So according to Rambam, I can still be an observant Jew, and Not believe in God.
That is taking it to the other extreme, and that is not what he meant.
Granted, I will ommiting the commision of a mitzva, that I am required to do. But that doesnt put me out of the group. I am still Kosher For Eidut.
No, you would not be, if you did not believe. Atheism has the same problems are an oved avodah zorah, which is not kosher for eidus. Further, anyone who willingly and blatantly does not do a commandment is also not kosher for eidus.
Now, on to your, terribly ill-informed little rant.
It was not a rant. It was to remove your foundation when you said "well, i'm an Orthodox Jew and i still don't believe". That's impossible. You can be Jewish and not believe, but not Orthodox and not believe.
According to Rambam, one cannot give reasons for the Torah.
Unless the Torah itself gives a reason.
Most of Judaism is a function of practice.
No, it is not. Judaism is working on your middos. Of course, that only works when done lishmah which require a whole set of beliefs.
Now. Lets go on. You are claiming that belief that the world was created in 7 days is a cornerstone of Jewish Being.
I dont think you have a source.
See the verse itself that calls it an "os". Also, see the Chinuch on this mitzvah (and on anochi Hashem).
Hmm. So according to rambam, were I not to believe the world was created in 7 days, I would still be well within the fold.
Your citing the "13 middos" is inherently flawed. That is a summary, and perhaps not a very good one. The real thing is the introduction to the eleventh perek of Sandhedrin (found in most sets of shas, i presume). He also explains what he is doing, which is not to say "believe these and you're ok". He's listed some main points to put an end to some mistaken beliefs. Like the Moreh N'vuchim, it should not be taken out of the context of a response.
So if you bother to study the matter, you will find most Rabbinical sources will say things like "sure the world 5767 years old. Well 5767 + 7 days".
The sixth day was Rosh Hashanah. So, 5767 years plus 5 days...
See, traditional rabbbinical authority keeps those days, and their history, entriely seperate, from well, the rest of history.
I have no idea what you are taling about. Rashi and the Midrash Rabbah (the two major mefarshim on B'reishis) make no such distinction.
Traditionally, we hold that they are true, and that what they say happened, happened, but we dont so much claim to know what they mean.
Yes we do. The Midrash Rabbah painstakingly goes through the entire creation process. There is more Midrash Rabbah on the Creation narative then on any other subject.
The rabbinical souces I have read on the matter keep those days seperate, and somewhat kabbalistic.
I'm calling your bluff. Name one peirush that says it is to be understood with sod, and not p'shat.
So, a studied tradional approach would have that of course the world was created in 7 days, but we dont really know what that means. It certainly doesnt make much sense to talk about the 7 days being 24 hour days, as there was no sunrise or sunset for the first 3-4 (the sun and moon being created on the 4th.). If you bother to READ the commentary, you will see that we dont wash that nasty little fact under the rug, but look at it, and are interested in it, and claim a level of ignorance because of it.
Rashi clearly states that the Sun (and everything) was created on the first day, but put in place over the other days. The verse itself says light and dark (and the separation in between them) was created on this first day. Further, on the fourth day it says that the sun will rule the day. The diurnal cycle already existed at least in name, but control was now shifted to the solar system.
I am an orthodox Jew. I would also like to say that I think creationism is fairly silly.
Then you are not Orthodox. Acting Orthodox, perhaps.
Orthodoxy is generally defined as keeping the Sabbath. Why? Because G-d said the Sabbath is a sign that the world was created in six days, and He rested on the seventh. If someone does not keep the Sabbath, he is saying that he disagrees with the belief.
If you do not believe the story, you are short-circuiting this idea, and going strsight to the issue. So, if you do not believe it, you are not Orthodox.
The early Jewish Rabbis and the early Church Fathers deployed similar philological tools; their Biblical interpretations stressed allegorical readings, frequently at the expense of the texts' literal meaning.
The Talmud states clearly that a verse cannot normally leave its simple meaning "ayn mikra yotzei midei p'shuto".
Send a message? That's old stuff, my priest did that last year when he sent a message back to the Elders so they would ssend him a message via the Tree of Cadence.
Call it "science" and it is cool, and everyone is interesting even in the fringe. Call it religion, and it is immediately dismissed as nonsense.
Even if we did fid oil there, it would be a pittance compared to world demand at this point.
Being speculations vary widely as to how much is there, it cannot be called a "pittance". One thing is for sure, it would take a while to get the stuff out, at least over thirty years, slowly but surely.
There is enough to help supply us with oil, not everything, but a significant amount. And, ANWAR is not the only banned area.
Otherwise, make a list of planned improvements, and keep it to yourself. Add to it weekly, or even daily. Then, once or twice a year, implement it all at once.
Bad idea. That will alienate even more people.
A better idea would be to be very open about changes, but takes a few months to implement them. During the first month it should just be a topic to talk about, and see what the feedback is. If it is rejected, drop it (and perhaps come back with a modified form a couple months later), if people want it, they'll adopt it themselves, if people accept it, but are wary to implement it, start voluntary implementation in the second month, and let people fit in over one or two months. Then, help the stragglers by *slowly* putting the pressure on them, making it more difficult not to comply.
Easy come, easy go, works with changes. Changes adopted slowly are more likely to stay, but then work with the employees to implement it.
What happens when it's 7:55 and the component I'm working on is nowhere ready for compiling?
Considering 7:55 is well after the end of a workday, the person had a few hours to fix the problem. And if this happens once or twice a year, the OP said its ignored. If this happens weekly, it does point to problem with the coder.
The obvious third option -- run the compile but use yesterday's working version of my component instead of my currently-broken one -- seems to be absent.
If it is a new component, this does not help. Though, to work with this system, i'd first create a stub that just accepts input, and gives standard output. After that works, start putting in the logic. If the logic is not ready on time, comment it out. If the logic is too weildy, it should probably be in a separate function anyway, and the coder needs to learn a better coding style.
If it is an old component, the old component is already submitted, so there's be no reason to change it.
Programing is art. I've heard so much about standardization, and i see zero benefits. I challenged our arcane non-vowelized database table naming conventions, and was told that's it's easier when everyone uses the same names. Umm, no. There are two reasons this fails miserably. One, it takes time to learn the standard, which noone remembers anyway without working with it for years. Two, the names are incongruous with coding style, and a second programmers will have that much harder of a time getting the "feel" for the design.
I say let each coder do his thing the way he wants to do it, and just demand consistency within his own code.
I remember being forced to meet one standard that i despised. So, i coded my own way and right before submission, i mangled the code to match the standards. I can't imagine it helped, being i was the one to maintain it.
Further, who are the standards for? The maintenance coder? The maintenance coder spends *far* less time on any code than the original coder. And, in most cases, the orginal coder *is* the maintenance coder. Why not let the coder do it his own way, and the maintenance coder, should it happen to be someone else, will spend five minutes learning the new style? Really, it isn't that big of a deal.
This whole thing of standards makes no sense to me. It's not like network interoperability from different vendors, or language barriers that require a known standard. This is people doing their own thing, and willing to help each other to get it done, so why not let them coder in their favorite style?
It's amazing how many monikers this "debunker uses". "cock-a-hoop", "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish." And while the original article mentioned sources and showed the numbers he was talking about, this article just keeps saying how the first was incorrect, and how others have proven this or disproven that. However, the details are not found there.
This is just pandering to those who want thim to respond. But there's really nothing to see here if you don't like name calling.
how many of the "average person" will just be lazy instead of trying to make things better for their children, or society as a whole.
Nope. Nearly everyone wants to help. The first and foremost thing is, however, is ti really a problem.
Regardless of what the self-appointed prophets of doom think, not everyone believes there is a problem. Whether there is or is not a problem is absolutely irrelevant. The question is, do peope think there is a problem.
There are plenty of reasons people reject the claims of a worse tomorrow. That has to do with communication of the message, religous beliefs, faith in technology, and so on. But it has nearly nothing to do with people being lazy.
All you have to do is drive through a residential neighborhood and see how many homes didn't put their recycle bins out... ever.
How do you know if they do it ever? How about those people who have a simple system they've had for years, and simply use the bin once in a while. Or the people that never buy plastic in the first place.
Or the ones that look at their trash container being full, and dump regular trash in with their recycling, saying "What does it hurt?"
They are entitled to their opinion.
The bottom line is that most people are inherently lazy. And unless their house needed repainting, or their sidewalk/driveway needed to be repaved, they won't do it. Even parents with kids that have asthma. Some will, but most won't.
You are a self-righteous jerk. Why are your beliefs better than everyone else's? Why is it that if people don't do what you think they should do, they are "lazy"? Why did you have to throw in an insult that even parents of kids that have asthma won't help?
Personally, i refuse to recycle because of jerks like you. I don't believe in all the doom and gloom, but if other people want to recycle because that's their thing, i have no problem. And i;m even willing to help. However, as soon as my city made an ordinance that one must recycle, i simply refuse to recycle. I'll walk the extra mile to use a garbage can instead of a recycling bin. Why? Because of jerks like you that force your personal beliefs on others. You even look down on others for not believing what you believe.
You don't have to believe what others believe. You don't even have to respect what they believe. However, you should respect they're inherent right to believe anything, even if it is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
eponymous
Verily, praxis of that prodigious lexeme from erstwhile rarity was construed therefore.
They seem to have hit the nail on the head with this one. Got to go file this one away.
there are too many boulders around the proposed Phoenix Mars Lander landing site.
Boulder? On Mars? That must be why its called Boulder Colorodo (Color Red-o).
*groan*
So according to Rambam, I can still be an observant Jew, and Not believe in God.
That is taking it to the other extreme, and that is not what he meant.
Granted, I will ommiting the commision of a mitzva, that I am required to do. But that doesnt put me out of the group. I am still Kosher For Eidut.
No, you would not be, if you did not believe. Atheism has the same problems are an oved avodah zorah, which is not kosher for eidus. Further, anyone who willingly and blatantly does not do a commandment is also not kosher for eidus.
Now, on to your, terribly ill-informed little rant.
It was not a rant. It was to remove your foundation when you said "well, i'm an Orthodox Jew and i still don't believe". That's impossible. You can be Jewish and not believe, but not Orthodox and not believe.
According to Rambam, one cannot give reasons for the Torah.
Unless the Torah itself gives a reason.
Most of Judaism is a function of practice.
No, it is not. Judaism is working on your middos. Of course, that only works when done lishmah which require a whole set of beliefs.
Now. Lets go on. You are claiming that belief that the world was created in 7 days is a cornerstone of Jewish Being.
I dont think you have a source.
See the verse itself that calls it an "os". Also, see the Chinuch on this mitzvah (and on anochi Hashem).
Hmm. So according to rambam, were I not to believe the world was created in 7 days, I would still be well within the fold.
Your citing the "13 middos" is inherently flawed. That is a summary, and perhaps not a very good one. The real thing is the introduction to the eleventh perek of Sandhedrin (found in most sets of shas, i presume). He also explains what he is doing, which is not to say "believe these and you're ok". He's listed some main points to put an end to some mistaken beliefs. Like the Moreh N'vuchim, it should not be taken out of the context of a response.
So if you bother to study the matter, you will find most Rabbinical sources will say things like "sure the world 5767 years old. Well 5767 + 7 days".
The sixth day was Rosh Hashanah. So, 5767 years plus 5 days...
See, traditional rabbbinical authority keeps those days, and their history, entriely seperate, from well, the rest of history.
I have no idea what you are taling about. Rashi and the Midrash Rabbah (the two major mefarshim on B'reishis) make no such distinction.
Traditionally, we hold that they are true, and that what they say happened, happened, but we dont so much claim to know what they mean.
Yes we do. The Midrash Rabbah painstakingly goes through the entire creation process. There is more Midrash Rabbah on the Creation narative then on any other subject.
The rabbinical souces I have read on the matter keep those days seperate, and somewhat kabbalistic.
I'm calling your bluff. Name one peirush that says it is to be understood with sod, and not p'shat.
So, a studied tradional approach would have that of course the world was created in 7 days, but we dont really know what that means. It certainly doesnt make much sense to talk about the 7 days being 24 hour days, as there was no sunrise or sunset for the first 3-4 (the sun and moon being created on the 4th.). If you bother to READ the commentary, you will see that we dont wash that nasty little fact under the rug, but look at it, and are interested in it, and claim a level of ignorance because of it.
Rashi clearly states that the Sun (and everything) was created on the first day, but put in place over the other days. The verse itself says light and dark (and the separation in between them) was created on this first day. Further, on the fourth day it says that the sun will rule the day. The diurnal cycle already existed at least in name, but control was now shifted to the solar system.
I am an orthodox Jew.
I would also like to say that I think creationism is fairly silly.
Then you are not Orthodox. Acting Orthodox, perhaps.
Orthodoxy is generally defined as keeping the Sabbath. Why? Because G-d said the Sabbath is a sign that the world was created in six days, and He rested on the seventh. If someone does not keep the Sabbath, he is saying that he disagrees with the belief.
If you do not believe the story, you are short-circuiting this idea, and going strsight to the issue. So, if you do not believe it, you are not Orthodox.
The old testiment is a jewish text and the jews don't take it literally.
Um, yes they do. They have an oral tradition and a specific methodology of understanding it, but the Bible itself is literal.
The early Jewish Rabbis and the early Church Fathers deployed similar philological tools; their Biblical interpretations stressed allegorical readings, frequently at the expense of the texts' literal meaning.
The Talmud states clearly that a verse cannot normally leave its simple meaning "ayn mikra yotzei midei p'shuto".
'It's a battle for eyeballs,'
Isn't that what the cromags do?
Send a message? That's old stuff, my priest did that last year when he sent a message back to the Elders so they would ssend him a message via the Tree of Cadence.
Call it "science" and it is cool, and everyone is interesting even in the fringe. Call it religion, and it is immediately dismissed as nonsense.
GooTube?
TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1.
"freakin"?
:(
My word, where have we fallen.
Even if we did fid oil there, it would be a pittance compared to world demand at this point.
Being speculations vary widely as to how much is there, it cannot be called a "pittance". One thing is for sure, it would take a while to get the stuff out, at least over thirty years, slowly but surely.
There is enough to help supply us with oil, not everything, but a significant amount. And, ANWAR is not the only banned area.
But as expansion into Africa is proving, for better or worse, the ME and the frozen north are not the only places where oil can be found.
Alaska is not the only area banned.
Very little new oil is being found
Correction. Very little of the new oil that has been found is being allowed to be drilled for.
You think conservatives are big oil? The liberals ban oil exploration and than claim a shortage. Methinks the liberals must have lots of oil stock.
Otherwise, make a list of planned improvements, and keep it to yourself. Add to it weekly, or even daily. Then, once or twice a year, implement it all at once.
Bad idea. That will alienate even more people.
A better idea would be to be very open about changes, but takes a few months to implement them. During the first month it should just be a topic to talk about, and see what the feedback is. If it is rejected, drop it (and perhaps come back with a modified form a couple months later), if people want it, they'll adopt it themselves, if people accept it, but are wary to implement it, start voluntary implementation in the second month, and let people fit in over one or two months. Then, help the stragglers by *slowly* putting the pressure on them, making it more difficult not to comply.
Easy come, easy go, works with changes. Changes adopted slowly are more likely to stay, but then work with the employees to implement it.
What happens when it's 7:55 and the component I'm working on is nowhere ready for compiling?
Considering 7:55 is well after the end of a workday, the person had a few hours to fix the problem. And if this happens once or twice a year, the OP said its ignored. If this happens weekly, it does point to problem with the coder.
The obvious third option -- run the compile but use yesterday's working version of my component instead of my currently-broken one -- seems to be absent.
If it is a new component, this does not help. Though, to work with this system, i'd first create a stub that just accepts input, and gives standard output. After that works, start putting in the logic. If the logic is not ready on time, comment it out. If the logic is too weildy, it should probably be in a separate function anyway, and the coder needs to learn a better coding style.
If it is an old component, the old component is already submitted, so there's be no reason to change it.
What Math Courses Should We Teach CS Students?
None. They arein CS, not math.
I really despise things like this.
Programing is art. I've heard so much about standardization, and i see zero benefits. I challenged our arcane non-vowelized database table naming conventions, and was told that's it's easier when everyone uses the same names. Umm, no. There are two reasons this fails miserably. One, it takes time to learn the standard, which noone remembers anyway without working with it for years. Two, the names are incongruous with coding style, and a second programmers will have that much harder of a time getting the "feel" for the design.
I say let each coder do his thing the way he wants to do it, and just demand consistency within his own code.
I remember being forced to meet one standard that i despised. So, i coded my own way and right before submission, i mangled the code to match the standards. I can't imagine it helped, being i was the one to maintain it.
Further, who are the standards for? The maintenance coder? The maintenance coder spends *far* less time on any code than the original coder. And, in most cases, the orginal coder *is* the maintenance coder. Why not let the coder do it his own way, and the maintenance coder, should it happen to be someone else, will spend five minutes learning the new style? Really, it isn't that big of a deal.
This whole thing of standards makes no sense to me. It's not like network interoperability from different vendors, or language barriers that require a known standard. This is people doing their own thing, and willing to help each other to get it done, so why not let them coder in their favorite style?
I don't think you know what "moniker" means.
I was being polite.
It's amazing how many monikers this "debunker uses". "cock-a-hoop", "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish." And while the original article mentioned sources and showed the numbers he was talking about, this article just keeps saying how the first was incorrect, and how others have proven this or disproven that. However, the details are not found there.
This is just pandering to those who want thim to respond. But there's really nothing to see here if you don't like name calling.
and yet here we have another step towards it.
Even if it costs the shirt off our backs.
Actually the Republican party is run by )(%#*#)%(%#(* and he doesn't mind one bit if people find out.
It matters on the noise.
If the noise is some idiot who meanders his way in, a baseball bat is the way to cancel it.
how many of the "average person" will just be lazy instead of trying to make things better for their children, or society as a whole.
Nope. Nearly everyone wants to help. The first and foremost thing is, however, is ti really a problem.
Regardless of what the self-appointed prophets of doom think, not everyone believes there is a problem. Whether there is or is not a problem is absolutely irrelevant. The question is, do peope think there is a problem.
There are plenty of reasons people reject the claims of a worse tomorrow. That has to do with communication of the message, religous beliefs, faith in technology, and so on. But it has nearly nothing to do with people being lazy.
All you have to do is drive through a residential neighborhood and see how many homes didn't put their recycle bins out... ever.
How do you know if they do it ever? How about those people who have a simple system they've had for years, and simply use the bin once in a while. Or the people that never buy plastic in the first place.
Or the ones that look at their trash container being full, and dump regular trash in with their recycling, saying "What does it hurt?"
They are entitled to their opinion.
The bottom line is that most people are inherently lazy. And unless their house needed repainting, or their sidewalk/driveway needed to be repaved, they won't do it. Even parents with kids that have asthma. Some will, but most won't.
You are a self-righteous jerk. Why are your beliefs better than everyone else's? Why is it that if people don't do what you think they should do, they are "lazy"? Why did you have to throw in an insult that even parents of kids that have asthma won't help?
Personally, i refuse to recycle because of jerks like you. I don't believe in all the doom and gloom, but if other people want to recycle because that's their thing, i have no problem. And i;m even willing to help. However, as soon as my city made an ordinance that one must recycle, i simply refuse to recycle. I'll walk the extra mile to use a garbage can instead of a recycling bin. Why? Because of jerks like you that force your personal beliefs on others. You even look down on others for not believing what you believe.
You don't have to believe what others believe. You don't even have to respect what they believe. However, you should respect they're inherent right to believe anything, even if it is wrong.