Questions about Judaism

[Maya]

I found myself thinking about a couple of things regarding Jewish belief, and was hoping that someone more learned on the subject could give me some insight.

It is my understanding that the reason given why Jews no longer consider themselves obligated to perform the animal sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament is that the Temple no longer exists, so there is no proper place to perform these rites. Am I correct in this? Is there any particular part of the Torah that explicitly states that these particular rites can only be performed in this one place? Furthermore, why are animal sacrifices exceptional? Lastly, does this mean that morality plays no part in the decision to refrain from the animal sacrifices that are demanded in the Torah? If the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow and the Levite priesthood reformed, would that mean that Jews then would be again expected by God to perform ritual animal sacrifices in his name?

[Felix]

Well, the Temple was the successor to the Tabernacle, which DID exist even if one assumes a traditional date for Leviticus; but in reality Leviticus, like the rest of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible, was most likely assembled and redacted from earlier oral traditions and documents over a long period of time.

Regardless of when Leviticus was written, the Temple is of no concern to Levitical law. A tabernacle can be any place, like a church building, even a makeshift church building.

Just as you claimed that Jews "demand" inhumane methods of killing (which I notice you have not defended or even acknowledged),

I didn't say "inhuman", I said "relatively cruel". That is indisputable, considering that Jews openly prohibit certain otherwise standard measures during slaughter designed for animal welfare. Your only counter argument is to allege that these welfare measures are unnecessary for humane slaughter, that the non-kosher industry meat industry is overly concerned with animal welfare (if you want to call something silly...).

that YOU consider it "mockery" doesn't mean that THEY do, and that was your claim.

Help me out, what else can I consider it to be, if not mockery? Sacrificing chickens is a deliberate act of imitating a biblical practice, while deliberately avoiding a biblically sanctioned sacrificial animal. Chickens are sacrificial animals in pagan religions.

And that, even if it were true, is objectionable how? The Roman Catholic Church does not follow the instructions in the New Testament, but those of the Magisterium.

Catholics believe they're following the New Testament. I don't know any Jews who really believe they're following the Old Testament. Either way, your argument doesn't help because I believe the Catholic Church should follow the New Testament. And, indeed, a Christian cannot accept that Jews follow the Old Testament because Jesus said they don't (and, that was before the Talmud came along).

Snake-handling is a practice among Christians, but it can hardly be used to discredit or slander all of them.

I don't think snake handing is comparable to Orthodox Jew chicken sacrifice, in quality or quantity.

Now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote, "A priest has to be a Levite by geneology, through the male line, no Jew can meet this qualification." That is simply wrong.

What part of it is wrong?

Have a nice day -- and don't pontificate on things about which you clearly know little or nothing.

Wise. When you find out you can't win a battle, retreat.

[cnorman18]

Well, the Temple was the successor to the Tabernacle, which DID exist even if one assumes a traditional date for Leviticus; but in reality Leviticus, like the rest of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible, was most likely assembled and redacted from earlier oral traditions and documents over a long period of time.

Regardless of when Leviticus was written, the Temple is of no concern to Levitical law. A tabernacle can be any place, like a church building, even a makeshift church building.

More silliness. In the Hebrew Bible, there was one (1) Tabernacle. Only one. We're not talking about just any old tent, but the Mishkan.

Just as you claimed that Jews "demand" inhumane methods of killing (which I notice you have not defended or even acknowledged),

I didn't say "inhuman", I said "relatively cruel".

And I didn't say "inhuman," I said "inhumane." Those terms are not synonymous.

Your answer is called a "quibble." "Relatively cruel" and "inhumane" ARE synonymous; if you don't think so, please explain why not.

That is indisputable, considering that Jews openly prohibit certain otherwise standard measures during slaughter designed for animal welfare. Your only counter argument is to allege that these welfare measures are unnecessary for humane slaughter, that the non-kosher industry meat industry is overly concerned with animal welfare (if you want to call something silly...).

Sorry, but putting words in my mouth isn't debate, either. First YOU have to prove that kosher slaughter is inhumane. The research shows that it isn't. I've shown that with documentation. All you've shown is your own unsupported opinion.

that YOU consider it "mockery" doesn't mean that THEY do, and that was your claim.

Help me out, what else can I consider it to be, if not mockery?

Do I HAVE to point out that you're blatantly ducking a simple question for the second time, and in exactly the same way? YOUR CLAIM was that THEY consider it "mockery." That YOU "consider it to be" is wholly irrelevant to that claim.

What can you consider it? How about what it inarguably IS: An old and much-disputed custom that is no longer widely observed, among a very few very Orthodox Jews. Now prove that THEY consider it "mockery," please, as you claimed -- or retract that claim as the falsehood it was.

Sacrificing chickens is a deliberate act of imitating a biblical practice...

Says you. Did you bother to read the link I posted from the Jewish Virtual Library? That the chicken is killed does not make it a "sacrifice." See below for more on that false claim.

...while deliberately avoiding a biblically sanctioned sacrificial animal.

Twisting all you can, aren't you? Where did you GET this stuff? Did you make it up? I'd LOVE to see your sources. What do you expect, that they swing a bull around, or a sheep? This is an old custom among a very few Orthodox Jews. It is not a part of Jewish belief, Jewish teaching, or normative Jewish practice, especially among modern liberal Jews. Some authorities say it is a leftover PAGAN practice and never had anything to do with Judaism at all.

Chickens are sacrificial animals in pagan religions.

Like I said; a leftover pagan practice that has nothing to do with Judaism. You know what? A lot of Orthodox Jews believe in the "Evil Eye," too, especially older people. That's not part of Judaism either, and it doesn't "mock" anything about Judaism.

The issue, from which you are desperately trying to distract everyone's attention, is that you claimed that Jews did this to "mock the Mosaic Law." You haven't proven that; you haven't even given any evidence for it, other than your own prejudices and assumptions. None - at - all.

This practice does not constitute a "sacrifice" in the first place. Is the chicken burned on an altar? Is its blood sprinkled on it? Does the High Priest -- or ANY priest -- perform it? Is it even done in ANY "tabernacle"? If this is a "sacrifice," why isn't slaughtering a steer to make Hebrew National hot dogs a "sacrifice"?

And that, even if it were true, is objectionable how? The Roman Catholic Church does not follow the instructions in the New Testament, but those of the Magisterium.

Catholics believe they're following the New Testament. I don't know any Jews who really believe they're following the Old Testament.

And just how many Jews do you know? Hey, you brought it up...

Either way, your argument doesn't help because I believe the Catholic Church should follow the New Testament. And, indeed, a Christian cannot accept that Jews follow the Old Testament because Jesus said they don't (and, that was before the Talmud came along).

And what Jesus said means zip to Jews. Jesus who? Oh, yeah, that guy.

Do you now claim the right to dictate to Jews what we ought to believe? It wouldn't surprise me much. Christians have been doing that for centuries.

You still haven't answered the question -- again -- and said what's wrong with Jews following the Talmud, even though that's not accurate, either. Like I said, you clearly know very little about modern Judaism. That's not unusual for Christians, either.

Snake-handling is a practice among Christians, but it can hardly be used to discredit or slander all of them.

I don't think snake handing is comparable to Orthodox Jew chicken sacrifice, in quality or quantity.

Care to post some evidence for either of those claims? Looks like a widely-disputed practice of a small splinter group, to which the overwhelming majority objects, in both cases to me.

Now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote, "A priest has to be a Levite by geneology, through the male line, no Jew can meet this qualification." That is simply wrong.

What part of it is wrong?

Like I said: silly. "No Jew can meet this qualification," that is, of being a Levite by genealogy. If your name is Cohen, you are both a Levy and a Kohane. The tradition says that both those groups, particularly the Kohanim, have kept the bloodline intact; and that has been confirmed by DNA research. Therefore, MANY Jews' could "meet this qualification." QED.

As if it mattered, of course; but that's not the point. Your false claim of knowledge is.

Have a nice day -- and don't pontificate on things about which you clearly know little or nothing.

Wise. When you find out you can't win a battle, retreat.

LOL! I'm advising YOU to retreat. Why would I retreat when I've already won by default? Repeating claims doesn't constitute debate. Neither does dismissing the arguments of others because you don't agree with them.

Let's review. You have deleted and quite deliberately avoided answering most of my points; you've not proven a single claim that you've made; and you've given NO sources for ANYTHING you've said, other than your own apparent prejudices and unsupported assumptions. I have posted several links to reliable and scholarly sources to support my assertions: you've posted -- let's see now -- oh, yes: NONE. You haven't given a single source for ANY of this, most especially your implicit claims that you know something about the Talmud and about Judaic law or practice, never mind Jewish attitudes about those laws and practices. Nice try, but pretending to have triumphed when you're going down in flames is a very old posture here, and it's a very hard sell.

Show us what you've got other than your own unsupported opinions, or give it up; and while you're at it, you might explain and/or justify the unmistakable tone of denigration, and the outright explicit smears, of the Jewish people and religion. Why don't you tell us what you REALLY think, and WHERE you get your information?

If you don't want to retreat from this debate, answer the questions. PROVE that Jews, any Jews, intentionally do anything to "mock the Mosaic law," as you indisputably claimed. Prove that Jews "demand relatively cruel methods of slaughter," which in context with the rest of your posts indisputably implies an intention to cause unnecessary pain for pain's sake. And show where you get your information about Jews "following the Talmud"; I'm not even going to try to correct that bit of nonsense; I'll just wait for you to try to back it up.

Going to accuse me of "retreating" again, or are you going to continue ducking and dodging and distracting?

[Felix]

More silliness. In the Hebrew Bible, there was one (1) Tabernacle. Only one. We're not talking about just any old tent, but the Mishkan.

I didn't say there was more than one Tabernacle. I said a Tabernacle can be anyplace and makeshift, meaning there's nothing preventing Jews from building one, unlike the Temple at a specific location and at great investment.

Not only do you object to something I didn't say, but your objection ignores that which is relevant to this discussion. Jews don't need a Temple for sacrifices. And, while on the subject, Jews don't even need a Tabernacle for sacrifices.

Your answer is called a "quibble." "Relatively cruel" and "inhumane" ARE synonymous; if you don't think so, please explain why not.

One is relative, the other is absolute. "Relatively inhumane" would be the equivalent to what I said, not "inhumane."

Sorry, but putting words in my mouth isn't debate, either. First YOU have to prove that kosher slaughter is inhumane. The research shows that it isn't. I've shown that with documentation. All you've shown is your own unsupported opinion.

I could dig up authorities to challenge your authorities. But, it's unnecessary because the fact remains that Jews prohibit animal welfare measures that are standard in the non-kosher slaughter industry (a fact you haven't denied). Besides, the claims you use to back you up are silly on the face, "cows don't mind being restrained and slowly dieing, while fully conscience. "

Do I HAVE to point out that you're blatantly ducking a simple question for the second time, and in exactly the same way? YOUR CLAIM was that THEY consider it "mockery." That YOU "consider it to be" is wholly irrelevant to that claim.

You still have not explained why a reasonable person could see it as anything other than mockery to sacrifice chickens, given that it's not a scripturally sanctioned animal but it is an animal used is pagan sacrifices. I have not claimed that Jews consider it mockery. I have told you why it's mockery, and you complain that I haven't proved what's in the skulls of Jews.

You seem to have forgotten the OP. Why don't Jews sacrifice? My answer, because their religion isn't based on Holy Scripture, but on the Talmud. I brought up the chickens to point out that when they do sacrifice, they deliberately avoid scriptural sacrifice and that animal welfare is not a reason they don't sacrifice.

Twisting all you can, aren't you? Where did you GET this stuff? Did you make it up? I'd LOVE to see your sources. What do you expect, that they swing a bull around, or a sheep?

No, I don't expect them to swing around a bull. But, there's nothing scriptural about swinging around any animal, in the first place. There are scripturally sanctioned birds they could use, if they insist on an animal small enough to swing around before killing it.

Like I said; a leftover pagan practice that has nothing to do with Judaism.

Everything done by non-Christian Jews is paganism. Their "Star of David" is really the star of the Golden Calf. What mockery could be any greater than that? Sacrificing chickens is part of Judaism, that's why Orthodox Jews do it. Non-orthodox Jews don't do it because they're less religious.

This practice does not constitute a "sacrifice" in the first place. Is the chicken burned on an altar?

They ritually kill the chickens for remission of sins. That sounds like a sacrifice.

And what Jesus said means zip to Jews. Jesus who? Oh, yeah, that guy.

I'm a Christian and what Jesus said to and about the Jews is God's word, to me.

Like I said: silly. "No Jew can meet this qualification," that is, of being a Levite by genealogy. If your name is Cohen, you are both a Levy and a Kohane. The tradition says that both those groups, particularly the Kohanim, have kept the bloodline intact; and that has been confirmed by DNA research. Therefore, MANY Jews' could "meet this qualification." QED.

It's not Scripture that you're qualified to be a priest if your name is Cohen. But, Jews follow the Talmud, not Scripture, so I understand why you reject my point.

And, wrong, DNA has not confirmed that the bloodline has stayed intact. Finding the most common genetic variant among people named Cohen and declaring that this genetic variant shows someone is Cohen is circular reasoning. Further, many people named Cohen don't have that genetic variant and lots of people who aren't named Cohen do have that genetic variant.

You have deleted and quite deliberately avoided answering most of my points;

I've avoided nothing except for the sake of brevity.

You haven't given a single source for ANY of this, most especially your implicit claims that you know something about the Talmud and about Judaic law or practice, never mind Jewish attitudes about those laws and practices. Nice try, but pretending to have triumphed when you're going down in flames is a very old posture here, and it's a very hard sell.

And, yet, I'm owning you in your own area of expertise.

[cnorman18]

More silliness. In the Hebrew Bible, there was one (1) Tabernacle. Only one. We're not talking about just any old tent, but the Mishkan.

I didn't say there was more than one Tabernacle. I said a Tabernacle can be anyplace and makeshift, meaning there's nothing preventing Jews from building one, unlike the Temple at a specific location and at great investment.

Not only do you object to something I didn't say, but your objection ignores that which is relevant to this discussion. Jews don't need a Temple for sacrifices. And, while on the subject, Jews don't even need a Tabernacle for sacrifices.

Here are the things you have said on this subject in previous posts:

The Mosaic law of animal sacrifice has nothing to do with the Temple. The Temple was used for sacrifices, but not for any reason of the law itself.

Animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament.

Regardless of when Leviticus was written, the Temple is of no concern to Levitical law. A tabernacle can be any place, like a church building, even a makeshift church building.

Clearly time for a little Bible lesson. Let’s take a look at Deuteronomy 12:

12 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land. 2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains, on the hills and under every spreading tree, where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods. 3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.
4 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way. 5 But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; 6 there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 There, in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the Lord your God has blessed you.

This makes it clear that sacrifices were to be offered ONLY at the Temple -- “the place the Lord your God will choose.� There is no debate about the meaning of that phrase; later practice, as well as other passages (including one quoted below) makes it quite clear.

To go on:

8 You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, 9 since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you.

That is, before the Israelites entered the Land, they were permitted to sacrifice wherever they liked (and did, as other passages make clear; the Tabernacle, the designated place for sacrifices, moved from place to place with the Israelites); but after they entered Israel --

10 But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. 11 Then to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name —there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the Lord. 12 And there rejoice before the Lord your God—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns who have no allotment or inheritance of their own. 13 Be careful not to sacrifice your burnt offerings anywhere you please. 14 Offer them only at the place the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, and there observe everything I command you.

According to scholars, before this time, there may not have been a distinction between slaughtering animals for eating and slaughtering them for sacrifice; now there was, which is made clear by the next few verses:

15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it.

To clarify, again: Since it was neither practical nor even possible for all Jews to come to Jerusalem to slaughter animals for their ordinary meals, it was permitted to slaughter them “in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want.� But these slaughters were NOT “sacrifices�; Deer and gazelle were kosher (clean) animals, but it was not permitted to sacrifice them. The same holds true for chickens, by the way; they are kosher and may be eaten, but may not be sacrificed.

All this is reiterated a few verses later:

20 When the Lord your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat and say, “I would like some meat,� then you may eat as much of it as you want. 21 If the place where the Lord your God chooses to put his Name is too far away from you, you may slaughter animals from the herds and flocks the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and in your own towns you may eat as much of them as you want. 22 Eat them as you would gazelle or deer. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat.

That last, in both this passage and the one quoted above, also makes it clear that the slaughter of animals for meals in the towns and villages of Israel did not constitute “sacrifice�; only ritually clean persons might partake of the meat of sacrifices at the Temple.

Want more? Okay:

17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts.

This refers to the “firstfruits� offerings of grain, oil and wine, also considered “sacrifices�; not all sacrifices involved animals. Notice the next verse:

18 Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose —you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the Lord your God in everything you put your hand to.

Therefore, even the “sacrifices� which had nothing to do with animal slaughter could not take place anywhere but the Temple.

Also, “in the presence of the Lord your God� reiterates that this passage refers to the Temple and establishes again that that is what is meant by “the place the Lord your God will choose,� since references can be found in dozens of places that the Temple was constructed to be a “house for the Lord your God� and that His presence dwelt there (1 Kings 9, 2 Chronicles 7, etc., etc.)

Therefore, this passage reflects the teaching, in the Torah itself, which is of course part of the “Old Testament,� that (1) Animal sacrifice is to be confined to the Temple, (2) Animal sacrifice was definitely part of the Jewish religion as described and taught in the “Old Testament,� and (3) that there was only one Temple and one permissible place for sacrifice. Therefore, all three of the bold and confident statements which you made, and which I quoted above, are conclusively proven false from Scripture itself.

Let’s go on now:

Your answer is called a "quibble." "Relatively cruel" and "inhumane" ARE synonymous; if you don't think so, please explain why not.

One is relative, the other is absolute. "Relatively inhumane" would be the equivalent to what I said, not "inhumane."

Sorry, but putting words in my mouth isn't debate, either. First YOU have to prove that kosher slaughter is inhumane. The research shows that it isn't. I've shown that with documentation. All you've shown is your own unsupported opinion.

I could dig up authorities to challenge your authorities.

So do it. Saying you “could� proves nothing but that you’re willing to dispute the experts I referenced with nothing but your own opinion.

But, it's unnecessary because the fact remains that Jews prohibit animal welfare measures that are standard in the non-kosher slaughter industry (a fact you haven't denied).

Just for the record, you will find the reason for those prohibitions in the same chapter of Deuteronomy we just studied, as well as in many other places.

The first and most important of the laws of Kashrut is “You shall eat no blood.�

16 But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water.

23 But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat. 24 You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. 25 Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord.

Shooting an animal in the head with a firearm or a “bolt gun�, which is the standard practice in the non-kosher meat industry, stops the heart. This prevents the blood from draining from the carcass properly. When an animal’s throat is slashed with one deep stroke from a (literally) razor-sharp knife, unconsciousness is instantaneous, but the heart keeps pumping till the carcass is drained of blood.

The prohibition of other methods of slaughter have nothing whatever to do with increasing the pain of the animal, as you have clearly and repeatedly implied. It has to do with blood and the prohibition of eating it.

Besides, the claims you use to back you up are silly on the face, "cows don't mind being restrained and slowly dieing, while fully conscience. "

Yet another falsehood, and this time a huge one. That FAKE "QUOTE" does not appear anywhere in the article to which I posted a link, and is in fact a blatant and rather clumsy (not to mention poorly spelled) misrepresentation of the material presented there.

Here are some of the ACTUAL quotes from that link, which you appear to be twisting to suit your assumptions:

Dr Grandin set out to determine whether cattle feel the shechita incision. In one case, the device used to restrain an animal's head during shechita was deliberately applied so lightly that during the incision it could pull its head away from the slaughter instrument. None of the ten animals in the experiment reacted or attempted to pull their heads away, leading Dr Grandin to conclude: "it appears the animal is not aware that its throat has been cut."

Dr. Temple Grandin is an American doctor of animal science and professor at Colorado State University, bestselling author, and consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior. Grandin is listed in the 2010 Time 100 list of the 100 most influential people in the world in the category "Heroes," and she is considered one of the world’s foremost animal advocates and experts on animal behavior.

Dismiss her work as “silly� or as “pro-kosher propaganda� if you like, but be prepared to back those claims up, too. Dr. Grandin is not Jewish.

Here’s another:

"Having witnessed the Jewish method carried out on many thousands of animals, I am unable to persuade myself that there is any cruelty attached to it. As a lover of animals, an owner of cattle and a veterinary Surgeon I would raise no objection to any animal bred, reared or owned by me being subjected to this method of slaughter."

Professor Harold Burrow was a Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the Royal Veterinary College of London, England. His titles include Doctor of Veterinary State Medicine, Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and Fellow of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health and Chairman of the Council of the last. Dr. Burrow is not Jewish, either.

There is additional information at the end of the article debunking some material that has appeared in the press alleging that kosher slaughter is painful and inhumane.

Now on to another topic:

Do I HAVE to point out that you're blatantly ducking a simple question for the second time, and in exactly the same way? YOUR CLAIM was that THEY consider it "mockery." That YOU "consider it to be" is wholly irrelevant to that claim.

You still have not explained why a reasonable person could see it as anything other than mockery to sacrifice chickens, given that it's not a scripturally sanctioned animal but it is an animal used is pagan sacrifices.

Of course I have explained why it need not be considered "mockery." It’s an old custom, a superstition if you like, and has nothing to do with mockery of anything.

And -- of course -- you’ve ducked the question yet again, still in the same manner, and again have signally failed to back up your claim.

Imagine my surprise. And you repeat your ducking and squirming once again, this time with a blatant falsehood:


I have not claimed that Jews consider it mockery.

Of course you have. Here is your first statement on the subject, quoted verbatim:

"Orthodox Jews" sacrifice chickens, to mock the Mosaic law.

That means what it says. It could not possibly mean anything else.

I have told you why it's mockery...

No, you haven't, as I've pointed out repeatedly. You’ve told me why YOU think it’s mockery. That is not the same as proving your claim that “‘Orthodox Jews' sacrifice chickens to mock the Mosaic law.� The sense and meaning of that sentence is very plain. Now you deny you ever said anything like that, and that is, again, a plain falsehood.

and you complain that I haven't proved what's in the skulls of Jews.

Yes, I do; because you plainly and clearly claimed that you knew “what’s in the skulls of Jews.� Dodge and squirm and backpedal all you like, but your meaning was and is clear -- that Jews intend to "mock the Mosaic law" by performing the custom of Kapparot.

You seem to have forgotten the OP. Why don't Jews sacrifice? My answer, because their religion isn't based on Holy Scripture, but on the Talmud.

And you still refuse to explain what, exactly, is wrong with that. Odd, since you obviously consider it some sort of criticism...

I brought up the chickens to point out that when they do sacrifice...

Which they don't when performing Kapparot, since it isn’t a sacrifice...

... they deliberately avoid scriptural sacrifice...

And again, you’re claiming to know “what’s in the skulls of Jews.� “Deliberately� means “with conscious intent� and can mean nothing else; and even though you have already backed away from that claim, here you make it again and still refuse to offer any evidence of its truth. HOW DO YOU KNOW that the custom of Kapparot was deliberately designed to “avoid scriptural sacrifice,� since it isn’t a “sacrifice� at all?

...and that animal welfare is not a reason they don't sacrifice.

Nobody ever made that claim, to my knowledge. Animal welfare is the reason for the kosher method of slaughter; it has nothing to do with end of the practice of sacrifice. That happened because the Temple was destroyed and there was no place to perform them, as I have already proven with several links. The fact that you ignored and dismissed the authoritative historical and religious references I provided does not make that factual information go away.

Twisting all you can, aren't you? Where did you GET this stuff? Did you make it up? I'd LOVE to see your sources. What do you expect, that they swing a bull around, or a sheep?

No, I don't expect them to swing around a bull. But, there's nothing scriptural about swinging around any animal, in the first place.

Which of course supports MY point, that these were never “sacrifices� in the first place.

There are scripturally sanctioned birds they could use...

Which of course ALSO supports my point, that these are not “sacrifices.�

...if they insist on an animal small enough to swing around before killing it.

Which also supports my point that this is a superstitious custom which has nothing to do with Judaism and never did. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Like I said; a leftover pagan practice that has nothing to do with Judaism.

Everything done by non-Christian Jews is paganism.

Oh, THIS should be good... Welcome to The Land Of Unprovable Claims, everybody.

Their "Star of David" is really the star of the Golden Calf. What mockery could be any greater than that?

Do you have a source, a reference, a link, a quote, or ANYTHING to support that lunacy? The Star of David was not even considered a symbol of Judaism till the Middle Ages. And what on Earth could it have to do with the Golden Calf? What Jews can you cite who have ever believed or thought that? What are your sources for this nonsense? Did you just make it up on your own?

Sacrificing chickens is part of Judaism, that's why Orthodox Jews do it.

No, it isn’t, as I have proven from numerous sources; it has been disputed and disavowed for literally hundreds of years by innumerable rabbis. Is your knowledge of Judaism so deep and extensive that you can dismiss those references and sources?

Non-orthodox Jews don't do it because they're less religious.

But you are saying that the Orthodox Jews who do it are MOCKING their religion! How is that “more religious�?

What exactly is your standard here? The more evil and shameful a practice is, the more Jewish it is? You cannot even tell me the first thing about the Talmud, even after repeated challenges; why do you think you know so much about Jews and our beliefs and practices, as well as what is in our minds and hearts?

This practice does not constitute a "sacrifice" in the first place. Is the chicken burned on an altar?

They ritually kill the chickens for remission of sins. That sounds like a sacrifice.

It sounds like a superstition to me. Sacrifices are burned. On altars. By priests. At the Temple. That’s what a sacrifice IS.

And what Jesus said means zip to Jews. Jesus who? Oh, yeah, that guy.

I'm a Christian and what Jesus said to and about the Jews is God's word, to me.

I’m OK with that. But it’s not to me, and you have no right to insist that it ought to be or that we Jews should accept your judgment about anything, particularly in the face of your obvious prejudice and ignorance about our religion and its history.

Like I said: silly. "No Jew can meet this qualification," that is, of being a Levite by genealogy. If your name is Cohen, you are both a Levy and a Kohane. The tradition says that both those groups, particularly the Kohanim, have kept the bloodline intact; and that has been confirmed by DNA research. Therefore, MANY Jews' could "meet this qualification." QED.

It's not Scripture that you're qualified to be a priest if your name is Cohen. But, Jews follow the Talmud, not Scripture, so I understand why you reject my point.

You have no point. Family tradition -- that one’s parents gave one the same surname as one’s grandparents -- has been and remains the standard for being a Levy and a Cohen. From the link I posted earlier:

Although most priestly functions of the Kohanim (such as Temple sacrifices) ended with the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, the identity of Kohanim has been carefully preserved throughout history. In traditional synagogues, a Kohen will always be the first person called to the Torah, will be asked to publicly bless the congregation at specified times, will be asked to bless a bride and groom at the wedding, and will be asked to "redeem" every first-born male child.

The DNA connection is only a confirmation of the reliability of that tradition, as we will see below.
And -- you still refuse to say what’s wrong with Jews following the Talmud -- as if that were true anyway, and as if you had the faintest idea of what the Talmud actually is and says.

And, wrong, DNA has not confirmed that the bloodline has stayed intact. Finding the most common genetic variant among people named Cohen and declaring that this genetic variant shows someone is Cohen is circular reasoning. Further, many people named Cohen don't have that genetic variant and lots of people who aren't named Cohen do have that genetic variant.

Oversimplify and falsify much? It’s apparent that you didn’t know that many non-Cohen Jews (and Gentiles, for that matter) have Cohen ancestors. Cohens leave the community, convert to Islam or Christianity, and have children; some of those convert back and become Jews, but are no longer Cohens. There are other circumstances in which Cohen ancestry can be passed on to non-Cohens, and vice versa -- and after 3,000 years or so, that sort of thing has happened rather a lot. The research proves only that the traditions mentioned above, of maintaining Cohen and Levy identity, has some basis in reality and is not mere fiction. Hence, "confirmed by DNA studies" as I said.

Again, from the same link:

This research demonstrates that 46.1% of Kohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (»20%) and Kohanim (»46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non- Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East.

Definitive? Of course not. But sufficient for ritual purposes, and in the event that the Temple is rebuilt and the priesthood restored -- God forbid -- it will be rather easy to identify male Cohanim who fulfill all the genealogical requirements for becoming priests.

Your statement, let us recall, was that “"No Jew can meet this qualification.� Once again, you have been proven wrong, and your knowledge of Judaism and Jewish teachings and tradition proven to be virtually nonexistent.

You have deleted and quite deliberately avoided answering most of my points;

I've avoided nothing except for the sake of brevity.

Reeeeaaallly? Let’s see:

There is a good précis of the history of sacrifice in the Jewish religion here, as comprehensive and complete as any short article I have ever read. I recommend it highly.

Not a word of acknowledgement of that article, nor any evidence that you even bothered to go to the link.

And didn't you just refer to "the Mosaic law of animal sacrifice" above?

To refresh your memory, this was just after you had said “Animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament.� You appear to be saying -- in fact, you ARE saying -- two mutually exclusive things; that “animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews,� AND that Orthodox Jews violate and mock the Mosaic law that mandates and prescribes it. No comment on that obvious contradiction, even after I pointed it out as above.

Jews are not motivated by any compassion for animals.

That is also nonsense, and has been discussed elsewhere.

Again, no acknowledgement, never mind rebuttal, of the arguments to which I posted a link, and no indication that you even bothered to look at it.

That the beliefs and practices of modern Judaism are not to be found in the Hebrew Bible is something I have said many times; but they are not to be found in the Talmud, either. The tradition and teaching of Judaism is not contained in any one book or place, but is an organic (and ever-changing) whole.

Deleted, without acknowledgment or response.

How familiar are you, exactly, with the Talmud? I'd be most interested to know why you think these things, and what you think is wrong with the Talmud as a foundational document of Judaism.

Again, deleted and ignored without response.

You seem to be unfamiliar with cattle-ranching practices, as well. Cattle are regularly restrained for medical reasons, as well as for controlling pests, freeze-branding, and other reasons. The point is that the animals did not react to the cut.

The experts who did these experiments and assessments were not Jewish -- and the fact that the evidence I presented indicates that your claims are erroneous does not make it "propaganda." You might just be wrong.

And yet again. Not so much as an acknowledgment, never mind a response.

You seem to be trying as hard as you can to put the most negative spin possible on everything you say about Jews. Why is that?

A central question, repeated often; no response at all.

If [Kapparot] is a "sacrifice," why isn't slaughtering a steer to make Hebrew National hot dogs a "sacrifice"?

Deleted, no answer.

I don't think snake handing is comparable to Orthodox Jew chicken sacrifice, in quality or quantity.

Care to post some evidence for either of those claims? Looks like a widely-disputed practice of a small splinter group, to which the overwhelming majority objects, in both cases to me.

Deleted, no answer.

And, of course:

Show us what you've got other than your own unsupported opinions, or give it up; and while you're at it, you might explain and/or justify the unmistakable tone of denigration, and the outright explicit smears, of the Jewish people and religion. Why don't you tell us what you REALLY think, and WHERE you get your information?

Deleted without response, of course.

Ah, well. Let's finish this.

You haven't given a single source for ANY of this, most especially your implicit claims that you know something about the Talmud and about Judaic law or practice, never mind Jewish attitudes about those laws and practices. Nice try, but pretending to have triumphed when you're going down in flames is a very old posture here, and it's a very hard sell.

And, yet, I'm owning you in your own area of expertise.

Only if you consider these to constitute “owning�:
Exposing your own ignorance, prejudice, and hostility;
Pretending to knowledge you patently do not have;
Deleting, ignoring and refusing to answer salient points and questions;
Making implicit claims that you will neither detail nor explain (e.g. that there is something wrong with Jews “following the Talmud�);
Refusing to offer support for a single assertion other than your own bare opinion;
Dismissing authoritative sources and references without giving ANY reason other than that same uninformed opinion; and, of course,
Claiming victory when you have proven nothing - at - all.

If that's "owning" anything, you must think "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so, nyah nyah nyah" is a cogent, logically sound, eloquent, and persuasive argument -- and that the Three Stooges were tenured professors of history and philosophy.

And now back to a question I keep asking, and you keep deleting and refusing to answer: What, exactly, is wrong with Jews "following the Talmud," and why do you think that formulation is even true? You've said it over and over, clearly intending it as a complaint or criticism of some kind, but you have never explained why it's a problem.

Perhaps more to the point: What do you even know about the Talmud? Anything? Anything at all?

Do you even know what the Talmud IS? Can you answer THAT question?

[Felix]

[Deuteronomy 12] makes it clear that sacrifices were to be offered ONLY at the Temple -- “the place the Lord your God will choose.� There is no debate about the meaning of that phrase; later practice, as well as other passages (including one quoted below) makes it quite clear.

Deut 12 doesn't mention the Temple. And, it couldn't even imply the Temple as none existed anywhere near the time of that account. "The place" of God's choosing isn't necessarily a specific location. Indeed, the Bible shows that the Tabernacle had been in various locations. God's concern may have only been to keep it in the territory of a particular tribe, which is why a specific place isn't identified in scripture. And, why no structure is identified with that place.

Even if I accept your interpretation, if God had ordered you to sacrifice and then at some point doesn't let you have the necessary place to do it, maybe God is telling you something?

[Chickens] may not be sacrificed

So, that's why when Jews sacrifice chickens they're not sacrificing chickens? It looks more like Jews are giving God the middle finger when they sacrifice chickens.

Wikipedia: "Kapparot is a Jewish ritual... The person swings a live chicken.... over one's head three times, symbolically transferring one's sins to the chicken... The chicken is then slaughtered.... Rabbi Rimler Shechts [ritually kills] a Kaparot chicken."

They do sacrifice chickens no matter how much you insist they don't.

Shooting an animal in the head with a firearm or a “bolt gun�, which is the standard practice in the non-kosher meat industry, stops the heart. This prevents the blood from draining from the carcass properly.

Your argument is complete BS. The non-kosher industry uses a bolt gun to stun the animal, not kill it. And, kosher slaughter doesn't result in any less bloody meat than non-kosher meat. Either way, the job is finished by gravity draining the blood from the corpse.

Dr Grandin set out to determine whether cattle feel the shechita incision. In one case, the device used to restrain an animal's head during shechita was deliberately applied so lightly that during the incision it could pull its head away from the slaughter instrument. None of the ten animals in the experiment reacted or attempted to pull their heads away, leading Dr Grandin to conclude: "it appears the animal is not aware that its throat has been cut."

Which exactly means, "cows don't mind..." But, she's referring to something of her own doing, not the methods practiced by Jews. And, she may not be completely forthcoming in what the animal experiences because she has an agenda of offering something to replace the brutality that Jews typically inflict upon animals. She doesn't want to give Jews any excuse, such as saying "Cows don't like your method, either."

It appears that Dr. Grandin's interest in kosher slaughter is because it so i.n.h.u.m.a.n. But, then you know that because such is implied by what you read in your source. "I will never forget having nightmares..." after a visit to a kosher slaughter-house. "This should not be happening in a civilized society..." She's trying to encourage Jews to be less inhuman in their killing of animals. "I vowed that I would replace the plant from hell with a kinder and gentler system...."

Of course I have explained why it need not be considered "mockery."

You won't explain any alternative because anything you say will smell like the most foul of BS. If this were not true, you could give me a credible explanation for how it could be perceived as anything other than mockery.

Jews sacrifice chickens, an animal not sanctioned by scripture but used in pagan sacrifice. This mockery is compounded by the biblical warnings to the Israelites to avoid pagan practices. Given that there's no reasonable doubt that this is mockery, the reasonable conclusion is that Jews do it to mock God.

I don't claim Jews claim it's mockery. Why do you think I would credit Jews with honesty, that they would claim it's mockery?

Their "Star of David" is really the star of the Golden Calf. What mockery could be any greater than that?

Do you have a source, a reference, a link, a quote, or ANYTHING to support that lunacy? The Star of David was not even considered a symbol of Judaism till the Middle Ages.

Which god is represented by the golden calf? Does this god have a star symbol, and if so, what is it? You've already conceded that the star has no legitimate origin in scripture (but, the star is mentioned and condemned in scripture). Now, see if you can take the next step.

And -- you still refuse to say what’s wrong with Jews following the Talmud

Other than the wickedness taught by the Talmud (child rape, ethnic supremacy, cursing of Jesus, etc.) and the whole false religion thing, there's nothing wrong with Jews following the Talmud. Just as long as it's understood that they are not following the Old Testament, nor are they the descendants of Abraham and Jacob.

This research demonstrates that 46.1% of Kohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%)...

It looks like most Kohamin are converts to the family line. And, maybe Jews should be recruiting the Palestinians to be their temple priests. They're more likely to be Kohanim than Kohanim. (But, once again, there are no genes showing someone is a descendant of Aaran. Jews are mocking God by insisting that the necessary existence of relatively common gene variant found among a sample of Cohens makes them qualified to be priests.)

[cnorman18]

Well, it took a while to flush you out, but you've finally come clean. In a manner of speaking.

The rest of your post isn't worth a reply -- you're still doing nothing more than repeating your own unsubstantiated and unsupported opinions while arrogantly overruling genuine scholarship and manipulating and falsifying quotes -- and, no surprise, STILL refusing to answer or even acknowledge the LONG list of cogent and on-point arguments and questions which you DID delete and to which you DID refuse to respond (not to mention several more in my last post which can be added to that list). This isn't debate; it's shooting off your mouth with no substance behind it whatever.

But all that can be dismissed now as the nonsense it indubitably is, because at last we know beyond doubt the precise nature of your sources, even if you continue to conceal them out of -- what? Shame? Guilt? Knowledge of their contemptible agenda of hatred? Doesn't matter now. The cat's out of the bag.

This tells the whole story:

And -- you still refuse to say what’s wrong with Jews following the Talmud

Other than the wickedness taught by the Talmud (child rape, ethnic supremacy, cursing of Jesus, etc.) and the whole false religion thing...

Thanks very much. That clarifies everything very nicely.

That "information" could only come from ONE kind of source; one of the many viciously antisemitic hate sites or books that are still spreading the long-discredited lies of one Justinas Pranaitis, a 19th-century Lithuanian priest who wrote a scurrilous and evil book entitled The Talmud Unmasked, which was conclusively discredited and proven a fraud more than a hundred years ago. The "child rape" reference in particular is a dead giveaway, though the other allegations you listed here are equally damning.

ALL the material of this type that has ever appeared on this forum has proven, again and again, to come in the end from that one (1) long-discredited source, whether or not it is credited in the sources given. I have many times proven that, as well as debunked and exposed the intentional distortions, deliberate misquotes, and outright lies and fabrications of which this material is comprised. I would be most happy to do it again -- IF you have the courage to actually list some of the fake "quotations from the Talmud" which supposedly prove these outrageous falsehoods. I confidently predict that you don't, and you won't.

Thanks for dropping the mask. Now we all know where you get your nonsense -- I use a much kinder word than it deserves -- and what your agenda is vis-a-vis Judaism.

So prove me wrong. Give a source -- if you dare to.

Otherwise, we're done here. You stand exposed for what you are, as all the old-timers here can clearly see. We have seen your ilk before; they come, they try to peddle blatant hatred and clumsy lies, they get exposed as what they indisputably are, and they go -- in disgrace, never to return. Hateful old lies about the Talmud are invariably the smoking gun, and you have just held up your hand while proudly grasping it in front of everyone here.

Congratulations. The debate is over, and you have shot yourself in the foot.

[otseng]

Your argument is complete BS.

You won't explain any alternative because anything you say will smell like the most foul of BS.

Moderator Warning


These statements do not conform to the standards of this site of civility.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[cnorman18]

Quickie Quiz Question:

What two things do these twelve members have in common?

Smersh

Bigmo

RND

Egyptian_Cat13

Vovim Baghie

Mazzaroth

Easyrider

Joshua

mgb

kourvoisier

DeBunkem

Biomystic

Answer: They all posted blatantly antisemitic hate propaganda on this forum; and they are all gone.

Let us now add Felix to this execrable list.

Thank you and good night.