Total posts: 905
-->
@Shila
now you are stealing from cgg.org in order to say something irrelevant? Interesting choice, for a bot.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You keep saying the same things over and over. Your statements are disconnected and illogical. Jews have been protected by God which is why we are still here. And am I only here because of American weapons? Only in the sense that my next door neighbor (not Jewish) is only here because of American weapons. You make no sense.
Your programming isn't good.
Created:
-->
@Shila
That's funny. It just confirms what I said. I do enjoy the claim of "replaced" because it ignores that Jews are still here, I replaced.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Jesus has everything to do with Judaism becoming a shrinking religion by making Christianity a replacement.
Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism. The invention of Christianity has had an effect on Judaism's continued existence and, to a small degree, on Judaism, itself as a religion. Is there anything you actually DO know bot?
Created:
-->
@Shila
so, still not reading, still repeating the same paragraphs and now you added another irrelevance -- " The Jews had a lot to do with Jesus. "
My statement was that Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Not true!!!Judaism shaped Jesus. Jesus was a Jew who followed Judaism. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible.
you don't read well, do you. You are explaining that Judaism had a lot to do with Jesus. That may be but who cares?
I said that Jesus was nothing to do with Judaism. Stay focused.
Created:
-->
@Shila
so more repetition of the same paragraphs and the same irrelevant information. Bot, it is.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If it is the truth what does it matter who said it first.
sure it does. Intellectual honesty demands giving credit. Are you against intellectual honesty?
The Jews were repeatedly punished throughout their history by God and their neighbours.
well, by God. Sometimes he uses the neighbors to exact the punishment, but it comes from God.
There are a lot of dos and don'ts in the 613 commandments. But I could not find any commandment that tells Jews to be 'likeable'.
there are laws about how to treat each other properly and pursue justice for all while being merciful. There are laws about how to act honest in business, about how to speak with others nicely and how to treat others as we would want to be treated. If you are looking for a law that says "bake a cake" or "you should smile more" no, you won't find that. But you will find extensive laws about proper and positive behavior. i guess you don't find that likable.
With 3000 years of persecution, expulsion and antisemitism, one would think a commandment to be 'likeable' might have help Jews overcome the burden of 613 commandments that still left them undeserving of proper recognition throughout their history.
Jews aren't looking for "proper recognition." Existence isn't a popularity contest.
I don't mean to be disparaging. But would adding one more commandment to be likeable to the existing 613 be so difficult?
ask God.
Would adding that same commandment to be likeable have saved Jesus who was a Jew and stopped at the 613 commandments? Why didn't Jesus add the commandment to be likeable himself?
who cares. Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Plagiarising from multiple sources material which isn't relevant. Yup. Sounds like a bot.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Are you really that ignorant of the Bible and history? You disprove yourself both within messages and between them. You keep reposting the same material. I'm beginning to think that you are a bot, or whatever the stupid version of a bot is.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Arabs own land 400 times the size of Israel. They control 2/3 the world’s oil reserves. There are 1.9 billion Muslims compared to 14 million Jews. God blessed the descendants of Ishmael who was circumcised.
ok, so what?
The Jews now have to resort to stealing land from the Palestinians. The covenant of circumcision can only take the Jews so far only to be overtaken by the Muslims.
that's where your knowledge of reality fails completely. You are also ignoring that the text promises the land to the Jews. Why don't you see Israel's existance and growth as fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
Oh yeah, because that doesn't fit your narrative or play to your ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So much to look forward to!
And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries into which I have driven them, and will bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. (Jer 23:3)
Matthew 27:25 And all the people yelled back, “We will take responsibility for his death—we and our children!”
ok, more useless gospel stuff...
Exodus 34:7 says that God “[visits] the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
and yet it also says "Fathers shall not be put to death for children, neither shall children be put to death for fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
One way or another rules is oppression.
so, no speed limits for you then I guess.
And man makes rules to oppress his fellow man.
actually, man makes rules to create a society in which people can coexist. At least that's how it is supposed to work. Parents make rules to keep children safe (at least that's how it is supposed to work).
And I don't need to prove that there isn't a GOD, because currently there isn't one.
I specifically didn't ask you to prove that. But saying you don't "need to" because it is already something you know is problematic. You don't need to prove it because it is so, and it is so so you don't need to prove it. That may work for you, but it seems rather self fulfilling to me. Mathematicicans create "proofs" to explain what is and is not. 2+2=4 and yet it still is subject to proof (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/842314/prove-that-22-4).
