Why choose one?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Ok the basic question is this. If God was trying to reveal himself to a people, wouldn't it make sense to reveal himself according to their culture? It doesn't make sense to deny all religions but your own. Any thoughts? (and I don't want any "no the bible says so" cause so does the Koran and the Torah and the Mormons and almost everyone else.)

[cnorman18]

As usual, it's more complicated than that. Or less.

Those are the specific lines in the Torah that the rule is based on; it's repeated three times, so it was assumed to be important. The principle that was drawn from those passages is this: Milk is a gift to the young, to new life. Meat requires a death. It's not respectful or appropriate, whatever, to mix life and death like that.

This sounds like a fine example of confusing symbolism with reality. Meat represents lots of things to lots of people. To me, it represents something that's often quite delicious with a tall glass of milk, or with some cheese melted into it.

I've heard that Native Americans used to ask forgiveness and blessing from the spirits of game that they killed for food. Same sort of idea; whether or not animals have "spirits" is irrelevant (Jews don't think so, but then we don't think people do either); it's about respect for life and for the animal that's been killed.

I respect animals by making them really, really good when I eat them.

It's one thing go respectfully disagree with the beliefs and ideas of another. Trivialization and implicit contempt and ridicule is quite another.

With all due respect, that is a very bad habit that is not conducive to civil and courteous debate, and you indulge in it often.

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah_tank

TC

The Lubavitch "outreach" is to Jews only. They do not proselytize Gentiles--ever--but only seek to increase traditional observance among other Jews.

[Thought Criminal]

I guess it also has the social advantage of not being that dreaded atheism thing.

It is obviously a form a theistic fence-sitting that avoids the numerous criticisms of religion while maintaining a connection to spirituality and intellectual honesty. It is also less esoteric than pantheism.

"I'm spiritual, not religious". The mating call of the wild spotted fence-sitter.

TC

[Rathpig]

"I'm spiritual, not religious". The mating call of the wild spotted fence-sitter.

Without a doubt. It is rather common though to equivocate a middle position. I am not religiously agnostic, but I am politically agnostic. I understand the middle ground from that perspective.

One can be very "spiritual" without attaching a dogma.

[Thought Criminal]

Without a doubt. It is rather common though to equivocate a middle position. I am not religiously agnostic, but I am politically agnostic. I understand the middle ground from that perspective.

I think there's some sort of popular fallacy that the middle ground is best. In this view, both sides are necessarily wrong because they're "extreme", so the right answer is one that would satisfy neither.

The problem is that it confuses neutrality with objectivity. An objective person can't be neutral on the question of whether the Earth is flat because there isn't anything approaching an equal weight of support for both sides. Instead, they must strongly reject flat-Earthism. To be neutral when the evidence does not allow neutrality is to reject the objective requirement to accept all the evidence.

In the same way, I am unamibiguously an atheist, because an objective evaluation of the evidence leaves me with no other choice. Someone who claims to be neutral on this issue can do so only by rejecting objectivity.

In ethical/political matters, it is much the same. I'm not neutral about slavery; I strongly oppose it. I'm not neutral about equal rights: I strongly support them. I am only neutral on the areas where either I know too little to form a meaningful opinion or there's enough evidence on all sides to keep me in the middle.

One can be very "spiritual" without attaching a dogma.

Sure, if "spiritual" actually meant something in specific. As I've pointed out earlier, it seems to be a euphemism.

TC

[cnorman18]

"I'm spiritual, not religious". The mating call of the wild spotted fence-sitter.

Without a doubt. It is rather common though to equivocate a middle position. I am not religiously agnostic, but I am politically agnostic. I understand the middle ground from that perspective.

One can be very "spiritual" without attaching a dogma.

If you're looking for respect or an acknowledgment that such a view is in any way acceptable, Rathpig, you're not going to get either.

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

[Thought Criminal]

If you're looking for respect or an acknowledgment that such a view is in any way acceptable, Rathpig, you're not going to get either.

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

Yes, and while we're invoking the need for moderator intervention, let's not forget the ongoing problem of non-productive, non-debate responses. Too many threads have been mired down in endless preaching and the repetition of much-refuted arguments. If I have to see one more person claim that thermodynamics forbids evolution, I do believe I will become physically ill.

TC

[cnorman18]

If you're looking for respect or an acknowledgment that such a view is in any way acceptable, Rathpig, you're not going to get either.

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

Yes, and while we're invoking the need for moderator intervention, let's not forget the ongoing problem of non-productive, non-debate responses. Too many threads have been mired down in endless preaching and the repetition of much-refuted arguments. If I have to see one more person claim that thermodynamics forbids evolution, I do believe I will become physically ill.

