kind of annoyed now that we've finally gotten back to our homeland and a bunch of people who could care less about it 60 years ago now want us dead and out.

Xenophobia: faiths finding scriptural bases for ethnic or religious discrimination.

Many people have claimed Judaism is racist because we don't date or marry outside of Judaism, and marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew are not recognised by Judaism or the State of Israel. Besides the fact that it says very clearly in the Torah that we are forbidden from marrying outside of Judaism and the fact that Judaism is not a race, it has been shown that children of mixed marriages are less likely to remain Jewish.

The intermarriage rate is nearly 50% now for non-Orthodox Jews, while it is only 3% for Orthodox Jews. The children of a marriage where only one parent is Jewish and is not Orthodox have an 86% chance of choosing to practice a religion other than Judaism. By 2076, the American Jewish population will lose 85-98% of its population unless current trends are reversed; however, that statistic applies almost exclusively to secular, reform, and conservative Jews. The trend is actually the opposite for Orthodox Jews. What this means is that within three generations, while our population in America will be significantly lower, the vast majority of us will be Orthodox. With a birthrate of around 5 kids per family, Orthodox Judaism will rebound and once again be dominant.

We'd much rather have the other sects return to Judaism, but at the rate it's going, that's not likely to happen on a mass scale. More Jews are becoming baalei teshuvah than ever before, but more Jews are also eating non-kosher and not keeping Shabbos than ever before.

Fraudulent grabs at authority: strident claims of divinely-mandated truths about how stuff works that subsequently prove to be false.

Not sure about specific examples here. Judaism maintains that Hashem creates everything for a reason. People pointed to the appendix as proof that evolution disproved the Bible, but three years ago they discovered that the appendix is an active part of the immune system. Unfortunately, the Xtian version of the Bible has proclaimed things as ridiculous as a flat earth, a geocentric universe (which actually, thanks to relativity, is a legitimate way to view the universe), and a myriad of ludicrous medical teachings. I have no idea where they got any of that stuff, because none of it is in the Torah.

Alas, but religious history is full of such stuff. Human history is too of course, but religions have been neck-deep in it. I think it adds nothing to the value of the religion to be wallowing in such muck. If you think that I'm saying all religions suffer this all the time, I'm not, but to me the history of world religious thought has been a history of slowly-emerging wisdom marred by scurrilous politics, closed-minded ignorance and egregious self-interest.

I agree to an extent.

Correct. Not tolerable any more because evidence has moved on. Tolerable once upon a time because contrary evidence hadn't been assembled.

Exactly my point. ;)

Agreed - there are many people who take it literally.

And when I speak to them, they are sure that it should be taken literally.

When I speak to you, you are sure that it isn't supposed to be taken literally.

It seems that whenever we decide that part of the Torah is wrong, we simply reclassify that part as being 'non-literal', thus preserving its accuracy.

That doesn't seem like an effective way of discovering truth about the universe.

Mac

I guess you didn't read my posts earlier. Let me make it clear.

Relativity and the Big Bang/Inflationary Theory were not published until the 20th century. In fact, the concept of a heliocentric universe did not come into being (in the mainstream community) until the 15th century.

Rashi, the premier Torah scholar, said in his commentary to Genesis that the story of Creation was not a literal account. He wrote that in the 11th century.

Rambam, one of the greatest scholars we have, and whose works we desparately try to conform our views to because he was so brilliant, said in HIS commentary that the Creation story in Genesis (and actually much of the Torah) was not to be taken as a literal account. He wrote that in the 12th century.

The Ramban, who is the third in a trio of amazing scholars, wrote pages upon pages about how the story of Creation is merely a general account that is not supposed to be taken literally, but it meant to show the soverignty of G-d. He wrote that in the 13th century.

All three of them cited other Sages who said the exact same thing--that it is not supposed to be taken literally. They wrote these things 200-400 years before the concept of the Earth going around the sun was even introduced by the scientific community (I say scientific community because we have a midrash written a little bit before Rashi that says that the Earth moves around the sun and rotates to create night on one side and day on the other).

Sorry, but your argument has no basis in reality.

ETA: Xtians may have been saying it is supposed to be taken literally, but the majority Jewish opinion has always been that it should not be taken literally for over a thousand years at least (Rashi quoted people in the Talmud who lived long before him), for I'm absolutely sure that Moshe learned from G-d that it was not a literal account and taught that to the rest of the Jews, since the Talmud has accounts of Rabbeim saying the same thing during the First Temple period (~4th century BCE).

Don't forget that the Torah (the OT) is the Jewish Bible. Who do you think has a more authoritative view on the book given to the Jewish people and studied by the Jewish people for the last 3300 years? The Jews or the Xtians?

Ruv Draba

09-08-2009, 12:09 AM

Still, when 88% of the world professes to believe something that gives them a why instead of just a how, there you go.I'm not sure why people believe in deities. The reasons are probably complex, and if you've seen a study on a global scale I'd be interested to read it. To be honest though I've never seen 'why' as a big benefit of religion. 'Because God wanted it' seems no better answer to why than 'Because it is', and in many ways I think it's worse. You allude to this yourself in your answer...
We can't know, and we shouldn't bother ourselves trying to figure it out--He isn't human and doesn't have human emotions, so we'll never understand
Adding an arbitrary being who now seems to inexplicably want stuff only seems to complicate our understanding -- it was that which made me say earlier that if the answer to why is "gods" then we're probably asking the wrong question. :)

Perhaps the benefits I see most valued by my religious friends are answers to 'how' questions: 'How should I live?' 'How can I hope to have a better life?' 'How can I be sure that my enemies will be punished?' 'How can I hope that nothing nasty will happen to me tomorrow?' 'How can I be sure that everything good I do will be rewarded?'

Those are understandable concerns. Theology offers some answers, philosophy offers some others. In my personal view, philosphy and religion can both get the answers wrong; but I like philosophy better because it's more accountable for its wrongness, takes emerging sciences (like psychology, sociology) into better account, and is much easier to improve on than religion is.

I'm not entirely familiar with the Xtian version of ID.Well I won't detail it here unless someone cares. It's been a recent Christian fundamentalist response to losing the debate over evolution. The argument is similar to your argument about the formation of proteins -- it claims that there are organs in some animals that couldn't possibly have emerged via evolution. They must have been designed intelligently. Then they find these funny little organs in insects and say 'what about that, eh'?

It's a broken argument, but in the end, does it matter? I've never met a single theist who embraced religion because it had a great genesis myth. It's just not worth arguing over.
I believe in a literal creation. I believe that G-d literally created everything. But I don't know howI don't worry about such things. I'm not even sure that the question is meaningful, but I do know that if a being somehow created everything (ignoring the illogicality of that), that doesn't make the being my god. Still, if it helps to believe such a thing, 'I don't know how' is the very humblest, most honest and safest answer you could give and I commend you on it. :D 'It's in the Torah somewhere' seems a bit more dangerous because you've just consigned generations of future Judaic scholars to explaining every little thing we find out in terms of an ancient genesis myth. I think that's a senseless waste of their time. I'd hope that they'd spend their time instead working out how we could all improve each others' lives.

I wanted specific examples.Semi, if you were utterly honest I think you'd admit that you'd want me to talk about Judaism 80% of the time. :) Sorry, but I won't. Feel free to comment all you want about Judaism. I'll probably read it, but I may not respond to it.

With respect to whether my general comments about religion apply to Judaism, feel free to explore that if it interests you -- I'll probably read your comments but I'm unlikely to respond. But even if none of my comments applied to Judaism, it's still only 0.22% of world religious belief, so my comments may well still be valid in general. (Or if they're not, you'd probably have to pick a handful of non-Judaic examples to contest them. :))

If you want to engage me on Judaism, you can do so by appealing to my humanistic leanings. You've done that several times already. :D
I wanted a specific example of how Judaism is supremacist.Based on our experiences to date Semi, I can safely say that there are topics that you and I can never discuss, and my views on possible problems with Judaism are among them. On the other hand we can safely discuss things I like about Judaism, and commiserate with each other about things that are wrong with the rest of the world, so it's not like we have nothing to talk about. :)
In fact, the concept of a heliocentric universe did not come into being (in the mainstream community) until the 15th century.Heliocentrism had been kicking around the ancient world all over the place:

"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."

"At the center, [the Pythagoreans] say, is fire, and the Earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the center."
Bablyonian astronomers apparently picked it up from the Greeks too, so perhaps Jewish scholars had also heard of it well before the Middle Ages.

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 12:25 AM

I'm not sure why people believe in deities. The reasons are probably complex, and if you've seen a study on a global scale I'd be interested to read it. To be honest though I've never seen 'why' as a big benefit of religion. 'Because God wanted it' seems no better answer to why than 'Because it is', and in many ways I think it's worse. You allude to this yourself in your answer...

Adding an arbitrary being who now seems to inexplicably want stuff only seems to complicate our understanding -- it was that which made me say earlier that if the answer to why is "gods" then we're probably asking the wrong question. :)

Perhaps the benefits I see most valued by my religious friends are answers to 'how' questions: 'How should I live?' 'How can I hope to have a better life?' 'How can I be sure that my enemies will be punished?' 'How can I hope that nothing nasty will happen to me tomorrow?' 'How can I be sure that everything good I do will be rewarded?'

Those are understandable concerns. Theology offers some answers, philosophy offers some others. In my personal view, philosphy and religion can both get the answers wrong; but I like philosophy better because it's more accountable for its wrongness, takes emerging sciences (like psychology, sociology) into better account, and is much easier to improve on than religion is.

Agreed for the most part. I don't think the why of creation is necessary to contemplate. My point was just that lots of people are curious, and science can't answer it. That's all.

Well I won't detail it here unless someone cares. It's been a recent Christian fundamentalist response to losing the debate over evolution. The argument is similar to your argument about the formation of proteins -- it claims that there are organs in some animals that couldn't possibly have emerged via evolution. They must have been designed intelligently. Then they find these funny little organs in insects and say 'what about that, eh'?

There are things fundamentally wrong with the argument, but in the end, does it matter? I've never met a single theist who embraced religion because it had a great genesis myth. It's just not worth arguing over.

Yes, well finding arbitrary things to prove your theory isn't science. I think G-d created everything as He saw fit, but I don't think that discounts evolution. There is no reason why He could not have used evolution to fashion the universe. In fact, there is far more evidence in the Torah--even to my untrained eye--that He did use evolution. Xtians tend to misinterpret the Torah in an astounding way.

I don't worry about such things. I'm not even sure that the question is meaningful, but I do know that if a being somehow created everything (ignoring the illogicality of that), that doesn't make the being my god. Still, if it helps to believe such a thing, 'I don't know how' is the very humblest, most honest and safest answer you could give and I commend you on it. :D 'It's in the Torah somewhere' seems a bit more dangerous because you've just consigned generations of future Judaic scholars to explaining every little thing we find out in terms of an ancient genesis myth. I think that's a senseless waste of their time. I'd hope that they'd spend their time instead working out how we could all improve each others' lives.

Where is the illogicality of something creating the universe? G-d is not a being in the sense that we use it. It is not like a person sitting there and creating a clay pot. Words like "created" and "formed" are used because that is all we have to understand what happened. When the first two hydrogen atoms fused to make helium, that was G-d forming helium. How does he do it? We can never know, and we shouldn't think about it. Wondering about those things is not how we should spend our lives.

The scholars aren't going to contemplate that no matter what I say. There are a few people who know, but the rest of us just understand that it is not for us to ponder (we're actually forbidden from pondering what was present before the universe, and we're not supposed to delve too deeply into creation). We're too busy trying to bring Moshiach.

Semi, if you were utterly honest I think you'd admit that you'd want me to talk about Judaism 80% of the time. :) Sorry, but I won't. Feel free to comment all you want about Judaism. I'll probably read it, but I may not respond to it.

With respect to whether my general comments about religion apply to Judaism, feel free to explore that if it interests you -- I'll probably read your comments but I'm unlikely to respond. But even if none of my comments applied to Judaism, it's still only 0.22% of world religious belief, so my comments may well still be valid in general. (Or if they're not, you'd probably have to pick a handful of non-Judaic examples to contest them. :))

They're totally valid. I just know absolutely (or next to) nothing about the other religions, so I can't comment on them. I thought it would be beneficial to respond from a Jewish perspective. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, so I assumed that was fine. If not, I apologise. I won't have anything to add otherwise though. :D

If you want to engage me on Judaism, you can do so by appealing to my humanistic leanings. You've done that several times already. :D
Based on our experiences to date Semi, I can safely say that there are topics that you and I can never discuss, and my views on possible problems with Judaism are among them. On the other hand we can safely discuss things I like about Judaism, and commiserate with each other about things that are wrong with the rest of the world, so it's not like we have nothing to talk about. :)
Heliocentrism had been kicking around the ancient world all over the place:

That's what I was trying to say. Religions aren't necessarily backtracking and saying things shouldn't be taken literally now that science has "proven" something. People have been saying that for a while.

Bablyonian astronomers apparently picked it up from the Greeks too, so perhaps Jewish scholars had also heard of it well before the Middle Ages.

The midrash about the Earth going around the sun was before the Babylonian exile, so I doubt it.

Ruv Draba

09-08-2009, 12:58 AM

Yes, well finding arbitrary things to prove your theory isn't science.I agree. It's also rather weak religion to pick and choose evidence. I like religions that just accept whatever's there, whether it fits dogma or not.
Where is the illogicality of something creating the universe?This is one of those boring old discussions I'd rather dig my eye out with a parfait spoon than indulge in. Let me just type out the whole argument and save us the effort of multiple posts.

Theist: God created the Universe
Skeptic: Who created God?
Theist: God's outside the Universe. Nobody created God.
Skeptic: Then how can it be the Universe if it doesn't include its own creator?
Theist: God created it -- everything.
Skeptic: Don't you see what you've done? You've just swapped one imponderable that we can at least explore, for another that we can't even fathom.
Theist: Well how do you think the Universe got created?
Skeptic: I don't even know that it's a meaningful question.
Theist: There! You can't explain it, but you don't want to admit that God did it.
Skeptic: Cretin
Theist: Moron

There. All done. :tongue
I thought it would be beneficial to respond from a Jewish perspective.It's sometimes interesting, and it may interest someone else even if I'm not interested. Just as long as you recognise that 'religion' doesn't mean 'Judaism' and that my general commentary isn't aimed at your particular faith some (or indeed any) of the time, I'm happy.

That's what I was trying to say. Religions aren't necessarily backtracking and saying things shouldn't be taken literally now that science has "proven" something. People have been saying that for a while.I don't know how Jewish people interpret their genesis myth but historically, most religions interpret their myths literally until they can't do so any more. In some estoteric religions the myth is meant to be a spiritual guide, but those religions usually take the trouble to tell you so in their own texts before you get very far.

Religions have to deal with broken dogma periodically. Sometimes dogma is broken due to its own inconsistency. Sometimes it's broken because of undesireable implications. Sometimes emerging knowledge shows the dogma to be flawed.

Religions that use their dogma to assert authority over people have much more trouble changing it than religions that use their dogma to help people. 'Trust me -- all this is true' claims infallibility. On the other hand 'Well, this is what we think and I hope it helps' just claims good intentions. In the long term, good intentions are easy to sustain; infallibility is virtually impossible. The world is very good at exposing our ignorance and silliness. Ignorant leaders who pretend to infallibility end up playing politics, persecuting heretics and intimidating skeptics just to maintain the pretence.

For me, it comes down to a simple ethical question: do you serve the truth or do you serve the dogma? If you serve the truth then you're genuinely trying to help people and you get a big tick from me even if your dogma is wrong. If you serve dogma then you're really just trying to help yourself, and you get a wrinkled nose from me, even if the dogma hasn't started to show its blemishes yet.

AMCrenshaw

09-08-2009, 01:36 AM

*On the subject of 'why religion', check out Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 02:00 AM

This is one of those boring old discussions I'd rather dig my eye out with a parfait spoon than indulge in. Let me just type out the whole argument and save us the effort of multiple posts.

There. All done. :tongue

That's cute, but not the Jewish view. Judaism says that everything in the universe is part of G-d. He also exists outside of it in another realm, but the universe is part of Him.

However, I understand that a lot of people think that way though.

It's sometimes interesting, and it may interest someone else even if I'm not interested. Just as long as you recognise that 'religion' doesn't mean 'Judaism' and that my general commentary isn't aimed at your particular faith some (or indeed any) of the time, I'm happy.

Yeah, I just can't respond with any other viewpoint. Even if it's obvious that your statement doesn't apply to Judaism, I think it's useful to point out the differences between Judaism and pretty much every other religion.

I don't know how Jewish people interpret their genesis myth but historically, most religions interpret their myths literally until they can't do so any more. In some estoteric religions the myth is meant to be a spiritual guide, but those religions usually take the trouble to tell you so in their own texts before you get very far.

We interpret the story of Creation to be a message from G-d that He created the universe and rules over it. He created paradise, put people in it, and when they sinned, he banished them. I personally think it is a story told to us by G-d so that the nations would know that when they were taken out of Israel so the Jews could have it that it was because they did something to upset G-d. (this view is supported by Chazal--the sages I mention a lot).

Religions have to deal with broken dogma periodically. Sometimes dogma is broken due to its own inconsistency. Sometimes it's broken because of undesireable implications. Sometimes emerging knowledge shows the dogma to be flawed.

Or maybe it just appears to be broken because people who shouldn't be interpreting it speak about it like they know what they're talking about. That's a big problem with the Torah. Priests go on and on about the Torah like they understand it, but they don't. As such, people now equate the "Old Testament" with religious dogma that doesn't make sense.

Religions that use their dogma to assert authority over people have much more trouble changing it than religions that use their dogma to help people. 'Trust me -- all this is true' claims infallibility. On the other hand 'Well, this is what we think and I hope it helps' just claims good intentions. In the long term, good intentions are easy to sustain; infallibility is virtually impossible. The world is very good at exposing our ignorance and silliness. Ignorant leaders who pretend to infallibility end up playing politics, persecuting heretics and intimidating skeptics just to maintain the pretence.

That's one of the things I love about Judaism. We don't care if the world converts to Judaism. In fact, we don't want it to. We really don't even care if they believe in the Torah. All we want is to show people how to live a good life and hope that they take some if it for themselves.

For me, it comes down to a simple ethical question: do you serve the truth or do you serve the dogma? If you serve the truth then you're genuinely trying to help people and you get a big tick from me even if your dogma is wrong. If you serve dogma then you're really just trying to help yourself, and you get a wrinkled nose from me, even if the dogma hasn't started to show its blemishes yet.

For me, the dogma is the truth. When I follow the word of G-d, I'm serving the truth. The purpose of it all is what we call tikkun olam--repairing the world. We want to bring Moshiach so he can create world peace, and we can all live with G-d's presence once again.

Ruv Draba

09-08-2009, 02:38 AM

Or maybe it just appears to be broken because people who shouldn't be interpreting it speak about it like they know what they're talking about.One of the political games some leaders play is to say 'You shouldn't interpret these beliefs unless you're part of the inner circle'. Priests say this to laiety, the faithful say this to the infidels, the uber-priests say it to the priests...

I'm horribly iconoclastic. I don't believe that esoteric truths are truths at all. If we can't explain something simply then we don't understand it. If we don't understand it then we shouldn't claim it for a truth. And if we can explain something simply, then anyone can learn it by stages so there's no need for sekrit inner circles and the like. In my wanderings I've come across some fairly complex thinking, including thought that seems paradoxical at times. None of it has ever been too complex to explain at a dinner-party if we put some time into understanding it.

For me, the dogma is the truth.Another part of my iconoclasty -- for me the truth is the truth; dogma is just an attempt to understand it. Truth shows no great sign of changing, but dogma can screw up any time. I believe that no dogma is sacred unless someone makes us too scared to question it. The job of dogma is to be hit with a hammer to make better dogma, and the job of consciousness (when it's not admiring things and caring about other people and wondering what to do next) is to go around smackin' stuff and buildin' stuff and askin' questions. I can well understand reverence of things that we find, but I don't like revering the things we make because to my mind we can always make better.

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 03:01 AM

One of the political games some leaders play is to say 'You shouldn't interpret these beliefs unless you're part of the inner circle'. Priests say this to laiety, the faithful say this to the infidels, the uber-priests say it to the priests...

I'm horribly iconoclastic. I don't believe that esoteric truths are truths at all. If we can't explain something simply then we don't understand it. If we don't understand it then we shouldn't claim it for a truth. And if we can explain something simply, then anyone can learn it by stages so there's no need for sekrit inner circles and the like. In my wanderings I've come across some fairly complex thinking, including thought that seems paradoxical at times. None of it has ever been too complex to explain at a dinner-party if we put some time into understanding it.

Except that the Torah was written in a very complex manner on purpose. It had to be a living, breathing, evolving work that would last for eternity. And so, while it seems simple, it is actually very complex. As such, the huge body of laws derived from it require a very good understanding of its intricacies and the language it was written in--Biblical Hebrew.

This is not unlike the US constitution. While it appears as a simple document, it is actually very complex. People go to school just to learn about this very short document so that they can effectively interpret it. We have judges that do just that for a living. People have been arguing about the constitution for over 200 years.

Another part of my iconoclasty -- for me the truth is the truth; dogma is just an attempt to understand it. Truth shows no great sign of changing, but dogma can screw up any time. I believe that no dogma is sacred unless someone makes us too scared to question it. The job of dogma is to be hit with a hammer to make better dogma, and the job of consciousness (when it's not admiring things and caring about other people and wondering what to do next) is to go around smackin' stuff and buildin' stuff and askin' questions. I can well understand reverence of things that we find, but I don't like revering the things we make because to my mind we can always make better.

Then you're using the word dogma differently than I am.

Bartholomew

09-08-2009, 03:05 AM

Yes, well finding arbitrary things to prove your theory isn't science. I think G-d created everything as He saw fit, but I don't think that discounts evolution. There is no reason why He could not have used evolution to fashion the universe. In fact, there is far more evidence in the Torah--even to my untrained eye--that He did use evolution. Xtians tend to misinterpret the Torah in an astounding way.

Christians interpret it differently than Jews. Is that necessarily a misinterpretation?

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 03:12 AM

It was given to the Jews for us to follow its rules and become closer to G-d. Xtians interpret it without the Oral Tradition or the various commentaries by Chazal. If they interpret it the same way, there is no problem. Unfortunately, they often don't. That is a misinterpretation.

If--with my little knowledge of constitutional law--I say that the constitution doesn't prevent the government from adopting a national religion, I would be interpreting it differently than those versed in the language and history of the document--and I'd be wrong.

That's not meant to be insulting, just an explanation. Xtians are free to use the Torah as a guide for how Gentiles are supposed to live, because that is included in the book. Aside from a law book, it gives a history of the Jewish people, and Xtianity comes from Judaism. But taking verses from the Torah outside of context and with no knowledge of what it really says (often literally, since they usually don't speak Hebrew) to "interpret" it in a way that is favourable to their religion is not acceptable. If someone did that with anything other than religion, he'd be laughed at; but, the majority of the world is Xtian, so there is no problem with it.

benbradley

09-08-2009, 03:42 AM

I've been following this thread closely, but have yet to post here until now. My contribution here seems especially pertinent with the "take # n + 1" in the title:
....
This is one of those boring old discussions I'd rather dig my eye out with a parfait spoon than indulge in. Let me just type out the whole argument and save us the effort of multiple posts.
<back-and-forth stuff snipped>
...

I'm so reminded of the phrase "It's turtles all the way down!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

Ruv Draba

09-08-2009, 10:03 AM

This is not unlike the US constitution. While it appears as a simple document, it is actually very complex.I'm not an expert on US constitution but I'd disagree. Its text seems to have been put together inside a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution), with most of the arguments over the fine detail of who gets what power when. Which means that any complexity is probably not built in, but emerges from how people subsequently interpret and apply it. Certainly, if you read the constitutions of many countries (I've recently looked at Iran's) it's very clear about what is intended. But that's very common in human thought. Our abiding ideas tend to be simple ones that grow complex as we apply them. The merit is seldom in the complex detail, but in the core ideas. Alas though, esoteric thought (including many religious tracts) don't bother to be clear or explain themselves. Some see that as a sign of deep wisdom, but I don't.
Then you're using the word dogma differently than I am.I think I'm using it in the etymologically correct meaning:

dogma: from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=decent)). Treated in 17c.-18c. as Gk., with pl. dogmata.Dogma isn't inherently sacred or eternal. It's just our opinion of the truth at the time.

Gehanna

09-08-2009, 11:01 AM

Yesterday, I read the posts in this thread and responded to some of them while in a relatively quiet environment. Today, I am fulminating Hard Rock past my tympanics and I can see the light! It is neon and it says, "MEMES"

:wag:

Being serious now. Here's my truth:

# n + 1 = Jesus is King! This truth I came back to after having had my memes removed. ;)

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-08-2009, 02:33 PM

# n + 1 = Jesus is King! This truth I came back to after having had my memes removed.Except the one about Humans Must Be Ruled because they Cannot Rule Themselves. :)

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 06:33 PM

I'm not an expert on US constitution but I'd disagree. Its text seems to have been put together inside a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution), with most of the arguments over the fine detail of who gets what power when. Which means that any complexity is probably not built in, but emerges from how people subsequently interpret and apply it. Certainly, if you read the constitutions of many countries (I've recently looked at Iran's) it's very clear about what is intended. But that's very common in human thought. Our abiding ideas tend to be simple ones that grow complex as we apply them. The merit is seldom in the complex detail, but in the core ideas. Alas though, esoteric thought (including many religious tracts) don't bother to be clear or explain themselves. Some see that as a sign of deep wisdom, but I don't.

Well, in the one constitutional law class that I did take, and my several history courses, the constitution was always painted as being written in a somewhat simplistic and vague way on purpose so that it could evolve with time and things could be derived from it as times changed.

Think about it. They wrote only a few lines on privacy, but we've taken all sorts of things from it, the least of which is still being hotly debated (i.e., abortion). In the Torah, there is one line about boiling a kid in its mother's milk (mentioned three times, but the same line). From that, we have all sorts of laws about meat and milk together (some are part of the Oral tradition which is just as much part of the Torah as the written, but many were derived by the Sages using exegesis and probably the same techniques used by judges today).

I disagree that it was not written in that way purposely. Did they expect the huge amount of things to be taken from it? Maybe not to this extent, but I'm sure they expected that times would change and that the constitution had to be able to cover everything. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to see that?

I think I'm using it in the etymologically correct meaning:
[/I]Dogma isn't inherently sacred or eternal. It's just our opinion of the truth at the time.

Merriam-Webster defines it as the tenets or beliefs of a religion or church. That makes it sacred by definition, or at least by that one. Subtle difference, but important. My definition implies that it is part of church doctrine, which would equate it with the truth (since basic religious beliefs tend to stay pretty solid through time). Yours is more broad, making it simply the belief of the time.

Yesterday, I read the posts in this thread and responded to some of them while in a relatively quiet environment. Today, I am fulminating Hard Rock past my tympanics and I can see the light! It is neon and it says, "MEMES"

:wag:

Being serious now. Here's my truth:

# n + 1 = Jesus is King! This truth I came back to after having had my memes removed. ;)

Gehanna

What the heck is memes?

Gehanna

09-08-2009, 08:06 PM

To Ruv Draba,

I can't speak for all humans, but that isn't exactly correct for me. You used the word "ruled". I would prefer that your perception of me be such that I have chosen to be led. No one forced me and I do not feel controlled.

Below, I will list some of my facts. Would you like to dissect them with me? It has been a while since I had a lab partner. I should tell you though that I once set my chemistry partner's hair on fire with a Bunsen burner. NO! It wasn't intentional. In fact, I managed to ummm *clears throat* safely put out the fire and prevent my partner from being permanently damaged. How did I do it? ... I repeatedly smacked my partner's head to and fro until the blaze subsided. :o *nervous laugh* WELL, it worked, Thank God. :tongue I remember how my partner looked at me before smelling the stench of burnt hair and realizing what had what had happened. Then, I remember how my partner looked at me after realizing what had happened.

Anyway....

Here is the data:

My relationship with and to God began when I was a child.
The first experience of God that I had, although by means of a dream, is also one of the earliest childhood memories I can recall.
Of these childhood memories, I do not recall having known of God by any other means. This is not to say that I absolutely did not hear of Him. Instead, I am saying that I am unable to recall a meme-ory of God prior to or around the time of my first experience.
The first official hearing of God that I can recall began when I entered the 1st grade.
I was an adult before I ever opened a Bible.

Perhaps I find the Bible to be suitable because my relationship with and to God was established by personal experience instead of having been prompted through the Bible. Once again, I want to point out that I am speaking for myself only.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 08:34 PM

My relationship with G-d was established through a personal experience too. I had never actually read any part of the Bible before I went to Israel.

I learned about G-d in a rather unreligious and distant way when I was a kid. We celebrated Passover and Hanukkah, but G-d was almost absent in those celebrations. He was more like a side note.

Gehanna

09-08-2009, 10:57 PM

To semilargeintestine,

Summary of a Meme.... lol sounds like a good title for a poem.

A meme is, in my opinion, a synonym for mindlessness either intentional or otherwise. Basically, it describes unexamined beliefs, habits, thoughts, and etc. passed on through cultural mediums. These memes can mutate into additional memes in such a way as to fit the needs of the individual or individuals who carry them. The process is likened to a viral infection. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 10:59 PM

Interesting. I never heard that term before.

Gehanna

09-08-2009, 11:06 PM

Be careful or the word meme will become a meme. Sort of like the song from the creditreport.com commercial. I've never had the desire to visit the site or use the service though. *shrug*

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-08-2009, 11:15 PM

I have. It's quite convenient actually. You sign up for like 3 months for free, check your free report, and then cancel your membership. There's no catch. I've done it multiple times.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 12:18 AM

Well, in the one constitutional law class that I did take, and my several history courses, the constitution was always painted as being written in a somewhat simplistic and vague way on purpose so that it could evolve with time and things could be derived from it as times changed.The constitutions that I've read are not simplistic and vague; that would make them unusable. They're specific with broad application. But what a clever idea, to let them evolve as people learn stuff! :eek:

Think about it. They wrote only a few lines on privacy, but we've taken all sorts of things from it, the least of which is still being hotly debatedWell, it's your analogy but I'll borrow it for one last point: these guys were probably not thinking about stem-cell research. According to my readings they spent most of their time squabbling over how to divide the power between the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise). So if we try to imagine that these 'immensely wise people' were giving us social guidance over stuff they couldn't possibly understand or anticipate then we're mythologising the document and stuffing scope and meaning into it that simply isn't there.

I'm sure they expected that times would change and that the constitution had to be able to cover everything. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to see that?Yes, I really do. Firstly, I work with people just like those guys. I'm aware of their limits. Secondly, there's evidence that they weren't smart enough to understand the stuff that was before their noses, much less the stuff that wasn't. They deferred the issue of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Work_of_the_Philadelphi a_Convention) and gave the states 20 years to resolve it, not considering that in a labour-starved developing nation, the economic and demographic magnitude of that question would only grow, and that their own neglect would eventually throw their country into civil war.

So they weren't terribly smart. They were well-motivated, but beset by their own jurisdictional and personal interests, and only as smart as the times permitted.

As I said earlier, I see no reason to revere things we make. We can always improve on them.

Merriam-Webster defines it as the tenets or beliefs of a religion or church. That makes it sacred by definition, or at least by that one.Actually, not every religion holds every belief to be sacred. 'My beliefs are sacred and therefore incontestable' is actually one of the planks of religious supremacism. The other one is 'My beliefs are the only right beliefs'. Kick out one plank and you get religions that develop morally and ethically as times yield greater wisdom; kick out the other and you get religions that help each other grow. Leave them both in place and you get arrogance, blindness, conflict, xenophobia, schisms, oppression and misery on an average day, and holy-wars and persecutions when opportunity permits.

Subtle difference, but important. My definition implies that it is part of church doctrine, which would equate it with the truth (since basic religious beliefs tend to stay pretty solid through time).That's actually untrue. Religious beliefs evolve as socieities change; their adherents just don't always recognise it happening. A single example: in Christian faith there's a song called Old Time Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-Time_Religion) (published in 1873), which is a jubilee (yovel) hymnal celebrating the traditional Christian faith. Except that it's only sung by protestants, and their creed dated back only 300 years at the time the song was published, and continued to evolve throughout that period. So the song was actually a way of mythologising the creed -- making it seem more traditional than it really was. It's still a popular Protestant song, especially in Southern gospel traditions. People still sing it and think of desert guys in robes and sandals -- guys that would probably be shocked by much of what they think and say and do. :)

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 12:27 AM

The constitutions that I've read are not simplistic and vague; that would make them unusable. They're specific with broad application. But what a clever idea, to let them evolve as people learn stuff! :eek:

I'm referring specifically to the US constitution. I'm not at all familiar with others, except that I know the Indian constitution is humongous.

Well, it's your analogy but I'll borrow it for one last point: these guys were probably not thinking about stem-cell research. According to my readings they spent most of their time squabbling over how to divide the power between the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise). So if we try to imagine that these 'immensely wise people' were giving us social guidance over stuff they couldn't possibly understand or anticipate then we're mythologising the document and stuffing scope and meaning into it that simply isn't there.

Totally agree. However, I am certain that they had the foresight to see that there would be issues in the future that they could not predict.

Yes, I really do. Firstly, I work with people just like those guys. I'm aware of their limits. Secondly, there's evidence that they weren't smart enough to understand the stuff that was before their noses, much less the stuff that wasn't. They deferred the issue of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Work_of_the_Philadelphi a_Convention) and gave the states 20 years to resolve it, not considering that in a labour-starved developing nation, the economic and demographic magnitude of that question would only grow, and that their own neglect would eventually throw their country into civil war.

So they weren't terribly smart. They were well-motivated, but beset by their own jurisdictional and personal interests, and only as smart as the times permitted.

Actually, Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery (though he refused to release his own). His original draft of the Declaration called for abolition, and they made him change it.

However, I do agree with you to a point. I don't think they were necessarily the brightest minds in history. I do think that they purposely left the document vague in order to facilitate certain things. That doesn't take brilliance.

The Torah was written in a very specific way with every letter carefully chosen to mean something. The US constitution was not. It was a poor analogy, but I couldn't think of anything else at the time. :)

As I said earlier, I see no reason to revere things we make. We can always improve on them.

Agreed. The Torah was made by G-d though, so we can't improve on that (I know you disagree, and that's fine :) ).

Actually, not every religion holds every belief to be sacred. 'My beliefs are sacred and therefore incontestable' is actually one of the planks of religious supremacism. The other one is 'My beliefs are the only right beliefs'. Kick out one plank and you get religions that develop morally and ethically as times yield greater wisdom; kick out the other and you get religions that help each other grow. Leave them both in place and you get arrogance, blindness, conflict, schisms and misery.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decent)
Date: 1638

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Bolding mine. I was just giving you the definition I was using.

That's actually untrue. Religious beliefs evolve as socieities change; their adherents just don't always recognise it happening. A single example: in Christian faith there's a song called Old Time Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-Time_Religion) (penned in 1873), which is a hymnal celebrating the traditional Christian faith. Except that it's only sung by protestants, and their creed dated back only 300 years at the time the song was penned, and continued to evolve throughout that period. So the song was actually a way of mythologising the creed -- making it seem more traditional than it really was. People still sing it and think of desert guys in robes and sandals -- guys that would probably be shocked by much of what they think and say and do. :)

I agree that religions evolve with society. Judaism is no different. We have had to incorporate cars, television, etc. into our practices, and we have done so. However, there are core beliefs that do not change, no matter what the rest of the world does. I'm sure Xtianity and probably every other religion is the same way.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 12:54 AM

I agree that religions evolve with society. Judaism is no different. We have had to incorporate cars, television, etc. into our practices, and we have done so. However, there are core beliefs that do not change, no matter what the rest of the world does. I'm sure Xtianity and probably every other religion is the same way.The 'core beliefs' of Christianity are normally recognised to be the so-called Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed). The Nicene Creed's generally the litmus test that 'mainstream' Christians apply to see whether you're of the faith. The first of these Creeds appeared in 325CE, and another version appeared in 381CE, and it was tweaked again in the 7th century, and even as recently as 1978 it was still being tweaked in some sects.

Three points about this:

The Nicene Creed was created both politically and theologically far after the time that Joshua ben Joseph or his apostles lived. In other words, it's revisionist and unquestionably a work of concerted human activity. The names of the creators of the Creed and their qualifications are for the most part unknown.
Despite best efforts, there isn't one Nicene Creed today, but several and they're still being dickered over.
Many people who identify as Christians, hold Christian values and share fellowship with other Christians don't actually accept any of the Nicene Creeds (the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example).
So the core beliefs of the biggest religion in the world have been changing constantly, been tweaked constantly for political and theological purposes, and are continually fragmenting. There's no question that this has occurred in Islam too from about a generation after Mohammed's death onward, despite best efforts to avoid it. Hinduism and Buddhism are similarly splintered and there we have 70% of the world's religious demography represented. My personal conclusion is that religious identification is as much social identification as theological subscription.

I don't see that as a bad thing, but the implication to me is that 'my beliefs are sacred' and 'my beliefs are supreme' should be tossed out, in favour of 'I am committed in my beliefs' and 'I don't know as much as I think I do'. :D

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 01:06 AM

My relationship with and to God began when I was a child.
The first experience of God that I had, although by means of a dream, is also one of the earliest childhood memories I can recall.
Of these childhood memories, I do not recall having known of God by any other means. This is not to say that I absolutely did not hear of Him. Instead, I am saying that I am unable to recall a meme-ory of God prior to or around the time of my first experience.
The first official hearing of God that I can recall began when I entered the 1st grade.
I was an adult before I ever opened a Bible.
Hrm... Just a squint and a bet here. I bet that you love poetry, believe that individuality is sacred, that the Bible is inspiration rather than stricture, feel that religion should be personal and individual, think that cruelty is the worst of all human failings, hate 'It is' statements, and prefer 'I feel' statements, and can't understand why humans can't forgive each other and get along.

Am I close?

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 02:02 AM

The 'core beliefs' of Christianity are normally recognised to be the so-called Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed). The Nicene Creed's generally the litmus test that 'mainstream' Christians apply to see whether you're of the faith. The first of these Creeds appeared in 325CE, and another version appeared in 381CE, and it was tweaked again in the 7th century, and even as recently as 1978 it was still being tweaked in some sects.

Three points about this:

The Nicene Creed was created both politically and theologically far after the time that Joshua ben Joseph or his apostles lived. In other words, it's revisionist and unquestionably a work of concerted human activity. The names of the creators of the Creed and their qualifications are for the most part unknown.
Despite best efforts, there isn't one Nicene Creed today, but several and they're still being dickered over.
Many people who identify as Christians, hold Christian values and share fellowship with other Christians don't actually accept any of the Nicene Creeds (the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example).

So the core beliefs of the biggest religion in the world have been changing constantly, been tweaked constantly for political and theological purposes, and are continually fragmenting. There's no question that this has occurred in Islam too from about a generation after Mohammed's death onward, despite best efforts to avoid it. Hinduism and Buddhism are similarly splintered and there we have 70% of the world's religious demography represented. My personal conclusion is that religious identification is as much social identification as theological subscription.

I don't see that as a bad thing, but the implication to me is that 'my beliefs are sacred' and 'my beliefs are supreme' should be tossed out, in favour of 'I am committed in my beliefs' and 'I don't know as much as I think I do'. :D

Wow, that's interesting. The core beliefs of Judaism have been the same for 4,000 years. We have the 13 Ikkarim codified by Rambam in the 12th century that sum up the principles of faith outlined in the Torah:

1. G-d is the Creator and Ruler of all things
2. G-d is One
3. G-d has no body (i.e., infinite)
4. G-d is the First and the Last (i.e., eternal)
5. It is proper to pray to G-d and only G-d
6. The words of the prophets are true
7. Moshe's prophecy was unique, and he is the chief of all prophets
8. The Torah we have now is the Torah given to Moshe
9. The Torah will never change, and G-d will never give another
10. G-d knows the deeds and thoughts of man
11. G-d rewards those who keep his commandments and punishes those who transgress them
12. Moshiach is coming, and though he may tarry, we await him every day
13. There will be a revival of the dead when G-d sees fit (i.e., after Moshiach comes)

These principles are derived from verses in the Torah, and the Sages in the Talmud discuss them. We can trace the Sages from the time the Talmud was being written down all the way back to the prophets, and they all held these principles. These have been unchanging tenets of Judaism for 4,000 years.

There have been sectarian groups in the past just as there are now; however, they have all fallen by the wayside, and that is what is now happening with reform and conservative Judaism.

Two things are interesting to me about your post. One, I wouldn't have thought that the principles of faith for so many other religions have changed that much or vary within the faiths themselves. Second, your statistic of 70% of world religions got me thinking. Judaism is considered one of the 3 major religions, yet Jews represent only 0.22% of the population. That's very interesting to me.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 04:31 AM

Two things are interesting to me about your post. One, I wouldn't have thought that the principles of faith for so many other religions have changed that much or vary within the faiths themselves.Faiths change more as they propagate than if they stay within the same culture. Judaism is a little unusual in that it stays largely within an ethnicity (not entirely, but much more than the other Abrahamic religions). As faiths cross ethnicity they change -- we only need to look at what happened to Christianity when it hit the Franks and Celts, or the Africans -- gods became saints. Islam has worked harder than Christianity to keep itself homogenous across ethnicities (actually 'worked hard' might be too-charitable a way of putting it, since Islamic treatment of heresy is fairly mediaeval), but it still fragmented for other reasons.

Second, your statistic of 70% of world religions got me thinking. Judaism is considered one of the 3 major religions, yet Jews represent only 0.22% of the population. That's very interesting to me.Judaism tends to propagate as Jewish people do; it's tied to the fortunes and locales of an ethnicity. Some other religions are too -- Zoroastrianism is another, perhaps stronger example. Traditional Zoroastrianism requires you to be born of two Persian parents. Zoroastrianism has had a terrible time surviving Islamic persecutions because Islam has been so strong in Persia, and Persian people haven't migrated as much as Jewish people did. There are small but strong pockets of Zoroastrianism in English-speaking countries (where they've found reasonable levels of tolerance), and in India (which because of its geography and history has developed two of the major religions of the world, and seen every other major religion land on its shores).

In terms of major religions I think it depends on how you count them. By numbers not so much. By influence on human thought, a lot -- though I wouldn't say it's as much as you've previously claimed. Judaism gets the credit for much of Old Testament Christian thought and some Islamic thought; Zoroastrianism gets credit for a fair whack of New Testament thought and (I'd contend) some Judaic thought. Hinduism gets credit for a lot of Buddhist thought, has had some influence on Sikhism (that I haven't been able to fully quantify), but Jainism might deserve more credit than it's seeing for Hinduism and Buddhism.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 05:02 AM

A meme is, in my opinion, a synonym for mindlessness either intentional or otherwise.Yes, it's a Dawkins' notion for ideas that take hold in people and propagate through social networks, seemingly getting a life of their own. It's a model, but also a political position. As a model it's a tad weak, and as a political position I find it obnoxious. Most religions don't seem to be meme-driven to me... (however some evangelical religions seem to have been designed as though they're meant to be :tongue).

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 07:54 AM

Faiths change more as they propagate than if they stay within the same culture. Judaism is a little unusual in that it stays largely within an ethnicity (not entirely, but much more than the other Abrahamic religions). As faiths cross ethnicity they change -- we only need to look at what happened to Christianity when it hit the Franks and Celts, or the Africans -- gods became saints. Islam has worked harder than Christianity to keep itself homogenous across ethnicities (actually 'worked hard' might be too-charitable a way of putting it, since Islamic treatment of heresy is fairly mediaeval), but it still fragmented for other reasons.

That's a good point. For the last 2000 years, we have not had a homeland, a common language, or a shared history (after 70 CE). If our faith was not solid and steadfast, we would have been gone a long time ago.

Judaism tends to propagate as Jewish people do; it's tied to the fortunes and locales of an ethnicity. Some other religions are too -- Zoroastrianism is another, perhaps stronger example. Traditional Zoroastrianism requires you to be born of two Persian parents. Zoroastrianism has had a terrible time surviving Islamic persecutions because Islam has been so strong in Persia, and Persian people haven't migrated as much as Jewish people did. There are small but strong pockets of Zoroastrianism in English-speaking countries (where they've found reasonable levels of tolerance), and in India (which because of its geography and history has developed two of the major religions of the world, and seen every other major religion land on its shores).

It's also tied to things like the Holocaust. If not for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, we would easily number in the 100 millions. Unfortunately, the Torah warns us of what would happen if we didn't hold up our end of the bargain, and we didn't.

In terms of major religions I think it depends on how you count them. By numbers not so much. By influence on human thought, a lot -- though I wouldn't say it's as much as you've previously claimed. Judaism gets the credit for much of Old Testament Christian thought and some Islamic thought; Zoroastrianism gets credit for a fair whack of New Testament thought and (I'd contend) some Judaic thought. Hinduism gets credit for a lot of Buddhist thought, has had some influence on Sikhism (that I haven't been able to fully quantify), but Jainism might deserve more credit than it's seeing for Hinduism and Buddhism.

Without Judaism there would be no Xtianity or Islam. They are both offshoots of Judaism. Xtianity started out as a messianic sect of Judaism that was eventually replaced with what we know today. Islam departed more quickly, but many of the practices are similar to this day.

I think you greatly understimate the influence Judaism has had on the world. It introduced monotheism and a set of morals that placed the value of human life over that of material things (and I know you will mention the "code" but I will remind you that it had things like a literal eye for an eye there, which I'd hardly say is humane) that Xtianity and most of the world was based on. The Puritans looked into the "Old Testament" and found something they loved. They came to America with the mindset that they were the "new Jews." Moses was almost the symbol of this country instead of the eagle. The "Ten Commandments" are pretty much the basis of morality, and they were written in a time when most of the world saw no problem with killing whomever they didn't like, etc. Judaism showed the world how to be good. Xtianity has taken that and gone with it as well now, but even that came from Judaism.

You can deny it all you want, but Judaism's influence is very great, and I think you'd be hardpressed to find an historian who disagreed with that. On a related note, "Ten Commandments" is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The word is devarim, which means "things" or "statements."

Salis

09-09-2009, 10:39 AM

Judaism showed the world how to be good.

Ah! Good thing Judaism came along then. We'd all be serial killers without it.

I am curious if you actually believe that--that without the guidance of religion, everyone devolves into murdering psychopaths who know nothing but evil?

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 11:07 AM

Ah! Good thing Judaism came along then. We'd all be serial killers without it.

I am curious if you actually believe that--that without the guidance of religion, everyone devolves into murdering psychopaths who know nothing but evil?

So first you flip history around to support your illogical insult, and then you put words in my mouth to make me look bad.

Is that page one of the poor debater's handbook? Because, that happens a lot on this forum.

First, a history lesson.

Abraham went from his home to the land of Canaan in 1738 BCE. That was the start of Judaism being spread to the idolaters. Shem had a school where Abraham's son and grandson learned before taking their knowledge of G-d and morality to the people around them. Fast forward to when the Torah was given in 1313 BCE. Joshua led the Jews into Israel in 1273 BCE.

So between 1738 and 1506 BCE, you have a few people spreading the message of morality and of G-d to the people in the area. They actually gained a lot of converts in that time. The Israelites lived in Egypt from 1523 until 1313 BCE. During that time, they rested on the Sabbath, they spoke Hebrew, kept their Hebrew names, and refused to conform to Egyptian society.

In 1313 BCE, they were given a book outlining exactly how to bring G-dliness into their lives and live morally. In 1273 BCE, they entered the Land of Israel. From that time on, they walked in the way of G-d, no matter what the rest of the world did.

During that time, Greek and Roman culture hadn't even really gotten started yet--not as we know it from the Greek and Roman empires. The majority of the world were worshipping multiple gods and had very little in the way of morality. The Code of Hammurabi was probably the most recent at that time. Here are some examples:

If any one ensnares another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.

If a Builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death.(Another variant of this is, If the owner's son dies, then the builder's son shall be put to death.)

If a man give his child to a nurse and the child dies in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurses another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

If any one steals the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death.

Bolding mine. Do you see a common thread? All but two of these result in death as a punishment for crimes we would hardly consider worthy of the death penalty, and one of the remaining examples requires mutilation.

The Roman Kingdom didn't form until 753 BCE, and the Roman Empire was not to form until 27 BCE. The Mycenaean Greek culture that preceded Ancient Greece flourished between 1600 and 1100 BCE. It's political structure was that of multiple city-states that were ruled by kings and had a palatial system that oppressed the lower class.

Where was Xtianity and Islam? Oh, right. Xtianity was originally a sectarian group of Judaism that formed around 33 CE after the death of Jeebus. During the Second Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire in which many of the Jewish Sages pronounced that Bar Kochba was the Jewish Messiah, tensions between Jewish Xtians and the Jews increased and eventually caused the early Xtians to completely break away from Judaism in the 2nd century CE. Islam is another breakaway from Judaism, but that didn't form until the 7th century CE.

So yes, it's a good think Judaism came around, because otherwise we would have no Xtianity or Islam, and we'd still be killing people for taking a Milky Way.

I am curious if you actually believe that--that without the guidance of religion, everyone devolves into murdering psychopaths who know nothing but evil?

I never said that, but thanks for playing.

Gehanna

09-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Hrm... Just a squint and a bet here. I bet that you love poetry, believe that individuality is sacred, that the Bible is inspiration rather than stricture, feel that religion should be personal and individual, think that cruelty is the worst of all human failings, hate 'It is' statements, and prefer 'I feel' statements, and can't understand why humans can't forgive each other and get along.

Am I close?

I find the gift of a poet to be an amazing thing. Despite this, the books on my shelves are all nonfiction.
Yes, I do place great importance on individuality, but I wouldn't refer to it as sacred.
There are inspiring passages in the Bible. There are also some I find amusing, frightening, and etc.
Religion? How can religion be personal or individual? I do not see myself as being a religious person.
Cruel to Be Kind sung by Nick Lowe could be considered one of my theme songs. However, I agree that people can engage in horrendous acts of cruelty such as neglect and abuse.
"I feel" statements are excellent and "It is" typically results in my asking "Why", which is something people sometimes hate for me to do.
I think I have a basic understanding of why some humans can't forgive each other.

Gehanna

AMCrenshaw

09-09-2009, 11:24 AM

We should talk about personality-types again, imho.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 11:33 AM

That's a good point. For the last 2000 years, we have not had a homeland, a common language, or a shared history (after 70 CE). If our faith was not solid and steadfast, we would have been gone a long time ago.There's no question in my mind that Judaism helped Jews survive. On the other hand, other itinerant cultures survived without Judaism -- my father's people the Romany for example, Christianised but retained their ethnic identity: language, customs and superstitions.

If not for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, we would easily number in the 100 millions.For all the compassion I have about Jews, they've gotten better breaks than any other oppressed people in the history of the planet. Two and a half continents came out last century in support of protecting Jewish people. That has never happened in the history of the world. Jewish people now have a homeland, recognition, respect and a future. But meanwhile, all around the world oppressed people are still fighting to survive who've never had those benefits. Hardly anyone outside Australia understands what has happened to our indigenous inhabitants, for instance. Nobody speaks for them other than themselves. They don't have a land to flee to; they don't have a written tradition of all the wrongs done to them. They've lost hundreds of languages in only two hundred years, are down to a tenth of their original population and many are living third-world lives in a first-world country. We shouldn't forget history but to me it seems graceless and insensitive to pick over old injustices suffered by our own culture while other cultures are suffering injustices still unaddressed.

Without Judaism there would be no Xtianity or Islam. They are both offshoots of Judaism.That's true, but I believe that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, and got its monotheism from there. Christianity was certainly influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many of its Christ-myths are carbon copies of Zoro-Mithraic tales.

I think you greatly understimate the influence Judaism has had on the world.I recognise that it had an influence; I think that you over-estimate it. I also think that in trumpeting your religion's own triumphs you're missing out on enjoying the praise that others (like me) would give your faith if you weren't jumping in first. Moreover, I think that if you read more outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition you'd find an awful lot to be impressed by elsewhere. I've mentioned Zoroastrianism. It's a dying religion now but was waaaay ahead of Judaism in its day and is perhaps the most under-estimated religion on earth. Jainism is another one that nobody knows about yet had a profound impact on the world.

Buddhism is an older religion than Christianity yet its humanitarian principles have been world-class -- outstripping anything in Europe until the 17th century. Hinduism is also utterly remarkable. It produced more scholarly, theological and literary writing than any religion in Europe until the printing press. It has innovated more widely and more often than any other religion I know of, and it's hard to find a modern religious idea that Hinduism didn't talk about first, or else invent independently.

The world of human thought is very rich, Semi. Judaism is worth praising, but not in all things to all people and not all the time.

Ruv Draba

09-09-2009, 12:05 PM

Responses to my analytic questions, which were themselves a response to Gehanna's invitation to dissect.As you know G, I'm an atheist which means that I believe that there aren't any gods and theism is false. I'm also a secular humanist which means I believe that people can sort things out themselves if they act decently and help each other. My secular humanism puts me at odds with some of Dawkins' friends, who think that atheism should be the standard belief-set for humanity. I think that's neither beneficial nor even feasible. Your sort of mind is one reason why.

My reading of your answers is that you're individualistic, imaginative, kindly-disposed and inherently mystical. You make sense of large chunks of the world by drawing aesthetic associations between whatever you see. Beauty connects truth for you. It's natural that God talks to you and it's natural that what talks to you is God. It's natural that the universe is benign and wise and encouraging. It's natural that you feel that presence inside you, and expect that others will too (they generally don't, by the way. Some feel it outside themselves, and some don't feel it at all).

Such minds are fairly rare, but a critical part of the human tapestry. They give us inspiration and deep thought about relationships and morality. If they don't adopt a religion they'll often invent one. They notice stuff that nobody else sees and come up with beautiful ways to describe and define it. It's natural that such a mind embraces Christianity, but it's not usual that it embraces mainstream Christianity. It'll find its way into mystical Christianity -- either Eastern Orthodoxy or one of the mystical Western offshoots. If it chose Judaism instead, it'd probably zoom right in on Kabbalah. If it chose Islam it'd sniff out Sufism. Either way, it'll pick and choose what it believes, reinterpret things to suit what it sees and hence find itself out on the fringe somewhere. :)

The point is, no rational, scientific perspective is going to change what it does. Hand such a mind scientific lore and it'll invent ten more beautiful interpretations and consider them all equally plausible -- or immediately and near-seamlessly fit the whole of scientific lore to its own prefabricated understanding. That's the nature of the beast.

So, I'm an uber-rationalist. Not because I believe everyone should be, but simply because that's how I make sense of things. When a rationalist meets a mystic they'll often have a lot of fun at each other's expense. The mystic has fun subverting the rationalist's logic, and the rationalist has fun shooting logic-cannon at the mystic's ice-cream castles. As long as they're messing with ideas and not each other, it's all good clean fun and vaguely useful too.

The rationalist teaches the mystic to be practical. The mystic teaches the rationalist to delight more and stretch more. They can enjoy a common wavelength and find some stimulation from the discussion,without ever agreeing. The rationalist doesn't make the mystic rational, or vice versa. They're two entirely different sets of thinking.

And because they're different they're equally valid, right?

No. The rationalist's thinking is generally more valid, because 'validity' is a rational term. But the mystic's thinking is often 'gooder' -- if by gooder we mean stretching beyond the good we can do today to find new, unthought-of goods, or trying harder to do goods that are just hard to do.

But that's exactly my point from a humanistic perspective. Why eliminate ideas for new good just because a lot of it is illogical and impractical? You wouldn't. You shouldn't. You should encourage it, stimulate it... then take it out and vivisect it where nobody can see. :evil

Er... is that suitably dissected for the moment, or do you have a specific thing in mind?

Salis

09-09-2009, 12:18 PM

I never said that, but thanks for playing.

The "Ten Commandments" are pretty much the basis of morality, and they were written in a time when most of the world saw no problem with killing whomever they didn't like, etc. Judaism showed the world how to be good.

Okay, then, tell me what this means?

Because I'm having a hard time telling the difference between the two. All of that history is irrelevant to the root of the matter. Unless you wrote the above as some metaphorical parable, and not the literal meaning of what you were saying.

And then, just to amuse me (I guess?), you come back with this:

So yes, it's a good think Judaism came around, because otherwise we would have no Xtianity or Islam, and we'd still be killing people for taking a Milky Way.

Okay, so, uh, why are you disagreeing with my summary again? You just said it again. Without religion to show us what to do, we would have devolved into chaos and barbarism.

Bartholomew

09-09-2009, 12:46 PM

So yes, it's a good think Judaism came around, because otherwise [...] we'd still be killing people for taking a Milky Way.

...Assuming a world where nothing outside of the middle east existed?

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 06:45 PM

Okay, then, tell me what this means?

Because I'm having a hard time telling the difference between the two. All of that history is irrelevant to the root of the matter. Unless you wrote the above as some metaphorical parable, and not the literal meaning of what you were saying.

It means what it means. At that time, most of the world saw no problem doing terrible things to each other. The world is different now. People can be atheist and still be good people. You're taking a comment about 3,300 years ago and applying it to today. That's not what I'm doing. I'm talking specifically about the past.

And then, just to amuse me (I guess?), you come back with this:

Okay, so, uh, why are you disagreeing with my summary again? You just said it again. Without religion to show us what to do, we would have devolved into chaos and barbarism.

The world was barbaric. That's the point. Judaism helped in a huge way to change that, and western religions are completely based on it. American morality is mostly Xtian morality, but where do you think that comes from?

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 06:49 PM

...Assuming a world where nothing outside of the middle east existed?

People seem to be having trouble with hypotheticals. If Judaism had not come into being, there would be no Islam or Xtianity. The far east is influenced less by Judaism than the rest of the world, but there is a influence there. In 1313 BCE, the world was mostly city-states fighting each other. Their "codes" called for death for pretty much every crime. Did you not read my post? The Code of Hammurabi called for the death penalty for theft, and the Hellenic city-states went by a similar code of law.

semilargeintestine

09-09-2009, 07:11 PM

There's no question in my mind that Judaism helped Jews survive. On the other hand, other itinerant cultures survived without Judaism -- my father's people the Romany for example, Christianised but retained their ethnic identity: language, customs and superstitions.

No question. People have to hold on to their culture to survive. Obviously holding on to Judaism wouldn't have helped your father's people. :)

For all the compassion I have about Jews, they've gotten better breaks than any other oppressed people in the history of the planet. Two and a half continents came out last century in support of protecting Jewish people. That has never happened in the history of the world. Jewish people now have a homeland, recognition, respect and a future. But meanwhile, all around the world oppressed people are still fighting to survive who've never had those benefits. Hardly anyone outside Australia understands what has happened to our indigenous inhabitants, for instance. Nobody speaks for them other than themselves. They don't have a land to flee to; they don't have a written tradition of all the wrongs done to them. They've lost hundreds of languages in only two hundred years, are down to a tenth of their original population and many are living third-world lives in a first-world country. We shouldn't forget history but to me it seems graceless and insensitive to pick over old injustices suffered by our own culture while other cultures are suffering injustices still unaddressed.

Seriously? You think that 2,000 years of modern persecution (not to mention the Ancient Egyptians) that is responsible for keeping the Jewish population at less than a quarter of a percent of the world is getting better breaks? How can you say that with a straight face?

Almost every country in Europe has at one time enacted laws oppressing Jews, expelled Jews, slaughtered Jews, or destroyed/stole their property. Do you remember the Crusades? Do you remember the Inquisition? Do you remember the Holocaust?

What about the Babylonian exile when the Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were forced into Babylonia for 70+ years? What about when the Romans forced rule upon the Jewish State and then destroyed the Second Temple killing over a million Jews, enslaving a hundred thousand, and expelling the rest of them forcibly to the rest of the empire--after which, they changed the map to exclude the name of the Jewish state so the memory of anything Jewish would be wiped out?

Maybe if the world was not completely silent while Hitler was murdering 6 million Jews simply for being Jews, they would not have felt the embarrassment they felt. So many countries came out in support of recreating the Jewish state because they saw the reality of what Hitler did and were ashamed that they did nothing. Do you think the allies cared about the Jewish people? They would not accept Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany.

What's happened to the indigenous peoples of Australia is certainly terrible, but Jews are still being murdered all over the world for just being Jewish. There is now a new blood libel in Sweden, and many people on this very board have given it credibility. Anti-Semitic crimes in America are the number one hate crime. People protest the existence of Israel on pretty much every major college campus at one point or another, and just about every country in Europe has seen mass protests against the Jewish state, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. France has laws against Jews wearing head coverings in public institutions (to be fair, they have laws against Muslims doing the same thing, which is just as bad).

This persecution is not just our history, but it is our reality. It continues today, and it's even worse now than it was. Should the world completely ignore everything else? Of course not. But I can't simply remember history while moving on, because it's still happening.

That's true, but I believe that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, and got its monotheism from there. Christianity was certainly influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many of its Christ-myths are carbon copies of Zoro-Mithraic tales.

While it's true that Xtianity was influenced by many religions, that is mainly a product of conversion efforts. Xtianity was originally very much like the Messianic Jews of today (not necessarily those loonies at Jews for Jeebus). They practiced Judaism according to the Torah, but believed Jeebus was their Messiah. It was not until a few hundred years later when Paul went on a conversion spree that they started adopting practices similar to other religions to make it easier for people to convert.

As far as Judaism and Zoroastrianism goes, I'm interested in doing some historical research. There is archeological evidence that proves Abraham was not only alive, but in the areas outlined in the Bible at around the time the Bible places him living. He was the first Jew. However, there were monotheistic people living before him. Noah and his family, for instance (from which Abraham descends) were completely monotheistic. I think it would be interesting to see if Zoroastrianism draws itself from Noah and his son Shem's religious school. If so, then Judaism certainly got some of its ideas from a common place as Zoroastrianism.

In that case, I would say that Judaism is the first monotheistic religion, though not necessarily the first monotheistic belief or philosophy. I think that would be a more accurate statement.

I recognise that it had an influence; I think that you over-estimate it. I also think that in trumpeting your religion's own triumphs you're missing out on enjoying the praise that others (like me) would give your faith if you weren't jumping in first. Moreover, I think that if you read more outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition you'd find an awful lot to be impressed by elsewhere. I've mentioned Zoroastrianism. It's a dying religion now but was waaaay ahead of Judaism in its day and is perhaps the most under-estimated religion on earth. Jainism is another one that nobody knows about yet had a profound impact on the world.

Buddhism is an older religion than Christianity yet its humanitarian principles have been world-class -- outstripping anything in Europe until the 17th century. Hinduism is also utterly remarkable. It produced more scholarly, theological and literary writing than any religion in Europe until the printing press. It has innovated more widely and more often than any other religion I know of, and it's hard to find a modern religious idea that Hinduism didn't talk about first, or else invent independently.

Judaism had much less influence in the far East and on the Indian subcontinent, that is true. Asian culture is very rich. I am fascinated with its history actually. At one point I started learning Chinese, but I got too busy and dropped it. I'd love to visit there one day.

The world of human thought is very rich, Semi. Judaism is worth praising, but not in all things to all people and not all the time.

Judaism has had a huge influence on the Middle East and the Western world. How's that for being more accurate? :)

Ruv Draba

09-10-2009, 02:07 AM

You think that 2,000 years of modern persecution (not to mention the Ancient Egyptians) that is responsible for keeping the Jewish population at less than a quarter of a percent of the world is getting better breaks? How can you say that with a straight face?Well, it's not for lack of sympathy. I think that my sympathy just extends more broadly than yours. History is full of persecution, and some cultures who go down just never get up again. The Romany have been persecuted since the Middle Ages and they still are. In Istanbul they've been living in some homes for 500 years, and are now being turned out to make way for property development (nobody else -- just the Rom). In England, along with the Tinkers they're forbidden to park their caravans on some commons any more. Of course, they were in the concentration camps with Jewish people in WWII, but nobody remembers them... That's just a single example though. At the moment in Africa, kids are being recruited as child soldiers and often forced to kill their own families.

Human history is crap, Semi. It's full of atrocities and there's nothing special about Jewish ethnicity that makes it especially vulnerable to persecution. It's all about history, geography and political power. Itinerant tribes always get treated badly by landed tribes. Wealthy foreigners always get reamed by the locals. The Rom are every bit as xenophobic as Jews have been historically. It's how they manage to hold their culture together while they travel. Many itinerant cultures have a 'Chosen' myth too -- don't ask me why, but they do. But between the Chosen myth and the persecution you get this nice little bit of circular paranoid grandiosity: Of course we're persecuted -- we're Chosen! Of course we're Chosen -- see how they persecute us!

Do you think the allies cared about the Jewish people?Yes, I really do.

I can't simply remember history while moving on, because it's still happening.Yes, but it happens a whole lot less to middle class people than to poor people, to people with a state than stateless people, to the educated than the uneducated. Jewish people live to 80something, and infant mortality is largely unheard-of. Indigenous Australians live to 45, and lose their kids to malnutrition, domestic violence, suicide, petrol-sniffing, alcoholism... They have extraordinary rates of family sexual abuse, family murders -- stuff virtually unknown to Jewish folk. They're not just suffering from persecution; they're suffering from hopelessness. Jewish people suffer from ethnic intolerance, so do Chinese people. But Jewish and Chinese people still know who they are and have a future. The indigenous people of Australia don't. It's a whole different degree of misery, Semi. One that you evidently can't imagine.

Xtianity was originally very much like the Messianic Jews of today [...] They practiced Judaism according to the Torah, but believed Jeebus was their Messiah. It was not until a few hundred years later when Paul went on a conversion spree that they started adopting practices similar to other religions to make it easier for people to convert.I suspect that early Christians felt that God and Jesus were the important things, and that customs were less important. Then centuries later their faith was politically much stronger, and there was so much difference that they decided to rationalise and consolidate. I suspect that the early evangelists were far more tolerant than Constantine was -- persecution often does that to people. It makes them more compassionate. And power often does the reverse.

I would say that Judaism is the first monotheistic religion, though not necessarily the first monotheistic belief or philosophy. I think that would be a more accurate statement.There's no question that Zoroastrianism was monotheistic (and still is), and is a religion.

Judaism has had a huge influence on the Middle East and the Western world. How's that for being more accurate? :)I'd agree with that. I'd qualify it though to say that the influence was initial, then very sporadic. Jewish people seemed to have had more economic than cultural impact on the West in the Middle Ages and Renaissance... but somewhere in the last three centuries they've started contributing enormously to Western thought -- sciences, arts, and increasingly Jewish theology is having some influence too. I for one am very glad for Jewish contribution to European culture. Whatever it was that got Jewish people out from under their rock and contributing to mainstream Western society, we're all much richer for it.

semilargeintestine

09-10-2009, 02:26 AM

Well, it's not for lack of sympathy. I think that my sympathy just extends more broadly than yours. History is full of persecution, and some cultures who go down just never get up again. The Romany have been persecuted since the Middle Ages and they still are. In Istanbul they've been living in some homes for 500 years, and are now being turned out to make way for property development (nobody else -- just the Rom). In England, along with the Tinkers they're forbidden to park their caravans on some commons any more. Of course, they were in the concentration camps with Jewish people in WWII, but nobody remembers them... That's just a single example though. At the moment in Africa, kids are being recruited as child soldiers and often forced to kill their own families.

My sympathies are broad too, but the fact that persecution of my own people is ongoing narrows my focus a bit. That doesn't mean I don't care.

Human history is crap, Semi. It's full of atrocities and there's nothing special about Jewish ethnicity that makes it especially vulnerable to persecution. It's all about history, geography and political power. Itinerant tribes always get treated badly by landed tribes. Wealthy foreigners always get reamed by the locals. The Rom are every bit as xenophobic as Jews have been historically. It's how they manage to hold their culture together while they travel. Many itinerant cultures have a 'Chosen' myth too -- don't ask me why, but they do. But between the Chosen myth and the persecution you get this nice little bit of circular paranoid grandiosity: Of course we're persecuted -- we're Chosen! Of course we're Chosen -- see how they persecute us!

What's special about Jewish persecution is it has gone on for longer than any other nation, and yet we are still around. If you see nothing special about a small population of people sticking around relatively unchanged in its core for thousands of years, you are either in denial or you simply don't want to see it. None of your examples are anything like the history of Jewish persecution. I think if you talked to 100 historians about this, you would be surprised to find yourself in the vast minority.

(And they don't all have to be Jewish. ;) )

Yes, I really do.

I wish that were true, but even a cursory glance at history shows otherwise. Were there many people who cared? Yes. But overall, the nations did not. They were fighting Nazi Germany for their own reasons, which is understandable. But seeing what they essentially ignored the better part of a decade caused them to feel pretty bad; hence, the State of Israel.

Yes, but it happens a whole lot less to middle class people than to poor people, to people with a state than stateless people, to the educated than the uneducated. Jewish people live to 80something, and infant mortality is largely unheard-of. Indigenous Australians live to 45, and lose their kids to malnutrition, domestic violence, suicide, petrol-sniffing, alcoholism... They have extraordinary rates of family sexual abuse, family murders -- stuff virtually unknown to Jewish folk. They're not just suffering from persecution; they're suffering from hopelessness. Jewish people suffer from ethnic intolerance, so do Chinese people. But Jewish and Chinese people still know who they are and have a future. The indigenous people of Australia don't. It's a whole different degree of misery, Semi. One that you evidently can't imagine.

Maybe you should read the first part of your post. First you say that persecution is not special for any one people, and then you tell me that the indigenous people of Australia are suffering far worse and on a "different degree" than the Jewish people. You can't have it both ways.

I suspect that early Christians felt that God and Jesus were the important things, and that customs were less important. Then centuries later their faith was politically much stronger, and there was so much difference that they decided to rationalise and consolidate. I suspect that the early evangelists were far more tolerant than Constantine was -- persecution often does that to people. It makes them more compassionate. And power often does the reverse.

I suggest you read a little history on the subject. The early Xtians strictly kept the Torah. They wore Tefillin, ate Kosher, etc. They viewed Jeebus as the Moshiach the Jewish people were awaiting. The denial of him and subsequent nomination of another Jew was most likely one of the giant points of contention.

There's no question that Zoroastrianism was monotheistic (and still is), and is a religion.

I never said they weren't; however, I don't believe they were an organised religion some 5,000 years ago.

I'd agree with that. I'd qualify it though to say that the influence was initial, then very sporadic. Jewish people seemed to have had more economic than cultural impact on the West in the Middle Ages and Renaissance... but somewhere in the last three centuries they've started contributing enormously to Western thought -- sciences, arts, and increasingly Jewish theology is having some influence too. I for one am very glad for Jewish contribution to European culture. Whatever it was that got Jewish people out from under their rock and contributing to mainstream Western society, we're all much richer for it.

The rock they were under was the majority of the world passing laws that refused them access to public education and office, not to mention the hundreds of pogroms, expulsions, and massacres. Once those stopped for the most part, we were able to infuse a little of our culture to the world. :)

Ruv Draba

09-10-2009, 02:47 AM

What's special about Jewish persecution is it has gone on for longer than any other nation, and yet we are still around.In a broader view, the tale of every modern culture is one of survival. Humans have a habit of chewing at each other, scattering, regrouping, chewing again... Jewish culture has had a unique path -- being a stateless ethnicity that has managed to hold its identity and even thrive. The Romany are one of the few others I know and they don't have the literacy to succeed as the Jews have. But the persecution of the Rom has been going on for a milennium so they're up there as survivors.

If you see nothing special about a small population of people sticking around100 million isn't a small population; it's a bloody big nation. That tells me that for a long period of time, the persecution wasn't anything like as intense as you've been suggesting. Jews weren't simply surviving tenaciously but thriving -- doing much better than many indigenous populations under colonial settlement, for example.

I think we're talking about general ethnic intolerance coupled with a recognition that having skilled bankers and merchants is actually an economic asset. So, perhaps a love-hate relationship. :) It's odd, but if you look around you can find a 'Jewish niche' even in countries that don't have Jews. The niche appears to be imported literate, numerate, shrewd merchants in a country that can't grow their own. The country benefits, but it hates them. We see it with the Chinese in Malaysia, Indians in Ethiopea, Chinese in Fiji. It's not Jewishness, Semi -- it's the economic role coupled with foreign ethnicity.

But seeing what they essentially ignored the better part of a decade caused them to feel pretty bad; hence, the State of Israel.You're being uncharitable. The soldiers who saw the death-camps were traumatised. The entire world was shocked and aside from a few ostriches, still is. My point is that ethnic intolerance gives way to human compassion in times of disaster -- we see this all the time. But the compassion sticks around long after the disaster is gone. Neighbours who hate each other get hit by a hurricane and become friends thereafter.

There's no question that England and Russia have hated their Jewish populations for centuries, but they hate their Gypsies too. Still, disasters build friendships. Also the way that Jews have thrived in the US has made a difference too I think. Jews got compassion and a state. Gypsies got more being ignored -- but economically they were nothing like as valuable or as potent.

First you say that persecution is not special for any one people, and then you tell me that the indigenous people of Australia are suffering far worse and on a "different degree" than the Jewish people. You can't have it both ways.Everyone gets persecuted when circumstances permit. Not everyone is on the brink of extinction.

The rock they were under was the majority of the world passing laws that refused them access to public education and office, not to mention the hundreds of pogroms, expulsions, and massacres. Once those stopped for the most part, we were able to infuse a little of our culture to the world. :)What changed those laws? You've argued that the world has got it in for Jews, so what do you believe made them change?

Salis

09-10-2009, 04:38 AM

It means what it means. At that time, most of the world saw no problem doing terrible things to each other. The world is different now. People can be atheist and still be good people. You're taking a comment about 3,300 years ago and applying it to today. That's not what I'm doing. I'm talking specifically about the past.

Your argument is that religion (specifically, Judaism) was required for the development of enlightened morality. I find this a depressingly cynical view of human nature, but okay. At least I understand where you're coming from.

The world was barbaric. That's the point. Judaism helped in a huge way to change that, and western religions are completely based on it. American morality is mostly Xtian morality, but where do you think that comes from?

Well, I live in America, but I probably don't have "American" morality. I find it repulsive that politicians have to affirm their Christianity these days to make it into public office.

Anyway, way more interesting topic: do you think that Judaism invented morality? I find this a pretty hard pill to swallow. Just because something is the first recorded precedent of something, doesn't make it the first actual precedent.

I find it more likely that people converted to such religions because it affirmed what they already believed to be good, rather than because they were amazed at this entirely new concept of not being total douchebags.

The ancient world was a barbaric place because it was underdeveloped, poverty-stricken, and hence wracked by might-makes-right. It wasn't barbaric because of a lack of a religion telling people to do the right thing. If you look at the modern day world, it is some of the most intensely religious parts of the world that are most fucked up. I'm not implying a cause here--only a total refutation of the idea that religion in some way lifted people up out of that moral abyss. Prosperity lifts people up, not ideas.

Ruv Draba

09-10-2009, 04:49 AM

Prosperity lifts people up, not ideas.Not to intrude on a separate discussion but I wholeheartedly agree -- partly. :) Prosperity enables education and thought. Education and thought produce good ideas. Prosperity and good ideas together lift people up.

But it doesn't take much thought to realise that killing people is bad for your society. Every culture has had some sort of sanction against killing folk for thousands of years. Those sanctions have only mattered while people were fed, safe and accountable.

Salis

09-10-2009, 05:03 AM

Not to intrude on a separate discussion but I wholeheartedly agree -- partly. :) Prosperity enables education and thought. Education and thought produce good ideas. Prosperity and good ideas together lift people up.

But it doesn't take much thought to realise that killing people is bad for your society. Every culture has had some sort of sanction against killing folk for thousands of years. Those sanctions have only mattered while people were fed, safe and accountable.

I think even without education and good ideas, people have a very strong, ingrained "don't rock the boat" vibe, where we won't fuck with each other if we don't have a reason to.

Being poverty-stricken/starving/etc gives you plenty of reason to kill people and take their things.

Of course, there are the odd ones out who even in a perfect society will want to destroy everything.

Ruv Draba

09-10-2009, 06:58 AM

I think even without education and good ideas, people have a very strong, ingrained "don't rock the boat" vibe, where we won't fuck with each other if we don't have a reason to.I agree, but education helps us avoid reasons to.

For example... human men will fight over breeding rights to human women. Indeed, they'll fight more over gals when they're well-fed than when they're hungry. But educate them and they'll fight in safer ways. They'll play football, or learn to dance the funky chicken, or acquire bigger houses rather than biting each other's ears off or looting the wealth of other tribes.

Gehanna

09-10-2009, 07:02 AM

To Ruv Draba,

I've read your post and I am unable to respond to it at this time. I will respond as soon as possible. The reason for this delay is that my cognitive processes are shutting down. I am 48 hours or more (what day is this?) without producing any sleep spindles or K-complexes. I need to crash so that I can catch up on some REM.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-10-2009, 07:50 AM

In a broader view, the tale of every modern culture is one of survival. Humans have a habit of chewing at each other, scattering, regrouping, chewing again... Jewish culture has had a unique path -- being a stateless ethnicity that has managed to hold its identity and even thrive. The Romany are one of the few others I know and they don't have the literacy to succeed as the Jews have. But the persecution of the Rom has been going on for a milennium so they're up there as survivors.

Once again, I'm not claiming Jews are the only people to be survivors. I'm just saying that the survival of the Jewish people is unique. You can deny it if you want, but there are a LOT of people who agree with that statement, Jewish or not.

100 million isn't a small population; it's a bloody big nation. That tells me that for a long period of time, the persecution wasn't anything like as intense as you've been suggesting. Jews weren't simply surviving tenaciously but thriving -- doing much better than many indigenous populations under colonial settlement, for example.

That's the point. The Jewish population is only 15 million people right now. I said it COULD have been 100 million if not for those things I mentioned. You just proved my point. :)

I think we're talking about general ethnic intolerance coupled with a recognition that having skilled bankers and merchants is actually an economic asset. So, perhaps a love-hate relationship. :) It's odd, but if you look around you can find a 'Jewish niche' even in countries that don't have Jews. The niche appears to be imported literate, numerate, shrewd merchants in a country that can't grow their own. The country benefits, but it hates them. We see it with the Chinese in Malaysia, Indians in Ethiopea, Chinese in Fiji. It's not Jewishness, Semi -- it's the economic role coupled with foreign ethnicity.

Agreed. My only qualifier is that every nation in Europe has done it multiple times to Jews, as have many other nations. The difference is not necessarily in what was done (though some things are unique to Jews), but the mindset--even today. I was talking to my own mother about the history of Jewish persecution (she's only Jewish by blood--her family has not practiced anything but Xtianity for 5 generations), and her response was, "What did the Jews keep doing to piss people off?" We see that same mentality with Israel. Not to get into a debate on that, but if Hamas and Fatah did to the US or any other country even a fraction of what they do to Israel, they would be wiped off the map. The US invaded Iraq under the suspicion of WMDs. Hamas has launched over 2,000 rockets into Sderot in the last 20 months, and if Israel so much as blows up a smuggling tunnel there is worldwide condemnation. The double standards are ridiculous and worldwide. THAT is the uniqueness.

You're being uncharitable. The soldiers who saw the death-camps were traumatised. The entire world was shocked and aside from a few ostriches, still is. My point is that ethnic intolerance gives way to human compassion in times of disaster -- we see this all the time. But the compassion sticks around long after the disaster is gone. Neighbours who hate each other get hit by a hurricane and become friends thereafter.

That's the point. Before the soldiers saw the death camps, they didn't care. Just look at history. Most of the nations refused to allow Jews to enter. They were fighting for themselves, and it wasn't until after that they realised how bad it really was.

There's no question that England and Russia have hated their Jewish populations for centuries, but they hate their Gypsies too. Still, disasters build friendships. Also the way that Jews have thrived in the US has made a difference too I think. Jews got compassion and a state. Gypsies got more being ignored -- but economically they were nothing like as valuable or as potent.

Jews have thrived in many places without any real thanks to the host nations. The US is probably one of the few that actually gave us an opportunity to do something.

Everyone gets persecuted when circumstances permit. Not everyone is on the brink of extinction.

No, but they can certainly try.

What changed those laws? You've argued that the world has got it in for Jews, so what do you believe made them change?

I'm not sure. I think people became more progressive and realised that Jews are people too. They realised that Jews were good at things and could contribute. But it also became impossible to say that it is illegal to discriminate against everyone--except Jews. It still happens, but it is not PC to do that now, so we no longer have laws that prevent Jews from going to college.

I think a lot of it is similar to the civil rights movement. As the generations went on, people became more and more progressive.

Your argument is that religion (specifically, Judaism) was required for the development of enlightened morality. I find this a depressingly cynical view of human nature, but okay. At least I understand where you're coming from.

Agree to disagree. :)

Well, I live in America, but I probably don't have "American" morality. I find it repulsive that politicians have to affirm their Christianity these days to make it into public office.

What I meant is that America is mostly Xtian, so the morality that is a common thread in this country derives from Xtianity--the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, both of which started in Judaism (Yes, the Golden Rule was discussed at length by Hillel, who lived before Jeebus).

Anyway, way more interesting topic: do you think that Judaism invented morality? I find this a pretty hard pill to swallow. Just because something is the first recorded precedent of something, doesn't make it the first actual precedent.

That is interesting. I think G-d invented morality, and I think it was present before Judaism. Noah definitely preached about morality, but he didn't try to spread it. I think it would be more accurate to say that Judaism took that morality and spread it out to the western and middle eastern world.

I find it more likely that people converted to such religions because it affirmed what they already believed to be good, rather than because they were amazed at this entirely new concept of not being total douchebags.

That goes with what I said above. I think G-d created us with an innate sense of morality, and Judaism simply told people how to bring it out just like a lot of religions do now.

The ancient world was a barbaric place because it was underdeveloped, poverty-stricken, and hence wracked by might-makes-right. It wasn't barbaric because of a lack of a religion telling people to do the right thing. If you look at the modern day world, it is some of the most intensely religious parts of the world that are most fucked up. I'm not implying a cause here--only a total refutation of the idea that religion in some way lifted people up out of that moral abyss. Prosperity lifts people up, not ideas.

I think the two are both because of lack of religion. I don't think the radical Islamists are truly religious. I think the really religious Muslims (and I know about 5 or 6 of them) are mostly peaceful. The extremists hate Jews and just about everyone else and use their religion to make them legitimate.

I think even without education and good ideas, people have a very strong, ingrained "don't rock the boat" vibe, where we won't fuck with each other if we don't have a reason to.

Being poverty-stricken/starving/etc gives you plenty of reason to kill people and take their things.

Of course, there are the odd ones out who even in a perfect society will want to destroy everything.

History suggests otherwise.

Ruv Draba

09-10-2009, 10:06 AM

I'm just saying that the survival of the Jewish people is unique.All cultures are unique. All are remarkable. If you follow through the history of any people, you wonder how the heck they managed to survive. (And some don't, of course.) You just happen to specifically notice the uniqueness of the one you love the best. And you happen to enjoy its particular uniqueness more than anyone else's. (Of course we would -- every time we praise our own culture, we flatter ourselves.)
That's the point. The Jewish population is only 15 million people right now. I said it COULD have been 100 million if not for those things I mentioned. You just proved my point. :)I agree with the point that things could have/should have been different, but that's also true for the Irish, Scots, Saxons, Welsh, Kurds, Muslims of Europe, the Karen people of Northern Thailand... the Uigur... you see what I mean?

Watching a nature show once I saw something that horrified me. Sea anemones tend to live in colonies of different kinds. The anemones on the outer edge of the colonies spend all their time stinging their neighbours from the competing colony to death, and being stung themselves. It's not a dogfight over in five minutes, but a war of toxins that spans years while the individuals on the outside also try to live their lives. I found the vision horrific because I saw cultures acting the same way. Of course, the anemones on the inside of the colony do quite well -- it's just the ones outside that suffer. But what if you were unlucky enough to be born a purple anemone in the middle of a colony of yellow anemones?

