On 09/13/07 00:09, JF Mezei wrote:
> AEF wrote:
>> The above makes no sense to me. The Hasidim were smoking. Fine. But
>> they were not telling others not to smoke. So where is the hypocrisy
>> (someone OTHER than VAXMAN please)? Leviticus has the kashrut laws but
>> doesn't forbid smoking. How is this hypocritical? (someone other than
>> VAXMAN please).
>>
>> Leviticus is not supposed to be a book to outlaw all dangerous acts.
>> That would make it a very long book indeed!
>
>
> The problem is with people who take the Bible too litterally. If one
> bases his lifestyle on what the bible says, that person will be allowed
> to do all sorts of truly nasty modern stuff (like smoking) and still
> claiming to follow his religion and being good to his body as per what
> the bible says.
>
> A religion must either be able to update its "guide to hygiene/health"
> with the times, or change the bible/documents to only contain general
> guidelines and let the health care systems of each time period decide
> what is good and bad for a body.
[snip]
>
> You either enumerate all the dangers, or none of them and instead
> provide general guidelines. Or, you update the manual as new knowledge
> about health/hygiene arises. But it is not smart to take information
> that is thousands of years old and still apply it litterally today.
>
> Blindly following health rules that are thousands of years old just
> because they are in the Bible is like still believing that the earth is
> flat and at the centre of the solar system.

And (allegedly) God has already done that, with the blanket statement:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (NASB)
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you
are not your own? For you have been bought with a price:
therefore glorify God in your body.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 13, 6:01 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/12/07 23:01, AEF wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Again, the kashrut laws are not necessarily motivated by "danger". No
> > one alive today knows their true motivation. Yes, some of them have
> > health benefits, but the rest do not. So what? Does this somehow mean
> > that all possible dangers should be listed in Leviticus?
>
> It does if you are trying to attack religion.

I didn't know the purpose of religion was to be a super-OSHA for all
aspects of life. When it comes to religious law I always thought it
was supposed to be about morality, sins, mitzvahs (good deeds), and
required rituals and such. (Actually I still think that! :-) Listing
all possible dangerous things and actions would be rather impractical.
And what words would you use for things that don't exist yet! It's
pretty ridiculous to use this to attack religion. (Not to say anything
about the "validity" of any religion.)

>
> --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA USA
AEF

In article <1189656074.218009.35920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.co m>, AEF writes:
>
>
>On Sep 11, 10:53 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article , koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:>In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>
>> >> FYI; Today, I stopped for gas at a station on the border of Lakewood,
>> >> a hasidic Jewish community. I watched two Hasidim standing outside of
>> >> the associated convenience store inhaling the **** combustibles exuded
>> >> from an ignited cigarette and thought to myself that the regulations
>> >> in Leviticus prohibit the injesting of a ham sandie but putting that
>> >> carcinogenic **** into one's system was OK. Sure seems hypocritical
>> >> to me.
>
>The above makes no sense to me. The Hasidim were smoking. Fine. But
>they were not telling others not to smoke. So where is the hypocrisy
>(someone OTHER than VAXMAN please)? Leviticus has the kashrut laws but
>doesn't forbid smoking. How is this hypocritical? (someone other than
>VAXMAN please).
>
>Leviticus is not supposed to be a book to outlaw all dangerous acts.
>That would make it a very long book indeed!
>
>There seems to be a serious misconception here of the motivation of
>the kashrut laws (kosher). Nowhere in the Torah does it say these are
>for health reasons. Many of the kashrut laws clearly have nothing to
>do with health. See

Read Leviticus 15:19-30... re "unclean women".

The last passage being: and on the eighth day she shall take unto her
two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall
offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering;
and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the lord for the
issue of her uncleanness. (uncleanness = menstruation)

Man that's a lot of 'fricasseed' squab every 28 days!

I believe there are some conflicts here with USC 18 sect. 3. However,
it sure is a great boon to keeping windscreens clear of certain aerial
precipitated avian alimentary effluent.


....and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

Ouch, broken stones... that hurts me where I live.

What ever happened to the tenet that man was created in god's image?
Is god embarrassed that he made mistakes in the handicapped such that
he can not bear to look upon them in his temples? And if a man falls
and breaks his hand, why is he no longer welcome in god's presence?
I must really be unwelcomed having had 34 fractured in one fell swoop.