TC

Take a slug of Maalox and get over it. There will always be people new to the forum, or new to religious debate, period, who will think that a cogent argument.

Newbies will, almost by definition, come here and present arguments that the rest of us have heard before. I have corrected the exact same misconceptions about Judaism dozens upon dozens of times, and I fully expect that I shall continue to be obliged to do so. It's annoying, but it comes with the territory. Do you suggest that the moderators should intervene when someone introduces an argument that bores you?

The offensive behavior I am addressing goes beyond the merely annoying. It involves one's fundamental attitudes about respect for other members and their views, and whether one is more interested in persuasion or the gratification of one's ego at others' expense.

[Rathpig]

If you're looking for respect or an acknowledgment that such a view is in any way acceptable, Rathpig, you're not going to get either.

I am much to old to worry about internet respect

But the points you bring up are interesting. I've always been an iconoclast, but theologically I'm an apathist. I've found that folks are folks, and the last people who need to be on a crusade are atheists. Live and let live is not a bad policy if for practical matters alone.

Over the past few years a crop of evangelical atheists have appeared who seek to beat the evangelical Christians at their own game. This is the Church of New Atheism and Richard Dawkins is the Messiah.

South Park did a damn fine job of explaining this silly situation.

Lately, away from this forum, I have been embroiled in numerous battles with these "fundamentalist" atheists who live by faith and dogma every bit as much as their theist counterparts. A great example of this is the "Rational Response Squad" who are anything but "rational" and their "response" has been to build a cult around not having a religion or a deity.

Ah, interesting times are these.

Praise Science!

[Thought Criminal]

Take a slug of Maalox and get over it. There will always be people new to the forum, or new to religious debate, period, who will think that a cogent argument.

Newbies will, almost by definition, come here and present arguments that the rest of us have heard before. I have corrected the exact same misconceptions about Judaism dozens upon dozens of times, and I fully expect that I shall continue to be obliged to do so. It's annoying, but it comes with the territory. Do you suggest that the moderators should intervene when someone introduces an argument that bores you?

The offensive behavior I am addressing goes beyond the merely annoying. It involves one's fundamental attitudes about respect for other members and their views, and whether one is more interested in persuasion or the gratification of one's ego at others' expense.

Tell me again about how you Jews use the blood of unbaptized infants to flavor your matza, ok?

Yes, there's bound to be some repetition, but there are some ideas so stupid and offensive that they should have been long ago made extinct in the world at large.

I suggest that moderators intervene when people -- whether newcomers or not -- act intellectually dishonest. When they evade instead of answering, reuse just-refuted arguments or substitute Bible quotes for debate, someone has to force them to drop the BS and start debating.

TC

[cnorman18]

Take a slug of Maalox and get over it. There will always be people new to the forum, or new to religious debate, period, who will think that a cogent argument.

Newbies will, almost by definition, come here and present arguments that the rest of us have heard before. I have corrected the exact same misconceptions about Judaism dozens upon dozens of times, and I fully expect that I shall continue to be obliged to do so. It's annoying, but it comes with the territory. Do you suggest that the moderators should intervene when someone introduces an argument that bores you?

The offensive behavior I am addressing goes beyond the merely annoying. It involves one's fundamental attitudes about respect for other members and their views, and whether one is more interested in persuasion or the gratification of one's ego at others' expense.

Tell me again about how you Jews use the blood of unbaptized infants to flavor your matza, ok?

I realize that this was posted as a joke and no offense was intended, but it requires a bit more comment. I consider this a "teaching moment."

First; This is called the Blood Libel, and it was universally and very seriously believed and taught by Christians from the 12th Century into modern times; in some places, some Christians still believe and teach it to this day. It is seriously believed and taught throughout the Arab world as we speak, and was even presented as fact in an Egyptian TV miniseries that was a huge hit. Literally millions of my people have lost their lives over the centuries because of these lies, probably more than because of the "Christ-killer" canard.

Further; The Blood Libel was presented as a serious matter of fact on this forum, late last year, by an old-school Russian Orthodox member who was banned shortly thereafter for other reasons.

As I say, I know that no offense was intended; but for these reasons and more, we Jews find jokes about this matter about as funny as jokes about the Holocaust, or as African-Americans would find jokes about the Middle Passage.

No offense taken; but consider your words carefully before you speak of such things again.

Yes, there's bound to be some repetition, but there are some ideas so stupid and offensive that they should have been long ago made extinct in the world at large.

I suggest that moderators intervene when people -- whether newcomers or not -- act intellectually dishonest. When they evade instead of answering, reuse just-refuted arguments or substitute Bible quotes for debate, someone has to force them to drop the BS and start debating.

TC

I agree with every word of that, and I think you're entirely right.