You stated that "God commanded", which is therefore incorrect.
I stated it because I understand it as truth and fact. I have a hard time proving that my great great great (plus a few) grandafather existed (I have no pictures or documents) but I abide by statements that he made. You can choose to say that my great great (etc) grandfather didn't exist if you want. I believe he did.
So I know, that what you think you know and what you actually know are two different things.
What I know and what you decide I know are two very different things.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Arabs own land 400 times the size of Israel. They control 2/3 the world’s oil reserves. There are 1.9 billion Muslims compared to 14 million Jews. God blessed the descendants of Ishmael who was circumcised.Genesis 17:20And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
um, so? All you have done is demonstrated that the biblical prophecy is accurate. Therefore, you should also believe that all the other biblical prophecies are accurate, right? All the things about the Jews being as numerous as the stars in the sky, and the Jews reclaiming their homeland and all that stuff, right?
Deut 30
1When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, 3then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you. 4Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back. 5The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.
I'm glad your faith system validates the biblical prophecies. So much to look forward to!
Created:
-->
@Shila
If the Jews were loyal to their God, why didn’t their God preserve them from their neighbours? Was it because the Jews only observed dietary restrictions and circumcision that left them helpless. Today they rely on American weapons which is why they are still around.
God did which is why there are still Jews here and there. You keep ignoring the most obvious "why" answer -- the one the text attests to: idolatry.
Seriously, you are getting your stupidity mixed into your hate and it is just making you look worse and worse.
Created:
-->
@Shila
God stopped sending prophets to save the Jews because the Jews were famous for disposing off their prophets. According to the Bible Malachi was the last prophet sent some 450 years before Jesus. So what did the Jews rely on to preserve their knowledge of God? It goes back to dieting and observing circumcision. These two aspects of Judaism is well preserved and observed.
so when confronted with facts that refute your point you ignore them and just move on to something else, huh?
The Jews were not "famous" for anything of the sort and I just went through the meager examples you presented and showed you why. But better to ignore it if it doesn't feed your narrative, I guess.
And the cessation of prophecy (about 320 before the common era, not 450) had no effect on Jews' preserving their knowledge of God. They had both written texts and orally transmitted laws. They practiced their religion well beyond "dieting" and circumcision. Do you even have a point to make or are you just a rnadomly firing shotgun, hoping that one pellet will land?
Created:
-->
@Shila
The only time in Jewish history of mass persecution of God’s Prophets occurred was in the lifetime of Prophet Elijah (I Kings 19:14) who told God: “I have been very jealous for the LORD; for [many of] the children of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and slain your prophets with the sword; and I, only I am left; and they seek to take my life away.”
So this shows that you haven't read the text. A chapter earlier, the text says that Jezebel killed the Jewish prophets but that 100 (and Elijah) were saved. When Elijah said he was the only one left, he was saying that he feared for the well being of the 100 in hiding. But then why does Elijah say the people killed prophets when the text says otherwise? Because the people, by embracing idolatry and shunning their own prophets abandoned God and his protection so Jezebel had their support when SHE killed the prophets. So you have no actual textual witness that the people did any killing.
And of course there was the actual example in the Gospels of the Jewish King Herod as a Prophet killer. The Herodians had already done away with Jesus’ cousin Prophet John when he criticized their personal family affairs (Mark 6:17-29). Now “King Herod heard [reports about Jesus’ healing and teaching] for Jesus’ name had become [well] known. Some were saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers work in him [Jesus].” But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has returned to life.” (Mark 6:14-16)
Gospels? So, useless. And "Jewish" king? You just don't get it...https://aish.com/herods-complicated-relationship-with-judaism/
There are two narratives in the Hebrew Bible that relate how a Jewish king killed a specific prophet: The first is in 2 Chronicles and involves Zechariah son of Jehoiada the high priest who lived in the days of King Joash of Judah (ruled 835-796): “The spirit of God then invested Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood up before the people and said, ‘God says this, “Why transgress God’s commands to your certain ruin? For if you abandon God, he will abandon you.” They then plotted against him and, at the king’s order, stoned him in the courtyard of the Temple of God.” (2 Chronicles 24:20-21).
In this narrative, Yoash, a king who was an idolater killed a prophet (verse 22 -- a verse earlier, some people, under the king's command, threw rocks at the prophet but the king killed him. The people didn't. And in return, the country was invaded and the king was killed.