You see perhaps why I was horrified.
Before the soldiers saw the death camps, they didn't care.Yes, but 'not caring until I experience it myself' is the standard human condition. The same is true of indigenous populations, immigrant minorities... Our compassion is not well-developed, and our self-interest often blinds us. But I feel that's true for you too. You're so busy boasting about your own tribe and complaining about their past hurts (none of which changes anything) that you're ignoring other tribes you could be helping with your praise or your concern. 'I won't care for yours until you care for mine' is exactly the problem, Semi. It goes both ways, and when you're a minority population you end up having to give first -- because the bigger the majority the blinder they are.

In my work I've dealt with a lot of Chinese students. They're a big diaspora population too of course -- many Chinese emmigrants have been political, ethnic or economic refugees. Every Chinese emmigrant I've met has adopted a name from the country they land in -- sometimes one they can't even pronounce. For a long time I wondered why, but I think that the answer is obvious -- they know that you must at least appear to integrate or you court persecution. Jews spent a lot of time being xenophobic and exclusionary, even mysterious. That's entirely their privilege, but I think it has helped their social acceptance not at all. (Indeed, didn't I read that they made a deliberate policy of change about this?)

Jews have thrived in many places without any real thanks to the host nations. The US is probably one of the few that actually gave us an opportunity to do something.Actually, I think that thanks are owed. A state is not obliged to accept immigrants of any particular religion or ethnicity. If Jews had not been accepted (even grudgingly) they wouldn't survive today. Which is not to say we should forget the other stuff. It's wrong, but it's not the whole story and it's misleading to suggest that it is.

Bartholomew

09-10-2009, 11:39 AM

People seem to be having trouble with hypotheticals. If Judaism had not come into being, there would be no Islam or Xtianity. The far east is influenced less by Judaism than the rest of the world, but there is a influence there. In 1313 BCE, the world was mostly city-states fighting each other. Their "codes" called for death for pretty much every crime. Did you not read my post? The Code of Hammurabi called for the death penalty for theft, and the Hellenic city-states went by a similar code of law.

I read your post. I read all of them, when I can.

All of the examples you're citing come from the same general part of the world, and there really was civilization outside of those areas -- some of it even civilized. King Asoka, in the peaceful portion of his reign, was renowned for, in many of the laws of his country, revoking the death penalty.

And while we're pretty certain that ancient South American civilizations practiced capital punishment, it wasn't doled out for every single crime. The Azteks practiced various forms of restitution for minor crimes--and major crimes didn't always get the death penalty. Sometimes they used public humiliation; sometimes they practiced an eye-for-an-eye type punishments.

The ancient world consisted of more than two or three famous countries.

semilargeintestine

09-10-2009, 08:09 PM

All cultures are unique. All are remarkable. If you follow through the history of any people, you wonder how the heck they managed to survive. (And some don't, of course.) You just happen to specifically notice the uniqueness of the one you love the best. And you happen to enjoy its particular uniqueness more than anyone else's. (Of course we would -- every time we praise our own culture, we flatter ourselves.)

I'm not discussing this issue any further because you continue to ignore any argument and just keep repeating that no one is more unique than anyone else (except the people you care about of course).

I agree with the point that things could have/should have been different, but that's also true for the Irish, Scots, Saxons, Welsh, Kurds, Muslims of Europe, the Karen people of Northern Thailand... the Uigur... you see what I mean?

What you're doing is just taking people who have suffered and eliminated any sort of quantification. If I take a bucket of 100 apples and another bucket of 10 apples and show them to someone without letting them see how many are in each, they will look the same--but they are not.

Watching a nature show once I saw something that horrified me. Sea anemones tend to live in colonies of different kinds. The anemones on the outer edge of the colonies spend all their time stinging their neighbours from the competing colony to death, and being stung themselves. It's not a dogfight over in five minutes, but a war of toxins that spans years while the individuals on the outside also try to live their lives. I found the vision horrific because I saw cultures acting the same way. Of course, the anemones on the inside of the colony do quite well -- it's just the ones outside that suffer. But what if you were unlucky enough to be born a purple anemone in the middle of a colony of yellow anemones?

You see perhaps why I was horrified.

I see why you were horrified, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Hatred is not like the flu. It grows and spreads over decades and centuries, and there isn't a medicine you can take to stop it. I don't disagree with that at all.

Yes, but 'not caring until I experience it myself' is the standard human condition. The same is true of indigenous populations, immigrant minorities... Our compassion is not well-developed, and our self-interest often blinds us. But I feel that's true for you too. You're so busy boasting about your own tribe and complaining about their past hurts (none of which changes anything) that you're ignoring other tribes you could be helping with your praise or your concern. 'I won't care for yours until you care for mine' is exactly the problem, Semi. It goes both ways, and when you're a minority population you end up having to give first -- because the bigger the majority the blinder they are.

And now you're taking my Jewish pride and flipping it around to make it seem as though I don't care about anyone else. Being concerned with the welfare of your own people--a people who still experience a vast amount of prejudice on a daily basis--is not the same as not caring about others.

If you belonged to one of the indigenous tribes in Australia and you could focus your efforts on trying to help your own people who are certainly in need of help or you could focus your efforts on Jews on the other side of the planet that you've never met, which one would you pick? Any answer other than your own people is either delusional or a lie.

In my work I've dealt with a lot of Chinese students. They're a big diaspora population too of course -- many Chinese emmigrants have been political, ethnic or economic refugees. Every Chinese emmigrant I've met has adopted a name from the country they land in -- sometimes one they can't even pronounce. For a long time I wondered why, but I think that the answer is obvious -- they know that you must at least appear to integrate or you court persecution. Jews spent a lot of time being xenophobic and exclusionary, even mysterious. That's entirely their privilege, but I think it has helped their social acceptance not at all. (Indeed, didn't I read that they made a deliberate policy of change about this?)

Disclaimer: The following is not about every reform Jew, but is a general comment about the founders of the reform movement. I am friends with many reform and conservative Jews, and we get along great.

Maybe reform judaism made a policy change about it, but that's part of the problem. They decided to assimilate, and now in three generations, they'll be gone. Their intermarriage rate is almost 50%. 86% of their children do not practice Judaism. The deny their own religion and have started something completely different that justifies their laziness.

Orthodox Judaism is perhaps xenophobic. When practically every culture has tried to exterminate you or persecute you (not an exaggeration unfortunately), you get that way. We're also forbidden from dating or marrying non-Jews in the Torah. Because we only make up 0.22% of the population, we have to be very tight knit to preserve our culture. That's very similar to the Zoroastrians I think. We're just more stubborn about it I think. :D

Actually, I think that thanks are owed. A state is not obliged to accept immigrants of any particular religion or ethnicity. If Jews had not been accepted (even grudgingly) they wouldn't survive today. Which is not to say we should forget the other stuff. It's wrong, but it's not the whole story and it's misleading to suggest that it is.

I thank G-d that those countries finally saw how retarded they were being and repealed their laws. I thank the people who were normal enough to see that a law preventing a Jew from going to school is bigotry. I don't thank the nation, because as a whole, they hated Jews.

Now? I thank G-d for keeping us alive, and I thank most nations for allowing us to maintain our practices. The US is different. The US took refugees and had no laws that I know of that singled out the Jews for persecution. That I give thanks for.

I read your post. I read all of them, when I can.

All of the examples you're citing come from the same general part of the world, and there really was civilization outside of those areas -- some of it even civilized. King Asoka, in the peaceful portion of his reign, was renowned for, in many of the laws of his country, revoking the death penalty.

And while we're pretty certain that ancient South American civilizations practiced capital punishment, it wasn't doled out for every single crime. The Azteks practiced various forms of restitution for minor crimes--and major crimes didn't always get the death penalty. Sometimes they used public humiliation; sometimes they practiced an eye-for-an-eye type punishments.

The ancient world consisted of more than two or three famous countries.

Yeah, that's why I eventually qualified my post to refer to the western and middle eastern world. The far east was not nearly as barbaric, as well as some other cultures.

Salis

09-11-2009, 02:25 AM

Yeah, that's why I eventually qualified my post to refer to the western and middle eastern world. The far east was not nearly as barbaric, as well as some other cultures.

Actually, this is a really interesting fact. If you look at the middle east, which in addition to a history of great civilization, has a history of bewildering nastiness, one of the more obvious things that arises is that the environment is really unpleasant in a lot of areas, it's not a very fecund area, rivers of life notwithstanding.

If you look at areas of plenty (see: coastal Native Americans in the United States, as an example, who had a very enlightened social network, better in some ways than the First World), they evolved a very egalitarian society without any groundbreaking civilization or religion, because they could afford to.

Ruv Draba

09-11-2009, 05:36 AM

I'm not discussing this issue any further because you continue to ignore any argument and just keep repeating that no one is more unique than anyone else (except the people you care about of course).Historically, my own people aren't more unique either. To be honest I'm not exactly sure who 'my own people' even are. They could be Welsh, Scots, English, Gyspies, Australians, members of the British Commonwealth, Oceanics, humanists, secular humanists, writers, scientists, musicians. I really don't know. But it's that fuzziness in my tribal identity which makes your intense tribalism look so strange to me. Last night I was singing Karaoke with some Maori friends and while I didn't feel Maori I sure felt like part of a tribe of Antipodean Oceanic Singers -- we had shared place, custom, humour, and joy in song. But now I'm posting to this board and I feel more like a member of a tribe of philosophically-minded writers -- in which of course I include you.

Because I have those perceptions I notice how people thrive and suffer without much regard for whether they're 'my people' or not. But I can't pick a side and say 'This is the worst suffering' or 'These are the most wonderful people'. I find a great deal to admire about Jewish people, though -- especially their intellectuality, humour, tenacity, their deep bonds with one another. I find a lot to sympathise with too -- the landlessness, the need to live somewhere while preserving cultural identity, the bigotry and misunderstanding, the attempt at genocide.

Of these, only the attempt at genocide seems unique to me and I think it didn't arise from Jewishness, but from unique economic and demographic circumstances -- a foreign, embedded, minority, xenophobic culture having a lot of wealth during a time of nationalistic fervor. To a cruel and cynical government keen on uniting people in hatred (not to mention, confiscating the wealth), that's just low-hanging fruit. We can see the same in Zimbabwe today. It's horrific -- government at its very worst, devouring its own population. But it's the scale and organisation that makes what happened in Nazi Germany so appalling. All that 20th century automation turned to such an obscene purpose. I don't have words to express my horror, my outrage and my sympathy, Semi.

The rest of it though -- the bigotry, the libels... that happens to any group that doesn't integrate. Chinese, Masons, Poles, Irish... It's bad. I sympathise. It's not special. I realise though that it's an important part of the walls holding up your intense tribal identity. You don't want me knocking those walls down, and as a guy with a hammer, that's all I'm good for. :tongue So I'll stop challenging you on that, but to avoid getting allergies I'll also skim past those posts where I think you're getting too tribal and zealous. If we post zealous opinion but don't welcome other views then it ceases to be discussion and becomes propaganda. I'm not interested in having a propaganda-war with you.

What you're doing is just taking people who have suffered and eliminated any sort of quantification. If I take a bucket of 100 apples and another bucket of 10 apples and show them to someone without letting them see how many are in each, they will look the same--but they are not.I've acknowledged the scale. It's horrific. What I don't agree with is the causality. There's nothing inherent in being Jewish that requres persecution. But a xenophobic minority embedded in a larger majority gets treated badly. I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's deserved or earned -- it's just a consequence of holding separate cultural identity amid social intolerance. Gypsies get the same treatment, as I think you know.

Hatred is not like the flu. It grows and spreads over decades and centuries, and there isn't a medicine you can take to stop it. I don't disagree with that at all.Well we often think that hatred causes cultural conflict, but what if it's the reverse? If you're an anemone on the edge of your colony you probably don't want to spend your life stinging and being stung. You'd probably rather eat and live peacefully and have baby anemones. But the problem is, your neighbours sting you so you sting back.

Why do your neighbours sting you? Two reasons: you're in competition for living-space, and you're allergic to each other anyway. Anemones of the same tribe can't sting each other -- they're immune. So when they compete, it's amenable. But anemones of different tribes are allergic to one another. It's hard enough to coexist without competition. But when they compete, it becomes nasty.

What wisdom might we gain from this?

I remember some weeks back you posted how Jews -- who love living in Jewish communities, seem to assemble themselves in rings -- Orthodox Jews at the centre, Conservative Jews around them, and Reform Jews around them. It was funny but interesting too; I'd never heard of that before. But if we were all anemones it would make a lot of sense. Mainstream Western culture isn't allergic to Reform Jews. Nobody gets affronted by Seinfeld. But mainstream Western culture has very little tolerance for xenophobia applied to itself and while that might be uncharitable, it's also vaguely understandable. Society is participatory by definition. It doesn't like being disdained or scorned. So, perhaps Reform Jews become ambassadors. Perhaps people tolerate Orthodoxy just because there are Seinfelds. We don't have to be innoculated against each others' differences, except at the edges.

I know that you see Reform Judaism as a corruption of original Judaic ideas, but perhaps the survival of the original ideas owes itself in part to the reforms. Within humanitarian limits, a fundamental right of a sovreign state is to choose its way of life. When the Jewish diaspora occurred, I don't think that any state relished the idea of admitting enclaves of xenophobes who'd disdain them. However, they doubtless wanted Jewish skills and wealth in their economy. So they did the hypocritical thing and welcomed the wealth but tried to eat the culture. That often works (e.g. when the Romans ate the Franks). But it's very, very clear from history that Jewish people would rather die than give up their culture (and that is quite unusual in historical terms, though not unique -- Sikhs and Afghans feel the same way, for example). So we see a prolonged conflict marked by low-grade oppression and outbursts of persecution. For the most part Jewish people didn't want to be in some goyish state, but they had to. The states never asked for Jewish culture, but did want the economic benefits of your fine crafting and trading skills. So grudging co-existence... anemones in a sullen low-grade war.

This problem might never have occured if Jews had retained a homeland. Creating a Jewish state was entirely the sensible thing to do -- though how it was done might have been less than sensible. (The Brits have a bit of a history of screwing up well-intentioned state creation -- look at India and Pakistan.) But even with a homeland, the question of how Orthodoxy operates in the Western mainstream is still open.

I'm watching with interest how France is dealing with its Muslim population at the moment and its answer seems to be 'You can only be Muslim on the inside. On the outside, you must be French.' (Interestingly, that's Turkey's view too -- Turkish outside, Muslim inside.) That'd never suit someone like yourself, Semi, and I think that many French and Turkish Muslims have the same objections you would: 'I'm not ashamed of what I am. if it's good enough for my inside, then it's darn-well good enough for my outside.'

Is that viable? It should be. The acid test I think isn't custom, but co-operation: can we haul bricks amiably together, or will you be looking down your nose at me all the time, and will I mock your hat? Will my Muslim friend's lip curl if I have a beer at lunch? Will you leave my table in disgust if I have a BLT? And will you take me eating a BLT as a personal affront, and will I take you leaving my table the same way? And can we get past that?

Reform Jews can, of course. Moderate Muslims can too. The question is what's happening at the centre of the amoeba colonies. :D Can secular societies accommodate fundamentalist subcultures that are fundamentally different?

Jury's still out, I think.

Well, those are my idle thoughts for the morning. And here's a hug. Not sure why, Semi. I'm just very glad you're in this forum. :Hug2:

semilargeintestine

09-11-2009, 07:59 AM

Of these, only the attempt at genocide seems unique to me and I think it didn't arise from Jewishness, but from unique economic and demographic circumstances -- a foreign, embedded, minority, xenophobic culture having a lot of wealth during a time of nationalistic fervor. To a cruel and cynical government keen on uniting people in hatred (not to mention, confiscating the wealth), that's just low-hanging fruit. We can see the same in Zimbabwe today. It's horrific -- government at its very worst, devouring its own population. But it's the scale and organisation that makes what happened in Nazi Germany so appalling. All that 20th century automation turned to such an obscene purpose. I don't have words to express my horror, my outrage and my sympathy, Semi.

The rest of it though -- the bigotry, the libels... that happens to any group that doesn't integrate. Chinese, Masons, Poles, Irish... It's bad. I sympathise. It's not special. I realise though that it's an important part of the walls holding up your intense tribal identity. You don't want me knocking those walls down, and as a guy with a hammer, that's all I'm good for. :tongue So I'll stop challenging you on that, but to avoid getting allergies I'll also skim past those posts where I think you're getting too tribal and zealous. If we post zealous opinion but don't welcome other views then it ceases to be discussion and becomes propaganda. I'm not interested in having a propaganda-war with you.

I've acknowledged the scale. It's horrific. What I don't agree with is the causality. There's nothing inherent in being Jewish that requres persecution. But a xenophobic minority embedded in a larger majority gets treated badly. I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's deserved or earned -- it's just a consequence of holding separate cultural identity amid social intolerance. Gypsies get the same treatment, as I think you know.

All I can do is keep showing you history. Jewish persecution goes far beyond any other group. There are groups that have been persecuted in horrible ways, I totally agree. But no other group has been persecuted by as many countries as many times over such a long span of history.

70 to 1200 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm) (39 different counts of persecution)
1200 to 1800 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm) (34 different counts of persecution, plus physicians)
1800 to 1946 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm) (29 different acts of persecution, some related to Nazis)
Blood Libels 1 BCE to 1144 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib1.htm)
Blood Libels 1144 CE to Now (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib2.htm)
Current Blood Libels (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib3.htm)

That's over 100 different acts of persecution. That completely ignores the individual acts of anti-Semitism, which are still going on today all over the world.

The anti-Semitic book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was carried on Wal-Mart's online store until 2004.

Today in many major Arab cities, Jews have to walk on the street in the rain because they believe water carries contamination, and they don't want any water that touched a Jew to touch an Arab.

Jews were not considered citizens of many European countries until the mid-19th century. Jews have been expelled from England, France (three times), Italy (and Naples, Genoa, and Venice a second time), Spain, Belgium, Russia, Portugal, and Holland.

I also stand corrected. In United States universities from 1920-1940, there was a maximum number of Jewish students allowed to be admitted. There have been multiple holocausts and multiple periods of slavery. Jews have had to wear dunce caps and devil horned hats, as well as special badges on more than one occasion. Converting to Judaism was punishable by death for a period in certain countries, as was a Jew marrying or having sex with a Xtian.

Please, PLEASE show me one other people who has had this history of persecution. I wish NONE of this happened. The only pride I feel in this persecution is that despite all of this, we're still around and we haven't changed to please anyone. That's the only good thing about it--it's kept us Jewish.

Well we often think that hatred causes cultural conflict, but what if it's the reverse? If you're an anemone on the edge of your colony you probably don't want to spend your life stinging and being stung. You'd probably rather eat and live peacefully and have baby anemones. But the problem is, your neighbours sting you so you sting back.

Why do your neighbours sting you? Two reasons: you're in competition for living-space, and you're allergic to each other anyway. Anemones of the same tribe can't sting each other -- they're immune. So when they compete, it's amenable. But anemones of different tribes are allergic to one another. It's hard enough to coexist without competition. But when they compete, it becomes nasty.

What wisdom might we gain from this?

We learn that you think it's better to assimilate than to keep your "tribal pride" as you would probably put it. We don't, because assimilation means the death of Judaism.

I remember some weeks back you posted how Jews -- who love living in Jewish communities, seem to assemble themselves in rings -- Orthodox Jews at the centre, Conservative Jews around them, and Reform Jews around them. It was funny but interesting too; I'd never heard of that before. But if we were all anemones it would make a lot of sense. Mainstream Western culture isn't allergic to Reform Jews. Nobody gets affronted by Seinfeld. But mainstream Western culture has very little tolerance for xenophobia applied to itself and while that might be uncharitable, it's also vaguely understandable. Society is participatory by definition. It doesn't like being disdained or scorned. So, perhaps Reform Jews become ambassadors. Perhaps people tolerate Orthodoxy just because there are Seinfelds. We don't have to be innoculated against each others' differences, except at the edges.

A Jew is a Jew. :) Seinfeld is freaking hilarious, and I wouldn't hold it against him for being a Reform Jew.

I know that you see Reform Judaism as a corruption of original Judaic ideas, but perhaps the survival of the original ideas owes itself in part to the reforms. Within humanitarian limits, a fundamental right of a sovreign state is to choose its way of life. When the Jewish diaspora occurred, I don't think that any state relished the idea of admitting enclaves of xenophobes who'd disdain them. However, they doubtless wanted Jewish skills and wealth in their economy. So they did the hypocritical thing and welcomed the wealth but tried to eat the culture. That often works (e.g. when the Romans ate the Franks). But it's very, very clear from history that Jewish people would rather die than give up their culture (and that is quite unusual in historical terms, though not unique -- Sikhs and Afghans feel the same way, for example). So we see a prolonged conflict marked by low-grade oppression and outbursts of persecution. For the most part Jewish people didn't want to be in some goyish state, but they had to. The states never asked for Jewish culture, but did want the economic benefits of your fine crafting and trading skills. So grudging co-existence... anemones in a sullen low-grade war.

For any other culture, I'd agree with you. However, Judaism has one unique feature. If the mother isn't Jewish, neither are the children. Therefore, intermarriage and assimilation are currently leading to the demise of American Jewry--at least for Reform and Conservative movements. Assimilation is exactly the opposite of what we need.

This problem might never have occured if Jews had retained a homeland. Creating a Jewish state was entirely the sensible thing to do -- though how it was done might have been less than sensible. (The Brits have a bit of a history of screwing up well-intentioned state creation -- look at India and Pakistan.) But even with a homeland, the question of how Orthodoxy operates in the Western mainstream is still open.

Yes, they do. :D

I'm watching with interest how France is dealing with its Muslim population at the moment and its answer seems to be 'You can only be Muslim on the inside. On the outside, you must be French.' (Interestingly, that's Turkey's view too -- Turkish outside, Muslim inside.) That'd never suit someone like yourself, Semi, and I think that many French and Turkish Muslims have the same objections you would: 'I'm not ashamed of what I am. if it's good enough for my inside, then it's darn-well good enough for my outside.'

True.

Is that viable? It should be. The acid test I think isn't custom, but co-operation: can we haul bricks amiably together, or will you be looking down your nose at me all the time, and will I mock your hat? Will my Muslim friend's lip curl if I have a beer at lunch? Will you leave my table in disgust if I have a BLT? And will you take me eating a BLT as a personal affront, and will I take you leaving my table the same way? And can we get past that?

You're not Jewish, so I don't care what you eat. Kosher laws are for Jews, not for anyone else. There are only 7 commandments that are applicable to non-Jews, and they are the same in Judaism as they are in Xtianity (though Xtianity expounds them out to 10). So no, I wouldn't be offended whatsoever.

In fact, even if you were Jewish I would not say anything. I would be a little saddened that you are going against the G-d's wishes and doing some pretty hefty spiritual damage, but I would not admonish you even in private. I know that's what I would do because I'm in that situation just about every time I go to work.

Reform Jews can, of course. Moderate Muslims can too. The question is what's happening at the centre of the amoeba colonies. :D Can secular societies accommodate fundamentalist subcultures that are fundamentally different?

Jury's still out, I think.

Well, those are my idle thoughts for the morning. And here's a hug. Not sure why, Semi. I'm just very glad you're in this forum. :Hug2:

Everyone loves the Jewish fanatic. :)

That's for the hug, and if you weren't such a heathen I'd return it. :D

TOTALLY kidding. :Hug2:

Ruv Draba

09-11-2009, 10:55 AM

Please, PLEASE show me one other people who has had this history of persecution.Okay, then. The Romani appeared in Europe in around the 14th century. They originally came from India, and many of their customs are Hindu in origin. We don't know why they left, because they only have oral histories and many of those histories are lost, but I'll give you three guesses, and it wasn't for the better weather. Anyway, here's the life they've enjoyed in Europe:

In Wallachia and Moldava, from the 14th to the 19th century all Romani were legally slaves. In 1600s Spain, Romani language was outlawed and Romani were forcibly located into homes. in the 1700s Romani were forbidden to own horses and wagons, and were forced into military service if they had no trade. Wearing traditional Romani clothing was punishable by flogging. In 1749 the Spanish government rounded up their gitanos and put the men into forced labour camps. In 1885 the US outlawed immigration of Roma... So even the place that loved Jews hated gypsies. Romani shared the fate of Jews in WWII of course. Your folk and mine were breaking mouldy bread together behind barbed wire in Auschwitz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Porajmos.jpg/400px-Porajmos.jpg

Despite that, you might be interested to know that in 1995, Gypsies were forbidden to attend the 50th anniversary commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz. They had to watch from outside the fence.

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/images/AnnivAuschwitzm.jpg

In early 20th century Norway, 1500 Romani children were forcibly removed from their parents. In the 21st century, Romani are still discriminated against in Eastern Europe, and forcibly confined to ghettos. Police brutality is common. Last year in Istanbul scores of Romani families were evicted from homes that they'd occupied for 500 years.

In England, Romani were hanged and expelled. In France they were branded and had their heads shaved. In Moravia and Bohemia womens' ears were severed. In Czechoslovakia up until 2004, they were labeled a "socially degraded stratum", and their women were sterilised to reduce their population. In Italy this year, the government declared that the Romani represented a national security risk and that 'swift action' was needed to address the 'gypsy emergency'. The life expectancy in Italy today is around 80 -- unless you're a gypsy. Then you die before you reach 60.

My list doesn't include killing of Romani families because until recent years, nobody documented such stuff. Unlike Jews who have homes and land and birth records, nobody notices or knows if you burn a few wagons. It also doesn't include towns that routinely expel Romani or forbid them access, because that's all the time even today. I'm not going to mention libels -- they're simply too numerous, and they continue today.

I mention this because I happen to know some Romani history, but itinerant peoples have it bad in most places, Semi. My aim is not to talk about 'who has it worst' but to point out that such persecution isn't about being Jewish. It's about occupying certain social and economic niches. But still, I think most Gypsies today would rather be treated like a Jew. Your women are at least allowed to have and keep their own children.

We learn that you think it's better to assimilate than to keep your "tribal pride" as you would probably put it. We don't, because assimilation means the death of Judaism.Actually I don't think that. I think that host societies have historically demanded it for reasons I can half-understand even if I think the methods are atrocious. A culture can retain its own identity, but without a homeland, the cost to do so can be appalling. Because there's an Israel, for over 60 years 16 million Jews have had a way to escape persecution. Because there's no Romastan, 10 million Gypsies don't.

Judaism has one unique feature. If the mother isn't Jewish, neither are the children.Except that it's not unique. Zoroastrians have a similar belief -- both parents must be Zoroastrian.

Therefore, intermarriage and assimilation are currently leading to the demise of American Jewry--at least for Reform and Conservative movements. Assimilation is exactly the opposite of what we need.Unless of course, the belief changes. Which I think it will for at least some parts of Jewry. Not that I'm saying it has to -- I'm just saying I think it will. Kids will want to connect and I think you love your kids way too much to refuse them. :D

That's for the hug, and if you weren't such a heathen I'd return it. :DThat's fine. Saves you another trip to the mikvah, and me from having to go wash my marimé away downstream, below the women's laundry. :heart:

semilargeintestine

09-11-2009, 08:46 PM

Okay, then. The Romani appeared in Europe in around the 14th century. They originally came from India, and many of their customs are Hindu in origin. We don't know why they left, because they only have oral histories and many of those histories are lost, but I'll give you three guesses, and it wasn't for the better weather. Anyway, here's the life they've enjoyed in Europe:
In Wallachia and Moldava, from the 14th to the 19th century all Romani were legally slaves. In 1600s Spain, Romani language was outlawed and Romani were forcibly located into homes. in the 1700s Romani were forbidden to own horses and wagons, and were forced into military service if they had no trade. Wearing traditional Romani clothing was punishable by flogging. In 1749 the Spanish government rounded up their gitanos and put the men into forced labour camps. In 1885 the US outlawed immigration of Roma... So even the place that loved Jews hated gypsies. Romani shared the fate of Jews in WWII of course. Your folk and mine were breaking mouldy bread together behind barbed wire in Auschwitz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Porajmos.jpg/400px-Porajmos.jpg

Despite that, you might be interested to know that in 1995, Gypsies were forbidden to attend the 50th anniversary commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz. They had to watch from outside the fence.

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/images/AnnivAuschwitzm.jpg

In early 20th century Norway, 1500 Romani children were forcibly removed from their parents. In the 21st century, Romani are still discriminated against in Eastern Europe, and forcibly confined to ghettos. Police brutality is common. Last year in Istanbul scores of Romani families were evicted from homes that they'd occupied for 500 years.

In England, Romani were hanged and expelled. In France they were branded and had their heads shaved. In Moravia and Bohemia womens' ears were severed. In Czechoslovakia up until 2004, they were labeled a "socially degraded stratum", and their women were sterilised to reduce their population. In Italy this year, the government declared that the Romani represented a national security risk and that 'swift action' was needed to address the 'gypsy emergency'. The life expectancy in Italy today is around 80 -- unless you're a gypsy. Then you die before you reach 60.
My list doesn't include killing of Romani families because until recent years, nobody documented such stuff. Unlike Jews who have homes and land and birth records, nobody notices or knows if you burn a few wagons. It also doesn't include towns that routinely expel Romani or forbid them access, because that's all the time even today. I'm not going to mention libels -- they're simply too numerous, and they continue today.

Like I said, I knew based on what you said that their history is a terrible one. I don't think anyone should have to suffer at all. At the risk of being offensive, I suggest you look at the links. What you have listed there is typical of things a single country has done to the Jews.

I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest, because having people hate you and try to rid the world of you is nothing to celebrate. It's tough to not sound offensive here, but while I certainly have sympathy and regret for these people, Jewish persecution is longer and worse. I think it's safe to say that both should never happen though.

I mention this because I happen to know some Romani history, but itinerant peoples have it bad in most places, Semi. My aim is not to talk about 'who has it worst' but to point out that such persecution isn't about being Jewish. It's about occupying certain social and economic niches. But still, I think most Gypsies today would rather be treated like a Jew. Your women are at least allowed to have and keep their own children.

Yes, I don't think persecution is necessarily about being Jewish. I don't think I actually said that anywhere. My only thing was that Jewish persecution is unique because it goes pretty far beyond any other culture. Even these horrible things that happened to these people are typical of what a single country would do to Jews.

Gypsies can want to be treated like Jews, but I'm not sure why. There are more hate crimes against Jews than any other people in the US1 (http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/nature-and-magnitude.html) except blacks, and the black population is considerably larger than the Jewish population. In 2007, there were 3,259 hate crimes against blacks, 595 against Hispanics, and 115 against Muslims. There were 969 against Jews (coincidentally, the age Methuselah died in the Torah).

I have a friend at work who is black, and he always says it's him and me against the white folks. :D

Actually I don't think that. I think that host societies have historically demanded it for reasons I can half-understand even if I think the methods are atrocious. A culture can retain its own identity, but without a homeland, the cost to do so can be appalling. Because there's an Israel, for over 60 years 16 million Jews have had a way to escape persecution. Because there's no Romastan, 10 million Gypsies don't.

Your statistics are misleading. There are only about 13.1 million Jews in the world today, and between 10 and 12 million Gypsies. Your statistic about 16 million Jews is wrong. I'm not sure where you got that. The Israeli report from 2007 puts the total number of immigrants to Israel at 3,374,275 between 1948 and 2006. I don't think 13 million people immigrated to Israel between 2006 and 2009 considering the total current population is only 7,411,000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html), and only 5,593,000 of them are Jewish. I don't know if you just made that number up or if you got it somewhere, but it's wrong.

Except that it's not unique. Zoroastrians have a similar belief -- both parents must be Zoroastrian.

Yes, true. And they are actually a good example of why it's true about Judaism. Because it requires certain parental conditions to be met, assimilation will lead to the end of the culture. Thanks for the piece of corroborating evidence.

Unless of course, the belief changes. Which I think it will for at least some parts of Jewry. Not that I'm saying it has to -- I'm just saying I think it will. Kids will want to connect and I think you love your kids way too much to refuse them. :D

The belief can't change. First of all, it's Biblically mandated that we don't marry outside Judaism, and second of all, intermarriage means no more Jews eventually. Not just no more Judaism, but no more Jews. Assimilation will come far closer to eliminating us than Hitler ever did.

That's fine. Saves you another trip to the mikvah, and me from having to go wash my marimé away downstream, below the women's laundry. :heart:

:ROFL:

Ruv Draba

09-12-2009, 04:01 AM

I pulled the Jewish population figures from memory, Semi. I might have mis-remembered it, but equally my source might've been wrong. It's not material to the discussion though.

I think that the point I was trying to make you've accepted -- which is that bad stuff happens to people without a homeland if they retain their cultural identity. Your point hinges on the point that the Jewish people hadn't had a homeland for a long time -- which point I also accept. So now they do, and the world has changed. Because they do, I'm now less concerned about persecution of Jews than I was. They're off my 'endangered species' list. Because Israel's at war I consider Jewish people 'threatened', but I feel that Palestinian people are threatened too. Both peoples share my concern.

Added: I should point out that people who are suffering sustained and near-invisible persecution are of greater concern to me.

Gehanna

09-12-2009, 08:31 PM

To Ruv Draba,

Your analysis of my data was much appreciated however, I had hoped for a more objective approach. Despite the lack of objectivity, the analysis did contain a hit and miss accuracy. The problem with hit and miss accuracy is that I could have obtained similar results from a tarot card reading. I am not attempting to be a jerk by making this comparison. Instead, I want to point out how easy it can be to do cold readings.

Now to flip the coin...

You define yourself as a rationalist, but I disagree. I think you are an idealist. This I base on your use of variable concepts such as "good" and "decent". Perhaps, if you could be more definitive like George Washington with his 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior (http://www.foundationsmag.com/civility.html).

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-12-2009, 10:13 PM

You define yourself as a rationalist, but I disagree. I think you are an idealist. This I base on your use of variable concepts such as "good" and "decent".It sounds like you're disappointed. I suppose you're entitled to a full refund then. :) But to respond to your points...

For me, good is what is useful. I think it's easy to observe that there are needs common to humanity, including tangible needs like food and shelter, and less tangible but still material needs like belonging and dignity. Where those needs are common, I can define common good.

For me, decency is our desire that others don't suffer as we meet our needs, but also that others can meet their needs if we don't suffer too. It's compassion then, turned into a fundamental plank of ethics. 'Do unto others' is a related statement, though not one I adhere to.

Our understanding of good and decency may change as we learn more about ourselves and each other, but they're not arbitrary. We can build them by observation and enquiry. Our concern for good and decency help define what I think it means to be human.

Thank you too for the link to the 110 Rules. Those rules I think are about custom -- which is not the same as good or decency, but is often informed by these things. Associated with custom however is taboo -- which is making a custom or belief so important that it's no longer tolerable to question it. Sometimes taboos are mistaken for morals, but for me they are very different.
I want to point out how easy it can be to do cold readings.It can, but that wasn't what I was doing. I was validating my guess at your Myers-Briggs personality typing -- something which AMCrenshaw spotted as you can tell by his commentary. I did this because I long ago formed a view that minds are architected differently to one another, and MBTI is so far, one of the better ways I've found of understanding differences in mental architecture.

Although we have the same sorts of needs, the way we make decisions and what informs those decisions can be very different. In particular, the strategies we use to validate opinion and update knowledge are not all the same. Since you invited me to critique your experiences, I sought to do it from a perspective that I hoped would be useful to you rather than just one that was natural to me.

To illustrate a fundamental difference between us, it wouldn't matter how many times God spoke to me in a dream or how intensely the dream felt, I wouldn't imagine that it was really God talking. It's not because I'm a stubborn atheist but because no emotion, no matter how intense, ever persuades me of truth. (Quite the opposite -- the stronger the emotion, the more I suspect that I'm missing something.) For me, emotions are like weather -- they might obscure the terrain but they don't actually change it. But there are quite a lot of people who appreciate a proposition by how it makes them feel. I suspected that you're one of them and I sought to cross-validate by other behaviours and experiences that are often associated with understanding-through-feeling.

I could have simply said to you 'It's not God; it's just your emotional centres talking to your rational centres' but what use would that be? The experience was enough to persuade you or else you wouldn't believe as you do. I thought a more useful response was to say 'Here's how I think it is for you, what one can reasonably do with that.'

You've accused me of being an idealist. I do have some ideals, but in general I find it far easier to set them aside than to set my logic aside. Recently Colorado Guy asked me to try to see things as a mystic does and I had a serious go at it, but I'd have had more luck trying to give milk than think with my emotions. :)

Would you like me to tell you that your dreams are entirely self-synthesised? I think that they are. They are nevertheless very important to how you assimilate your world. For me, I recall virtually none of my dreams, or when I do I find myself solving problems that I'd been thinking about the day before anyway. :D

Gehanna

09-13-2009, 02:45 AM

I hoped you might find Washington's 110 rules interesting. I found much of it amusing because I would never have made it in that day and age.

May I call you Spock? You can call me Data. :D

Gehanna

Ruv Draba

09-13-2009, 05:08 AM

I hoped you might find Washington's 110 rules interesting. I found much of it amusing because I would never have made it in that day and age.The day and age seem to be changing. The more education our populations get, the less rules seem to matter and the more our understanding does. I suspect that we're not aware of just how different society is now. There was a time when being thought of as civilised required us to master and perfect the execution of rules. Now that's barely adequate -- perhaps even an encumbrance. But it begs the question how do we teach or learn the ability to be civilised without rules? Certain tactics clearly aren't working. We can't simply guilt or blame each other to death. Neither can we try and be all things to everyone. We sure as heck can't always see things from another's viewpoint when we're not architected to even think that way. I've joked before that the progressives and the conservatives from each religion have far more in common with one another than they have with the other side of their own faith.

My hope is that we come to recognise our relative strengths and weaknesses and acknowledge them -- that we cooperate to find worthwhile niches and discover ways to recognise when we're not working to our strengths but to our weaknesses.

May I call you Spock? You can call me Data. :DYou know, you actually made me go off and research that? Barring physical differences and backstories, the key point of difference, according to my readings, is that:
Data's desire to comprehend and emulate humanity contrasts with Spock's disdain for his perceived human shortcomings. [...] Data and Spock compared their ideologies: Spock stated that some Vulcans aspire all their lives to achieve what Data had been given by design, and Data replied that, in choosing a fully Vulcan way of life, Spock was rejecting his half-human heritage, in effect abandoning what Data had sought for all his life. Spock further said that he had "no regrets" for his humanity, though Data noted that "no regrets" is a human expression.
In fairness I don't actually have disdain for human shortcomings. I have disdain for using our shortcomings as work-tools. :tongue As a personal example, I can model people pretty well, but I can't use my analytics as empathy -- it makes people want to kill me. I either have empathy for people or I don't. When I do I can use it; when I don't I just have to be careful not to hurt or offend. But in fairness too, people can't always tell when I'm being sympathetic because they can't always see what I'm seeing.

I dunno... I think Spock and Data are existential clowns, with Spock being drawn by Satre and Data being drawn by Beckett. I don't feel terribly existential though I do sometimes get clownish when folk like Higgins are free-associating. :)

semilargeintestine

09-13-2009, 07:25 AM

I pulled the Jewish population figures from memory, Semi. I might have mis-remembered it, but equally my source might've been wrong. It's not material to the discussion though.

It's material to the discussion because you were attempting to use two different types of statistics to prove a point.

I think that the point I was trying to make you've accepted -- which is that bad stuff happens to people without a homeland if they retain their cultural identity. Your point hinges on the point that the Jewish people hadn't had a homeland for a long time -- which point I also accept. So now they do, and the world has changed. Because they do, I'm now less concerned about persecution of Jews than I was. They're off my 'endangered species' list. Because Israel's at war I consider Jewish people 'threatened', but I feel that Palestinian people are threatened too. Both peoples share my concern.

Jews have a homeland, and national persecution is pretty much over, thank G-d. Unfortunately, it's still a fact that anti-Semitic crimes are on the rise in nearly every country in Europe, America, and even the Far East. The world is changing and outright displays of hate are no longer considered PC. All this means to us though is that more and more people are doing things to us, but the world says it's wrong now. Veiled anti-Semitism is almost worse than blatant anti-Semitism, because at least the latter keeps us together. The former welcomes us in and invites change, which is now leading to the loss of more and more Jews through intermarriage than every before.

The Palestinian people are threatened far more by their own people than by Israel. Israel gives them money and supplies, provides healthcare, offers them citizenship, and takes in the refugees that flee Gaza and the "West Bank." Their own people (i.e., Jordan, etc) refuse to even take them in because they are too great a bargaining chip. Fatah and Hamas--particularly Hamas--use their civilians as weapons and shields, placing them in harms way by erecting rocket launchers in and near elementary schools and hospitals. They indoctinate the children to think that Israel is the ultimate enemy and that death is preferable to friendship. They prosecute and kill Arabs who do business with Jews or are even suspected of "collaborating" with Jewish civilians. I really feel for the Palestinian civilians because they are being royally screwed by their own government. Israel cannot let up their defenses because Fatah and Hamas want nothing but to destroy them, and their own government and supposed allies refuse to help because their plight garners sympathy for the Arab world and contempt for Israel. It is a terrible shame, and I hope it is able to be resolved quickly.

Added: I should point out that people who are suffering sustained and near-invisible persecution are of greater concern to me.

You shouldn't have added this, or you should have worded it better. It is pretty offensive. If it is a retaliation for me saying I am more concerned with anti-Jewish crimes than with hate crimes against other people, I think that is pretty childish.

Ruv Draba

09-13-2009, 02:03 PM

It's material to the discussion because you were attempting to use two different types of statistics to prove a point.I mentioned the stats in passing to show that the populations were of comparable sizes. They're still of comparable sizes if you use your stats. There was no other point.

You shouldn't have added this, or you should have worded it better. It is pretty offensive. If it is a retaliation for me saying I am more concerned with anti-Jewish crimes than with hate crimes against other people, I think that is pretty childish.Absolutely not. I'm just not aware of poor, illiterate, nomadic, unemployed, undocumented Jewish families suffering systematic sterilisation into the 21st century. For Jewish people that particular misery thankfully stopped generations ago. For the Romani it continues into modern times. It's sad that what's history for Jews is current affairs for the Romani. Sadder still is that while the world is now very sensitive to anti-Jewish sentiment, the Italian government is comfortable in making anti-Romani sentiment an election platform. Even sadder to me is your apparent lack of sympathy, despite just how much misery the Roma and Jews have shared. I was shocked when you didn't even react to the article about the Roma being kept from commemorating Auschwitz. Did you actually read it?

Please recall that you invited a comparison in the first place. So is this to be a discussion where you'll be offended whenever attention and sympathy shift off your own interests? If so, I don't want to play.

semilargeintestine

09-13-2009, 09:08 PM

I mentioned the stats in passing to show that the populations were of comparable sizes. They're still of comparable sizes if you use your stats. There was no other point.

Gotcha. It seemed like you were trying to do what a LOT of people do, which is compare apples to oranges to skew the truth.

Absolutely not. I'm just not aware of poor, illiterate, nomadic, unemployed, undocumented Jewish families suffering systematic sterilisation into the 21st century. For Jewish people that particular misery thankfully stopped generations ago. For the Romani it continues into modern times. It's sad that what's history for Jews is current affairs for the Romani. Sadder still is that while the world is now very sensitive to anti-Jewish sentiment, the Italian government is comfortable in making anti-Romani sentiment an election platform. Even sadder to me is your apparent lack of sympathy, despite just how much misery the Roma and Jews have shared. I was shocked when you didn't even react to the article about the Roma being kept from commemorating Auschwitz. Did you actually read it?

Oh, actually I didn't even see it. I must have missed that. I'll go back and read it.

ETA: I did read it. I'm pretty sure I said that it was terrible. But it's also old hat for Jews. That crap has been happening to us for 2,000 years by practically every European country. As far as Auschwitz, I didn't know that they were in there too. But 7.5 million people were killed in the Holocaust, and 6 million of them were Jews. Almost a million and a half of those were babies, so there were as many Jewish babies killed as everyone else.

HOWEVER, that doesn't make it any less tragic for the other people killed in the Holocaust, and it shouldn't have happened to anyone. Jewish persecution has been one string of pogrom after pogrom, of expulsion after expulsion, of discriminatory law after discriminatory law, of slaver and genocide again and again. I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through even a fraction of it, because I know how horrible it is, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Despite this discussion, when I meet people who are from cultures who have been persecuted, I feel a little bit of a bond. Many cultures have suffered discrimination, but there are far less who have been continuously persecuted and beaten down. African Americans, the Romani, even the gay community (while they haven't been murdered on a mass scale, they still have faced a lot of discrimination at the hands of their own governments and fellow citizens). I feel like we're cousins almost, because we share a common background of hell. Are Jews "better" than the Romani or African Americans because we've been persecuted for longer and by more people? No. There is no better or worse in persecution--everyone loses. We just know what it's like because we've felt every kind of persecution their is, often from multiple people, and even some things no one else has ever had to deal with.

So trust me when I say that I feel for them. Because I'm so familiar with my own history, I know what they're going through, and it's wrong.

Please recall that you invited a comparison in the first place. So is this to be a discussion where you'll be offended whenever attention and sympathy shift off your own interests? If so, I don't want to play.

I recall also that I've said that suffering of any kind is atrocious. The only reason I've been reacting so long is that you seem adamant on proving to everyone that Jewish suffering is no big deal compared to the rest of the world, despite mountains of evidence.

Gehanna

09-13-2009, 09:57 PM

Don't forget Native Americans.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-13-2009, 11:39 PM

How could I forget them. Jeez. My sister is actually part Native American (different father).

Ruv Draba

09-14-2009, 01:14 AM

I recall also that I've said that suffering of any kind is atrocious.Yes, and I'm convinced you mean that. But how, knowing as much Jewish history as you do, could you not also know who else was in Auschwitz? I know a scant fraction of what you know of Jewish history, and I know that gays, intellectuals, Roma and Sindi were killed in Auschwitz along with Jewish people.

Please understand that I'm not being critical of you, Semi. I respect you as a fine scholar of Jewish history and tradition and if I were a Jew I'd count myself blessed to have you as a watchdog of my tribal and religious interests -- I'm not kidding.

But here's my worry: even when I post some history at your specific request, with graphic pictures, it seems that you only skim it for the numbers and possible bad things said about Jews. I know that suffering appalls you, but what bothers me is that you're not concerned to know about it outside Jewish suffering.

Two concerns, no three:

I fear that it may be skewing your understanding of history and current affairs;
It's putting you in a position where anytime some heathen like me says anything, you don't hear it as sympathy -- only criticism;
I fear worse, that it's doing you no favours in the eyes of gentiles who know you.
I have no right to be critical or tell you what to do, Semi, but please understand when I say that I'm concerned for you.

The only reason I've been reacting so long is that you seem adamant on proving to everyone that Jewish suffering is no big deal compared to the rest of the world, despite mountains of evidence.Mate, that is not even close to what I've been saying. All I've been saying is that it earns you no friends to moan about your childhood while another man's taking a beating.

But what I didn't realise until your last post was the possibility that you don't actually see a man taking the beating unless he's wearing a yamulke. That to you it might just be silly goyim doing silly goyim things, and no concern of yours.

I don't know if that's true, but I'm wondering if it is.

Regardless, it's your choice, Semi. You're not shy about proclaiming your sympathies but I know you have more compassion tucked under your hat than you sometimes display (ironic for me to say that, but there you go. :D). You're a very fine watchdog for Jewish interests. Being a humanist though, I can't help but wish that you'd show more concern about human interests at times. I know that you're teaching a lot here, but what do you feel that you're learning? That you're glad to be Jewish, sure -- that only Jews will ever understand Judaism, maybe -- and what else?

semilargeintestine

09-14-2009, 01:50 AM

Yes, and I'm convinced you mean that. But how, knowing as much Jewish history as you do, could you not also know who else was in Auschwitz? I know a scant fraction of what you know of Jewish history, and I know that gays, intellectuals, Roma and Sindi were killed in Auschwitz along with Jewish people.

When did I say no one else was in Auschwitz? I never said that, but now you're insinuating that I did? I said that there were more Jewish babies killed in the Holocaust than all the other groups of people combined. The second part of that sentence is proof I know others were there. I am friends with gays and blacks, and they were both thrown into the concentration camps (the Holocaust is where the pink triangle came from). I'm baffled as to where you got the impression I thought no one else was murdered.

Please understand that I'm not being critical of you, Semi. I respect you as a fine scholar of Jewish history and tradition and if I were a Jew I'd count myself blessed to have you as a watchdog of my tribal and religious interests -- I'm not kidding.

Thanks.

But here's my worry: even when I post some history at your specific request, with graphic pictures, it seems that you only skim it for the numbers and possible bad things said about Jews. I know that suffering appalls you, but what bothers me is that you're not concerned to know about it outside Jewish suffering.

Two concerns, no three:

I fear that it may be skewing your understanding of history and current affairs;
It's putting you in a position where anytime some heathen like me says anything, you don't hear it as sympathy -- only criticism;
I fear worse, that it's doing you no favours in the eyes of gentiles who know you.

I have no right to be critical or tell you what to do, Semi, but please understand when I say that I'm concerned for you.

Just because I didn't write a novel about what I felt doesn't mean I didn't feel anything. Those pictures were heartbreaking. The fact that they weren't allowed to attend the anniversary is even more heartbreaking. I'm not sure why that happened, but that's not right.

I'm sorry you got the impression I didn't care. I thought it was clear that I did, but apparently it wasn't.

Mate, that is not even close to what I've been saying. All I've been saying is that it earns you no friends to moan about your childhood while another man's taking a beating.

But what I didn't realise until your last post was the possibility that you don't actually see a man taking the beating unless he's wearing a yamulke. That to you it might just be silly goyim doing silly goyim things, and no concern of yours.

I don't know if that's true, but I'm wondering if it is.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to break out the word goyim. I'm not sure how that became derogatory. The word goyim is used to describe Israel in some instances in the Torah. The word just means nations when describing a greater group of people. It can also mean Gentile. But saying goyim or goyishe is just like saying Gentile. There is no animosity inherent in the word. If someone says it in in an insulting manner, it would be the same as if they said Gentile. It's just a word.

Anyway, I actually am a big supporter of gay rights. I've been to multiple protests, I have an HRC sticker on my car, and I've been IN the Philadelphia Pride Parade--yarmulke and all. I took a political science class on social groups and wrote a 20-page paper on gay rights and and the history of discrimination in the United States (and to a small extent, Europe). My best friend is a MTF transgendered woman, and we constantly discuss the implications of that in both the secular world and in Jewish thought (she's Jewish--not observant, but slowly returning).

What you see here isn't always the full picture. I'm sure it's the same with everyone on this board. I've done just as much for gay rights as I have for Jews.

Regardless, it's your choice, Semi. You're not shy about proclaiming your sympathies but I know you have more compassion tucked under your hat than you sometimes display (ironic for me to say that, but there you go. :D). You're a very fine watchdog for Jewish interests. Being a humanist though, I can't help but wish that you'd show more concern about human interests at times. I know that you're teaching a lot here, but what do you feel that you're learning? That you're glad to be Jewish, sure -- that only Jews will ever understand Judaism, maybe -- and what else?

I've learned a lot actually. I didn't know anything about what aruna was talking about. I had no idea that reincarnation was such a widespread belief, even among atheists.

Ruv Draba

09-14-2009, 02:33 AM

I'm baffled as to where you got the impression I thought no one else was murdered.I got the impression you didn't know about Gypsies from this comment:
As far as Auschwitz, I didn't know that they were in there too.

The fact that they weren't allowed to attend the anniversary is even more heartbreaking. I'm not sure why that happened, but that's not right.Of course it's not right, but why do you imagine it happened? How could it have been allowed to? I've been flicking through a very cranky book by Ward Churchill on unacknowledged holocausts and part of his point (toned down substantially) is that if we sanctify the wrongs done to us, we'll drown out the wrongs that are occurring next door. I'm not sure that I agree with everything Churchill claims but it seems a fair point. Gay activists have had difficulties getting an invitation to attend Auschwitz commemorations too, it seems. I don't at all like it when history becomes political.

I'm sorry you got the impression I didn't care. I thought it was clear that I did, but apparently it wasn't.I know that you care. I just suspect that you don't always see.

There is no animosity inherent in the word. If someone says it in in an insulting manner, it would be the same as if they said Gentile. It's just a word.I agree; it's just a word and you shouldn't be so quick to read animosity that I didn't put there. But do you see a world divided into rigid Jew and Gentile boundaries, and do you grow disinterested in what happens to a person if they're not Jewish? Serious question.

What you see here isn't always the full picture. I'm sure it's the same with everyone on this board. I've done just as much for gay rights as I have for Jews.I'm delighted to learn this about you, though it baffles me why you had to explain that your trans-gendered friend was Jewish-but-not-observing. Does it matter to you? :D

semilargeintestine

09-14-2009, 03:07 AM

I got the impression you didn't know about Gypsies from this comment:

I didn't know Gypsies were there. I knew there were other people, but not specifically Gypsies. That's all I meant.

Of course it's not right, but why do you imagine it happened? How could it have been allowed to? I've been flicking through a very cranky book by Ward Churchill on unacknowledged holocausts and part of his point (toned down substantially) is that if we sanctify the wrongs done to us, we'll drown out the wrongs that are occurring next door. I'm not sure that I agree with everything Churchill claims but it seems a fair point. Gay activists have had difficulties getting an invitation to attend Auschwitz commemorations too, it seems. I don't at all like it when history becomes political.

Me neither.

I know that you care. I just suspect that you don't always see.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I agree; it's just a word and you shouldn't be so quick to read animosity that I didn't put there. But do you see a world divided into rigid Jew and Gentile boundaries, and do you grow disinterested in what happens to a person if they're not Jewish? Serious question.

You used it in a way that implied it was a bit insulting. I don't know if you view it that way or not, but I just wanted to put that bit in there in case anyone else does.

I wouldn't say disinterested is the right word. I definitely see it as Jew and everyone else, but not in the way one would imagine. I see it that way because Jews have a special relationship with one another, must the way other cultures do. We have certain bonds. A Jew could go to a random town and walk up to a Jewish person he has never met and get invited to spend the Sabbath (an overnight stay with 3 meals) without even asking. Our brotherhood has kept us around (with the help of G-d of course), and even those of us who have not experienced something so horrible as the Holocaust feel pain when another Jew feels pain. We're one big family.

So I look at it like a neighborhood. The Jews are one house, and the rest of the neighborhood is the rest of the world. Each has their own individual family, but they're still the rest of the neighborhood. But just because my next door neighbor thinks he can squat in my backyard, that doesn't make me automatically hate the neighbor across the street. :D

I'm delighted to learn this about you, though it baffles me why you had to explain that your trans-gendered friend was Jewish-but-not-observing. Does it matter to you? :D

I put that in there because she frequently comes to me to ask what the Orthodox opinion is. We were best friends for almost four years before I even knew she was Jewish. She was atheist up until this year, and she's slowly started to come back to Judaism. I want her to be observant because I want her to have the same relationship with G-d that I do. If she never becomes observant, that won't affect our friendship. It'll just mean a lifetime of nagging from me. :D

Ruv Draba

09-14-2009, 04:24 AM

You used it in a way that implied it was a bit insulting.No, I used it in a way that meant 'gentile'. :tongue But I actually prefer goyim to 'gentile' because 'gentile' has been used to mean 'foreign, heathen, pagan' including non-Christian, while ha goyim simply means 'non-Jewish nations'. So goyim seems more precise to me (and yes, that matters :tongue).
I don't know if you view it that way or not, but I just wanted to put that bit in there in case anyone else does.By making me look like a bigot. Thanks, bud! :Thumbs:

But just because my next door neighbor thinks he can squat in my backyard, that doesn't make me automatically hate the neighbor across the street. :DI know the truth of that. I see you as a zealous guardian, but not a hater. You've been very kind to me when I've inadvertantly offended you and very understanding when I've apologised for it.

But back to my question above: if you are a bit of a guardian, do you feel that you shouldn't be too generous with compassion or praise to people outside your tribe? Would it feel like you were betraying your people?

semilargeintestine

09-14-2009, 07:15 AM

No, I used it in a way that meant 'gentile'. :tongue But I actually prefer goyim to 'gentile' because 'gentile' has been used to mean 'foreign, heathen, pagan' including non-Christian, while ha goyim simply means 'non-Jewish nations'. So goyim seems more precise to me (and yes, that matters :tongue).

You're probably the only one! :D I say goyim at work, and they look at me like I just said the n-word.

By making me look like a bigot. Thanks, bud! :Thumbs:

I do what I can. ;)

I know the truth of that. I see you as a zealous guardian, but not a hater. You've been very kind to me when I've inadvertantly offended you and very understanding when I've apologised for it.

But back to my question above: if you are a bit of a guardian, do you feel that you shouldn't be too generous with compassion or praise to people outside your tribe? Would it feel like you were betraying your people?

No, I don't think so. All it means is that my priorities are on my own people. Does that mean I don't have compassion for others? No. In fact, my line of work requires me to in order to do a good job (although, I HATE my job, but it has nothing to do with the patients :D ). It just means that if a bunch of groups of people are suffering, and I can only focus my energies on a couple, someone is going to get left out because my own people take precedence. I don't think that is unreasonable.

Ruv Draba

09-15-2009, 01:12 AM

All it means is that my priorities are on my own people. Does that mean I don't have compassion for others? No. In fact, my line of work requires me to in order to do a good job (although, I HATE my job, but it has nothing to do with the patients :D ). It just means that if a bunch of groups of people are suffering, and I can only focus my energies on a couple, someone is going to get left out because my own people take precedence. I don't think that is unreasonable.I think out compassion is limited. Our capacity to worry, to be concerned is limited by how much time we have to think, how much anxiety and suffering we can bear. I think it is unreasonable to ask someone to care about everything all of the time. :)

Admiration though, is different. It costs us nothing, yes? Do you feel it's disloyal to admire non-Jewish achievements? Do you feel it's wrong to admire non-Jewish works? To admire them more than Jewish ones sometimes? Are there important, non-Jewish achievements in the world for which we should all be grateful? Are some as great as Jewish achievements?

Back to compassion again... we can use it all up worrying about people who don't need anything. Our children for example, can be safe but we still grow anxious over them. Our compassion can become bound in worrying about the past or in anxiety for the future and we can fail to really understand the present. Do you think there comes a time when we should say sure, I care about this but I'm no longer obsessively concerned about it? What defines that time?

semilargeintestine

09-15-2009, 03:06 AM

I think out compassion is limited. Our capacity to worry, to be concerned is limited by how much time we have to think, how much anxiety and suffering we can bear. I think it is unreasonable to ask someone to care about everything all of the time. :)

I agree, and I think people forget that--on both sides. It is easy to condemn someone for not caring with all his heart about something, but he may be completely used up. On the other hand, it is sometimes hard for someone to accept that he can't be totally empathetic to everyone.

Admiration though, is different. It costs us nothing, yes? Do you feel it's disloyal to admire non-Jewish achievements? Do you feel it's wrong to admire non-Jewish works? To admire them more than Jewish ones sometimes? Are there important, non-Jewish achievements in the world for which we should all be grateful? Are some as great as Jewish achievements?

I don't categorise achievements based on whether or not they are from a Jewish source. Taking literature, for instance, my favourite novels are Jane Eyre by Bronte and Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk--neither one of them are Jewish.

However, I am perfectly happy to champion the fact that at least 178 Jews have been awarded the Nobel Prize, making up 23% and 37% of world and US recipients respectively--physics (47), economics (26), and physiology/medicine (53) are especially impressive, including Einstein (relativity/photoelectric effect), Bohr (structure of atoms), Born (quantum mechanics), Feynman (quantum electrodynamics), and Krebs (um...Krebs cycle anyone?). :D

So is it disloyal to appreciate non-Jewish achievements? Not at all. I just have pride that many ground-breaking scientific discoveries and theories have come from Jews. It's no coincidence that Fatah says it's okay to be treated by a Jewish doctor as long as you don't thank him. ;)

Note: while Fatah did say it is permissible to be treated by a Jewish doctor, I don't know if he said the part about thanking him. I think it had more to do with giving a Jew money and kindness than anything else.

Back to compassion again... we can use it all up worrying about people who don't need anything. Our children for example, can be safe but we still grow anxious over them. Our compassion can become bound in worrying about the past or in anxiety for the future and we can fail to really understand the present. Do you think there comes a time when we should say sure, I care about this but I'm no longer obsessively concerned about it? What defines that time?

I think obsessive concern can be let up a bit when there is little danger. Unfortunately, it's been 2,009 years, and Jews are still in danger around the world. I wish I had nothing to worry about. I wish no one had anything to worry about.

Ruv Draba

09-15-2009, 04:00 AM

I agree, and I think people forget that--on both sides. It is easy to condemn someone for not caring with all his heart about something, but he may be completely used up. On the other hand, it is sometimes hard for someone to accept that he can't be totally empathetic to everyone.I have a lot of sympathy for people, but I need to actively switch my empathy on at times, especially when I'm solving problems or smacking things with a hammer. You said before that gay rights are important to you. Outside preserving Jewish people, what are your top humanitarian concerns? The ones that make you stop and frown regardless of who's involved?

For me, untruth I think is number one. I'm not sure that it should be, but people who either don't understand what they're saying or say something untrue, or obscure what's true give me a headache. It's a concern I sometimes wish I could switch off. You've mentioned that anti-Jewish libels are a problem. I agree, but I see a lot of non-Jewish ones too, and they drive me just as nuts. Political deceits too.

I'd like to say the compassion is number two but it's not -- my ability to suffer on someone else's behalf is limited by my empathy, which is fairly vestigial. :) So number two for me is ungenerosity. Many things that people need can be supplied quickly and easily. When people aren't safe, healthy or well-fed, what they need is fairly obvious. When they are safe, healthy and well-fed they still need praise, recognition or an encouraging word. It just seems to me that it's not hard to improve the condition of people around us. But if I, with little empathy can see such things, why can't people with more empathy than me see it?

Number three for me is courage. If we have a conscience but are too scared to act on it we may as well be dead for all the good we are. Matters concerning cowardice always get my attention. People who'd let a neighbour be hurt... people who find big groups then intimidate with them... or who'd be scared to admit they have a gay friend for fear of being mocked... stuff like that.

I am perfectly happy to champion the fact that at least 178 Jews have been awarded the Nobel Prize, making up 23% and 37% of world and US recipients respectively--physics (47), economics (26), and physiology/medicine (53) are especially impressive, including Einstein (relativity/photoelectric effect), Bohr (structure of atoms), Born (quantum mechanics), Feynman (quantum electrodynamics), and Krebs (um...Krebs cycle anyone?). :DI've said it to you privately and am happy to repeat here -- we are very very lucky to have Jewish culture in the world. Jews have made extaordinary contributions to Sciences and the Arts, punching well above their weight in physics, medicine, psychology, music and literature. (In fairness, I think the Reform Jews probably get more credit than the Orthodox ones, but I'm starting to suspect that the one can't exist without the other anyway).

It's no coincidence that Fatah says it's okay to be treated by a Jewish doctor as long as you don't thank him.Sheesh.

I think obsessive concern can be let up a bit when there is little danger. Unfortunately, it's been 2,009 years, and Jews are still in danger around the world. I wish I had nothing to worry about. I wish no one had anything to worry about.Would you say that the character of the danger is changing? As a f'rinstance, I can well imagine an all-out Muslim/Arab/Israeli war -- all it would take is for someone to get stupid over Mount Moriah, say. I can't imagine another Jewish genocide attempt in Europe and I certainly can't imagine a US, UK or Australian one, say. I can imagine Jews continually disliked in the US and Europe but I think that co-existing without integrating tends to produce that. And I think in fairness, Jews are a lot less hated in those places today than once they were -- certainly they're a lot less hated in UK and Australia. So do you also think that the Middle East is the main danger now?

semilargeintestine

09-15-2009, 08:34 AM

I have a lot of sympathy for people, but I need to actively switch my empathy on at times, especially when I'm solving problems or smacking things with a hammer. You said before that gay rights are important to you. Outside preserving Jewish people, what are your top humanitarian concerns? The ones that make you stop and frown regardless of who's involved?

Gay rights is huge for me (which most people have found surprising given my religious fanaticism). That's probably the biggest thing outside of Judaism. There are lots of things that make me frown, but I dedicate most of my efforts to Jewish causes and gay rights.

For me, untruth I think is number one. I'm not sure that it should be, but people who either don't understand what they're saying or say something untrue, or obscure what's true give me a headache. It's a concern I sometimes wish I could switch off. You've mentioned that anti-Jewish libels are a problem. I agree, but I see a lot of non-Jewish ones too, and they drive me just as nuts. Political deceits too. Yes, libels are frustrating as all hell. We have a relationship with libels though, as they have caused the deaths of millions of Jews.

I'd like to say the compassion is number two but it's not -- my ability to suffer on someone else's behalf is limited by my empathy, which is fairly vestigial. :) So number two for me is ungenerosity. Many things that people need can be supplied quickly and easily. When people aren't safe, healthy or well-fed, what they need is fairly obvious. When they are safe, healthy and well-fed they still need praise, recognition or an encouraging word. It just seems to me that it's not hard to improve the condition of people around us. But if I, with little empathy can see such things, why can't people with more empathy than me see it? I find myself having to turn my empathy off sometimes. It's really strong, to the extent that I feel for people who don't really exist. When someone hurts, I physically hurt. When someone is sad, I feel like I want to cry. On the plus side, when someone is happy, I feel great. It is especially strong with kids. Happy kids make me very elated, while a sad child makes me almost weep. I'm not sure why. I've always been like that.

Number three for me is courage. If we have a conscience but are too scared to act on it we may as well be dead for all the good we are. Matters concerning cowardice always get my attention. People who'd let a neighbour be hurt... people who find big groups then intimidate with them... or who'd be scared to admit they have a gay friend for fear of being mocked... stuff like that. I feel the same way. :)

I've said it to you privately and am happy to repeat here -- we are very very lucky to have Jewish culture in the world. Jews have made extaordinary contributions to Sciences and the Arts, punching well above their weight in physics, medicine, psychology, music and literature. (In fairness, I think the Reform Jews probably get more credit than the Orthodox ones, but I'm starting to suspect that the one can't exist without the other anyway). Well, if it weren't for Orthodox, there would be no Reform. But a Jew is a Jew. Most of the ones who won prizes are Reform or Conservative, but they still be Jews. Represent. :D

Sheesh. Tell me about it.

Would you say that the character of the danger is changing? As a f'rinstance, I can well imagine an all-out Muslim/Arab/Israeli war -- all it would take is for someone to get stupid over Mount Moriah, say. I can't imagine another Jewish genocide attempt in Europe and I certainly can't imagine a US, UK or Australian one, say. I can imagine Jews continually disliked in the US and Europe but I think that co-existing without integrating tends to produce that. And I think in fairness, Jews are a lot less hated in those places today than once they were -- certainly they're a lot less hated in UK and Australia. So do you also think that the Middle East is the main danger now?A couple of points there.

Note: when I use the term Arabs in this next part, I am referring specifically to the governments and supporters of Hamas and Fatah--not the general Arab world. While many of them fall into the supporter category, there are many who are just in a crappy situation.

I think that a war between the Jews and the Arab world is imminent. I think this because the Arabs over there have two faces: to the rest of the world, they portray themselves as the new Jews--victims of a Nazi-like government forcing them into an apartheid situation; to each other, they are the strongest people on Earth with the mission to eradicate the world of the Jewish people. They regularly run speeches and articles on their tv stations and in their papers outlining how peace is a means to the destruction of Israel, and how the Palestinians are a tool to garner sympathy and support.

It would seem that the main issue about this conflict is over the land; however, a look at the history of the conflict shows that the land was never the issue. They have been offered all of Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and East Jerusalem several times under the condition that they stop inciting terror--each time they refused. They have repeatedly called for the "sea to run red with Jewish blood" (a direct quote), with no mention of the "land issue."

The Arab world makes it seem as though Israel is an occupying nation taking control over all the ancient Arab land. That FACTS, however, are quite the opposite. There have been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for 3,300 years; the same can definitely not be said of Arab presence. Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and East Jerusalem were all originally allocated to Israel.

This is how it was originally allocated in the British Mandate:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/transjordan1922.jpg

Then, in 1947, the UN gained control and offered the Arab world this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/MFAJ0d1q0.jpg

They turned that down, and they attacked from all sides in 1948 when Israel declared its independence. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, and Egypt occupied Gaza:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/MFAJ0d1x0.jpg

It is important to note that when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, only two countries in the entire world recognised the occupation as legal--every other country, including the UK AND THE UN viewed it as a violation of international law. Now, thanks to the remarkable propaganda machine of the Arab world, people view the Israeli "occupation" as violating international law.

Then, in 1969, just prior to the Six Day War, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and Lebannon advanced to the borders to attack Israel after the UN forces left at the request of Egypt (surprise, surprise):
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/MFAJ0d1p0.jpg

After six days, Israel looked like this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/MFAJ0d1v0.jpg

In 1973, there was another war (again, Israel was attacked), and Israel expanded again:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/MFAJ0d2d0.jpg

Israel eventually disengaged from Sinai, Gaza, and much of the West Bank, which now looks like this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/disengagementsamaria.jpg

What the news doesn't tell you is how the IDF went into Jewish homes in Gaza and literally tore them from their houses, expelling them from their towns and homes in an effort to make some sort of peace with the Arab world. What happened? They have launched over 9,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel in the last 8 years.

And what happens when Israel responds by closing the borders? Israel is condenmed for keeping the residents of Gaza in a poor state forced to resort to violence against the terrible oppressive Jews.

What happened after giving control to the Palestinians? Between 2000 and 2003, more than 900 people were murdered by Palestinian terrorists, with thousands injured. Israel builds an anti-terrorism fence, and the world calls it an apartheid wall.

Israel needs to ween itself of American support, because there will be another Israeli-Arab war, and the world is going to support the Arabs because it is naturally anti-Semitic. If Canada launched a rocket into Detroit, there would be no more Canada. No other country would put up with as much terrorism and political pressure as Israel has. There exists some innate inclination to blame the Jews for the world's problems. It's been that way for a long time, and is the primary reason for our 2,009 year history of persecution.

I believe absolutely that there could be another Holocaust. Memories of it are fading, more and more people are denying it ever happened, and anti-Semitism is seeing an incredible surge in nearly every country in Europe and in the United States. A newspaper in Sweden comes out with a brand new Blood Libel, and not only does the Swedish government refuse to do anything, but they actually sponsored the "research" on the article.

[religious zealotry]
I also believe that this innate anti-Semitism is G-d-given. It forces us to stay Jewish and stick together. It's going to keep us Jewish until Moshiach comes, and then G-d will have no use for it, and it will disappear.
[/religous zealotry]

Do I think there is going to be another Holocaust in Europe? I think there could be, but I think what is more likely is an Israeli-Arab war with absolutely no support from the rest of the world, including the US (unless it happens after an administration change), but rather with condemnation against Israel by most of the world.

For the record, I don't think Australia would ever be responsible for a Holocaust. :D

Ruv Draba

09-15-2009, 09:47 AM

Semi, thank you indeed for your account of the strife. I know that it's as much a political matter as a religious one. I'm glad though that it's in Comparative Religious Philosophy and not Politics and Current Events, say. I've said before -- people here tend to think rather than just react.

I have my own views on this as you know -- they're not at all anti-Israeli views, but they are pro-tolerance and pro-humanitarian views. I'm not going to talk about them here because I don't see it being useful just now. But motivated by those concerns, I would like to ask some questions.

Let's say that some time in the future, Israel and the Arab worlds exist in peace (I know that Arabs in Israel already exist in peace, but I mean more broadly than that). The Arabs are still Muslim, the Israelis are still (largely) Jewish. Everyone has the right to worship as they choose, any resentment has been forgiven and the bitterness is over... I'm talking about a political change here -- not a world religious revolution.

How do you see such an arrangement being organised and administered? How might such an arrangement come about? I realise that it's a political question, but I'm also interested in the potential impact on worship and religious administration.

semilargeintestine

09-15-2009, 10:29 AM

The account I presented is the historical truth behind the conflict. Nothing I said there came from anything but legitimate sources. The quotes from the Arab side came from their own political leaders, and the maps are easily found anywhere. Facts are facts. Egypt and Jordan wanted peace, and peace happened. If the Palestinians really wanted peace, they'd get it--they don't, and they've said exactly that numerous times on television and in print.

Regardless, you can have whatever opinions you choose. However, I would say that Israel has been extremely tolerant of a group of people who have launched almost 10,000 rockets into its country and has caused the death and injuries of thousands of Jews and Israelis simply because they choose to continue existing. No other country would allow that to continue; if any other nation were in that situation, Gaza would have been leveled years ago. Notice how long it took Obama to condemn the crackdowns in Iran, but he immediately issues a condemnation of Israel evicting Arab squatters from Jewish homes, and he makes no mention of the illegal ARAB settlements on Israeli land (and not the disputed territories).

But anyway, on to your question.

Let's say that some time in the future, Israel and the Arab worlds exist in peace (I know that Arabs in Israel already exist in peace, but I mean more broadly than that). The Arabs are still Muslim, the Israelis are still (largely) Jewish. Everyone has the right to worship as they choose, any resentment has been forgiven and the bitterness is over... I'm talking about a political change here -- not a world religious revolution.

That would be great. I think it is going to take a huge shift to moderate Islam in the Arab governments though. As it stands right now, Israel is seen as a blemish on the Arab world. But it's possible. Look at Egypt and Jordan. They are not exactly the biggest fans of Israel, but they have agreed to peace. There is a scary, but probably accurate quote I heard once: If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be peace; if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel.

We're tired, and we just want the right to exist and live in our homeland in peace. Jerusalem is our capital, and it has been our holiest site for more than twice as long as Islam has been a religion. Do we want to restrict Arabs and Xtians from going there? No, we never did. In fact, even in Temple times, goyim were allowed to bring sacrifices to the Temple and visit the Holy City. The only time people have ever been restricted based on religion has been when Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule.

But, assuming the bitter hatred of Jews is over, and the resentment against the Arabs for constantly bombarding Israel with bombs passes, I think a mutual peace is entirely possible. I read an excellent article that should make most people happy. It involves Israel retaining control over the Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria, and a Palestinian state being created within that territory. Jerusalem would then be turned into an international zone with Israeli police working in the west and PA police working in the east; however, Palestinian citizens and Israeli citizens would have free travel within the entire city. Entry into the respective countries would require passports and going through customs unless you are a citizen of that country. The police agencies would work together and have jurisdictional agreements so that a criminal could not flee to his "home country's" police force to escape prosecution.

In the current world, that's probably the only hope I see for coming to a mutual peace. Personally, I don't see the need for another Arab state. I mean, just look at the map:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/mideast.jpg

There are plenty of Arab states. The call for a Palestinian state is really nothing more than a way to advance Arab influence against Israel. When Jordan occupied the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single cry for a Palestinian state. If they needed one so badly, why did they not create one in the 19 years they owned the land? There are far fewer "refugees" in that area than the Arab world makes it seem, and almost all of them left Israel voluntarily (or were threatened by their own homelands), and much of the land was purchased from the Arabs before 1948. Many of them have been resettled efficiently and effectively in other countries. It is only in countries with UN involvement and Arab involvement where they have problems, because the Arab world does not want to lose its bargaining chip (they have also said this numerous times in public fora).

The unfortunate fact is that Israel continues to make concessions based on the hope for a peace that the other side has no intention of pursuing.

You say you have pro-tolerance and pro-humanitarian views. I don't understand how you could have anti-Israel views if that is true. Israel provides healthcare to citizens in Gaza, as well as millions of dollars in aid and supplies. It allows people from any religion to live in its borders and visit its holy sites, and it seeks to aid Palestinian refugees who flee to Israel (and has rescued many of them from their own government, which attempts to shoot them for treason). Meanwhile, the Arab world has laws placing Jews and Xtians as second class, refuses to allow anyone but Muslims to the holy sites, and has declared an eternal war against the Jewish people. Where is the humanitarian, tolerant nature there?

Ruv Draba

09-15-2009, 11:45 AM

The account I presented is the historical truth behind the conflict.I haven't checked the sources of the maps but they looked credible to me. I don't doubt you on dates and events. I want to thank you for posting them.

There is a scary, but probably accurate quote I heard once: If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be peace; if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel.I personally believe that most of Europe and all the English-speaking world want Israel to exist, but not at the cost of Arabs losing their self-determination. I think that Israel is largely willing to allow Arabs self-determination if its state can be secure. The question then is how to give Arabs self-determination without escalating hostility. That I think is your viewpoint too.

Jerusalem is our capital, and it has been our holiest site for more than twice as long as Islam has been a religion. Do we want to restrict Arabs and Xtians from going there? No, we never did. In fact, even in Temple times, goyim were allowed to bring sacrifices to the Temple and visit the Holy City. The only time people have ever been restricted based on religion has been when Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule.You've thanked G-d for Israel before, but I think it's a creation of men. I'd think that anyway of course, but one argument for it is the mess that has been made of the Jerusalem issue. (The mess of the maps you posted would be another. :D)

You're Orthodox, so presumably you want to see a Jewish temple built on Mount Moriah, which is presently also home to the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque. Do you think they can co-exist separately? Must they be the same structure due to geography? Does the Temple have to obliterate any sacred Muslim structures? And how important is it -- e.g. do you feel that it's worth threatening Israel's security over?

I read an excellent article that should make most people happy. It involves Israel retaining control over the Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria, and a Palestinian state being created within that territory. Jerusalem would then be turned into an international zone with Israeli police working in the west and PA police working in the east; however, Palestinian citizens and Israeli citizens would have free travel within the entire city. Entry into the respective countries would require passports and going through customs unless you are a citizen of that country. The police agencies would work together and have jurisdictional agreements so that a criminal could not flee to his "home country's" police force to escape prosecution.That sounds awfully sensible to me.

In the current world, that's probably the only hope I see for coming to a mutual peace. Personally, I don't see the need for another Arab state. I mean, just look at the map:That's Islamic states, isn't it? Iran and Iraq for instance are not Arab, but mainly Persian.

You say you have pro-tolerance and pro-humanitarian views. I don't understand how you could have anti-Israel views if that is true.I sometimes have concern and disagreement about Israel as I have concern and disagreement with policies and practices of the US, the UK and Australia. I wouldn't call it anti-anything. Rather I'd call it pro-something.

Meanwhile, the Arab world has laws placing Jews and Xtians as second class, refuses to allow anyone but Muslims to the holy sites, and has declared an eternal war against the Jewish people. Where is the humanitarian, tolerant nature there?Dude, there are certain Middle Eastern countries I can't visit at all unless I want to lie. Atheists are entirely unwelcome in Iran, for instance. An observant Jew could visit but I could not. (That's a pity because I love Iranian history.) Increasingly, people are held to account for what they publish outside national jurisdictions too so if I write the wrong thing they might be only too eager to receive me. :tongue

semilargeintestine

09-15-2009, 08:11 PM

I haven't checked the sources of the maps but they looked credible to me. I don't doubt you on dates and events. I want to thank you for posting them. No worries mate. :)

I personally believe that most of Europe and all the English-speaking world want Israel to exist, but not at the cost of Arabs losing their self-determination. I think that Israel is largely willing to allow Arabs self-determination if its state can be secure. The question then is how to give Arabs self-determination without escalating hostility. That I think is your viewpoint too.

You nailed it.

You've thanked G-d for Israel before, but I think it's a creation of men. I'd think that anyway of course, but one argument for it is the mess that has been made of the Jerusalem issue. (The mess of the maps you posted would be another. :D)

The modern State of Israel is a creation of man, but the Land of Israel is--just like the rest of the world--G-d's creation. Religious Jews and Muslims at least don't disagree on that. :D

You're Orthodox, so presumably you want to see a Jewish temple built on Mount Moriah, which is presently also home to the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque. Do you think they can co-exist separately? Must they be the same structure due to geography? Does the Temple have to obliterate any sacred Muslim structures? And how important is it -- e.g. do you feel that it's worth threatening Israel's security over?

I'm not sure where the Holy of Holies is, but that's where the Temple needs to be. If a Muslim structure is there, it needs to be moved, simple as that. I personally don't see what the problem is. Jerusalem is their third holiest site, and it was treated as a stable in M's time. The Temple is the center of Jewish life. They don't want us to build a Temple there because they have animosity towards Jews, not because it's a sacred place.

In the mindset of a peaceful side-by-side existence, I would say that Muslim and Jewish sites could exist together. I don't think it's necessary to destroy all the Muslim sites there, but no doubt some would have to be moved in order to rebuild the Temple. I think it would be possible to incorporate them both so that everyone could be included, though the actual Temple would be Jewish (although Muslims could certainly enter, as well as Xtians and anyone else).

I think they COULD exist, I just don't think the Arab world wants them to. For them, it's either Muslim or nothing. Until a radical downshift in their extremism occurs, there is unlikely to be a peace in this issue.

That sounds awfully sensible to me.

I agree. My only issue is the Temple. It must be allowed to be rebuilt in order for that plan to sit well with Jews.

That's Islamic states, isn't it? Iran and Iraq for instance are not Arab, but mainly Persian. Yes, some of them are not necessarily Arab, but they are all Islamic. Egypt, Jordan, Lebannon, Syria, etc. are all Arab for the most part. There is an Israeli organization that is attempting to help Palestinian refugees relocate and settle. They have been very successful in doing this in countries with no UN or Arab involvement. What a coincidence.

I sometimes have concern and disagreement about Israel as I have concern and disagreement with policies and practices of the US, the UK and Australia. I wouldn't call it anti-anything. Rather I'd call it pro-something.

Gotcha. Fair enough. I disagree with somethings Israel does too, just like any other country.

Dude, there are certain Middle Eastern countries I can't visit at all unless I want to lie. Atheists are entirely unwelcome in Iran, for instance. An observant Jew could visit but I could not. (That's a pity because I love Iranian history.) Increasingly, people are held to account for what they publish outside national jurisdictions too so if I write the wrong thing they might be only too eager to receive me. :tongue

I couldn't visit Iran because I have an Israeli stamp on my passport. :D

Ruv Draba

09-16-2009, 02:42 AM

I'm not sure where the Holy of Holies is, but that's where the Temple needs to be. If a Muslim structure is there, it needs to be moved, simple as that. I personally don't see what the problem is. [...] They don't want us to build a Temple there because they have animosity towards Jews, not because it's a sacred place.Well, one problem is that your argument allows Judaism to think only with its heart while demanding that Islam must think only with its head. Aside from certain enlightened areas like Turkey, Islam isn't known for doing that. A second problem is that you sanctified the Judaic 'Holy of Holies' while depersonalising the Muslim 'muslim structures'. (Is it forbidden for you to say 'mosque' and 'sacred site'? It's their third most sacred site, by the way). But of course, there's anti-Jewish sentiment too, which isn't helping.

If it comes down to a question of what's right, I can't pick a side. Judaism has the earliest claim of use; Islam has the longest claim of occupancy. Both have sacred sites, so the issue is place and not just function. Sacred sites don't move because they're historical. Islam knows exactly where its sacred site is; Judaism isn't exactly sure where its is. Without additional historical information I don't know when it would be sure.

(The rational in me just wants to shake everyone and tell them to get over themselves, but I know that's not helpful... )

Despite any anti-Judaic sentiment I suspect that the Muslims would willingly move their mosque if Islam benefited by doing so -- e.g. if they got a bigger and grander mosque somewhere cool. I think that they can't move their sacred site and they're (mostly) too xenophobic to allow Jews to administer it, so any Temple must co-exist with the sacred site either in different locations, or a shared location separately administered.

As to what any Third (or fourth) Jewish temple might do which Judaism doesn't already do through its synagogues, I've never been clear on that. Could you elucidate please?

There is certainly precedent for Islam being sensitive to other religious and historical needs though. The Hagia Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia) in Constantinople was originally built as a Christian basilica and was the centre of Christendom for 1,000 years (and it's still the most beautiful and significant Christian building in the world bar none, to my mind). After the Latinate Christians finished sacking it (boo! :() the Turks made a mosque of it in the 15th century and plastered over its remaining icons, and added some minarets (which I think have detracted not at all from its beauty). Under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk it became a museum in 1935 and Turkey has been gradually restoring the Christian iconography in collaboration with the West. There's currently a small muslim prayer-room for the museum staff, but otherwise it's a secular building. There's a bit of pressure in the West (http://www.freeagiasophia.org/) to return Hagia Sophia to its old role as a centre of Eastern Orthodox Christian faith, but since there are hardly any Christians in Turkey (80K vs 71M) they'd presumably have to import the clergy, which I don't imagine would happen.
http://www.gotochina08.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Istanbul-Hagia-Sophia.jpg

I think it would be possible to incorporate them both so that everyone could be included, though the actual Temple would be Jewish (although Muslims could certainly enter, as well as Xtians and anyone else).Well, I'd certainly visit if I was welcome. But I think it comes down to physical location and how it's administered... I think that Israel can't afford to be paternalistic here. I'd like to see both faiths think with their heads a bit more, to be honest. (I'd probably say that anyway, but I especially say that when I see emotional conflicts. :D)

Yes, some of them are not necessarily Arab, but they are all Islamic.The Persians I know do not like to be called Arab. If you persist in that practice I'll have to start calling you Babylonian or Egyptian. :)

There is an Israeli organization that is attempting to help Palestinian refugees relocate and settle. They have been very successful in doing this in countries with no UN or Arab involvement.It's a paradox of humanity that the more you do, the more that's expected of you. Christendom had a nasty 'heroic' adolescent theft-and-graffiti stage spanning most of the Middle-Ages and extending well into the 19th century. It's now (mainly) out of that phase and we don't tolerate Christians regressing. Islam isn't yet out of its 'heroic' adolescence (as the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan shows) and we tut rather than yell at them because we know yelling does no good.

Judaism as far as I know hasn't had an Heroic Age since the days of rams-horns at Jericho and unfortunately the refounded Israel isn't allowed one. You've argued bitterly that the US has been allowed an Heroic Age and indeed that's true (as with all heroic ages, nobody could really stop it). But Heroic Ages have enormous social cost -- the US won a lot of friends in WWII and has lost most of them since -- and Israel was founded by a waning British Empire, and Christendom won't tolerate Israel having one -- nor will the rest of the Middle East of course, since it'd come at their cost. My hope is that the ancient wisdom of Judaism is wise enough that Jews won't really want another Heroic Age anyway. :)

semilargeintestine

09-16-2009, 07:44 AM

Well, one problem is that your argument allows Judaism to think only with its heart while demanding that Islam must think only with its head. Aside from certain enlightened areas like Turkey, Islam isn't known for doing that. A second problem is that you sanctified the Judaic 'Holy of Holies' while depersonalising the Muslim 'muslim structures'. (Is it forbidden for you to say 'mosque' and 'sacred site'? It's their third most sacred site, by the way). But of course, there's anti-Jewish sentiment too, which isn't helping.

Well, they didn't seem to care too much about Jerusalem until the State of Israel was created, so it can't be that important to them. They have control over all our holiest sites. They have control over the Temple Mount, and they have control over the graves of the patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (plus their exceptional wives) are all under Arab control. They let Jews in for 10 days out of the year. 10 days out of 365. They don't want to play nice, so why should we?

I can say mosque, I just don't know what their mosque is called. I don't want to butcher the name. I also don't know what else is up there. I know they have destroyed countless Jewish structures in an effort to cover up any historical Jewish presence, and as such built several Muslim structures--buildings and such that didn't exist prior to this last century.

This (http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem) is a great article on the Muslim claim to Jerusalem. Here is an interesting quote:

One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur'an "as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta"—which is to say, not once.

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting "We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem" and their brethren in Jordan yell "We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa"? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect "the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world"? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

Jerusalem is only their "third holiest site" because it is the Jews center of life and a huge holy site for Xtians. Historically, they have treated it like crap when they had control over it. It was stables during the time of M, and during Jordanian rule from 1948-1967, it was completely ignored.

Jordanian efforts succeeded: once again, Arab Jerusalem became an isolated provincial town, less important than Nablus. The economy so stagnated that many thousands of Arab Jerusalemites left the town: while the population of Amman increased five-fold in the period 1948-67, that of Jerusalem grew by just 50 percent. To take out a bank loan meant traveling to Amman. Amman had the privilege of hosting the country's first university and the royal family's many residences. Jerusalem Arabs knew full well what was going on, as evidenced by one notable's complaint about the royal residences: "those palaces should have been built in Jerusalem, but were removed from here, so that Jerusalem would remain not a city, but a kind of village." East Jerusalem's Municipal Council twice formally complained of the Jordanian authorities' discrimination against their city.

Perhaps most insulting of all was the decline in Jerusalem's religious standing. Mosques lacked sufficient funds. Jordanian radio broadcast the Friday prayers not from Al-Aqsa Mosque but from an upstart mosque in Amman. (Ironically, Radio Israel began broadcasting services from Al-Aqsa immediately after the Israel victory in 1967.) This was part of a larger pattern, as the Jordanian authorities sought to benefit from the prestige of controlling Jerusalem even as they put the city down: Marshall Breger and Thomas Idinopulos note that although King ‘Abdullah "styled himself a protector of the holy sites, he did little to promote the religious importance of Jerusalem to Muslims."

Yes, it's a huge source of holiness for them. :rolleyes:

They should use their heads because that's what they used to get the world in such a frenzy over it. They created this history that never existed, and now the entire world thinks they have an equal claim to the city.

If it comes down to a question of what's right, I can't pick a side. Judaism has the earliest claim of use; Islam has the longest claim of occupancy. Both have sacred sites, so the issue is place and not just function. Sacred sites don't move because they're historical. Islam knows exactly where its sacred site is; Judaism isn't exactly sure where its is. Without additional historical information I don't know when it would be sure.

Actually, that's false. Jews have been in Jerusalem constantly for over 3,000 years. It is a complete myth that there were no Jews in Jerusalem until 1948. The Arabs have been there for little more than a third of the time Jews have.

(The rational in me just wants to shake everyone and tell them to get over themselves, but I know that's not helpful... )

Despite any anti-Judaic sentiment I suspect that the Muslims would willingly move their mosque if Islam benefited by doing so -- e.g. if they got a bigger and grander mosque somewhere cool. I think that they can't move their sacred site and they're (mostly) too xenophobic to allow Jews to administer it, so any Temple must co-exist with the sacred site either in different locations, or a shared location separately administered.

They won't move it or allow a Temple to be built. They have stated publicly on television that no Jewish Temple will ever be rebuilt in Jerusalem--which is curious, considering they also say that there never was a Temple. How can you rebuild something that never existed?

As to what any Third (or fourth) Jewish temple might do which Judaism doesn't already do through its synagogues, I've never been clear on that. Could you elucidate please?

Third. Synagogues are places to pray and worship, as well as learn. The Temple is where G-d's Divine Presence rests--or at least where it will rest once the Temple is rebuilt. It is the only place sacrifices can be brought, and it is where the Three Pilgrimage Festivals are supposed to be held. Right now we offer our service to G-d through prayer. These formalised prayer services (three times daily) are temporarily taking the place of the sacrifices that are supposed to be brought twice a day (and the remainder burned at night to make three). People not living in Jerusalem will still serve through prayer, though they will contribute to the purchase of sacrifices in Jerusalem daily to discharge their obligations. So, synagogues will still exist, because people still have to pray together and learn Torah and Talmud.

But Jewish life is at a standstill until the Temple is rebuilt. That is the reason it seems so obvious that the Arabs should let us rebuild it. They do not pray to Jerusalem, and they have shown five times over history when they have had control over it that they don't care about it any further than ensuring Jews don't have control. It is the center of our lives, and it is our very reason for existing. We pray 3 times a day for it to be rebuilt, and another 3 times for our Messiah to come and rebuild it. That's six heartfelt prayers every day for our Temple to come back. There is an entire three weeks out of the year that we mourn its destruction, culminating on the 9th of Av when we do a full 25-hour fast and refrain from work, wearing new clothes, from wearing shoes, and we spend the day reading from Lementations and mourning the loss.

There is certainly precedent for Islam being sensitive to other religious and historical needs though. The Hagia Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia) in Constantinople was originally built as a Christian basilica and was the centre of Christendom for 1,000 years (and it's still the most beautiful and significant Christian building in the world bar none, to my mind). After the Latinate Christians finished sacking it (boo! :() the Turks made a mosque of it in the 15th century and plastered over its remaining icons, and added some minarets (which I think have detracted not at all from its beauty). Under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk it became a museum in 1935 and Turkey has been gradually restoring the Christian iconography in collaboration with the West. There's currently a small muslim prayer-room for the museum staff, but otherwise it's a secular building. There's a bit of pressure in the West (http://www.freeagiasophia.org/) to return Hagia Sophia to its old role as a centre of Eastern Orthodox Christian faith, but since there are hardly any Christians in Turkey (80K vs 71M) they'd presumably have to import the clergy, which I don't imagine would happen.

That's nice. They have a far more extensive history of being completely intolerant to other religions and races. It is well documented, so I don't think I have to outline it here.

Well, I'd certainly visit if I was welcome. But I think it comes down to physical location and how it's administered... I think that Israel can't afford to be paternalistic here. I'd like to see both faiths think with their heads a bit more, to be honest. (I'd probably say that anyway, but I especially say that when I see emotional conflicts. :D)

Last time I checked, Israel has given control of the Temple Mount--the center of the JEWISH faith--to the Arabs. The Israeli security force prevents religious Jews from entering the area because it is primarily a Muslim space, and they don't want anything happening. So it is on Israeli land, is primarily a Jewish space, and Jews can't go there. Muslims and Xtians alike are also allowed to go to the Western Wall or any other part of Israel. I'm not sure how much more open we can be.

The Persians I know do not like to be called Arab. If you persist in that practice I'll have to start calling you Babylonian or Egyptian. :)

What are you talking about? I'm talking about Jordan and the Palestinians, who ARE Arab. You calling me Babylonian or Egyptian makes no sense. Calling Jordanians and Palestinians arabs is saying what they are. The statement you quoted says exactly what you said--that not all the states are Arabic.

So again, what are you talking about?

It's a paradox of humanity that the more you do, the more that's expected of you. Christendom had a nasty 'heroic' adolescent theft-and-graffiti stage spanning most of the Middle-Ages and extending well into the 19th century. It's now (mainly) out of that phase and we don't tolerate Christians regressing. Islam isn't yet out of its 'heroic' adolescence (as the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan shows) and we tut rather than yell at them because we know yelling does no good.

Judaism as far as I know hasn't had an Heroic Age since the days of rams-horns at Jericho and unfortunately the refounded Israel isn't allowed one. You've argued bitterly that the US has been allowed an Heroic Age and indeed that's true (as with all heroic ages, nobody could really stop it). But Heroic Ages have enormous social cost -- the US won a lot of friends in WWII and has lost most of them since -- and Israel was founded by a waning British Empire, and Christendom won't tolerate Israel having one -- nor will the rest of the Middle East of course, since it'd come at their cost. My hope is that the ancient wisdom of Judaism is wise enough that Jews won't really want another Heroic Age anyway. :)

We don't. We just want people to leave us the hell alone. :D

Ruv Draba

09-16-2009, 11:23 AM

Well, they didn't seem to care too much about Jerusalem until the State of Israel was created, so it can't be that important to them.Well, it's the site where Islam holds that Mohammed ascended into heaven... so it's sacred to Muslims. All the other argument I think is distraction from this basic fact. The nearby mosque can move, but the belief in the meaning of the site will not.

We just want people to leave us the hell alone. :DUnderstandable, but the sad reality is that shared space doesn't work well with 'sacred'. We can either back off on the preciousness of our taboos or refuse to share. We can't really do both.

In Australia is another sacred rock -- a bloody big sandstone nugget in the middle of the desert called Uluru or Ayers Rock. It's the world's largest monolith, an icon of Australian tourism and of course it's sacred to every indigenous tribe who has ever lived in the region.

http://www.cap.nsw.edu.au/bb_site_intro/specialplaces/special_places_st2/australia/uluru.jpg

Tourism has not been kind to the sacredness of this stone. People have put in handrails to climb it... tourist feet have worn it down, and tourists fatigued from their climb take up toilet-paper up for their comfort before they stagger back down again (not to mention the litter) -- so the indigenous people literally have had neighbours squatting in their back-yard. :tongue Having tourists crapping on a national icon is distasteful but perhaps understandable, but having them take a dump on a religious relic is outrageous. It's all in how you see it.

They don't want to play nice, so why should we?You tell me, mate. Does the Torah say you should play nice with gentiles on religious matters, or are they second-class citizens when it comes to their faith? I guess you can have it either way but you can't say it's one way and act the other. If the Torah really is the touchstone of religious tolerance as you've been saying, then you're really just grumbling about G-d. Or if it's not the touchstone of tolerance then maybe you should just admit that and call on Israel to roll out the tanks -- as Christendom and Islam have done in their own history, whenever they've had the capability.
I know they have destroyed countless Jewish structures in an effort to cover up any historical Jewish presence...Semi, you hate outsiders attributing ill-motive to Jews -- you call it libel. Yet you're very happy to attribute ill-motive to Muslims. May one ask why? When you talk of Muslim conspiracies to conceal Jewish history, or the Arab propaganda machine I'm reminded of every tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory I've ever heard about Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Americans...

I don't doubt that Arabs are defensive about the Dome of the Rock. They've said so. Some of the louder mouths have said a lot about Jerusalem being Arabic too -- and I agree with you that Jews have lived there in various population-sizes since ancient times. But if you take the most extreme or outrageous Muslim position you can find and then attribute motive, aren't you repeating the same mistake Christendom made with Jews?

Synagogues are places to pray and worship, as well as learn. The Temple is where G-d's Divine Presence rests--or at least where it will rest once the Temple is rebuilt. It is the only place sacrifices can be brought, and it is where the Three Pilgrimage Festivals are supposed to be held.Would Orthodox Jews return to animal sacrifices again? Could you talk about that please? Once there were animal sacrifices all over the world, but in passing millennia, the developed world (not just Christian but also Asian and Middle Eastern) has moved away from it. There are lots of reasons for that move, but the main ones I think are moral and philosophical. Where do you stand with it?

They have a far more extensive history of being completely intolerant to other religions and races. It is well documented, so I don't think I have to outline it here.The whole world has been utterly barbaric for most of its human history, including a fair whack of its modern history. It's atrocious, but I think it's unfair to single out Islam for being more barbaric. At some times I think it has been; at other times I think it's easy to find a more barbaric faith. Then there's the confusion between what people do politically in the name of religion, and what religion would have them do. It clouds stuff up.

Turkey's Westernisation program has produced a modern, credible secular society that still retains its Islamic identity. The things that conservative Muslims fear -- the sexualisation of women, falling into unislamic practices -- I think have largely not occurred there. Indonesia too -- the world's largest Islamic-majority nation -- is managing (with difficulty) a highly diverse society of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, animists and Confucians. The identity of its Muslims there remains strong and they've shown no need nor desire to convert either the Christians or the non-Abrahamic faiths.

We can grind our teeth over what a particular faith has done or we can seek inspration for what a faith can do. I think Islam can do a great deal of good.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about Jordan and the Palestinians, who ARE Arab. You calling me Babylonian or Egyptian makes no sense.You made a tyro's mistake on a map of Islamic countries. I was just teasing you about it. I'm not going to call you Babylonian regardless. :)

We don't. We just want people to leave us the hell alone. :DSure, but Israel is 20+% Arab -- and nobody's talking about kicking them out. So is this a world where religious or ethnic exclusivity is viable? My feeling is not. That being so, what's the future of our shared sacred places? Do we twitch over taboos or do we relax them some when necessary, and share?

semilargeintestine

09-16-2009, 07:45 PM

Well, it's the site where Islam holds that Mohammed ascended into heaven... so it's sacred to Muslims. All the other argument I think is distraction from this basic fact. The nearby mosque can move, but the belief in the meaning of the site will not.

If it meant so much to them, they wouldn't have treated it like crap the five times they had control over it. The fact that he supposedly ascended to Heaven there must not mean much to them. Did you read the article? I'm sure it's a little biased, but the truth is there. M himself treated it like crap. They only care about it when it's under Jewish control.

Understandable, but the sad reality is that shared space doesn't work well with 'sacred'. We can either back off on the preciousness of our taboos or refuse to share. We can't really do both.

If they don't want to share, they can piss off. :D Jerusalem is not going to be the capital of anything but Israel (unless they agree to that plan I mentioned earlier, in which case it would be the capital of both), and there WILL be a Temple rebuilt there. That's not an issue up for debate. If they don't like it, which I'm sure they don't, then we'll have to go to war over it. If Mecca was destroyed and someone told them they couldn't rebuild it, they'd declare war immediately. I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint over the last several decades. Of course, it's not enough for the rest of the world though.

In Australia is another sacred rock -- a bloody big sandstone nugget in the middle of the desert called Uluru or Ayers Rock. It's the world's largest monolith, an icon of Australian tourism and of course it's sacred to every indigenous tribe who has ever lived in the region.

Tourism has not been kind to the sacredness of this stone. People have put in handrails to climb it... tourist feet have worn it down, and tourists fatigued from their climb take up toilet-paper up for their comfort before they stagger back down again (not to mention the litter) -- so the indigenous people literally have had neighbours squatting in their back-yard. :tongue Having tourists crapping on a national icon is distasteful but perhaps understandable, but having them take a dump on a religious relic is outrageous. It's all in how you see it.

:ROFL:

You tell me, mate. Does the Torah say you should play nice with gentiles on religious matters, or are they second-class citizens when it comes to their faith? I guess you can have it either way but you can't say it's one way and act the other. If the Torah really is the touchstone of religious tolerance as you've been saying, then you're really just grumbling about G-d. Or if it's not the touchstone of tolerance then maybe you should just admit that and call on Israel to roll out the tanks -- as Christendom and Islam have done in their own history, whenever they've had the capability.
Semi, you hate outsiders attributing ill-motive to Jews -- you call it libel. Yet you're very happy to attribute ill-motive to Muslims. May one ask why? When you talk of Muslim conspiracies to conceal Jewish history, or the Arab propaganda machine I'm reminded of every tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory I've ever heard about Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Americans...

It's not one way or the other. The Torah is very clear:

Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Because I don't attribute ill motives to all Muslims--just the a-holes. I'm good friends with about 5 Muslims, a few very religious ones. I have no problem with the ones who act like decent human beings, and in fact get along well with them because of the similarities in religious practices.

It's not a tin-foil hat conspiracy when they really are out to get you. What's that quote from The Godfather? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. :D When they profess daily their mission to rid the world of Jews, it's no longer paranoia.

I don't doubt that Arabs are defensive about the Dome of the Rock. They've said so. Some of the louder mouths have said a lot about Jerusalem being Arabic too -- and I agree with you that Jews have lived there in various population-sizes since ancient times. But if you take the most extreme or outrageous Muslim position you can find and then attribute motive, aren't you repeating the same mistake Christendom made with Jews?

I'm not attributing motive, I'm repeating what they themselves have said.

Would Orthodox Jews return to animal sacrifices again? Could you talk about that please? Once there were animal sacrifices all over the world, but in passing millennia, the developed world (not just Christian but also Asian and Middle Eastern) has moved away from it. There are lots of reasons for that move, but the main ones I think are moral and philosophical. Where do you stand with it?

Animal sacrifice is an important part of Jewish life (as well as other types such as first fruits, barley, etc). It is the primary form of service to G-d. It is also important for purity purposes. There are certain types of defilement that can only be erased through the ashes of a red heifer prepared in a certain way. The only reason we don't do it now is we don't have the Temple, and sacrifices can't be brought outside the Temple (except for the Red Heifer, but the Temple needs to be standing for that to be brought). It says very clearly in the Tanach and in seforim that animal sacrifices are going to be restored in all their glory.

It's important to note that in Judaism, animals are protected by Torah law. It is forbidden to be cruel to them or to slaughter them in a way that causes any pain or shock. An animal slaughtered in such a way is no longer considered kosher and is not fit for consumption or sacrifice. The animals that are sacrifices are slaughtered in exactly the same way as the animals we eat. Kosher butchers are held to such a strict standard by the Torah that the FDA exempts them from inspection so long as they can prove Rabbinical certification.

We are very nice to our animals, but they have a purpose to serve, and they are happy to do it regardless of what people think now. This whole "animals are people too" thing is ludicrous. They're animals. They have no conscious thought.

The whole world has been utterly barbaric for most of its human history, including a fair whack of its modern history. It's atrocious, but I think it's unfair to single out Islam for being more barbaric. At some times I think it has been; at other times I think it's easy to find a more barbaric faith. Then there's the confusion between what people do politically in the name of religion, and what religion would have them do. It clouds stuff up.

Don't accuse me of singling them out. We're talking specifically about them. It's not necessary to constantly make sure that everyone is happy and included. If we're discussing the Arab world, I don't have to mention that Xtians have a far more extensive history of murdering and brutalizing Jews than Arabs. We were discussing Arabs and their history of tolerance and intolerance. The fact is, the Arab governments have historically been intolerant to anyone but their own. I'm sorry that's not PC, but it's true.

And the entire world hasn't been barbaric. The Jewish people have never gone on a Crusade or an Inquisition or a Jihad against another people just because they didn't agree with them. We've certainly defended ourselves to an ashtonishing degree, but that's not the same at all.

Turkey's Westernisation program has produced a modern, credible secular society that still retains its Islamic identity. The things that conservative Muslims fear -- the sexualisation of women, falling into unislamic practices -- I think have largely not occurred there. Indonesia too -- the world's largest Islamic-majority nation -- is managing (with difficulty) a highly diverse society of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, animists and Confucians. The identity of its Muslims there remains strong and they've shown no need nor desire to convert either the Christians or the non-Abrahamic faiths.

Yes, and I think that's great. I wish more countries would do that.

We can grind our teeth over what a particular faith has done or we can seek inspration for what a faith can do. I think Islam can do a great deal of good.

I think Islam can do a lot of good; I think extremist Arabs cannot.

You made a tyro's mistake on a map of Islamic countries. I was just teasing you about it. I'm not going to call you Babylonian regardless. :)

Ha, gotcha. I knew it was a map of the Islamic world, but I couldn't find a map of just Arab countries. The point remains, because for them it is more of a Muslim than Arab thing.

Sure, but Israel is 20+% Arab -- and nobody's talking about kicking them out. So is this a world where religious or ethnic exclusivity is viable? My feeling is not. That being so, what's the future of our shared sacred places? Do we twitch over taboos or do we relax them some when necessary, and share?

Nobody talks about kicking them out because they act like normal human beings instead of immature, war-mongering a-holes. The Arabs in Israel are wonderful people. I've dealt with some of them in their shops. I've also talked to a bunch of them. They're nice people that love being Israeli citizens for the most part.

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 12:48 AM

there WILL be a Temple rebuilt there. That's not an issue up for debate. If they don't like it, which I'm sure they don't, then we'll have to go to war over it.I know that this is important to Orthodox and some Conservative Jews. Realistically, when must this happen and why then? What do you expect will be the final cost to achieve it? Out of curiosity, how would the priests be selected? Who would decide?

It's not a tin-foil hat conspiracy when they really are out to get you.If we replaced Jews with anyone else who wanted similar things, I think there'd be the same conflicts though. Please bear in mind that Arabs had occupied and administered Jerusalem for more time than most countries have existed. I think that the Orthodox Jewish perspective is somewhat unique -- there aren't many other developed-world cultures who could comfortably trivialise such long occupancy (the British did because they had no respect for Muslims, but hopefully they're past that now.)

I just feel that dismissing Arabic history in Jerusalem makes no friends and I think you wouldn't do it except for political purposes. You normally have great respect for history -- more than most, I'd say.

What's that quote from The Godfather? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.I've read a lot about Afghanistan in the last couple of years. Afganistan is not Arabic but is Muslim, but I think they have a great attachment to their homeland. It's had just about everyone occupy and control it from Alexander the Great through to the USSR, and the ISAF (http://www.nato.int/ISAF/). They're passionate about their homeland. There's no arguing at all. Afghans have shared with other cultures (e.g. the Pashtun share with the Uzbek), but they've never really submitted.

I wonder whether the Westernised approach of cash-or-tanks is just wrong for the region.

I'm not attributing motive, I'm repeating what they themselves have said.I think you're picking the quotes that suit your posture.

Animal sacrifice is an important part of Jewish life (as well as other types such as first fruits, barley, etc). It is the primary form of service to G-d. It is also important for purity purposes. There are certain types of defilement that can only be erased through the ashes of a red heifer prepared in a certain way.Out of curiosity, what is the ratio of Orthodox Jews to non-Orthodox? How many in total are Orthodox? I'm sure that many Jews from Orthodox to Reform would delight in a rebuilt Temple, but what proportion of Jewry do you think would avail themselves of these sacrifices?

It's important to note that in Judaism, animals are protected by Torah law. It is forbidden to be cruel to them or to slaughter them in a way that causes any pain or shock. [...] We are very nice to our animals, but they have a purpose to serve, and they are happy to do it regardless of what people think now.I haven't made comment about that. I would be interested though in how Judaic animal sacrifice might be used as precedent for other animal sacrifice elsewhere in the world.

This whole "animals are people too" thing is ludicrous. They're animals. They have no conscious thought.I think it's a mixed bag. There have been unequivocal tests which show that chimps and elephants (for example) have self-awareness. Chimps are capable of learning sign-language and expressing emotions and desires. Many animals are capable of creating basic plans. As to what cows, sheep and goats might think or know I can't say. But I've eaten sheep's brains and can attest that you'd get a bigger meal from a couple of walnuts :) Then again one of my childhood friends was a goat, and she was shrewder than many people I've met. :D

Don't accuse me of singling them out. We're talking specifically about them.While the Muslims in Jerusalem are largely Arabs, the question is who opposes a temple at that site. I think it's not simply Arabs but Muslims who revere the Dome of the Rock. In that case though, the harsh criticisms you've made about Arabic management of Jerusalem are simply irrelevant ethnic slurs.

The fact is, the Arab governments have historically been intolerant to anyone but their own. I'm sorry that's not PC, but it's true.Well, Iran is intolerant of non-Persian and non-Abrahamic religion and has only limited tolerance for non-Muslim Abrahamic religion, and it's not Arab but Persian. Egypt who has been difficult with Israel in the past, is 98% Egyptian with a small ethnic Arabian minority. I'm sure that there's an Arab vs Jew ethnic issue, but I think that there's good evidence to show that those issues are among the easier to resolve (not the least being the Arabs happily living in Israel). I think two greater issue are Judaism vs Islam (and showing adequate mutual respect) and Western vs Middle Eastern political thought (I suspect it's the biggest issue of all). Israel is a Western state in a Middle Eastern world. Values and customs are different and I think that a lot of the Middle Eastern xenophobia may be coming about because Israel wants to be a Western Judaic state.

I think that all that time in Europe and the US has changed Jews more than they realise.

And the entire world hasn't been barbaric. The Jewish people have never gone on a Crusade or an Inquisition or a Jihad against another people just because they didn't agree with them. We've certainly defended ourselves to an ashtonishing degree, but that's not the same at all.We may have different notions of barbarism; many cultures do. Thai people for instance, consider the way Westerns eat to be barbaric. Sometimes traditional customs can offend. Sometimes it's deeper and goes to values. You and I differ on whether people matter more than tradition. I consider it barbaric to put traditions above human needs, but you'd consider it faithless not to. Whaddayagonnado? :D

I think Islam can do a lot of good; I think extremist Arabs cannot.Except it's not just about Arabs. Making it a problem about Arabs is more than an ethnic slur -- it's scapegoating. Iran and Iraq are Persian. Egypt is Egyptian. Syria is Levantine, but just happens to speak Arabic due to conquest... Lebanon too is Levantine. The Middle East is a chowder of distinct ethnicities with various cultural influences from its complex and rich history.

The Arabs in Israel are wonderful people. I've dealt with some of them in their shops. I've also talked to a bunch of them. They're nice people that love being Israeli citizens for the most part.They're also very concerned (and making public comment) to protect Jewish people and find reconciliation between Judaism and Islam. For that matter, I think Egypt -- or voices in Egypt -- also have such concerns. I've no doubt that Turkey does too. So the tinfoil-hat really needs to come off here, Semi. Simplifying this to an Arab vs Jew problem is the kind of ignorant blinkering that enmired the British Empire for much of its time in the Middle East. But Britain could afford that -- the Brits didn't have to live there.

