Religious Dietary Laws

[Nick]

Well, I've just come back from scoring some scallops and green beans for supper and made an even wider search for Magi Sauce that proved as fruitless as the first - and see that this discussion has made no headway at all.

And people talk about the chattering of squirrels.

Spelledit.

Edited January 2, 2003 by Nickn (log)

[macrosan]

To both Macrosan & Cakewalk - If you believe that god does exist, please show us some physical evidence.

Wilfrid - Are you trying to say the following? Because religion is based in theology that often has no root in logic, then conflicts between existing religions cannot be reconciled peacefully. But disputes between secular beliefs can because one belief can prevail over the other as a matter of logic.  If that is the case, I agree with you. And it is also the reason that the notion of seperation of church and state came about. Giving religion absolute power when their assertions could only be reconciled in a violent manner was impetus for man to uproot religion and to push it into a role that is inferior to the civil rights of the population at large.

My own existence as a sentient, creative, intellect is my proof. When you can show me how a human being can create that from nothing then I'll consider your alternative.

If you think that's circumstantial, then give me your (non-circumstantial) evidence for a black hole (and I mean physical evidence, not evidence deduced from a tautologically designed piece of scientific apparatus).

And if you have no physical evidence, but have faith that there is a god, please explain to me how fashioning your behavior in terms of your diet based on "god's words" is different then being a suicide bomber because of "god's words?"

That is by far the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on this board, particularly given that it's aimed at me. I hope you regret having made the remark, and that you'll edit it out, and then I'll edit this out.

[Steve Plotnicki]

That's sad, Tony, because that's a different God from the one I was brought up on. The God I was introduced to as a child was just like my father --- he was a God who loved his creations, wanted the best for them, saved them from awful events, taught them and gave them opportunities for life. Of course he was also able and ready to exercise discipline, but even when he was doing that he cried to himself. Also, like my father, he made mistakes and was (sometimes) willing to admit that. You would have to be awfully selective in your reading to have produced your view, I think.

Macrosan - You are full of it. If you read the bible, those "words of god" you are describing are about as horrible as any words you will ever read. By picking and choosing the words you like from the words you don't like, you are a hypocrite. At least be honest and condemn all of the words and what they originally stood for. You can find another way for Judaism to offer spirituality outside the context of hypocritical and false divinity. That is the modern approach but I'm not surprised you aren't following it since you are a MAEB.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

When I acquired the ability to reason for myself, I re-examined my view of and my belief in God, and I actually rejected some of what I was taught, and learned new ideas for myself. So for example, I rejected the notion that kashrut was an all-or-nothing option, and adopted my own idiosyncratic version. I rejected much of the detail of Moses'/God's dealing with Pharaoh in Egypt, because they did not reconcile with my developed view of what God was, and what He might or might not have done. And there are a number of detailed aspects of observance and interpretation and custom that I find unacceptable to my learned values, and which I therefore discard or modify. To some Jews, that would make me a heretic, or a hypocrite, but I can live with that label.

After your 'improvements' to your inherited religion, do you still consider yourself to be a Jew? Isn't religion about dogma? Can you remain a Jew if you take such liberties with that which defines you as such?

Edited January 2, 2003 by Lord Michael Lewis (log)

[Wilfrid]

Do we have to be horrible to each other? Why not everybody read my post about Kant - that should have a suitably tranquilizing effect.

[Marlene]

'If there's only pork sausages to eat should you starve to death or break God's laws?'.

I know of no religious authority who advocates death over breaking the laws of kashruth. I believe this is discussed, at least in Judaism, as the concepts of pikuach nefesh and tzorchei tzibbur, meaning the saving of a life and the needs of the community (roughly). That is to say, it is acceptable to break certain laws when presented with overwhelming need.

Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses will die rather than accept a blood transfusion.

edited.

Edited January 2, 2003 by Marlene (log)

[Gavin Jones]

Or alternatively post some chunks of Kant.

Wore a yellow cravat. Lost his virginity at 47. Gave brilliant dinner parties. What would Kant serve for dinner?

[Wilfrid]

His ingenuity was not restricted to philosophy. He designed a pair of breeches with threads inside which he could attach to his silk stockings. He could then reach into his pockets and give the threads a little tug to keep his stockings up. What people thought he was doing in his pockets, I can't say.

[ivan]

Or alternatively post some chunks of Kant.

Wore a yellow cravat. Lost his virginity at 47. Gave brilliant dinner parties. What would Kant serve for dinner?

And would he eat the salad a priori or a posteriori?

[SobaAddict70]

Do we have to be horrible to each other?  Why not everybody read my post about Kant - that should have a suitably tranquilizing effect.

Ugh.

I thought Kant was about as incomprehensible as Heidegger, and that's saying a lot. Put me to sleep in my epistemology seminar, it did. =P

Maybe next time we see each other you could translate his Prologamena (sp) into PLAIN ENGLISH for me. None of this crap about a "categorical imperative".

SA

Edited January 2, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[g.johnson]

If you think that's circumstantial, then give me your (non-circumstantial) evidence for a black hole (and I mean physical evidence, not evidence deduced from a tautologically designed piece of scientific apparatus).

I’ll use the example of electrons rather than black holes. No one has seen an electron. You could therefore argue that the evidence for electrons is circumstantial. But if you accept the existence of the electron you can theorize about its properties and build working computers and MRI machine. At this point the ‘tautologically designed piece of scientific apparatus’ impinges on the world. If the MRI shows you a tumor in your liver, the surgeon will go in there and find it. (Don’t make me post the murine pancreatic tumor again.) Science is not tautological and circumstantial evidence can be very strong when it is internally consistent with the vast edifice* of modern physics.

*Cliché alert

[g.johnson]

What would Kant serve for dinner?

Brains.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

And would he eat the salad a priori or a posteriori?

It's said that a posteriori, refers to a momentous game of Twister played against a bow-legged Armenian, at his forty-seventh birthday party.

[macrosan]

After your 'improvements' to your inherited religion, do you still consider yourself to be a Jew? Isn't religion about dogma? Can you remain a Jew if you take such liberties with that which defines you as such?

Yes, no and yes in that order.

I still consider myself to be a Jew because I am. Even if I failed to observe a single law, the most observant Jew in the world would call me a Jew. A bad Jew, maybe, a non-observant Jew definitiely, but a Jew nevertheless.

My religion isn't about dogma. In fact, although Judaism is positively littered with minutiae in terms of observation, I consider Judaism as a whole to be a non-dogmatic religion. We have a tradition called pilpul which is where learned men get together and spend hours discussing the nuances of a single word in the Bible or the Talmud. For orthodox Jews, the Torah itself is sacrosanct, but a huge proportion of Jewish observance and custom is based on a thousand years of rabbinical discussion and interpretation. Many of the laws and customs are arcane and outdated, but these are almost all of little importance. The centrality of the religion is a set of values, and a code of human behaviour, which are both practical and sensible. So for example one could argue that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is dogmatic, since it is unequivocal and brooks no argument, but I simply view it as entirely practical and sensible.

What defines me as a Jew is far less my observance of kashrut or my belief in God's vengeance, than my adherence to a set of moral values and my commitment to my culture. Despite an earlier comment by SteveP, it is simply not the case that I would get "thrown out of my religion" for eating pork. So yes, I am allowed to take all sorts of liberties with custom, ritual, and minor laws and still remain a Jew.

Incidentally, LML, yYou are right to observe that you might want to avoid me at the next party we both attend. I have to admit I'm sorry I barged into this thread --- I should have known better. But I hate to see my religion misrepresented in public, particularly to non-Jews who might actually believe what all the Jews here are telling them. Having started to correct various errors and misunderstandings, people keep asking me questions which I now feel obligated to answer.

[Max]

Well, I've just come back from scoring some scallops and green beans for supper and made an even wider search for Magi Sauce that proved as fruitless as the first - and see that this discussion has made no headway at all.

And people talk about the chattering of squirrels.

Did the boy score a nickle or a dime bag of scallops? and now's you're back, how 'bout heppin us po chatterin squirrels out with some a that cleah country logic. We seem to be really foundering heah. Have we reached the mindless drivel stage?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

My religion isn't about dogma.

I'm a non-Christian Roman Catholic.

Edited January 2, 2003 by Lord Michael Lewis (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

You could therefore argue that the evidence for electrons is circumstantial.

But all you are saying is that some circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove one's case and other circumstantial evidence isn't. And the reason it is sufficient for the electron is because scientific formulas based on electrons actually work. That is totally distinguishable from saying pork is "unclean" without any scientific data to back it up, including people getting sick from eating it. That relies on people having faith based on no evidence directly related to the item. The evidence arises with a higher power that has no connection to the item other then through his words and who ordains behavior without any evidence at all. The electron is circumstantial of the actual item. Not circumstantially related to the item as a third party. Fat Guy, what do you call that in terms of evidence? And I assume that the reason that nobody has seen an electron isn't that it doesn't exist, I'm just guessing but, doesn't it have to do with finding an instrument that allows us to see it physically?

I take exception with Macrosan's characterization of my rendition of what Judaism is and what it promotes. I speak the truth and it has been ratified by numerous people here. That he didn't have the experience that I, and many other Jews had, doesn't mean we do not speak the truth. We do and it is a shame that I have to say that.

Edited January 2, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[g.johnson]

You could therefore argue that the evidence for electrons is circumstantial.

But all you are saying is that some circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove one's case and other circumstantial evidence isn't. And the reason it is sufficient in science is because scientific formulas based on electrons actually work. That is totally distinguishable from saying pork is "unclean" without any scientific data to back it up, including people getting sick from eating it. That relies on people having faith based on no evidence directly related to the item. The evidence arises with a higher power that has no connection to the item other then through his words. And I assume that the reason that nobody has seen an electron isn't that it doesn't exist is it? I'm just guessing but, idoesn't it have to do with finding something to measure it which allows us to see it physically?

Erm, I was agreeing with you, Steve.

Edited January 2, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[macrosan]

But all you are saying is that some circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove one's case and other circumstantial evidence isn't.

"ALL" ?????? Wow, Steve, that's a big "all". Yes, you may be right that we're just waiting for right instrument to be invented so we can physically see an electron, but as at today you have to believe that such an instrument, when invented, will indeed provide non-circumstantial evidence of what you currently believe to be the case --- that electrons do in fact exist.

Now I have no problem believing that, but you have been demanding a higher standard of proof than I find necessary.

Edited January 2, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I have to admit I'm sorry I barged into this thread --- I should have known better. But I hate to see my religion misrepresented in public, particularly to non-Jews who might actually believe what all the Jews here are telling them.

When you talk about "my religion", would that be "my religion" Macrosanic Abridged Judaism; or Classic Judaism?

[La Niña]

One of the things about Judaism is that you can do or believe anything if you're a Jew, but you're still a Jew. Macrosan, by his own admission, has chosen those traditions and rituals that make sense or have meaning to him in some way.

To illustrate this point even further: if someone converts from Judaism to someone else, they're still considered Jewish. And if that person converts, say, to Christianity - and then that person has children (I'm talking about a woman in this case) - those children are considered Jewish. And the Jews for Jesus are still Jewish, even though theologically they're Christians who have accepted Jesus as the messiah.

Judaism is not only a religion. It's a race, a people. Am Yisroel - the nation of Israel, the people of Israel. I believe it is unique in the world in this way.

Edited January 2, 2003 by La Niña (log)

[Fat Guy]

LML, as Assistant Moderator of this thread, can't you get these people back onto the subject of dietary laws?

[Nick]

...and now's you're back, how 'bout heppin us po chatterin squirrels out with some a that cleah country logic.  We seem to be really foundering heah.  Have we reached the mindless drivel stage?

Max, I'd be the last to call this mindless drivel. This is an unseasoned intellectual mindnumbingly brilliant discussion. Guess I'll take mah acorn and head back to the tree while I can still find it. Y'all have fun now.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

LML, as Assistant Moderator of this thread, can't you get these people back onto the subject of dietary laws?

Does anyone think there may be a connection, between the proscription of certain animals as food and their unsuitability as sexual partners?

[Fat Guy]

I knew I could count on you.