The second narrative appears in the Book of Prophet Jeremiah, during the reign of King Jehoiakim (ruled 609-598): “There was another man, who used to prophesy in God’s name, Uriah son of Shemaiah, from Kiriath-Jearim. He prophesied exactly the same things against this city and this country as Jeremiah. When King Jehoiakim with all his officers and all the chief men heard what he said, the king decided to put him to death. “On hearing this, Uriah took flight and escaped to Egypt. King Jehoiakim, however, sent Elnathan son of Achbor to Egypt with others, who brought Uriah back from Egypt and took him to King Jehoiakim, who had him put to the sword and his body thrown into the common burial ground.” (Jeremiah 26:20- 23).
So there were two prophets who said unpopular prophecies. One was killed while the other was protected. But killed by whom? Three named individuals took Uriah from Egypt and the KING (not the people) had him killed. And what was the result? Check the next chapter and a little history, including Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chapter 6, part 3.
So your claim remains unsubstantiated. Kings who worshipped idolatry killed prophets. And they and the nation that worshipped idols were punished.
See how great learning is? It points out what you don't really know and gives you an opportunity to change your position when faced with more facts.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Who said anything about justifying anything? Why don't you go back through the Jewish bible and make a list of all the prophets who were killed. Then look to see who killd each one and what the consequences were.
See, that would be called "learning" and you should look into it.
Created:
-->
@Shila
God commanded the Jews to follow 613 commandments. But the Jews killed God’s messengers (prophets) before they became laws.Matthew 23:3737 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
everytime I think you have hit rock bottom you find a shovel and dig lower.
1. The laws were the laws before the prophets existed
2. why would you quote the gospels to someone who doesn't see them as authoritative or useful?
for a start ;)
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Look.Before people come out with tosh, like GOD restricted diet and commanded circumcision.They really need to prove unequivocally, that a GOD exists.
no, they don't. Following God is a function of belief in God. I can't prove God to you or anyone else, nor would I try to. But I live my life which posits God at the center and his rules and laws hold sway over me. Why do I need to prove anything in order to justify my beliefs which control my actions?
As far as we know, men restricted diets and men command circumcision.
as far as you "know." I "know" otherwise because my knowledge base is foundationally built on a different set of understandings of the world.
Just like some perverse men still command circumcision, and some stupid people still restrict diet for ideological reasons.Which is of course not to say that some people should restrict their diets for size and health related reasons.
I have not asked anyone here (or elsewhere) to prove that God doesn't exist - to me, that's as dumb as asking someone to prove that God does exist. I haven't asked anyone to accept my beliefs as his or her reality. You don't accept (or seem to like) religious rules. OK. You do you.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Those are some of the basic laws (with only a few errors) which God commanded. So? And your logical conclusion about why those are laws is possibly the dumbest thing I will see online today. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Jews put more restriction on their diet (what they could and could not eat) than they put on their circumcised penis. The Muslims improved on this concept to avoid a similar fate.
what are you talking about? God put the restrictions on diet and God commanded the circumcision. Is there anything you actually know?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Paul took a more relaxed approach to ancient Jewish laws which only prioritized food and circumcision. It was a slap in the face for Jewish tradition, but it was also the central reason for the rapid spread of Christianity.
how is that even remotely relevant?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Out of the 613 commandments (mitzvot in Hebrew). The best the Jews could honour was circumcision, the shedding of the foreskin. According to the covenant, God would offer protection and land to Abraham and his descendants, but they must follow the path of God. God then commanded Abraham and his future generations to perform the ritual of circumcision (brit milah) as a symbol of the covenant.
"The best the Jews could honour"?
What does that even mean. Jews follow a whole lot more commandments than that. You really have no idea what you are saying. Now I know why you rely on empty cut and paste jobs.
It was all symbolic: Reasons for biblical circumcision include to show off "patrilineal descent, sexual fertility, male initiation, cleansing of birth impurity, and dedication to God".
You have yet to show any proof that these are biblical reasons. Also, your claim that this is symbolic lacks any support at all. See, when pressed, you show that you don't know how to think on your own.
The Jews were ordered by God to follow 613 additional commandments to further improve their condition. The Jews were only successful in observing circumcision as history has proven. Even here they have been overtaken by Muslim in number performing Circumcision.
Actually, Jews were ordered to follow a variety of other commandments (the number 613 is debated as is the category called "commandments"). Saying Jews were only "successful" in observing one means you don't know anything about Judaism. Are you saying that I didn't pray this morning? Are you saying that I don't keep the sabbath or abide by dietary laws?