Australia has a similar challenge by the way -- we're a Western society in an Eastern political region. While it was popular in the 90s to call ourselves 'Asian' the reality is that there isn't a country in Asia who takes that seriously. On the other hand, we do need to understand how Asian business and politics work. That has been taking us decades and we're still not there yet.

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 01:31 AM

I know that this is important to Orthodox and some Conservative Jews. Realistically, when must this happen and why then? What do you expect will be the final cost to achieve it? Out of curiosity, how would the priests be selected? Who would decide?

We don't decide who is a priest. G-d decided in 1313 BCE that the priests would come from the tribe of Levi. Tribal lineage is determined by the father, and a wife takes on her husband's tribe. In order to serve in the Temple, your father must either be a Levi or a Kohein (a subsection of the tribe of Levi descended from Aaron that makes up the priestly class; interestingly, DNA testing has proved the accuracy of these lineages, as 80% of people claiming to be a Kohein share a unique genetic marker). The Kohanim are the priests, and the Leviim guard the Temple and perform certain other functions to assist in its running (they also perform a musical service and an insence service daily).

It will happen when the Messiah comes. He will be the one to build the Temple. How and when, we aren't sure. There is a deadline by which it will happen, but we can only speculate to when that is. We are more concerned with making ourselves worthy so that it may happen sooner rather than later.

If we replaced Jews with anyone else who wanted similar things, I think there'd be the same conflicts though. Please bear in mind that Arabs had occupied and administered Jerusalem for more time than most countries have existed. I think that the Orthodox Jewish perspective is somewhat unique -- there aren't many other developed-world cultures who could comfortably trivialise such long occupancy (the British did because they had no respect for Muslims, but hopefully they're past that now.)

I just feel that dismissing Arabic history in Jerusalem makes no friends and I think you wouldn't do it except for political purposes. You normally have great respect for history -- more than most, I'd say.

I don't dismiss Arab history in Jerusalem; however, I refuse to just accept their revisionist history. ACTUAL history is very important, and I am more than willing to discuss it. I will not legitimize their claims, however, when they are so far departed from the truth that it shouts absurdity.

You can find it in non-Jewish sources, and even Arab sources. There are plenty of Arab sources that mention Jerusalem as being worthless and trash, as well as the Holiest site for Jews. It is only since 1967 that they have started to claim they have an ancient reverence for Jerusalem and that there has not been any Jewish presence there. What happened in 1967? Oh right, we regained control of Jerusalem. Convenient.

Occupying a country doesn't give you a legitimate right to it. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem in 1948, and all but two countries in the world condemned their occupation as a violation of international law. All of the sudden, Israel gets their land back and it's a war crime. How does that make sense?

Jews have been living in Israel and Jerusalem since 1273 BCE. Islam was not founded until the 7th century CE. I don't care how long they've been in Jerusalem--they have not even been a religion for as long as we've been living there.

I've read a lot about Afghanistan in the last couple of years. Afganistan is not Arabic but is Muslim, but I think they have a great attachment to their homeland. It's had just about everyone occupy and control it from Alexander the Great through to the USSR, and the ISAF (http://www.nato.int/ISAF/). They're passionate about their homeland. There's no arguing at all. Afghans have shared with other cultures (e.g. the Pashtun share with the Uzbek), but they've never really submitted.

If the Palestinians would share, there'd be no problem. The issue is that they don't want to share, and they've made that abundantly clear. (http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/conflict/82-conflict/1499-fatah-official-our-goal-has-never-been-peace-peace-is-a-means-the-goal-is-palestine.html) When the Koran says, "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions," they take it literally.

Watch the video. It is Fatah Jerusalem Regional Committee member Kifah Radaydeh saying:

Fatah is facing a challenge, because [Fatah] says that we perceive peace as one of the strategies, but we say that all forms of the struggle exist, and we do not rule out the possibility of the armed struggle or any other struggle. The struggle exists in all its forms, on the basis of what we are capable of at a given time, and according to what seems right...

What exactly do we want? It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; and the goal is Palestine. I do not negotiate in order to achieve peace. I negotiate for Palestine, in order to achieve a state.

where Palestine means all of Israel. The article also quotes others saying pretty much the same thing, including this tidbit:

I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today... It's required of the government but not of Hamas; it's required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families... This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community.

I'm not sure how the rest of the world can listen to them say things like that on their own television stations and then say it is Israel's fault there is no peace. WHAT. THE. FUCK. is wrong with them?

I wonder whether the Westernised approach of cash-or-tanks is just wrong for the region.

I think you're picking the quotes that suit your posture.

Really? So the quotes above that say their "desire" to make peace is a front so they can eventually occupy all of Israel and make it Palestine is just cherry picking quotes? How else could you POSSIBLY read something like that? They literally say they don't want peace. It does NOT get more cut and dry than that.

As far as history goes, read about it yourself. Their own historians and political leaders have mentioned numerous times about how Jerusalem is the center of Jewish life and is relatively unimportant to Islam. You can look at their political actions and see how the disregard the city once it's under Muslim control. These are just the facts. I wish it weren't true, but the only people who will deny this are the Arabs and people who have been fooled by their revisionist history.

Out of curiosity, what is the ratio of Orthodox Jews to non-Orthodox? How many in total are Orthodox? I'm sure that many Jews from Orthodox to Reform would delight in a rebuilt Temple, but what proportion of Jewry do you think would avail themselves of these sacrifices?

There are 13.3 million Jews in the world, and about 1.8 million of them are fully observant Orthodox Jews. There are about 3 or 4 million additional Jews who affiliate themselves with Orthodoxy, but are not fully observant. Many of these are affiliated with Chabad, which does not judge based on observance level.

To be honest, it doesn't matter whether or not they would avail themselves to sacrifices. It's going to happen whether they want it to or not. The commandments regarding sacrifices make up approximately 150 of the 613 commandments. It is very clear that we are to make them twice daily, three times on the Sabbath, and more times at certain points during the year, in addition to guilt and sin offerings, etc. No one is going to force them to make sacrifices, just like they aren't forced to pray now. Their failure to perform their service to G-d is between them and G-d.

I haven't made comment about that. I would be interested though in how Judaic animal sacrifice might be used as precedent for other animal sacrifice.

Non-Jews are permitted to offer sacrifices in the Temple; however, I believe the animal has to be slaughtered and prepared by a Jew in order to count. So if they want to do sacrifices, that's perfectly fine. In fact, some of the Roman emperors has sacrifices offered to G-d on their behalf. It was common during Temple times, and I'm sure it will be common when the Third Temple is built.

I think it's a mixed bag. There have been unequivocal tests which show that chimps and elephants (for example) have self-awareness. Chimps are capable of learning sign-language and expressing emotions and desires. Many animals are capable of creating basic plans. As to what cows, sheep and goats might think or know I can't say. But I've eaten sheep's brains and can attest that you'd get a bigger meal from a handful of grapes. :) Then again one of my childhood friends was a goat, and she was shrewder than many people I've met. :D

Intelligence and the ability to connect doesn't equal consciousness. However, we don't slaughter monkeys and chimps. We are only allowed to offer up kosher animals. In addition, primates and early man were the precursor to Adam and Chava, so I doubt G-d would want us to sacrifices something resembling a human; also, it's possible for them to have a degree of self-awareness if they are a precursor to man.

While that's true, we're talking about just the Arabs getting in your way, which I think is much smaller than the entire Arab world. In fact I'm not sure what defines your enemy here... perhaps it's not Arabs but Muslims who revere the Dome of the Rock? In that case the harsh criticisms you've made about Arabic management of Jerusalem would simply be irrelevant ethnic slurs.

It's not even Muslims who revere the Dome of the Rock. It's only Muslims who desire to wipe out Jews and take over Israel. They refuse to coexist peacefully, and they don't want to share. Those are my "enemies" as you put it. My criticism of Arab management of Jerusalem is simply to show that their supposed "third holies site" was not treated as such by them the five times they had control over it. Telling the truth is not the same as saying an ethnic slur, sorry.

Well, Iran is intolerant of non-Persian and non-Abrahamic religion and has only limited tolerance for non-Muslim Abrahamic religion, and it's not Arab but Persian. Egypt who has been difficult with Israel in the past, are 98% Egyptian with a small ethnic Arabian minority. I'm sure that there's an Arab vs Jew ethnic issue, but I think that there's good evidence to show that those issues are among the easier to resolve. I think two greater issue are Judaism vs Islam (and showing adequate mutual respect) and Western vs Middle Eastern political thought (I suspect it's the biggest issue of all). Israel is a Western state in a Middle Eastern world. Values and customs are different and I think that a lot of the Middle Eastern xenophobia may be coming about because Israel wants to be a Western Judaic state.

Amen to that.

I think that all that time in Europe has changed Jews more than they realise.

How do you mean?

We may have different notions of barbarism.

What's your notion of barbarism? It would be helpful to know what you mean so that I can accurately respond.

Except it's not just about Arabs. Making it a problem about Arabs is more than an ethnic slur -- it's scapegoating. Iran and Iraq are Persian. Egypt is Egyptian. Syria is Levantine, but just happens to speak Arabic due to conquest... Lebanon too is Levantine. The Middle East is a chowder of distinct ethnicities with various cultural influences from its complex and rich history.

Those are different problems though. I'm not speaking about the Iranian problem. That is an entirely different, albeit similar, issue. BTW, Egypt is one of the 22 states that make up the official Arab world.

ETA: I think there may be a communication problem here. By Arabs, I am referring to residents in Arab countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and Yemen), not specifically people Arab by ethnicity. It's the same thing as when I refer to Jews. There are several different ethnic groups of Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, German, Russian, Lithuania, Persian, etc); however, I refer to them all collectively as Jews unless I am specifically referring to a certain group. The same is with Arabs. If I mean Jordan, I say Jordanian. If I mean Palestinians, I say Palestinians. When I say Arabs, I mean for the most part, the greater Arab world (when talking specifically about Jerusalem, I mean Jordan and the Palestinians, who are both part of the "Arab world").

They're also very concerned (and making public comment) to protect Jewish people and find reconciliation between Judaism and Islam. For that matter, I think Egypt -- or voices in Egypt -- have such concerns. I've no doubt that Turkey does too. So the tinfoil-hat really needs to come off here, Semi. Simplifying this to an Arab vs Jews problem is the kind of ignorant blinkering that enmired the British Empire for much of its time in the Middle East.

I still don't get what you're talking about with the tin-foil hat, and I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Are you claiming that Egypt is truly a friend to the Jews and wants nothing more but peace and harmony? They have a peace agreement because it got their land back. That's it. They refuse to allow airlines to fly over Egyptian airspace if they are flying to Israel. They feign help regarding Hamas, but they actually do very little. They are one of the states pushing for a peace plan, but they do not do much to push the PA side to recognise Israel's right to exist--in fact, they claim that it is an unnecessary pre-condition.

Would the United States talk to another country if it completely denied its right to exist? Would Australia? I think not.

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 04:00 AM

Semi, I'll respond to some comments a little later when I have more time to consider, but 'Arab' is an ethnic group. 'Persian' is an ethnic group. Persians aren't Arabs. I'm trying to find the source of confusion. Do you perhaps mean members of the Arab League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League)? Egypt and Iraq are members, though their people aren't ethnically Arabian. India has special observer status and it sure as heck isn't Arabian ethnicity. :)

As for discussions of barbarism, thank you but I'd prefer not to. I have my own vision for what civilisation ought to like and I neither care to inflict it on you nor defend it. :)

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 07:20 AM

Semi, I'll respond to some comments a little later when I have more time to consider, but 'Arab' is an ethnic group. 'Persian' is an ethnic group. Persians aren't Arabs. I'm trying to find the source of confusion. Do you perhaps mean members of the Arab League? Egypt and Iraq are members, though their people aren't ethnically Arabian. India has special observer status and it sure as heck isn't Arabian ethnicity.

Jewish refers to a religion and a set of ethnicities (although technically anyone can become Jewish). Ashkenazi isn't Sephardic, and Mizrahi aren't Russians, and Yekkes aren't Litvish--but they're all Jewish. So it's similar. Egyptians are mostly Egyptian, and Persians are--well, Persian; however, the countries I'm discussing are all part of the Arab World (or the Arab League), and so when I say Arab, I'm just using an abbreviation for Arab League. I tried to explain that in the previous post, but that may not have been clear.

If I refer to a specific people, I usually use their ethnic or geographical term, e.g., Palestinian or Jordanian. Iran is not part of the Arab League, but I haven't referred to them, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing them up.

As for discussions of barbarism, thank you but I'd prefer not to. I have my own vision for what civilisation ought to like and I neither care to inflict it on you nor defend it. That's fine, but don't bring up a topic if you don't want someone to ask questions about it.

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 07:42 AM

when I say Arab, I'm just using an abbreviation for Arab League.Cool, but the Arab League is a political association not an ethnic grouping and member countries don't necessarily have a coherent ideology. Egypt for instance, was suspended from the Arab league after its treaty with Israel.

I don't know (and will read up) but I'm guessing that non-Arabic countries are members because being Muslim they read and write in Arabic (in addition to any other language), and being Middle-Eastern, they have a strong stake in what countries of Arab ethnicities are doing.

I've mentioned earlier that I think Egypt and some other Muslim states have a stake in Israel's prosperity. For instance in Egypt, around 49% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Egypt) is services, and tourism I think is the third largest export. The opportunity cost of conflict in Egypt since 1991 is estimated at around US$800B -- in other words, Egyptians would be around three times richer if they hadn't been fighting. Most economies benefit from peace and peaceful neighbours, but service economies are especially exposed to conflict because services require stability to thrive. From discussions with some friends who've travelled there, Egypt has worked very hard to make the place tourist-friendly and providing a moderate environment I think is part of that.

That's fine, but don't bring up a topic if you don't want someone to ask questions about it.Oh, stop grumbling. :tongue You mention the Kabbalah but you're forbidden from talking about it. This whole forum's about exploring ideas but the exploration has to be fruitful. I'm happy to talk about human civilisation in another context, but I'm not going to taint a perfectly good discussion telling you how I'd like to see Orthodox Judaism develop and you telling me why the Torah won't permit that.

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 07:52 AM

Cool, but the Arab League is a political association not an ethnic grouping and member countries don't necessarily have a coherent ideology. Egypt for instance, was suspended from the Arab league after its treaty with Israel.

Yes, I know. It's not the best system, I'll admit. :D

I don't know (and will read up) but I'm guessing that non-Arabic countries are members because being Muslim they read and write in Arabic (in addition to any other language), and being Middle-Eastern, they have a strong stake in what countries of Arab ethnicities are doing.

That seems to be the case.

I've mentioned earlier that I think Egypt and some other Muslim states have a stake in Israel's prosperity. For instance in Egypt, around 49% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Egypt) is services, and tourism I think is the third largest export. The opportunity cost of conflict in Egypt since 1991 is estimated at around US$800B -- in other words, Egyptians would be around three times richer if they hadn't been fighting. Most economies benefit from peace and peaceful neighbours, but service economies are especially exposed to conflict because services require stability to thrive. From discussions with some friends who've travelled there, Egypt has worked very hard to make the place tourist-friendly and providing a moderate environment I think is part of that.

I'm good friends with an Egyptian who told me that I should never go there because anti-Semitism is rampant. Egypt made peace for its own benefit--any benefit to Israel was incidental. That's fine, but we shouldn't pretend their relationship is something it's not.

Oh, stop grumbling. :tongue You mention the Kabbalah but you're forbidden from talking about it. This whole forum's about exploring ideas but the exploration has to be fruitful. I'm happy to talk about human civilisation in another context, but I'm not going to taint a perfectly good discussion telling you how I'd like to see Orthodox Judaism develop and you telling me why the Torah won't permit that.

Touche. :)

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 08:22 AM

I'm good friends with an Egyptian who told me that I should never go there because anti-Semitism is rampant. Egypt made peace for its own benefit--any benefit to Israel was incidental. That's fine, but we shouldn't pretend their relationship is something it's not.Which is perhaps the point I'm getting to -- for thousands of years, Middle Eastern traders have been masters of playing emotion for commercial advantage, and making mischief for power and profit. Advantage matters; pride matters; respect matters; they have a history of making hard bargains but a delight in the haggling. Jews used to swim in that, but for thousands of years they've been breathing a European mode that's by turns more idealistic and more transactional. Perhaps I'm a bit more interested in it than most Euro-types because of my readings about Afghanistan and Persia.

Not to diss my Middle Eastern brethren but I think there's a bit of naievete on behalf of Europe, the US and perhaps Israel too as to what the Arab League will and won't put up with. I think there's a strong mismatch in how to engage them. The Brits probably started the screw-up (they did it with the India/Pakistan division too), but I can't help but feel that Israel continues it by Torah-thumping, Western posturing and failing to understand who they're dealing with.

I could be mistaken, Semi. Israel has a first-rate Intelligence service -- but one still needs to understand the intel one gets.

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 08:26 AM

Which is perhaps the point I'm getting to -- for thousands of years, Middle Eastern traders have been masters of playing emotion for commercial advantage, and making mischief for power and profit. Advantage matters; pride matters; respect matters; they have a history of making hard bargains but a delight in the haggling. Jews used to swim in that, but for thousands of years they've been breathing a European mode that's by turns more idealistic and more transactional. Perhaps I'm a bit more interested in it than most Euro-types because of my readings about Afghanistan and Persia.

Not to diss my Middle Eastern brethren but I think there's a bit of naievete on behalf of Europe, the US and perhaps Israel too as to what the Arab League will and won't put up with. I think there's a strong mismatch in how to engage them. The Brits probably started the screw-up (they did it with the India/Pakistan division too), but I can't help but feel that Israel continues it by Torah-thumping, Western posturing and failing to understand who they're dealing with.

I could be mistaken, Semi. Israel has a first-rate Intelligence service -- but one still needs to understand the intel one gets.

I'm afraid I don't understand. How is Israel Torah-thumping? By existing? I'm sorry Israel's existence is such a burden for the Arab League, but they need to get over it. Israel doesn't go on rampages through Jordan telling them to convert to Judaism or die. In fact, it doesn't even tell them they have to convert at all. Arabs living in Israel have full citizenship rights and the right to worship wherever and however (to a limit...the Western Wall is basically an open-air synagogue, so there are certain rules there; otherwise, they can do whatever they want worship-wise).

ETA: Someone posted this on another thread. It's funny, but shockingly accurate in both reality and their view.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/jewishoccupation.gif

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 10:36 AM

I'm afraid I don't understand. How is Israel Torah-thumping? By existing?

As far as I can tell, Israel has three arguments of claim to Mount Moriah:

A tenuous ethnic claim based on ancient history, which is about as credible as if native Americans rose up to take Washington back;
A religious claim which only those sympathetic to Judaic faith have any reason to recognise;
A 'might-makes-right' claim, which no humanitarian country would support.
I see claims 1 & 2 are 'Torah-thumping' claims. I think they're especially strident since by your own admission, Israel has no deadline to rebuild the Temple -- unless and until the Massiach appears, it's simply a desire and not a need. And besides which, should the Massiach reappear, G-d is supposed to get Old Testament on the likes of me and Muslims anyway, which makes arguments 1 and 3 rather moot. :)

[I of course, think all that isn't going to happen, and if it did I'd spit in G-d's eye, but I am sympathetic to Israel's desire for a traditional Temple.]

I think this is a case of want vs need. I see why Israel wants a Temple on Mount Moriah tomorrow. I think it's a question of what is Israel willing to pay the Muslim world to accommodate this desire, and are the peoples living there willing to come to a settlement. It's a bit of commerce, a bit of politics -- hence my earlier comment. You've said that 'The Arabs' are resisting because 'Jews want it', and my suggestion is that yes, that's how Middle Eastern people bargain. My point being that the more Israel Torah-thumps, the higher any eventual price goes. Such thumping both stings Muslim pride and provokes the shrewd haggler who knows that emotion drives up price. [As I said, Jews used to be great at this stuff, but they've gotten blunted from dealing with dumb, idealistic Europeans for too long. :D]

I'm sorry Israel's existence is such a burden for the Arab League, but they need to get over it.Dude, it's not a burden; for most of the Arab league it's an opportunity. By casting Israel as a foe, the Arab League gets to unify and swell its membership (which is exactly what has happened). By keeping their eye on Israeli land and wealth, they indulge in their second-favourite sport after horse-racing: making mischief for power and profit. I mean it: Israel has got to take its tin-foil hat off and deal with Middle-Eastern people as the Balkanised, shrewd-tradin', mischief-makin' folk they are and have-been for 3,000+ years. :D Which is not to say bomb the crap out of them Yankee-style, but it is to say they need to be wooed, cozened, flattered, bribed, intermarried with and outwitted if you want to be respected. :D
ETA: Someone posted this on another thread. It's funny, but shockingly accurate in both reality and their view.It's wry and sardonic and funny in a Jewish-humour way that I appreciate. But if I read it like a member of the Arab League, I'd label each country with GDP, add social networking lines and ask how it could profit me. :D

Gehanna

09-17-2009, 06:27 PM

[I of course, think all that isn't going to happen, and if it did I'd spit in G-d's eye ...] Was that necessary?

Dude, it's not a burden; ... Dude? Aren't you supposed to say, "Mate"? As a reader of your posts, I'd like to request that you use the word "Wanker" instead.

Am I offended? No. I am disappointed. I expect more from you than I do myself.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 07:23 PM

As far as I can tell, Israel has three arguments of claim to Mount Moriah:

A tenuous ethnic claim based on ancient history, which is about as credible as if native Americans rose up to take Washington back;
A religious claim which only those sympathetic to Judaic faith have any reason to recognise;
A 'might-makes-right' claim, which no humanitarian country would support.

You forget the claim that Jews were sovereign in Israel before Islam was a religion and have maintained presence in Israel for 3,300 years. They did NOT leave completely. There have always been Jews in Jerusalem.

I see claims 1 & 2 are 'Torah-thumping' claims. I think they're especially strident since by your own admission, Israel has no deadline to rebuild the Temple -- unless and until the Massiach appears, it's simply a desire and not a need. And besides which, should the Massiach reappear, G-d is supposed to get Old Testament on the likes of me and Muslims anyway, which makes arguments 1 and 3 rather moot. :)

Actually, I said explicitly that there is a deadline, we just don't know it. And G-d will not get "Old Testament on your arses" if you will. :D I'm not sure where you get the idea that everyone not Jewish will become subservient. I've said the contrary numerous times.

It's not just a desire. It is very much a need. We cannot fully serve G-d unless we have the Temple. It's like going to work but not having a work station or a computer. You can do some of your work, but you can't really do the important stuff.

[I of course, think all that isn't going to happen, and if it did I'd spit in G-d's eye, but I am sympathetic to Israel's desire for a traditional Temple.]

Very fucking inappropriate. I'm trying to decide whether this is worth reporting because I doubt anything would change. You cry for mutual respect and beliefs, and yet this is the stuff that comes out of your mouth. I'm very disappointed by this comment.

I think this is a case of want vs need. I see why Israel wants a Temple on Mount Moriah tomorrow. I think it's a question of what is Israel willing to pay the Muslim world to accommodate this desire, and are the peoples living there willing to come to a settlement. It's a bit of commerce, a bit of politics -- hence my earlier comment. You've said that 'The Arabs' are resisting because 'Jews want it', and my suggestion is that yes, that's how Middle Eastern people bargain. My point being that the more Israel Torah-thumps, the higher any eventual price goes. Such thumping both stings Muslim pride and provokes the shrewd haggler who knows that emotion drives up price. [As I said, Jews used to be great at this stuff, but they've gotten blunted from dealing with dumb, idealistic Europeans for too long. :D]

The price is giving up completely all claims to the land and renaming it Palestine. Maybe you should actually read the articles I post and watch the videos before you pretend to know what they want.

Dude, it's not a burden; for most of the Arab league it's an opportunity. By casting Israel as a foe, the Arab League gets to unify and swell its membership (which is exactly what has happened). By keeping their eye on Israeli land and wealth, they indulge in their second-favourite sport after horse-racing: making mischief for power and profit. I mean it: Israel has got to take its tin-foil hat off and deal with Middle-Eastern people as the Balkanised, shrewd-tradin', mischief-makin' folk they are and have-been for 3,000+ years. :D Which is not to say bomb the crap out of them Yankee-style, but it is to say they need to be wooed, cozened, flattered, bribed, intermarried with and outwitted if you want to be respected. :D

Why should we woo them? We bargain with people who actually want to sell us something. They want the money without giving up the goods so to speak. One more tin-foil hat comment, and I'm blocking you. That is getting really annoying and disrespectful.

It's wry and sardonic and funny in a Jewish-humour way that I appreciate. But if I read it like a member of the Arab League, I'd label each country with GDP, add social networking lines and ask how it could profit me. :D

:D

Gehanna

09-17-2009, 07:43 PM

Very fucking inappropriate.

You'll use the "F" word, but you won't put the "o" in God. I wonder if Moses ever used the "F" word. I can see it now... Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and saying the "F" word right before he threw down the Holy Tablets.

I expect more from you to.

Gehanna

semilargeintestine

09-17-2009, 07:51 PM

And I expect people not to make the sort of ignorant, hateful comments he did. I think Moses probably said the Biblical equivalent of F--- when he came down the mountain and saw the Golden Calf. Actually, G-d rebuked him for his anger a couple times, and it is the reason he was not allowed into Israel (one of them).

Ruv Draba

09-17-2009, 11:52 PM

You forget the claim that Jews were sovereign in Israel before Islam was a religion and have maintained presence in Israel for 3,300 years. They did NOT leave completely. There have always been Jews in Jerusalem.That's the one I class under 1, Semi. I agree that there have been Jews present for a long time -- but not administering Jerusalem.

I said explicitly that there is a deadline, we just don't know it.I'm not sure what that means, Semi. You don't know whether it's tomorrow or five centuries away.

And G-d will not get "Old Testament on your arses" if you will.Thank you for the reassurance, but that's not what my other sources on Judaism say... nor is it what is said in the Jewish religion forum.

It's not just a desire. It is very much a need. We cannot fully serve G-d unless we have the Temple. It's like going to work but not having a work station or a computer. You can do some of your work, but you can't really do the important stuff.I'm sorry, but I don't understand that. My understanding of 'need' is that it always has some adverse and generally irreversible consequence that happens by a certain time. For example, if I need to eat and don't meet that need then in a few weeks I'll be dead. On the other hand if I want blue suede shoes to wear to karaoke then I might feel terrible without them every week and my flakey singing voice might be rendered worse by my shame, but there are no other consequences.

Very [...] inappropriate. I'm trying to decide whether this is worth reporting because I doubt anything would change. You cry for mutual respect and beliefs, and yet this is the stuff that comes out of your mouth. I'm very disappointed by this comment.Well, whether you report it perhaps someone else will, and CG reads most of the posts here anyway. So let me go on record as saying what my comment actually meant.

I hold a secular humanistic belief -- a religious belief -- that human lives are worth vastly more than human religion. It's a matter of conscience for me, and a deeply held view. My comment does not pertain to Jews or Judaism or their deity in general but simply to the prospect of some divinity (as has been so deftly put elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2157053&postcount=2)) 'opening a can of whup-ass' on Gentiles or any other ethnic group and/or messing with our planet. If I saw that I absolutely would spit in the eye of any divinity or their appointed agency as I'm rather attached to our species and its home. Me spitting on anyone's deity is only as likely as their deity initiating an apocalypse while I'm alive. If you feel that your deity would never do such a thing, then you have nothing at all to worry about. However, if you can have your eschatology then I'm entitled to mine. If offering animal sacrifice is sacred to your religious identity, then my right to spit on any ill-behaved deities I might see is sacred to me as a free-thinker. It's my definition of what it means to be human. I'll ask you to respect my religious convictions and my beliefs thanks, and no, I'm not joking.

The price is giving up completely all claims to the land and renaming it Palestine. Maybe you should actually read the articles I post and watch the videos before you pretend to know what they want.I've read enough to form a provisional opinion, Semi. It just happens to be different from yours. But thank you for the links.
One more tin-foil hat comment, and I'm blocking you. That is getting really annoying and disrespectful.Understood. I'm sorry it has started to irritate you. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment to a friend, and I won't make it again.