Christians have sillinesses in the doctrine of their testament too.
My fave sillinesses evolve around those of the L. Ron doctrines. I
am not picking on the Jewish faith; I find all religion reprehens-
ible.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/13/07 08:58, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and

Affirmed?

[snip]
>
>
> Christians have sillinesses in the doctrine of their testament too.
> My fave sillinesses evolve around those of the L. Ron doctrines. I

Are you confabulating Christianity and Scientoloty? Or am I
misinterpreting what you wrote?

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article , Ron Johnson writes:
>
>
>On 09/13/07 08:58, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>
>> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
>
>Affirmed?

Oops.... infirmed. I was typing in a rush as I was late getting my son
from school soccer practice. No classes today but the more important as-
pects of public education -- sports -- are in full swing.


>> Christians have sillinesses in the doctrine of their testament too.
>> My fave sillinesses evolve around those of the L. Ron doctrines. I
>
>Are you confabulating Christianity and Scientoloty? Or am I
>misinterpreting what you wrote?

Just mentioning all the sillinesses in so called 'religions'.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/13/07 10:24, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article , Ron Johnson writes:
>>
>> On 09/13/07 08:58, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
>> Affirmed?
>
> Oops.... infirmed.

The word is *crippled*.

> I was typing in a rush as I was late getting my son
> from school soccer practice. No classes today but the more important as-
> pects of public education -- sports -- are in full swing.

But it's /soccer/.

>>> Christians have sillinesses in the doctrine of their testament too.
>>> My fave sillinesses evolve around those of the L. Ron doctrines. I
>> Are you confabulating Christianity and Scientoloty? Or am I
>> misinterpreting what you wrote?
>
> Just mentioning all the sillinesses in so called 'religions'.

ACK.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

AEF wrote:
> I didn't know the purpose of religion was to be a super-OSHA for all
> aspects of life. When it comes to religious law I always thought it
> was supposed to be about morality, sins, mitzvahs (good deeds), and
> required rituals and such.


When you look at most of leviticus, it is an OSHA/health advisory put
into rules. Prohibition to eat pork for instance can have no thing to
do with your faith in god or good morality. It is all about the fact
that lack of refrigiration would often result in pork meat making people
sick. And since muslims who also emanate from middle east also have a
similar rule, it is most likely just a standard practice in the middle
east in those days that was incorporated in both religions as common
sense rules.

But with modern hygiene, running water and refrigiration, a lot of
leviticus (even the little deed done on boys) is no longer required to
lead a healthy lifestyle. Instead of adapting to the new hygiene
standards, certain religions have elected instead of make those original
health recommendations a strong sign of belonging to that religion and
if you don't follow them, they label you a bad member of that faith.

Consider a smoking orthodox jew or muslim who would call me
"unclean/unhealthy" because I eat pork. But since I don't smoke, I would
be far healthier than that orthodox jew/muslim.

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
> physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
> he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
> nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
> brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
> his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;


Darwin. Make sure those with deffective genes don't reproduce. Make sure
those with communicable diseases dont have sex to pass the disease to
others. You end up with a superior race.

On 09/13/07 12:13, JF Mezei wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
>> physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
>> he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
>> nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
>> brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
>> his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
>
>
> Darwin. Make sure those with deffective genes don't reproduce. Make sure
> those with communicable diseases dont have sex to pass the disease to
> others. You end up with a superior race.

But those "defective" people were made in His image, no?

BTW, "stones broken"????? NASB says "deformed limb".

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article ,
Ron Johnson writes:
> On 09/13/07 12:13, JF Mezei wrote:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
>>> physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
>>> he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
>>> nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
>>> brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
>>> his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
>>
>>
>> Darwin. Make sure those with deffective genes don't reproduce. Make sure
>> those with communicable diseases dont have sex to pass the disease to
>> others. You end up with a superior race.
>
> But those "defective" people were made in His image, no?

Genetic drift.

>
> BTW, "stones broken"????? NASB says "deformed limb".

I find few translations in the past 60-100 yeaqrs that I actually trust.
And yes, in some cases I can read and understand the originals and earlier
translations into various and sundry languages.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

Ron Johnson wrote:
> But those "defective" people were made in His image, no?

Human race may have been made in his image, but it doesn't mean that
each individual will be perfect.

On Sep 13, 1:26 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/13/07 12:13, JF Mezei wrote:
>
> > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
> >> physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
> >> he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
> >> nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
> >> brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
> >> his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
>
> > Darwin. Make sure those with deffective genes don't reproduce. Make sure
> > those with communicable diseases dont have sex to pass the disease to
> > others. You end up with a superior race.
>
> But those "defective" people were made in His image, no?
>

God only made Adam and Eve in his own image. Adam and Eve "created"
Cain and Abel, and there were also other people around then apparently
doing some "begating" of their own.

As the story goes: Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy because God
liked Abel's offering of sheep better than Cain's offering of crops.
God banished Cain from Eden. Cain took a wife (?), they had a son,
Enoch. He took a wife (?) and they had a son who took a wife and
"begat" more children and so on.

So, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve were *not* the first and only
humans on earth; they were just the first who God names because he
created them. If you follow it from there, it gets even weirder.

When Adam was 130 yrs old he and Eve had another son, Seth, who took a
wife (?) and they had sons and daughters who married people from
someplace and they all kept on "begating."

People back then seem to have lived very long lives -- hundreds of
years -- and been fertile at least past 100 years. So, we must presume
(if the stories are true) that the story-tellers of old didn't know or
didn't memorize all of the facts and the "begats," but only the ones
relevant to the stories. We can also presume that the memorized
lineage and stories experienced replication errors as they passed down
through the generations, just as our genes have.

The bible doesn't tell us anything about the people who lived "east of
Eden" but they were apparently genetically compatible. We must be
descended from them as much as from Adam and Eve, or maybe more so,
since there were apparently more than just two of them, and there
seemed to be a lot of interaction with Adam's and Eve's line.

Where the others came and who they were has been pondered for
centuries. Maybe they were his "practice" people, or maybe one of the
other gods (who we should not have before Him) made them.

It's just "one of God's mysteries" that we might be allowed to someday
understand if we believe and don't question, I guess. At least that's
what most of the "holy men" I've asked have told me.

Doug Phillips wrote:
> When Adam was 130 yrs old he and Eve had another son, Seth, who took a
> wife (?) and they had sons and daughters who married people from
> someplace and they all kept on "begating."
>
> People back then seem to have lived very long lives


Shorter calendar would result in say 30 years in our calendar being
counted as 130 years in Adam&Eve's calendar :-)

On Sep 13, 3:38 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
> Doug Phillips wrote:
> > When Adam was 130 yrs old he and Eve had another son, Seth, who took a
> > wife (?) and they had sons and daughters who married people from
> > someplace and they all kept on "begating."
>
> > People back then seem to have lived very long lives
>
> Shorter calendar would result in say 30 years in our calendar being
> counted as 130 years in Adam&Eve's calendar :-)

I suppose the earth could have revolved faster around the sun then,
but "years" meant "years" even then -- though they just saw repeating
cycles of the seasons and the sun's position in the sky. The Bible
does say that man lived longer then and tells the story of why we no
longer do (which you can look up if you're curious.)

On 09/13/07 13:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article ,
> Ron Johnson writes:
>> On 09/13/07 12:13, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> ...and leviticus 21:18-20 is rather prejudiced toward the affirmed and
>>>> physically handicapped. "for whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
>>>> he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat
>>>> nose, or any thing superfluous, ... or a man that is brokenfooted, or
>>>> brokenhanded, ... or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
>>>> his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
>>>
>>> Darwin. Make sure those with deffective genes don't reproduce. Make sure
>>> those with communicable diseases dont have sex to pass the disease to
>>> others. You end up with a superior race.
>> But those "defective" people were made in His image, no?
>
> Genetic drift.
>
>> BTW, "stones broken"????? NASB says "deformed limb".
>
> I find few translations in the past 60-100 yeaqrs that I actually trust.
> And yes, in some cases I can read and understand the originals and earlier
> translations into various and sundry languages.

Soooo.... "stones broken" is somehow better than "deformed limb"?

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!