Maybe take a deep breath and decide if you really want to keep restating the same errors or maybe want to learn and grow as a person. Let me know what you decide.
Created:
The best the Jews could offer God was the removal of their foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant.
why do you say that this is the "best the Jews could offer"? This was a commandment from God. If you don't like what God asks for, talk to God.
Reasons for biblical circumcision include to show off "patrilineal descent, sexual fertility, male initiation, cleansing of birth impurity, and dedication to God".
can you show me how circumcision shows off each of those things biblically? Betcha can't.
God was not tricked by this offer
tricked? He commanded it. See, if you begin with stupid, you end up with stupid. And, man, did you begin with stupid.
because the Muslims multiplied the offer by several thousand times. Killing of Muslims is the only way to reduce the number of foreskins offered by Muslims to maintain a competitive edge.
That is silly and I'm sure you know it. Or maybe you don't and you really think that there is some sort of bizarre foreskin competition going on in heaven. Either way, it is a stupid statement to make and yet you made it.
Throughout their history the Jews thwarted every effort to make peace with their neighbours and even ignored the warnings of prophets. This can be seen in their treatment of Palestinian people.“Killing the peace: Israel assassinates chief negotiator across the tableIsrael’s killing of Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh was designed not just to eliminate the top Palestinian negotiator in ceasefire talks but also the man most capable of unifying the disparate Palestinian factions in Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad.”UN-backed commission says Israel committed 'war crimes, crimes against humanity' in Gaza since Oct. 7Commission urges Israel to immediately stop its military operations and attacks in Gaza, including Rafah, calling for implementation of ICJ decisions
oh look, back to unattributed cutting and pasting.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The topic is understanding why Jews tried to trick God?
well, the claim is that Jews do try to trick God but, as has been shown, the claims about Judaism are wrong.
Throughout their history the Jews thwarted every effort to make peace with their neighbours and even ignored the warnings of prophets. This can be seen in their treatment of Palestinian people.
So you somehow forget that Israel is not synonymous with Jews (or are you one of those who equates the two and therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism). You also know very little about the treatment of any people in the mideast and you just rely on other people's opinions.
“Killing the peace: Israel assassinates chief negotiator across the tableIsrael’s killing of Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh was designed not just to eliminate the top Palestinian negotiator in ceasefire talks but also the man most capable of unifying the disparate Palestinian factions in Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad.”UN-backed commission says Israel committed 'war crimes, crimes against humanity' in Gaza since Oct. 7Commission urges Israel to immediately stop its military operations and attacks in Gaza, including Rafah, calling for implementation of ICJ decisions
Just other people's opinions. Got it.
Created:
-->
@Shila
First, attribution is about intellectual integrity. Second, what you copied is opinion not fact so it's truth value cannot be assessed. Third, how is dumping a quote about Israel relevant in any current discussion?
Created:
-->
@Shila
I'm happy to see that you have mastered the skill of cutting and pasting without attribution. Good work!
Created:
-->
@Shila
It is nice that you are familiar with hamas's claims. When you actually start to think for yourself, let me know.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You clearly know nothing of either Judaism or middle east affairs.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
as for the spitting, that is a superstition practiced by a fringe group of Jews and is condemned by the mainstream of Judaism.
Created:
God doesn't understand Aramaic? LOL!
Why would Jews pray for the death of enemies if God wouldn't understand the prayer? And Birchat Ha Minim (you clearly don't know what minim are) is in Hebrew...
Your statements about "sabbath lights" just shows more ignorance.
We could then move on to any discussion you want to have about Christians on the temple mount when Muslims are in charge there.
You really are jealous. After all those years living in poverty and needing a scapegoat to account for your obvious failure, you focus on Jews who represent all that you aren't and don't have.
Carry on -- it is fun to watch you chase your tail.
Created:
Created:
it is fun to watch people jealous of Jews and Judaism invent fantasies to feed their delusions and sense of inferiority.
I hope that people who have any actual questions and recognize the need to learn instead of spewing stupidity will ask questions and create opportunities for intellectual advancement and growth.
Meanwhile, I will just watch insanity from the sidelines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The site you listed for exceptions seems like it is liars. For example they state a health of the mother exception does not list health of the mother but a reading of the bill shows the following phrase
Then you should contact them as you are clearly more expert than they.
I do know it because somebody tried to tell me that abortion bans would prevent life saving treatments and pointed me to an article with abortions banned without exception and then I would click on the link and read the wording of the bills and they would literally list exceptions.
