Don't you love Jesus?

[Umfriend]

Lastly, I don't buy Umf's idea of "genetic memory" between living as farmers (turned slaves) and nomads. There were hundreds of years (the number 600 is in my head but I don't feel like looking it up) between Joseph and Moses. What were your people doing 600 years ago? Could you go back to their way of life in one generation?

Two things:
1 Does this mean that you consider kosher laws in OT as satisfying my challenge (still)?
2. I never claimed genetic memory. What I put forward was the idea that as the jews had lived under different circumstances, at least twice nomadic and one settled, they could have obtained a combination of rites, rules and laws composed of individual rites, rules and laws that were fit better for one existence than the other.

That the notion that rites taken one time long in the past survive far into the future is not unreasonable may be shown by the fowl and milk thing discussed here: apparantly there was a time that fowl and meat was confused easily (by the jews ), hence a rule which is now no longer relevant given the clear label in the shops and the 100% literacy rate of jews survives.

So yes, rules can span 600 years easily as there ussually must be strong reasons to dispose them, not neccessarily to take them.

[schmosef]

[Umfriend]

What? Can't take a joke?


The question remains. Moreover, you might grant me that indeed I did not claim anything near genetic memory. The argument went as follows:

For instance, flew, often deadly, occured more often in communities holding pigs. Nomads did not hold pigs. So when they settled down, might it be they established a link between pigs and flew, based a rule on that link, all the while completely lacking any understanding of the actual causal; connection? (A cynic might say that is why it is presented as displeasing to the lord (what's the word): it can;t be rationally explained").

That would be a potential argument, except that the prohibition against pork came during the nomadic years, NOT during the "settled down" years.[...]

This is not neccesarily true though. The jews had not always been nomadic prior to when they "received" the law, so they may well have had the benefit (as few poeple probably had at that time) of being able to tkae the best of nomadic and settled practices.

The argument therefore was on whether in the history of the jews they may have had the opportunity to compare practices and from aspects of these practices form a rule. In this specific case about pork.

This in contrast for instance with a prohibition on eating pork before anyone even _knew_ what pork was.

[schmosef]

Oh I can take a joke, I'm just getting tired of this debate. You'll recall I said that this new discussion isn't one I'm particularly interested in.

I think that you are over focusing on the pork angle.

There are many more important aspects to Kosher law that, while having obvious benefits today, would have seemed harsh and burdensome in the days before any sort of understanding of disease and bacteria, etc.

Now, Nowhere's recent line has given me an idea to turn the tables around...

Prove God doesn't exist.

[Brian Ellis]

On a long train journey, a rabbi and a Roman priest found themselves seated opposite each other, alone in a compartment. They were both fairly shy people and a little embarrassed to find themselves alone with the "competition".

After about ½ hour, the priest plucked up courage and asked the rabbi, "Tell me, is it true you are forbidden to eat pork?"

"Yes, my religion forbids me to eat meat from unclean animals."

¼ hour passes

"Have you never eaten pork?"

"Well, I must admit I did try a roast pork sandwich once!"

"Did you like it?"

"Well, I hate to say this, but it was delicious."

½ hour passes.

The rabbi hesitantly asks the priest, "Excuse me, but is it true that you cannot have sex with a woman?"

"Yes, I have taken a vow of celibacy, my faith forbids priests to have a sexual relationship with a woman."

¼ hour passes.

"Have you never been in bed with a woman?"

"Well, I must confess that the flesh was stronger than my spirit just once and I did have sex with a beautiful parishioner"

¼ hour passes

The rabbi said, "Better than pork, isn't it?"

Hope this lightens the debate.

[Umfriend]

I used pork as an example. Why can't you eat camel? What is it we know now about Camels that makes it wise not to eat them? Rabbits?

My only point is it kosher law does not meet my challenge. I still do not know whether you agree on that or not. Otherwise, the possible explanation of how it came about is salami to me. The real objection I have is that it has not divulged knowledge or understanding that we could not have had back then but do have now.

It does not say for instance: Boil the porc well cause otherwise you might get ill from very little organisms that you can not see but are really there, trust me.

Again, I do not wish to deabte any of this unless it is still maintained as satisfying the challenge.

I will not accept yours and it is a silly one IMO. I have already admitted that I can not do that and believe it can not be proven. I have note claimed god does not exist. I just do not believe he does. I am not asking you to prove he exists nor to disprove he does not exist.

[schmosef]

On a long train journey, a rabbi and a Roman priest found themselves seated opposite each other, alone in a compartment. They were both fairly shy people and a little embarrassed to find themselves alone with the "competition".

After about ½ hour, the priest plucked up courage and asked the rabbi, "Tell me, is it true you are forbidden to eat pork?"

"Yes, my religion forbids me to eat meat from unclean animals."

¼ hour passes

"Have you never eaten pork?"

"Well, I must admit I did try a roast pork sandwich once!"

"Did you like it?"

"Well, I hate to say this, but it was delicious."

½ hour passes.

The rabbi hesitantly asks the priest, "Excuse me, but is it true that you cannot have sex with a woman?"

"Yes, I have taken a vow of celibacy, my faith forbids priests to have a sexual relationship with a woman."

¼ hour passes.

"Have you never been in bed with a woman?"

"Well, I must confess that the flesh was stronger than my spirit just once and I did have sex with a beautiful parishioner"

¼ hour passes

The rabbi said, "Better than pork, isn't it?"

Hope this lightens the debate.

Thanks Brian!

And oldie but a goodie!

[Gurm]

Yes, because you say that so jokingly.

Sorry, forgot the smiley. I presumed (still do) that we're having fun here.

[Jammrock]

Sorry, forgot the smiley. I presumed (still do) that we're having fun here.

[Fat Tone]

...
Prove God doesn't exist.

From HitchHikers, on the Babel fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

[Jammrock]

From HitchHikers, on the Babel fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

...so then where did the Babelfish come from?

[schmosef]

...so then where did the Babelfish come from?

either you don't get the joke, or you're taking it too far...

[Brian Ellis]

either you don't get the joke, or you're taking it too far...

This thread has gone from the sublime to the cor, blimey. I suggest it ends.

Trying to prove scientifically that God exists is like trying to prove theologically that the atom exists. You cannot....

[schmosef]

This thread has gone from the sublime to the cor, blimey. I suggest it ends.

Trying to prove scientifically that God exists is like trying to prove theologically that the atom exists. You cannot....

What does "to the cor" mean? I'm not sure if it's an insult or a compliment. I suspect the former (I'm reserving the right to report the post to a Mod for violating the rules ).

While I most certainly agree that trying to prove the existence of God, scientifically or otherwise, is a fool’s errand, I don't know why so many people are so preoccupied with posting their belief that this thread should end.

If you don't want it to continue, stop posting.

[ZokesPro]

This thread has gone from the sublime to the cor, blimey. I suggest it ends.

Trying to prove scientifically that God exists is like trying to prove theologically that the atom exists. You cannot....

That makes sense. Imagine a child born into a world without religion...