|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 8, 2005 13:16:50 GMT 1
I'm enjoying this debate and actually this is very topical with debates in the news at the moment.
The Torah was given to humans as a law for humans, and therefore is within our grasp. I'll have to look up the quote in Deuteronomy where Moses quotes that the law is not far away, it is right here and you cannot claim that as an excuse.
Later prophets also rebuked inappropriate behaviour and promoted behaviour that was more based upon looking after ones fellow man than about rituals. In fact Isaiah was very quick to rebuke the nation for placing too much emphasis on rituals (animal sacrifices, at the time).
Where the Old Testament can be difficult to understand is the seeming emphasis on idolatory as the primary evil. Idolatory is considered the root of evil because it makes a new god which is the creation of man, and therefore allows man to redefine law to suit himself.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 8, 2005 13:35:46 GMT 1
There's nothing I love better than a good debate!
I have no problems getting to grips with the idea of idolatry, but I don't really think you can relate that to the Reform and Liberal movements of Judaism. Torah doesn't end with the close of the 5 Books of Moses, it is a living thing and must continue to this day. Any re-interpretation is part of that living revelation and shouldn't be judged negatively as a result. One look at the Catholic Church gives us an example that sometimes staying within tradition is not always a positive thing.
I think it's a wonderful thing that you believe as you do, and I have a great respect for people who observe their religion so faithfully with love for God. What I object to are those who do it for habit's sake only, and try to force it upon others. I've seen it too close for comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 8, 2005 14:45:36 GMT 1
That seems to be the usual excuse. We now have modern technology etc. but if you ask people in what aspect they think religion is dated then pretty much every generation will say in its laws of sexual morality, and they have been saying the same things long before we had cars and computers.
I can't answer for Catholicism but I will take Henry VIII and C of E as a typical example of someone who wanted to break with his allegiance to the Pope basically so he could have more power and do what he wanted to do. The consequence (and some Catholics might say it was divine punishment) was centuries of fighting and dispute between Protestants and Catholics (in some ways still going on now) and after divorcing his first wife he then subsequently had two of them beheaded. But anyway, it was clearly for selfish reasons that he decided to break away and that the laws were dated.
There are others in the world though who have remained true to Catholicism, eg in Italy - now in what way is that not positive?
If you object to those who just perform rituals out of habit, you are not the first. Isaiah rebuked the nation for just that reason (as mentioned above). And I never have tried to force anyone to observe them, just to accept that they are still valid. However, keeping them helps me remember what I am, and what it all stands for.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 8, 2005 15:19:59 GMT 1
I don't think it's an excuse though. I think the issue we will never agree on is that for you, the holy books are truly "divine" whereas I think they are "divinely inspired", which leads us to interpret them differently.
In terms of Catholicism, the AIDS crisis in Africa has been brought about, in part, because of the Catholic Church's continued proclamations that Catholics must not use condoms. Africa has the highest Catholic growth in the world so effectively the Pope has procured a death sentence on millions because of religious law. I cannot see how that can be a positive thing.
With regards to the Reformation of Christianity, England was a long way behind the rest of Europe. I agree that Henry 8th chose to reform the Church for his own selfish reasons, but there were many out there who wished to break with the Catholic Church for the reason that they strongly disagreed with the Pope's infallibility and the transubstantiation (the idea that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Christ upon being eaten- which is what the Catholics believe).
My own belief is that no man on earth can judge another's actions, since it is not our place, and that when the day comes we must all stand up and be counted. That day we will find out if we have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 8, 2005 15:39:44 GMT 1
Indeed, we will all be judged, and the issues that some may consider to be more important may turn out to be less important on the big day of judgment, while other issues may be considered more important.
You cannot blame the Pope for AIDS in Africa. Catholicism (and probably most other forms of Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam) condone sexual activity only within marriage, and in fact of all of those Catholicism does not accept divorce, so a true Catholic would only ever have one sexual partner during their lifetime. Thus AIDS could never spread in this manner.
There are other ways that AIDS can spread, for example blood transfusions and even blood transferred on medical equipment and perhaps it's therefore been caused in many ways by poverty (if our own hospitals are below hygiene standards imagine what they are like there). In addition, I don't know how well they can isolate HIV there.
They were supposed to be meeting at G8 to discuss ending poverty in Africa, but with the bombings, there wasn't much in the news about G8 so I don't know what exactly they are planning to do.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 8, 2005 15:56:54 GMT 1
I am not blaming the Pope for AIDS in Africa, but I would count him as a conspirator in allowing it to continue. AIDS is here now and one of the best ways to halt its rampage through Africa would be to educate men and women properly about sexual practise and contraception, yet the Pope tells them that this is immoral, so it continues and the crisis becomes worse, not better. You talk of an ideal situation but you and I both know that the world is far from ideal. It would be better to be realistic about it, instead of burying our heads in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 8, 2005 17:32:36 GMT 1
Are you referring to intercourse and contraception within marriage (where both partners have HIV) thus preventing any children being born with the disease, or are you referring to intercourse outside of marriage (particularly where one partner has HIV and may transmit it to the other, in addition to any children they may have from the union)?
Clearly the Pope does not condone the latter.
Better education would be a good thing, but will they take any notice? Do they listen to the pope now with regards to intercourse outside of marriage? And if so, why do they listen on one aspect (not using condoms) and not another? I don't think condoms are actually outlawed there are they?
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 9, 2005 10:04:10 GMT 1
In both those scenarios you have cited, the Pope would condemn the use of contraception (condoms aren't banned but they are considered taboo). It simply is not allowed, and obviously the second scenario is not allowed at all. However, as I said before we do not live in the ideal world where people follow the rules to the letter. As well as this, Christianity (and particularly Catholicism) is built on the idea that faith is more important that action, and that you will be forgiven your sins if you repent. So the good Catholic goes to church, confesses their sins and is absolved to do it all over again. There's no responsibility involved, which is why people continue to live "sinfully" and aren't motivated to change.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 9, 2005 16:35:19 GMT 1
In Judaism we also have a concept of repentance, but if you sin thinking all you have to do is fast on Yom Kippur and get atonement, (in the old days of the temple you may also be required to bring an animal sacrifice) and then go on sinning again afterwards, your repentance is not taken seriously (you can't fool G-d after all) and is futile.
Only sins against G-d can be forgiven by G-d. Since against other humans must be forgiven by them. The word usually used for a sin is "Chet" which implies an "error". Generally implies that you did not really want to sin but were overcome by temptation. Maybe "led astray..."
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 9, 2005 16:48:17 GMT 1
I am aware of the differences in attitude towards sin and faith. I have always struggled with the Christian ideal that as long as one says sorry you can pretty much get away with murder. I cannot justify that idea, since I place importance on quantifying one's beliefs through action. As you say, you can't fool God. I also have never believed that we are born inherently wicked, nor do I subscribe to the Muslim ideal that we are inherently good either. We all make the choice, which we shall have to answer for.
To actually ask you a question for a change (!), how do you differentiate between a sin against a person and a sin against God? For instance, if my actions deliberately caused pain to another person, I would consider that a sin against the person AND God, since any pain I would have caused that person I would also have caused God.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 9, 2005 17:38:55 GMT 1
You are correct there. A sin against another human is a sin against G-d too. Perhaps that is why you are supposed to get forgiveness from your fellow before the end of Yom Kippur, so that you can subsequently get a full atonement for the same sins from G-d too.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 10, 2005 9:31:08 GMT 1
That makes sense.
I think you've exhausted me- I can't think of any more questions (which is rare)! Thanks for discussing with me EP, I really enjoy debating things but hardly ever get the chance!
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 10, 2005 9:53:38 GMT 1
I enjoyed the debate too. Maybe I should find your topic and ask you questions.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 10, 2005 9:55:20 GMT 1
Feel free!
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 23, 2005 11:29:08 GMT 1
Neil- what makes a cake treif? In the ingredients, is it solely the animal fat or does the flour have to be kosher as well?
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 23, 2005 12:04:50 GMT 1
Ok, let's continue.
Flour cannot be non-kosher (except on passover), however it can be forbidden if it comes from Israel and Terumah and Maaser has not be separated (these are the portions that have to be separated for the priests and the descendents of Levi).
If you make a large portion of dough, a further separation has to be made, known as "challah". Kosher bakers make this separation. At home, it is not that common to make such a large amount in one go.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 23, 2005 12:32:01 GMT 1
Ahh thanks for that. So am I right in thinking that it would be the animal fat that would make a cake treif if the other conditions had been fulfilled? The animal fat would have to come from a kosher animal, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 23, 2005 12:38:31 GMT 1
No, it makes no difference where the animal fat comes from.
Butter does not count as animal fat even though it originates from a cow. I'm referring to fat of dead animals.
|
|
|
Post by thepennydrops on Aug 23, 2005 13:33:18 GMT 1
So you can use butter but not lard. And sunflower oil would be ok.
But obviously it has to be prepared in a kosher kitchen. Why would a Jew have to turn the oven on? Would a Jew have to put the cake in the oven as well?
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Aug 23, 2005 14:53:45 GMT 1
I don't know why exactly it is turning the oven on, but it comes from a rule that we should not eat bread or cake made by non-Jews. A Jew turning on the oven is sufficient enough. I assume if a non-Jew turned the oven on and a Jew put the cake in it, that would certainly suffice, the other way round is just the minimum.
And yes, it should be prepared in a kosher kitchen.
Putting butter in or any dairy ingredients would mean you couldn't eat the cake with a meat meal (not even as dessert, or even within a few hours of eating the meat meal).
|
|