None of that would show that you have any understanding of Jewish law.
I feel like it would be unethical to call it anything other than murder.
Because you are starting with your conclusion. That's a logical error.
If you haven't found anything contradicting, then, no, you didn't read them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you should probably review the variations in the exclusions and laws, state by state, and read why the application of the secular laws is medically difficult
It sounds like bullshit. You have the law of Moses as well and it says though shalt not murder. You know that murdering babies is wrong unless there is a serious health consequence and giving birth being a bit stressful is not the type of health consequence we are discussing.
You don't know the law if that's what you think it says. It is better to accept that you don't know the law and ask questions than to decide that, based on your ignorance, you have an opinion.
Either there is a secret blood libel thing that means you need to do your pilpul to legalize murdering babies here or you actually believe in the God of Abraham and know murder is bad.
No, it isn't a secret. It is a set of laws that is different from the secular ones. You keep trying to load the word "murder" in this to try and make one side look more "good" but that's wrong.
Why not explain to me a case that could potentially fall outside of abortion bans that allow for exceptions due to health complications for the mother or baby as determined by them or their doctor (by the way they can choose a Jewish doctor if they need a more lenient definition of health).
Choosing a Jewish doctor won't make a difference if the doctor has to make judgments based on his professional status. If you don't understand that then that's sad. Read some of the arguments and sources
I don't really get all the pilpul to justify murder
who cares what you get?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The issue is two fold -- first, up til when can the mother's safety be a deciding factor. If the secular law say 6 weeks, but Jewish law says 3 months, there will be a conflict. Second, what is considered a threat to the mother? What about a case of financial impact where the mother's economic future is ruined? Or where there is an issue of mental trauma to worry about? Jewish law has loads of cases but what matters is that Jewish law assesses each one on a case by case basis, applying different subtle interpretations of the law based on investigating specifics of each case. No secular legal policy-line can accommodate that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You are wrong on many levels. I'll get to the bottom line -- the standard for "risk to the mother" that is used by Jewish law and one used by secular law are not in agreement in every case. Therefore, to impose the state definition would impinge upon a Jewish women's obligations to her religion and would then be prohibiting the free exercise of that religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Sin is a Hebrew transliteration. It means missing the target. For example, archers and those using slingshots sinned if they missed. If you are late for work you sin against your employer. If you exceed the speed limit you sin against the government, the law.
Sin is one of the English words used when translating any of a number of different Hebrew words. Trespass, transgression, sin, wrongdoing, crime... all have subtle shades of meaning or at least they might. In the Hebrew there are 4 or 5 words that occur regularly to indicate categories of misdeeds. One of those words is "chet" (with that gutteral ch sound) which is related to the word that means "to miss" as in "the arrow missed the target." This does not mean that any use of that root indicates that category of sin.
The root word is also used in Leviticus to mean something very, very different.
Created:
Posted in:
If you want to say that some sort of worship of a "Satan" character is anything then just call it Christian. Don't drag Judaism into this. In Judaism, Satan is an angel who works for God. There is no notion of Satan's being some opposing force worthy of separate worship.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The two references you are looking for are not to be found in the written text -- they come from the mind of someone who hasn't heard a new joke in 50 or so years so he is injecting old jokes into his posts. The earlier reference is to a Muslim tradition (I guess) so it won't be found in the biblical text, but it gives the writer an opportunity to try to get a rise out of people by using the verb "jew" in a way that some might find offensive and react to. Meh.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
a couple of points -- no, Moses wasn't "Jewish" because that label didn't exist then. Also, the version of a Moses-based story told through teh lens of Islam removes this from being relevant to Judaism. If you wrote about the Islamic stories surrounding Jesus, the topic wouldn't automatically be Christianity.
Created:
why would this be tagged "Judaism" when it has nothing to do with Judaism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
'pointing them out' that's a bit strong. More like saying there is a misconception and then leaving it at that.
OK, I'm pointing them out and saying that to understand a complex concept, one should start by understanding that he doesn't know instead of assuming he does know. It takes Jews years of study to understand to the level that we understand but if someone wants to spout off and show ignorance, I can't provide years of levels of learning. I can simply say "no, that's wrong". People don't like being told they are wrong I guess.
Yea I've heard that one before. That's what they say when you asked how god can be one and three at the same time.
I don't recall ever asking that.
