Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS ; Hello, David did write: >>> How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you know better, and a Law ? I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

  1. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Hello,

    David did write:

    >>>

    How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which
    you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you
    know
    better, and a Law ?

    I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are
    perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed.
    <<<

    In my German Bibel the heading is instructions, not law. May be this is a
    wrong translation from Greek or Latin to German. But why should God change
    his mind from: you can eat what you want, if it is without any blood to you
    can eat only koscher animals? God did give the mankind only ten laws, the
    rest where all instruction to survive. Jesus did expand (or compress how you
    would like to see) it with the law: You should love God and your next and
    yourself.
    Look to the apostle Paul. He did write, that he can eat idol meat without
    any problem.
    I think that it is not important, what you believe. Important is, to have a
    living relationship to Jesus Christ and his Father. To answer to the love of
    God. The Bibel is the scale, where I can measure me live in this love.

    Best regards Rudolf Wingert


  2. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Rudolf Wingert wrote:
    > can eat only koscher animals? God did give the mankind only ten laws, the
    > rest where all instruction to survive.



    Yep. The problem is that those instructions were not in "concepts" but
    rather specific. (eg: specific way to cook the meat). The people of
    that day probably needed specifics. But in the big picture, if you are
    to write a timeless book (bible), it should be more in concept than
    specific instructions. And in the 21st century, it isn't very smart for
    someone to take many of those instructions litterally without really
    understanding the environment in which those were originally made.

    I think Paul understood that when he reformed christianity to lose many
    of the specifics that applied to middle eastern way of life/conditions
    in order to spread the new religion to other areas of the planet
    (notably roman empire). But new specifics were added over time.



    However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which,
    although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and
    doesn't cause illness to people ?

    While the Jewish people may be deprived of some of the finer modern
    culinary haute-cuisine, the strict kosher diet doesn't render them ill
    or poorly nurished.

    The problem with religions is that their rituals and way of life are
    associated not with a faith/beliefs, but with a culture. And when
    someone from culture X decides to move to country Y where the culture is
    different, he might be able to bring his faith and continue to think the
    way he wants about some god, but should he also insist on bringing his
    original culture to a new country where the culture is different ?

    Another thing to consider:: Bibles (for various religions) were written
    a long time ago and only dealt with issues/concepts knows to the people
    at that time. If the old testament were written today, the food
    restrictions may be quite different (focusing more on fats, too much
    sugar and general eating disorders that cause obesity etc), and there
    may be sections that deal with media (TV, movies, video games, internet
    etc).

    So the old religions are today, totally devoid of "instructions" to
    guide the members with regards to modern way of life and modern
    technology. Yet, they retain many of the antiquated and no longer
    applicable instructions which are maintained solely for the purpose of
    not breaking tradition.

  3. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Sep 10, 2:58 am, "Rudolf Wingert" wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > David did write:
    >
    >
    >
    > How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which
    > you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you
    > know
    > better, and a Law ?
    >
    > I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are
    > perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed.
    > <<<


    According to the Torah it is law. I don't see how you can interpret it
    otherwise. And the health aspect of it may be part of the motivation.
    See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#...aws_of_kashrut



    >
    > In my German Bibel the heading is instructions, not law. May be this is a
    > wrong translation from Greek or Latin to German. But why should God change


    "Instructions"? From "God"? How could that not be "law"?

    > his mind from: you can eat what you want, if it is without any blood to you
    > can eat only koscher animals?


    Please.

    > God did give the mankind only ten laws, the
    > rest where all instruction to survive.


    Sorry, but, no.

    > Jesus did expand (or compress how you
    > would like to see) it with the law: You should love God and your next and
    > yourself.
    > Look to the apostle Paul. He did write, that he can eat idol meat without
    > any problem.


    No comment.

    > I think that it is not important, what you believe. Important is, to have a
    > living relationship to Jesus Christ and his Father. To answer to the love of
    > God. The Bibel is the scale, where I can measure me live in this love.


    No comment.

    >
    > Best regards Rudolf Wingert


    AEF


  4. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1189469761.200663.63290@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>, AEF writes:
    >
    >
    >On Sep 10, 2:58 am, "Rudolf Wingert" wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> David did write:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, which
    >> you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you
    >> know
    >> better, and a Law ?
    >>
    >> I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are
    >> perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed.
    >> <<<

    >
    >According to the Torah it is law. I don't see how you can interpret it
    >otherwise. And the health aspect of it may be part of the motivation.
    >See
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#...aws_of_kashrut


    Any god that would keep me from my "eternal reward" because I had a
    ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    no god in my book.

    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.

    Religion? Nah...

    --
    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

  5. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    [snip]
    > ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    > no god in my book.


    Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole.

    The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God),
    though, is perfectly reasonable.

    > 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.


    Legalistic in the extreme. It's what Jesus (allegedly) railed about
    and got him into so much trouble with the temple authorities.

    Roman Catholics are (or maybe "were", since many rules have been
    relaxed) just as bad, though. Can't have *meat* on Friday? Ok,
    have fish, shrimp, oysters, etc, etc, etc.

    Of course, the fact that those are all (except oysters) is
    conveniently legalized around.

    And down here in Louisiana, it's a total farce to say "sacrifice and
    eat 5 lb of crawfish and, BTW, drink a 6-pack of beer".

    > Religion? Nah...


    Full 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!

  6. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    >> no god in my book.

    >
    > Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole.
    >
    > The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God),
    > though, is perfectly reasonable.



    However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.

    Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to
    prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct.


    Frankly, I really do not understand why any god would want to impose
    "sacrifices" on people.

    What today may be called "sacrifices" were simple measures to prevent
    diseases thousands of years ago. Back then, they were not considered
    sacrifices, they were considered good living practices. You'll note that
    Islam also has kosher-like dietary restrictions.

    If I believe in god "X", then I don't need to prove to anybody else that
    I truly believe in that god. It is a faith that is between me and that god.

    When you look at christianity and judaism, they share the 10
    commandments. Those are common sense rules that should guide our lives.
    They are not specific rituals, sacrifices that one must make to prove
    his faith in one god or the other. The rest of the religion,s rituals
    are not from god, they are from the religion itself who instituted those
    either for health reasons, or to provide "publicity" for that religion.

    Consider the free publicity Calvin Klein gets from teenagers who always
    wear their pants below the waist. This is really not very different from
    Jews who wear the round hat, or catholics who wear a crucifix, or
    muslims who wear whatever attire their particular sect calls for.

    The church, being human runned and human based, is the one who decided
    that people had to prove they belonged to that church by wearing certain
    things and adhering to the rituals.

    If god had intended we lead healthy lives, he would not mind if we ate
    pork now that meat can be produced in a hygienic fashion and
    refrigirated and cooked properly and no longer a threath to our health.

    And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs
    and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute
    our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to
    some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing
    lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated
    hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking).

  7. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    >
    >Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    >>> no god in my book.

    >>
    >> Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole.
    >>
    >> The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God),
    >> though, is perfectly reasonable.

    >
    >
    >However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    >for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    >thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    >no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.


    A show I once watched on one of the history/information channels said that
    the abstinence from meat was because it was a rich man's delicacy in those
    times and fish was the common man's food.

    Today, however, seafood is the delicacy and meat -- well, that is what the
    commecials all claim is in between the buns of fast food hamburgers -- is
    not.



    >When you look at christianity and judaism, they share the 10
    >commandments. Those are common sense rules that should guide our lives.


    3 dealing with man's relationship with god; 7 dealing with man's relation-
    ship to his fellow man. However, the followers of these 'religions' have
    applied perturbations to these so called laws such that they believe that
    they only apply to dealings with their views of god and their particular
    microcosm of religious followers. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is
    meant only if the accused is of the same faith; otherwise, lying with im-
    pugnity is perfectly in line with being faithful to this god's commands.



    >And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs
    >and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute
    >our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to
    >some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing
    >lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated
    >hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking).


    Well, I don't! Especially, cigarettes which have been proven scientif-
    ically to cause health issues such as lung cancer, emphysema, coronary
    and artery diseases, and death.

    There are religious sects which do not permit drugs. The mormons (LDS)
    have phobias about alcohol and even the caffiene in coffee. I do not
    know their stance on cigarette (tobacco) smoking.

    --
    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

  8. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 09/11/07 03:16, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    >>> no god in my book.

    >>
    >> Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole.
    >>
    >> The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God),
    >> though, is perfectly reasonable.

    >
    >
    > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.
    >
    > Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to
    > prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct.
    >
    >
    > Frankly, I really do not understand why any god would want to impose
    > "sacrifices" on people.
    >

    [snip]
    >
    > If god had intended we lead healthy lives, he would not mind if we ate
    > pork now that meat can be produced in a hygienic fashion and
    > refrigirated and cooked properly and no longer a threath to our health.
    >
    > And as Vaxman pointed out, I suspect that God doesn't approve of drugs
    > and cigarettes. And he wouldn't approve of SUVs and cars that pollute
    > our planet either. So it is a bit silly that religions would stick to
    > some ancient rituals which are no longer relevant while not embracing
    > lifestyles that would help save our planet and also providing updated
    > hygiene/health rules (such as not smoking).


    That's why many fundamentalist used to (and 7th Day Adventists and
    LDS still) proscribe smoking/drinking/etc.

    I Corinthians 6:19-20
    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!

  9. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article ,
    Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >
    > Legalistic in the extreme. It's what Jesus (allegedly) railed about
    > and got him into so much trouble with the temple authorities.
    >
    > Roman Catholics are (or maybe "were", since many rules have been
    > relaxed) just as bad, though. Can't have *meat* on Friday? Ok,
    > have fish, shrimp, oysters, etc, etc, etc.


    Don't know if you are Roman Catholic or not (I suspect not) but it
    hardly matters today as Catholic education is just asz far in the
    crapper as secular education, but this whole Friday no meat thing
    has got to be one of the most mis-understood concepts ever taken
    from Catholic practice.

    >
    > Of course, the fact that those are all (except oysters) is
    > conveniently legalized around.


    Don't understand the "legalized around" pretty much everyone I know,
    Catholic or not, differentiates between "meat" (red flesh) and seafood.

    >
    > And down here in Louisiana, it's a total farce to say "sacrifice and
    > eat 5 lb of crawfish and, BTW, drink a 6-pack of beer".


    And that is where the misunderstanding come is. The same rules would
    apply to a vegetarian. What is (was) required on Fridays was some
    act of sacrifice, the norm being the giving up of meat. This dated
    back to a time when, at least for the more common folk, meat was
    usually an expensivre luxury so not having it was considered giving
    up something. Of course, substituting seafod is a much more modern
    idea as I doubt the people in the middle ages had much access to
    seafood beyond a few simple freshwater fish.

    And, in the classic example of when you could, and in fact
    should, eat meat in Friday. (Realizing this is as it was
    taught to grade school level children.) You are over at a
    friends house. The friend is not Catholic. The friend's
    mother invites you to stay and have dinner with them. They
    serve meat and it is Friday. You do not refuse the food
    saying, "We don't eat meat on Friday." " And now abideth
    faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these
    is charity." 1 Corinthians 13. Charity towards your host
    would over-rule the "no meat on Friday" rule. But it was
    expected that you would make some other act of piety instead,
    perhaps by spending a little more time in prayer before going
    to bed that night. Catholics were never as legalistic as the
    Pharisees of Jesus time and today, they are anything but
    legalistic. Heck. when St. Patricl's day falls on a Friday
    here the Bishop always grants a dispensation so everybody
    can eat corned beef and cabbage after the St. Paddy's Day
    parade. :-)

    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

  10. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@teksavvy.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 09/10/07 19:32, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> ham sandwich (or a juicy prime rib on Friday -- a christian taboo) is
    >>> no god in my book.

    >>
    >> Specifically Roman Catholic, not Christian-as-whole.
    >>
    >> The concept (bodily sacrifice so that you can focus in more on God),
    >> though, is perfectly reasonable.

    >
    >
    > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.


    That is pure bull-crap.

    >
    > Since then, the church has re-spun that practice into some "sacrifice to
    > prove you love Jesus" or whatever excuse they could concuct.
    >


    So, you hate America and you hate Catholics. Who else do you hate?

    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

  11. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    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.


    Interesting because pork was known to Jews (and everyone else in the
    region) at the time the writings were collected, but tobacco was only
    known in then "undiscovered" the Americas.

    You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and
    included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday,
    wouldn't you?

    What other dangers would He have known about that coincidentally were
    not Given to the people of the mideast?


  12. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    > However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    > for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    > thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    > no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.
    >


    Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In
    the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new
    parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent.


  13. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article , koehler@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.

    >
    > Interesting because pork was known to Jews (and everyone else in the
    > region) at the time the writings were collected, but tobacco was only
    > known in then "undiscovered" the Americas.
    >
    > You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and
    > included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday,
    > wouldn't you?
    >

    Well he might have had a bit of trouble getting the message across.

    Look there's this plant which doesn't grow around here and which you've never
    seen but whatever you do don't set light to it and breathe in the smoke when you
    do see it in a millenium or two.

    But there are other drugs the ancient Jews would have recognised.

    Is there any mention of hemp in the Bible ?
    (It is apparently listed as medicinal plant in the Zend-Avesta a sacred text
    of the persian prophet Zoraster in 550 BC).

    Are there any warnings about the Opium Poppy (which was cultivated in lower
    Mesopotania as long ago as 3400 BC) ?


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    > What other dangers would He have known about that coincidentally were
    > not Given to the people of the mideast?
    >


  14. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <7idZ6PA5Y$+x@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >> However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    >> for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    >> thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    >> no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.
    >>

    >
    > Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In
    > the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new
    > parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent.
    >

    Reminds me of the Lord's prayer Wonderloaf joke

    see

    http://www.santasearch.org/print_text.asp?RID=624


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University



  15. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 09/11/07 09:02, Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >> However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    >> for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    >> thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    >> no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.
    >>

    >
    > Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In
    > the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new
    > parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent.


    Cincinnati, if A&E Biography of Ray Kroc is to be believed (and my
    memory is accurate).
    --
    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!

  16. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 09/11/07 08:45, Bob Koehler wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and
    > included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday,
    > wouldn't you?


    He (allegedly) did when He (allegedly, thru Paul) said that the body
    was a holy temple and that it should be kept pure.

    --
    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!

  17. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article <7idZ6PA5Y$+x@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    >>In article <2d32c$46e64ee2$cef8887a$10455@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>
    >>>However, the business of not eating meat on fridays was purely marketing
    >>>for the church in italy. They wanted to help the italian fisherman (and
    >>>thus hope they would join the church) and declared fridays to be a
    >>>no-meat day in order to boost sales of fish.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Hundreds of years (I assume) later, they impressed McDonalds. In
    >> the early 60's McD added Filet-o-Fish when they expanded into new
    >> parts of the US and saw their sales go down for lent.
    >>

    >
    > Reminds me of the Lord's prayer Wonderloaf joke
    >
    > see
    >
    > http://www.santasearch.org/print_text.asp?RID=624
    >
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >


    I have seen a cartoon, in which the president of the Daly Bread Company
    says to a priest "Father, you'll never know how much the Lord's Prayer
    means to me."





  18. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:

    > Look there's this plant which doesn't grow around here and which you've never
    > seen but whatever you do don't set light to it and breathe in the smoke when you
    > do see it in a millenium or two.


    It just goes to show that those specific "hygiene/good health" stuff in
    the bible is way past its due date. There were meant to apply to that
    timeframe for the simple people of that period who had obviously not
    travelled.

    If Paul was able to change the rules/regulations after Jesus had left,
    how come some later leader of christianity couldn't also write his
    chapter in the bible to update the rules and regulations ?


    The old testament wasn't flawed. It was done so that the people of that
    time would understand and live healthy lifestyles. (as healthy as was
    possible back then).

    What is flawed is the fact that some people today still insist on
    following the bible to the letter.

    I think religious organisations need to learn to differentiate between
    the faith issues in the bible and the simple health/hygiene rules in the
    bible. The later weren't meant to be an uncheangeable tradition and they
    are not related to faith.

    There are traditions worth preserving because they are at the core of
    the religion, and there are traditions that are not part of the faith.

    The catholic church still refuses to allow women to become priests or
    allow priests to marry. But why is this so difficult to change in light
    of the fact that such restrictions were not put in by god but
    artificially added many moons ago by religious leaders ?

    A church can maintain many traditions, but it must also learn to change
    with the times in order to remain relevant.


    Islam is worse since it has no one leader. There are different sects who
    interpret the Koran any which way they want. There is no one leader who
    can guide the islamic world to more modern adaptation of the religion.
    Some sects have moved forwards, while others insist on living like
    people did when Islam was founded 1000 years ago. And some have
    instituted rituals which aren't even in the Koran but say the Koran
    requires it. (female excision in some islamic sects for instance). And
    there is no leader to correct this. Yet, those more radical sects end
    up staining all of Islam.

  19. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#Hygiene

    and the rest of the article for details.

    And even if that were the motivation: so what? Why do some of you
    think that this should imply that all possible dangers in the world
    should be enumerated in Leviticus?

    > > Interesting because pork was known to Jews (and everyone else in the
    > > region) at the time the writings were collected, but tobacco was only
    > > known in then "undiscovered" the Americas.


    Exactly and that's why tobacco isn't mentioned in the Torah. What's
    the big mystery here?

    >
    > > You'ld think God would have known about the dangers of tobacco and
    > > included it in His word knowing we'd all need to know someday,
    > > wouldn't you?


    Who's making an argument about who wrote the Torah?

    >
    > Well he might have had a bit of trouble getting the message across.
    >
    > Look there's this plant which doesn't grow around here and which you've never
    > seen but whatever you do don't set light to it and breathe in the smoke when you
    > do see it in a millenium or two.
    >
    > But there are other drugs the ancient Jews would have recognised.
    >
    > Is there any mention of hemp in the Bible ?
    > (It is apparently listed as medicinal plant in the Zend-Avesta a sacred text
    > of the persian prophet Zoraster in 550 BC).
    >
    > Are there any warnings about the Opium Poppy (which was cultivated in lower
    > Mesopotania as long ago as 3400 BC) ?
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University> What other dangers would He have known about that coincidentally were
    > > not Given to the people of the mideast?


    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?

    AEF


  20. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    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.

    While some of the bible's recommendations are still applicable today,
    many are not and there are many which are missing.

    The hyprocrisy lies in people who follow outdated bible rules, but do
    nasty modern stuff like smoking, and then condemn people who don't
    follow those outdated bible rules but follow modern health rules such as
    not smoking.



    > 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


    Not sure about Torah. But in one of the links that Boob had pointed to
    (Leviticus stuff), there was a whole section on various rituals (such as
    the little op to baby boys and nutrition rules) which started off with a
    "in order to ensure the success of the religion" (or something akin to
    this). To me, it was obvious that it was a darwinian statement. Success
    of the religion relies on its members being healthy and reproducing.
    Success lies in having lifestyles that would slow down propagation of
    diseases (hence ban on anal sex, sex with animals, and killing those who
    have done it (on order to ensure that if they caught some disease from a
    white fluffy sheep, they don't get to pass this diseases to other
    humans). And success lies in having safe nutrition. Back in those days,
    those riles really would have made a difference. (besides, they were
    probably already widely accepted rules in those days).



    > And even if that were the motivation: so what? Why do some of you
    > think that this should imply that all possible dangers in the world
    > should be enumerated in Leviticus?


    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.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast