Slashdot Mirror

"I have a grudging respect of judaism"

There is plenty to despise about judaism as well.

The rules about not touching women while they are menstruating are pretty backward.

The rules about treating non-jews differently (e.g. it's OK to lie, cheat, and steal from them) to jewish people is particularly abhorrent.

The way they have acted in the Middle East is disgusting. And the stance their country takes towards the rest of the world should not be tolerated.

So why offer them any respect at all?

Also, it's perfectly OK (according to the Old Testament) for non-Jews to worship idols. In fact, the fact that this occurred is a basic premise of much of the Old Testament, and never are the non-Jews admonished for it.

.... bullshit. Rabbi's seem to disagree with you, as does basic history. http://www.myjewishlearning.co...

However, in the rabbinic doctrine of the Noahide laws [the seven laws Judaism expects non-Jews to follow]–the Torah for all mankind so to speak–idolatry is as serious an offense for Gentiles as it is for Jews, although, in the nature of the case, this was purely academic. It was unlikely in the extreme in rabbinic times that a Gentile would ask a Rabbi whether or not he was allowed by the Torah to worship his gods.

Islam is derived from Judaism. The Old Testament has a great deal of bearing on Islam, including the prophets (and yes, including Jesus). The most conservative Muslims take idolatry extremely seriously, unlike Christians (US Christians) who will practice idolatry at the drop of a hat... a cross, a crucifix, a flag, a burnt piece of toast, a water stain on the ground.... pretty much anything they can con their mind into believing has some passing resemblance to a face they con themselves into believing is Jesus.

The subject of death is treated inconsistently in the Bible, though most often it suggests that physical death is the end of life. This is the case with such central figures as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam. There are, however, several biblical references to a place called Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region "dark and deep," "the Pit," and "the Land of Forgetfulness," where human beings descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on in some shadowy state of existence. While this vision of Sheol is rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man (Job 3:11-19).

Source: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml

(It should be noted that this is in no way a new idea, and has existed even in ancient cultures where the murder or beating of a pregnant woman would be dealt with more severely than with one who was not-pregnant. In "ye olden days" when having a baby was even more dangerous than it is today, and the infant death rate was extremely high, the idea of "potential life" was very important to early peoples.)

Completely false. The Old Testament makes it clear that injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is treated as a relatively minor property crime and not at all like murder (Exodus 21:22). Historically (and today) Jews believed that life began after birth when the child emerged from the mother and took its first breath (source). Furthermore, abortion was practiced the ancient Greeks and Romans, who had no problem with it (and yet Christ couldn't be bothered to say anything about it). Even medieval Christians didn't believe life began until the fetus moved in the womb ('the quickening').

Anthropologists will tell you that, in general, the higher the infant death rate, the laxer the view of the moral status of fetuses and infant children. In some cultures a child isn't a person until it's about two years old; it isn't even given a name. This is essentially a psychological and economic coping mechanism. In the developed world we have the 'luxury' of caring about every unique little snowflake.

The view of fetal life as inherently valuable is very much a modern one. For example, when Roe v. Wade first legalized abortion in the US, most evangelicals said nothing and many actually applauded it. Even before the ruling the Southern Baptist Convention officially resolved that "we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." Those criteria are pretty broad, and it's a call for active lobbying for such legislation.

Modern anti-choice views are a product of about 40 years of political polarization caused by conservatives using it as a wedge issue.

Man, I love how "Judeo-Christian" equates to "Christian" in these arguments. It makes us Jewish types feel so... present.

The conflation is philosophically and historically dumb, mildly offensive, and usually exists to serve American political, Christian ideological, and assimilationist and/or Jewish defense interests. Humorously, while many Jewish authorities would prohibit entry to icon laden churches (and resist even the aniconic), the most authoritative voice on the subject, Maimonidies, permits both praying and learning inside a Mosque.

Moreover, including the word "Tora" (usually transliterated as Torah) does not make you an expert, or grant your position meaning or value, especially since it is hardly the de facto determinant of Jewish Law or "dogma," (were such a thing to exist) only a theoretical de jure one. To put it in terms you might understand - it's like hearing a Creationist decry the "genetics" of Darwinism (sic), without knowing what an allele is. Dangerously furthering the analogy: having read "The Bible," in whatever translation, makes you less of an expert on Judaism than a Creationist reader of The Origin of the Species is an expert on current evolutionary biology. Preaching to an eager Slashdot choir only may grant you +1, Insightful, but not insightfulness.

Regarding your point Torah - in the Pentateuchal sense - dictates have been removed from practice, to reflect need or reality, by its own community of followers - through an internal hermeneutic. I'm not speaking of modern incarnations of Judaism, born in the Western Enlightenment where equality is a value, but the main stream of Rabbinic Judaism where textual fealty and respect for older authority is paramount. A few notable examples -

The death penalty
Polygamy
Charging Interest

Unfortunately for your argument, very few people have ever been sentenced to death for violating these or other bible laws. A person could only be sentenced to death if:

1) He was approached by (at least) two witnesses who informed him that he was violating the law and the consequences of his actions.

2) He acknowledged knowing that he was breaking the law and the consequences of such actions yet continued doing so nonetheless.

3) The two witnesses bring this issue to the attention of the Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court), of whom it was said "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years." [1]

4) The Sanhedrin reviewed the evidence and sentenced the person to death.

5) The witnesses had to personally carry out the execution. Something that no one was particularly inclined to do.

The end result is that it was virtually impossible for anyone to be sentenced to death. You can read the following article for more details.

References:
[1] http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Death/About_Death_and_Mourning/Death_Penalty_Jacobs.htm

Actually, that would be a myth.

The cause-effect relationship between eating pork and exhibiting trichinosis was not established until the 19th century. The idea that dietary laws against pork (which started over 5000 years ago) were somehow sane or rational is wishful thinking at best.

Some links:
http://www.dialognow.org/node/view/907
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998 /6/986koshe.html
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Weekly_Torah _Commentary/shemini_artson5759.htm