So a 1st century text that speaks of covering during prayer is proof that a different practice existed years earlier? That's a weird contention. Any interesting Greek or Roman sources validate that?
but they are a strong indicator given their origin and the lack of other evidence.
you mean, lack of other evidence that you accept as evidence. The biblical text must not carry any weight.
Created:
Posted in:
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.
I'm not complaining, just pointing them out. If instead of making them, people chose to ask questions and understand that the practices exist in a larger theological context, they would understand that expecting simple answers is foolish.
Har har har, so funny. Look if you don't want to discuss it anymore just stop posting.
I'm having a fun time here. If you don't like the tenor of my posts, stop responding.
I also shouldn't get it from books where people say that if they had married at 14 they would have conquered the evil inclination entirely. Can't always get what you need.
great, then get it from no where and stick with your own state of not knowing.
The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?
Even though it is referenced in the biblical texts? How can it be that a biblical practice is not mentioned in non-Jewish texts? Maybe they are not the final arbiter of what Jewish people did.
Created:
Posted in:
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.
You seem to think it can be explained glibly and concisely to someone who hasn't studied the laws and legal system.
Moving the goalposts. Full context:
no, I corrected exactly what you claimed.
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
I could also have shown you a talmudic statement about covering the head all the time that dates (easily) to 100 years earlier. This was clearly a practice that was known (though often considered minhag chasidut). You can keep thinking it is some later innovation but the texts show your error.
You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?
Is Rabbi Yehoshua a verse? I had no idea.
You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah
You shouldn't get your information from wikipedia.
I think you're confused. You asked a different question about women wearing hair coverings.
You have completely missed the point. You are using the fact that there is no reference in non-Jewish texts to help you conclude that a practice didn't exist. But women covering their hair is another practice -- if it isn't mentioned in non-Jewish texts, you should draw the same conclusion. If you don't, then you are cherry picking when you use ancient, non-Jewish texts to validate the existence of Jewish practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's just a line that you can't cross on shabbot. It's got nothing to do with ownership, lots, use, just "because"?
so then you shouldn't try to invoke ownership. It is only "just because" because you don't happen to understand the complex concept. Instead of accepting that there is stuff you don't know, you insist on labeling it according to your pre-existing scheme.
He died 410 CE.
and if you think that he invented a practice, that's great. Judaism teaches that he was codifying a practice that predates him because that's how the talmud operates.
He is basing himself on the same verse that was quoted right beforehand.
You never explained why Tractate Kiddushin 29b said that it was not a common practice for unmarried men to wear a hat.
I didn't know I was supposed to. That text is talking about a thing called a "sudar" which is a specific type of head covering that was used by married men and sages. It isn't a hat, nor a kippah, but a turban (see Pesachim 111b). So kiddushin doesn't say what you claim it does.
Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"
exactly -- so there is no non-Jewish writing about it, and yet you accept that it was a practice. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.
but there is nothing in the Jewish concept about ownership so the question of "your" house is immaterial.
Well you haven't contradicted him in substance about the eruv line.
the eruv (shituf mevo'ot) exists - what's to contradict. It is a bit more complex than as presented and the problem isn't in the fact that its existence is documented, but in the presentation of it as a trick. It has nothing to do with tricking anyone.
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
Kiddushin 31a
"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."
I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.
what non-Jewish texts do they rely on for that? Where is this attested to by non-Jewish sources from the time in question?
They decide. Today it's just one guys boast. Tomorrow it's recommended. The next day it's required. Then eventually somebody spins some BS that allows the requirement to be bypassed (which was the OP point about eruv lines and water bottles).
that is, indeed, your preconceived opinion based in your worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The forum part of the site is intended to test arguments out for debates or to set up arguments for debates later on.
can you show me that in the documentation for this site? It seems, then, that a whole bunch of the threads here (and therefore, the authors) didn't get that memo.
On the front page, the forum is described as "A classic forum with all familiar features for those who prefer discussions without formats". The Help section on Forums does not support your claim either. In fact, under "Basics" the text reads, "Our forum section provides a space for users to engage in more casual conversations, ask questions, and share their thoughts on a wide range of topics. Users can create their own forum topics and participate in discussions with other members."
Please provide some support for your position on the intentions of this forum. TIA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is a debate site. It isn't for proselytizing or arrogance. Th fact you only stick with one topic and don't even debate that specific topic but instead "clarify" without actually making argumentation but instead just giving a perspective is problematic.
this is a forum on a site that also hosts debates. It isn't a space for debates but for conversation. The fact that you speak about things you don't know and then don't learn about is problematic.
Created: