Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Ornery U » Ornery U: Judaism 101 (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Ornery U: Judaism 101
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Here again I'm tempted to observe the sheer contrast between Judaism and Islam as cultural manifestations of R and K competitors, ie the strategies of maximizing the resources available to the group vs. maximizing the sheer numbers of the group.

R and K?
Terms from biology, distinguishing two contrasting reproductive strategies for survival of the species. It's been 17 years since my bio class so I can't remember which is which (guess I'd have to look that up to write the paper [Big Grin] )

One stragegy emphasizes sheer numbers. Take rats or rabbits, for example. Individually they don't have much of a chance in the brutal world, but mama pumps out so many of them that chances are that some of her genes are going to propagate to the next generation. Breeding for this kind of competitor is fairly cost-free.

The other strategy emphasizes concentration of resources. Take the Rhino, for example. A difficult mating and brutal gestation period that barely allows population increase over time, but the offspring when raised to adulthood is pretty tough and able to protect itself against predators.

I'm essentially saying that the sociopolitical systems of Islam and of Judaism (as you describe it, at least) employ opposite reproductive strategies. Islam uses a strategy that virtually guarantees large numbers of people born into poverty. Tax rules wipe out the lower class of non-muslims, but keep a prosperous but immobile middle class (Dhimmis) that serve as a buffer between the ruling aristocracy and the mob, much as "Christendom" during the middle ages used the Jews. [Frown]

The inheritance rules that you describe are just one of several examples of how Judaism as you describe it takes the exact opposite strategy, concentrating resources on fewer numbers.

[ February 28, 2008, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
IIRC Chabad really emphasizes the "fellow Jew" aspect to the commandments, so does the law as you see it even recognize other marriages in the first place? For example, if a man of your congregation had sex with a gentile housewife, would your rabbi call that adultery, fornication, bestiality, or something else?

Well, bear in mind that adultery in Judaism is defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. The case you mention would be fornication (not that we generally use that term) whether the guy was married or not and whether the woman was married or not.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If a married couple coverts to Judaism and doesn't remarry each other according to Jewish law, would the Rabbis let the ger take a different Jewish wife without civilly divorcing the first, despite the IIRC temporary rabinnic restriction on polygyny?

Probably not.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[biology aside]

It's little r and big K - which is not actually important, except in terms of ease of communication about what you're talking about.

r is rate of reproduction, K is carrying capacity, and there's an equation relating the two of them and a lot of other environmental factors.

Organisms that are r-selected are selected for a fast rate of reproduction to exploit empty niches in the environment. This strategy is effective in unstable environmental conditions, where it doesn't make sense to invest in adaptations that would make one successful in competition, since resources are not necessarily scarce and conditions are likely to change. Populations of r-selected organisms can change extremely quickly.

Organisms that are r-selected are usually small in body size, reproduce quickly, have many offspring, and disperse their offspring widely. Bacteria, weed plants, and small rodents are generally r-selected.

K-selected organisms are found in a stable environment where there is fierce competition for limited resources in available niches. In this circumstance, minor advantages over competitors have the capacity to drastically increase reproductive success. Populations of K-selected organisms tend to be pretty steady, and right up there at the carrying capacity (hence, K) of the environment.

Organisms that are K-selected usually are larger, have a long life span, few offspring, and invest parental care in the offspring. Humans, whales, and many species of bird are K-selected.

There is of course a continuum of r/K selection.

I am not sure to what extent it is accurate to talk about different human societies as exclusively r or K selected, but it is certainly interesting to think about r- and K-selection traits in different human societies.

[/biology aside]

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
[snipping excellent explanation on a topic where I was floundering for exact facts]
I am not sure to what extent it is accurate to talk about different human societies as exclusively r or K selected, but it is certainly interesting to think about r- and K-selection traits in different human societies.

You're absolutely right. I'm talking about patterns of r and K selection traits in different human societies; it would probably not be accurate to describe any society as exclusively r or K selected. For example, the original Jewish rules on polygyny and easy divorce for the man were arguably as K-selective as the Muslim rotating quadrogyny rule exemplified by the Bin Laden litter, where daddy keeps a stable of four women and periodically divorced the oldest wife and marries a younger wife. But IIRC there's a temporary rabbinic restriction against polygyny now. Do you know when that 1000 year restriction expires, Lisa?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have any kind of backing for any of this conjecture? Any recognized scholar who espouses this? Cause from a cursory search, I can't find any of this at all, and any such dating for Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus except on sites espousing the Jewish count.

"But the book of Kings points out that Hoshea was captured by the Assyrians years before Samaria actually fell. There are views that say that Sargon's conquest was actually in 719. And as it happens, that matches the internal chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel."

That's a three year difference. Where are the other 163? And if 719 matches the internal chronology, how come you said that the fall of Shomron was around 553?

"Jewish sources say that the Persians and the Medes had a kind of rotation agreement between their royal houses, where dominance passed back and forth."

Jewish sources written when? Supported by what other source? Not that this in itself would mean anything.

"Khshayarsha the Mede was Nebuchadnezzar's vassal"

Any independent verification of this? Any proof at all that the Babylonians even had contact with the Greeks?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"and Herodotus doesn't mention him even once."

He doesn't mention the Jews either, which I guess is a a factor in your dislike of him [Smile] He (Nebby) was gone half a century when Herodotus wrote - and there are doubts as to whether Herodotus ever visited Babylon himself. So what? Herodotus told of lands with people whose heads grew from the armpits. Nothing is based on Herodotus alone.

"(Btw, just to avoid confusion, it's acknowledged by everyone that the Persian name Khshayarasha is rendered by the Greeks as Xerxes and in Hebrew as Ahasuerus.)"

This is not true. Researchers still don't agree whether the biblical Ahasuerus was a Xerxes or a Artaxshasta (or however you write that name).

[ February 28, 2008, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"and Herodotus doesn't mention him even once."

He doesn't mention the Jews either, which I guess is a a factor in your dislike of him [Smile] He (Nebby) was gone half a century when Herodotus wrote

Uh... wow. That's... a long time. Or something.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"(Btw, just to avoid confusion, it's acknowledged by everyone that the Persian name Khshayarasha is rendered by the Greeks as Xerxes and in Hebrew as Ahasuerus.)"

This is not true. Researchers still don't agree whether the biblical Ahasuerus was a Xerxes or a Artaxshasta (or however you write that name).

It is true. Their disagreement is over whether the Septuigint's substitution of Artaxerxes for Ahasuerus in its version of Esther is the correct one or not. No one disputes that the names Khshayarsha, Xerxes and Ahasuerus are the same name.

Artaxerxes in Persian is Arta-Khshatra. Darius, btw, is Daraya-wahush.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But IIRC there's a temporary rabbinic restriction against polygyny now. Do you know when that 1000 year restriction expires, Lisa?

Initially, it was understood that the restriction was until the end of the millenium. Which was in fall of 1239 (or 1240, depending on where you stand on the Y5K issue). When that passed, it was reunderstood to be 1000 years. Which ended in 1976, or thereabouts.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
You have any kind of backing for any of this conjecture? Any recognized scholar who espouses this? Cause from a cursory search, I can't find any of this at all, and any such dating for Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus except on sites espousing the Jewish count.

What are you talking about? No, I told you that Heifetz's work isn't complete yet.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"But the book of Kings points out that Hoshea was captured by the Assyrians years before Samaria actually fell. There are views that say that Sargon's conquest was actually in 719. And as it happens, that matches the internal chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel."

That's a three year difference. Where are the other 163?

<stare> I know you're smarter than that, Ricky. Are you being deliberately obtuse? That three years has absolutely nothing to do with the 166. It's an issue of whether the Assyrian conquest was under Shalmaneser V or Sargon. It's a completely separate issue, and has zero bearing on the issue of the 166 years. Sheesh.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
And if 719 matches the internal chronology, how come you said that the fall of Shomron was around 553?

Because they're two separate issues. I have no problem dealing with general accepted dates and talking about, given the fall of Babylon in 587, whether Samaria fell in 719 or 722. It's called compartmentalization. Also, choosing not to fight a battle on two fronts simultaneously.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"Jewish sources say that the Persians and the Medes had a kind of rotation agreement between their royal houses, where dominance passed back and forth."

Jewish sources written when? Supported by what other source? Not that this in itself would mean anything.

Not that the question means anything. It was local history to the Jews who recorded this. I'll take that over Greek fairy tales any day.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"Khshayarsha the Mede was Nebuchadnezzar's vassal"

Any independent verification of this? Any proof at all that the Babylonians even had contact with the Greeks?

The Bible talks about Nebuchadnezzar threatening the islands of the sea. Maybe you can think of other islands it might have been talking about.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heifetz means nothing by himself, since he like you is trying to prove the bible correct. Only if HE has any outside backing is it worth anything. I mean, I don't think you made this stuff up yourself.

"It's a completely separate issue, and has zero bearing on the issue of the 166 years. Sheesh."

Just making sure. [Smile]

"It was local history to the Jews who recorded this. I'll take that over Greek fairy tales any day."

They didn't record it. Nothing if the sort was written at the time. Marathon and Salamis were local history to the Greeks, but they didn't know who they were fighting?

BTW, how do you account for the Cyrus Cylinder?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But IIRC there's a temporary rabbinic restriction against polygyny now. Do you know when that 1000 year restriction expires, Lisa?

Initially, it was understood that the restriction was until the end of the millenium. Which was in fall of 1239 (or 1240, depending on where you stand on the Y5K issue). When that passed, it was reunderstood to be 1000 years. Which ended in 1976, or thereabouts.
How curious. But I'm not hearing of Jewish plig groups. No renewal of the prohibition in sight?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some yemenites, when they came, were... ornery over Israel's polygamy laws. Yemenite Jews never accepted Gershom's ban.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Well, bear in mind that adultery in Judaism is defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. The case you mention would be fornication (not that we generally use that term) whether the guy was married or not and whether the woman was married or not.

Really? I'd grown up with the idea of Adultery as a married person who has sex outside of marriage, regardless of marital status or even sex of the other person. I'd heard that some folks thought that it was any sex that involves a married person. But I'd never heard any definition of adultery that only applied to women. I didn't know that there was any group that didn't apply the term adultery to what David did with Bathsheba. [runs web search]

Wow! I can't believe this crap!

They not only disclaim adultery but actually attempt to justify what David did.

quote:
Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed is King David. It is, therefore preposterous to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations.
It's even more proposterous to ignore the plain and obvious fact that David knowingly chose evil over good with respect to Uriah's wife. David had the *ability* to completely overcome his temptations. But the Tenach is clear that he committed a horrible sin.

To make matters worse, in the comments, one of the Rabbis "explains"
quote:
as the Talmud explains) 3) There was a violation of any law regarding who a king may send to war to die by the sword of an enemy (Ammon).
The prophet Nathaniel seems to disagree. It astonishes me that these Rabbis would so dispise the plain word of the Tenach. From 2 Samuel 12:9 --

quote:
"Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon."
To me the lesson is plain: (1) that a great man may commit great sin; (2) that we should praise his great accomplishments and mourn his sin; (3) like Samuel warned the Israelites before crowning Saul, this is the sort of thing that happens when we make a man king over us , even if he's a very good man when we put the crown on his head.

I cannot even pretend to respect that repugnant interpretation of the story. It seems idolatrous to twist the Tenach in that way over adoration of a man.

[ February 28, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah, some the apologism gets really, really annoying.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
BTW, how do you account for the Cyrus Cylinder?

What's the problem with the cylinder?
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Oh yeah, some the apologism gets really, really annoying.

If those rabbis represent the mainstream Orthodox view on David, then I have gained a better appreciation for your position, Ricky. But I hope that you recognize that the Tenach itself isn't filled with that sort of rank apologism. The prophets and chroniclers laid out inconvenient facts, from the genocide committed by Simeon and Levi down through the rest of the Tenach. They don't seem to twist the facts to make them fit their religious theories.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Some yemenites, when they came, were... ornery over Israel's polygamy laws. Yemenite Jews never accepted Gershom's ban.

Not just Yemenites. And it wasn't that they didn't accept it; they were never even notified about it.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Well, bear in mind that adultery in Judaism is defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. The case you mention would be fornication (not that we generally use that term) whether the guy was married or not and whether the woman was married or not.

Really? I'd grown up with the idea of Adultery as a married person who has sex outside of marriage, regardless of marital status or even sex of the other person. I'd heard that some folks thought that it was any sex that involves a married person. But I'd never heard any definition of adultery that only applied to women.
It's a legal system. It runs on technical terms with technical definitions. If a married man has sex with an unmarried woman, he's a jerk. But he hasn't technically violated the law against adultery.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I didn't know that there was any group that didn't apply the term adultery to what David did with Bathsheba. [runs web search]

Wow! I can't believe this crap!

They not only disclaim adultery but actually attempt to justify what David did.

David was punished for what he did. Even if he acted within the law on a technical basis, what he did was still appalling. We make the distinction between technical violations and moral violations.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed is King David. It is, therefore preposterous to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations.
It's even more proposterous to ignore the plain and obvious fact that David knowingly chose evil over good with respect to Uriah's wife.
No one is ignoring it. What he did was wrong. Not technically illegal, perhaps, but definitely very wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
David had the *ability* to completely overcome his temptations. But the Tenach is clear that he committed a horrible sin.

Morally, yes.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
To make matters worse, in the comments, one of the Rabbis "explains"
quote:
as the Talmud explains) 3) There was a violation of any law regarding who a king may send to war to die by the sword of an enemy (Ammon).
The prophet Nathaniel seems to disagree.
Nathan. And as I explained before one of the purposes of prophets was to rebuke people for doing the wrong thing, even if they were within the letter of the law. Nathan did that. God took David's son with Bathsheba. He didn't get off scot-free.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It astonishes me that these Rabbis would so dispise the plain word of the Tenach. From 2 Samuel 12:9 --

quote:
"Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon."
To me the lesson is plain: (1) that a great man may commit great sin; (2) that we should praise his great accomplishments and mourn his sin; (3) like Samuel warned the Israelites before crowning Saul, this is the sort of thing that happens when we make a man king over us , even if he's a very good man when we put the crown on his head.
I agree. Both with you and with the source you find so repugnant. I get why it disturbs you, but I see it in its context. It is not, in any way, shape or form, saying that David was right to do what he did.

Remember how I pointed out that we make a point of distinguishing between rabbinic and Torah laws, even when there's no practical purpose? That's part of Judaism. Drawing distinctions. And in this case, the distinction that David operated within the letter of the law gives an even more important lesson, which is that even though a person might do so, he might still be acting repugnantly.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lisa, what is Chabad's position on polygyny?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What's the problem with the cylinder"

Forget it. I've wrapped up the missing years debate. Feel free to add something if you think there's anything pertinent.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But I hope that you recognize that the Tenach itself isn't filled with that sort of rank apologism. "

They had a lot less dogma to work in. [Smile] I do appreciate it. How many times can I say what a remarkably accurate source the tenach is, broadly speaking? but to take all the different year counts, from the mythical past, add them up and swear to that contrary to all other collected human wisdom - sorry. [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, which Chabad? [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"No one is ignoring it. What he did was wrong. Not technically illegal, perhaps, but definitely very wrong."
By illegal, do you mean sinful? Or does wrong mean sinful?

quote:
"It is not, in any way, shape or form, saying that David was right to do what he did."
They are doing worse than that. They are saying that David's acts were holy and pure, and flawed only by impatience.

quote:
"Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?!"
and
quote:
"Only one who does not have a proper appreciation for the level of a true Tzadik can accuse G-d’s anointed servant of adultery and/or murder! Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand!"
They are saying that David's killing by proxy of Uriah, and his sexually taking the woman that Tenach says was Uriah's wife, were holy and pure acts.

quote:
"Remember how I pointed out that we make a point of distinguishing between rabbinic and Torah laws, even when there's no practical purpose? That's part of Judaism. Drawing distinctions.
As a lawyer, I greatly respect that aspect of Judaism, Lisa, but that's not what those Rabbis did in that essay. They have not set out to analyze the law, but to justify David. THAT is their whole premise -- that David must have been a pure man, and they twist both the facts and the law in order to accomplish that outcome. That sort of "outcome-based" reasoning is repugnant in my profession (other threads, I've been arguing against outcome-based reasoning with regard to the term "terrorism").
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lisa, if you weren't politically imbalanced, you'd make a wonderful diplomat [Smile] But yeah, Pete stumbled upon one of the most egregious anal-piety-too-clever-self-justifying thingies that just won't wash. Lets hope he doesn't stumble on the racist stuff... [Razz]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"But I hope that you recognize that the Tenach itself isn't filled with that sort of rank apologism. "

They had a lot less dogma to work in. [Smile] I do appreciate it. How many times can I say what a remarkably accurate source the tenach is, broadly speaking?

Sorry I missed that. I've been unable to follow the years debate, and don't have a problem with the chronology getting forked up over the millenia of repitition transcribing translation and recopying.

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Pete, which Chabad? [Smile]

[Eek!] [Confused] Isn't that the name of the Lubovitch sect? Or are there already more than one of those?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It kinda split. There's a messianic half who deny that the the rebbe is dead, and a relatively sane half. The first thing I ask any Chabad person is which is he - the ones who know the guy's dead, or not.

I mean, I watched his funeral from my roof on Eastern Parkway. Jeez.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Lisa, if you weren't politically imbalanced, you'd make a wonderful diplomat [Smile] But yeah, Pete stumbled upon one of the most egregious anal-piety-too-clever-self-justifying thingies that just won't wash. Lets hope he doesn't stumble on the racist stuff... [Razz]

Racism would not shock me. Aaron and Miriam were so racist that God slapped them with leprousy to teach them a lesson (you want white? I'll give you white!), and if we look at Christianity, the apostle Peter was racist, and in my own sect of Christianity I've admitted outright that Brigham Young was racist. I don't have a problem with the idea of God using profoundly flawed people to get the job done, which is why he warns us not to rely on the arm of flesh.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
It kinda split. There's a messianic half who deny that the the rebbe is dead, and a relatively sane half. The first thing I ask any Chabad person is which is he - the ones who know the guy's dead, or not.

I mean, I watched his funeral from my roof on Eastern Parkway. Jeez.

Has it really come to schism over that issue? Difference of opinion does not a schism make. Denial is just one of the stages of grief, after all. We mormons sometimes get hung up on the anger stage, since we're not supposed to be angry. [Exploding]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Has it really come to schism over that issue?"

I'm not privy to inner dirt, nor do I really pursue it, but there are two groups, one still Jewish and one Neo-Christian, I like to call it. They may not fight for now, but... There's no public split, but privately from what I gather it's pretty total.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Lisa, what is Chabad's position on polygyny?

You can't do it.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Lisa, what is Chabad's position on polygyny?

You can't do it.
What is the nature of the prohibition? Rabinical, and based on the law of the land?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Almost all religious organizations split ... I hope my comments didn't come off as gloating. My own sect has had offshoots throughout its existence, one of which occurred over an argument over whether cow belonging to an apostle's wife had given bad milk. :embarassed: People are people, and God's not done with us yet.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
"No one is ignoring it. What he did was wrong. Not technically illegal, perhaps, but definitely very wrong."
By illegal, do you mean sinful? Or does wrong mean sinful?
Sin is an English word that conflates a large number of Hebrew terms that refer to transgressions. The rabbis address the issue of what we can say about someone who does something odious within the letter of the law. When Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, Pharaoh took her. God sent diseases on him. How, the rabbis ask, could God have done that? He had no idea that she was married. The answer was, there are rules of behavior called derekh eretz which everyone is obligated in even outside of the laws that God gave us.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
"It is not, in any way, shape or form, saying that David was right to do what he did."
They are doing worse than that. They are saying that David's acts were holy and pure, and flawed only by impatience.
I didn't look at the site in question. I'm well aware that there are groups recently which have gone a bit nuts about taking midrashic material literally in inappropriate ways. Some of these Jews actually believe that Pharaoh's daughter stretched her arm out 25 cubits, like Reed Richards, to pull the baby Moses to land. I've met people who are sure that the story about Nimrod throwing Abraham into the fiery furnace is actually in Genesis.

It's a problem, I'll admit. But it's a relatively recent mania, and I have hopes that it'll go away.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
"Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?!"
and
quote:
"Only one who does not have a proper appreciation for the level of a true Tzadik can accuse G-d’s anointed servant of adultery and/or murder! Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand!"
They are saying that David's killing by proxy of Uriah, and his sexually taking the woman that Tenach says was Uriah's wife, were holy and pure acts.

Take it with a grain of salt. This is coming from a group that has gone off its rocker in many ways. This is the least of them.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
"Remember how I pointed out that we make a point of distinguishing between rabbinic and Torah laws, even when there's no practical purpose? That's part of Judaism. Drawing distinctions.
As a lawyer, I greatly respect that aspect of Judaism, Lisa, but that's not what those Rabbis did in that essay. They have not set out to analyze the law, but to justify David. THAT is their whole premise -- that David must have been a pure man, and they twist both the facts and the law in order to accomplish that outcome. That sort of "outcome-based" reasoning is repugnant in my profession (other threads, I've been arguing against outcome-based reasoning with regard to the term "terrorism").
These are people who believe that a Tzaddik is virtually a personification of God on Earth. I personally think that Chabad-Lubavitch left Orthodox Judaism a decade ago.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
It kinda split. There's a messianic half who deny that the the rebbe is dead, and a relatively sane half. The first thing I ask any Chabad person is which is he - the ones who know the guy's dead, or not.

I wish you were right, Ricky, but the difference between the meshichistim and the non-meshichistim is only a pragmatic one. The non-meshichistim don't think it's appropriate to be public about it. Honestly. I live in Illinois, and Chabad of Illinois is technically non-meshichist. But the ark where they have the play Torahs for the little kids and where they daven has a big picture of the Rebbe zatzal shlita (heh) on the front, and on the side is a poster with Yechi HaMelech on it.

Chabadianity has gone completely off the deep end, and it's only a matter of time before they have to be written off completely.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Lisa, what is Chabad's position on polygyny?

You can't do it.
What is the nature of the prohibition? Rabinical, and based on the law of the land?
Well, let me rephrase. I imagine they still wouldn't do it. They seem mostly observant, still, other than the Rebbe worship.

Right now, there's a strong custom against it. And here in the US, at least, it's illegal. We do have to follow the law of the land for such things.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I have never heard of any Jews practicing polygyny, and while there is undoubtedly a strong custom against it, the statement that it is illegal and against the law of the land has considerable wiggle room. In fact nobody has attempted to enforce such laws since the 1950s, except in connection with different crimes such as forced or underage marriages, and thousands of such marriages exist in the United States today. I am sure counterparts of the ingenious rabbis who justified King David could provide an argument that those laws had fallen into disuse, as with a lot of other statutes which are still on the books but no longer enforced. And they would in general be right: maybe that particular law still holds after only fifty years, but it is ridiculous to say laws which have not been enforced for three or four hundred years are still the law of the land. They may never have been repealed or challenged, but they cannot reasonably be called current legal practice.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RickyB said,
quote:
I mean, I watched his funeral from my roof on Eastern Parkway. Jeez.
That is really poor evidence, Ricky. Some people have been reported dead, and even had funerals, only to turn up living later. And I believe one unfortunate long ago even got convicted and executed for murdering a man who later returned from a business trip to Europe. I mean, I do not doubt the man is dead, but the fact he had a funeral is hardly ironclad certainty.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That is really poor evidence, Ricky."

I know, I know. Still. The man's dead, mmmkay? [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
While I have never heard of any Jews practicing polygyny, and while there is undoubtedly a strong custom against it, the statement that it is illegal and against the law of the land has considerable wiggle room. In fact nobody has attempted to enforce such laws since the 1950s, except in connection with different crimes such as forced or underage marriages, and thousands of such marriages exist in the United States today. I am sure counterparts of the ingenious rabbis who justified King David could provide an argument that those laws had fallen into disuse, as with a lot of other statutes which are still on the books but no longer enforced. And they would in general be right: maybe that particular law still holds after only fifty years, but it is ridiculous to say laws which have not been enforced for three or four hundred years are still the law of the land. They may never have been repealed or challenged, but they cannot reasonably be called current legal practice.

I've seen some Jews say that they stopped the practice of prostelyting when Constantine made it illegal for Jews to prostelyte, and that over centuries the practice remained illegal for them until recently, and that ingrained tradition had acquired the force of law, and that was the reason that they'd not go back to it. I guess when you have all these religious laws, enforced by force of tradition, that other traditions may have a stronger hold on you, even when those traditions don't have the force of religious law.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Moderator
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does Judaism have to say about your sexuality? I know homosexuality between men is a big no-no, and in my faith it's that way with women too. But you seem to be very strictly observant, so I'm guessing there's a difference for y'all. Apologies if that's too personal a question.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1