"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
>> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
>> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
>> > Jesus negated all of it.
>
>> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
>> to obey.
>
> Old testament commandments are
>
> 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
> do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,

Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according to
the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people who
pick up sticks on Saturday.

> 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
> your ****, avoid people with running sores.

Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...

> 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
> foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
> crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
> natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
> crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
> dirty - but that is it.
>
> 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
> the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
> people who might influence you with their way of life.
>
> Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
> bit careless about two.



Karl Johanson

"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote
> Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:8v2aj.4614$Tx.3727@pd7urf3no...
>> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
>> >> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
>> >> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
>> >> > Jesus negated all of it.
>> >
>> >> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
>> >> to obey.
>> >
>> > Old testament commandments are
>> >
>> > 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
>> > do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,
>>
>> Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according to
>> the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people who
>> pick up sticks on Saturday.
>>
>> > 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
>> > your ****, avoid people with running sores.
>>
>> Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...
>>
>> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
>> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
>> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
>> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
>> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
>> > dirty - but that is it.
>> >
>> > 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
>> > the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
>> > people who might influence you with their way of life.
>> >
>> > Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
>> > bit careless about two.
>
> Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted foods was the most
> sensible of the lot, the reason to avoid pork is not that pigs are
> 'dirty'
> but because they share a great many diseases with humans and they are
> easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked pork. Cows don't
> share as
> many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks 'rare'. Seperating
> dairy
> and meat products is rather sensible,

You should keep your dairy & meat in your cold storage area. If you can
only afford one such area, it makes perfect sense to store them both
together. Weather it's a fridge or a root cellar or an ice box.

> in fact, so sensible that it is
> standard practice in any commercial food storage or preperation area.

Maybe in some cases. Lots of food prep areas have them in the same area.

Karl Johanson

In article <1198128375.80679.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>,
"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:

> > >> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
> > >> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
> > >> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
> > >> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
> > >> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
> > >> > dirty - but that is it.

And the cure for leprosy!!!!

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:11:13 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com>
wrote:

>In article <1198128375.80679.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>,
> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
>> > >> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
>> > >> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
>> > >> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
>> > >> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
>> > >> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
>> > >> > dirty - but that is it.
>
>And the cure for leprosy!!!!

"Ex-Leper: Half a dinare for me bloody life story?
Jesus: There's no pleasing some people.
Ex-Leper: That's just what you said, sir.
Ex-Leper: Okay, sir, my final offer: half a shekel for an old
ex-leper?
Jesus: Did you say "ex-leper"?
Ex-Leper: That's right, sir, 16 years behind a veil and proud of it,
sir.
Jesus: Well, what happened?
Ex-Leper: Oh, cured, sir.
Jesus: Cured?
Ex-Leper: Yes sir, bloody miracle, sir. Bless you!
Jesus: Who cured you?
Ex-Leper: You did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business,
all of a sudden, up you comes and cures me!
One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone.
Not so much as a by-your-leave! "You're cured, mate."
Bloody do-gooder."

"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
news:1198128375.80679.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>
> Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:vFjaj.21175$Tx.16005@pd7urf3no...
>> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote
>> > Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:8v2aj.4614$Tx.3727@pd7urf3no...
>> >> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
>> >> >> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
>> >> >> > Jesus negated all of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
>> >> >> to obey.
>> >> >
>> >> > Old testament commandments are
>> >> >
>> >> > 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
>> >> > do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,
>> >>
>> >> Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according
>> >> to
>> >> the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people
>> >> who
>> >> pick up sticks on Saturday.
>> >>
>> >> > 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
>> >> > your ****, avoid people with running sores.
>> >>
>> >> Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...
>> >>
>> >> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
>> >> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
>> >> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
>> >> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
>> >> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
>> >> > dirty - but that is it.
>> >> >
>> >> > 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
>> >> > the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
>> >> > people who might influence you with their way of life.
>> >> >
>> >> > Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
>> >> > bit careless about two.
>> >
>> > Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted foods was the
>> > most
>> > sensible of the lot, the reason to avoid pork is not that pigs are
>> > 'dirty'
>> > but because they share a great many diseases with humans and they
>> > are
>> > easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked pork. Cows don't
>> > share as
>> > many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks 'rare'.
>> > Seperating
>> > dairy
>> > and meat products is rather sensible,
>>
>> You should keep your dairy & meat in your cold storage area. If you
>> can
>> only afford one such area, it makes perfect sense to store them both
>> together. Weather it's a fridge or a root cellar or an ice box.
>
> Domestically? Sure, but even then you should keep them segregated,
> Please
> note, my example was the commercial arena, restaurants, etc. Larger
> scale
> does make it easier, it is true.

Delis often keep their meat & cheese right next to each other.

>> > in fact, so sensible that it is
>> > standard practice in any commercial food storage or preperation
>> > area.
>>
>> Maybe in some cases. Lots of food prep areas have them in the same
>> area.

Karl Johanson

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:50:54 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

>"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
>news:1198128375.80679.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:vFjaj.21175$Tx.16005@pd7urf3no...
>>> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote
>>> > Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> > news:8v2aj.4614$Tx.3727@pd7urf3no...
>>> >> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
>>> >> >> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
>>> >> >> > Jesus negated all of it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
>>> >> >> to obey.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Old testament commandments are
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
>>> >> > do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,
>>> >>
>>> >> Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according
>>> >> to
>>> >> the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people
>>> >> who
>>> >> pick up sticks on Saturday.
>>> >>
>>> >> > 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
>>> >> > your ****, avoid people with running sores.
>>> >>
>>> >> Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...
>>> >>
>>> >> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
>>> >> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
>>> >> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
>>> >> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
>>> >> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
>>> >> > dirty - but that is it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
>>> >> > the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
>>> >> > people who might influence you with their way of life.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
>>> >> > bit careless about two.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted foods was the
>>> > most
>>> > sensible of the lot, the reason to avoid pork is not that pigs are
>>> > 'dirty'
>>> > but because they share a great many diseases with humans and they
>>> > are
>>> > easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked pork. Cows don't
>>> > share as
>>> > many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks 'rare'.
>>> > Seperating
>>> > dairy
>>> > and meat products is rather sensible,
>>>
>>> You should keep your dairy & meat in your cold storage area. If you
>>> can
>>> only afford one such area, it makes perfect sense to store them both
>>> together. Weather it's a fridge or a root cellar or an ice box.
>>
>> Domestically? Sure, but even then you should keep them segregated,
>> Please
>> note, my example was the commercial arena, restaurants, etc. Larger
>> scale
>> does make it easier, it is true.
>
>Delis often keep their meat & cheese right next to each other.

Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.

It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
It makes zero practical sense, and it is a better test of faith as a
result, say they.

Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8v2aj.4614$Tx.3727@pd7urf3no...
> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
> >> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
> >> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
> >> > Jesus negated all of it.
> >
> >> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
> >> to obey.
> >
> > Old testament commandments are
> >
> > 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
> > do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,
>
> Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according to
> the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people who
> pick up sticks on Saturday.
>
> > 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
> > your ****, avoid people with running sores.
>
> Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...
>
> > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
> > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
> > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
> > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
> > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
> > dirty - but that is it.
> >
> > 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
> > the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
> > people who might influence you with their way of life.
> >
> > Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
> > bit careless about two.

Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted foods was the most
sensible of the lot, the reason to avoid pork is not that pigs are 'dirty'
but because they share a great many diseases with humans and they are
easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked pork. Cows don't share as
many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks 'rare'. Seperating dairy
and meat products is rather sensible, in fact, so sensible that it is
standard practice in any commercial food storage or preperation area.

On 20-Dec-2007, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:

> Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:8v2aj.4614$Tx.3727@pd7urf3no...
> > "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > news:6r1hm39h5stl8tlgcu56t52b16kq7d5k7j@4ax.com...
> > >> > It's one of the reasons they call Torah the "Old
> > >> > Testament"; they have conveniently decided that
> > >> > Jesus negated all of it.
> > >
> > >> Not all of it. Just the parts that they don't wish
> > >> to obey.
> > >
> > > Old testament commandments are
> > >
> > > 1: standard sensible universal natural law morality -
> > > do not steal, honor thy father and mother, etc,
> >
> > Not honouring your mother & father is a capital offence, according to
> > the story. What is sensible there? You're supposed to kill people who
> > pick up sticks on Saturday.

Except that there is so much more to it than that, in such
a way as to render a lot of it no more meaningful than a
Big Warning.
> >
> > > 2: sensible commandments on public health such as bury
> > > your ****, avoid people with running sores.
> >
> > Burn chairs menstruating women have sat in...
> >
I have the feeling that further elucidation is meaningless as well.

> > > 3. Superstitious silliness about clean and unclean
> > > foods. Someone should have explained to Jehovah that
> > > crap is dirty, disease is dirty, animals that die of
> > > natural causes are dirty, and that creatures that eat
> > > crap and eat animals that die of natural causes are
> > > dirty - but that is it.
> > >
> > > 4. Pathological commands to murder anyone who preaches
> > > the wrong religion, and entire groups and categories of
> > > people who might influence you with their way of life.
> > >
> > > Christians sensibly tossed three and four, and became a
> > > bit careless about two.
>
> Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted foods was the most
> sensible of the lot, the reason to avoid pork is not that pigs are 'dirty'
> but because they share a great many diseases with humans and they are
> easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked pork.

Except that this has long been proven not to be the reason behind
it, if only because of the many other animals which are considered
"unlcean", & yet are healthy to be eaten.

> Cows don't share as
> many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks 'rare'. Seperating
> dairy
> and meat products is rather sensible, in fact, so sensible that it is
> standard practice in any commercial food storage or preperation area.

And again, this was a kindness measure, not a health one.

Susan

In article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
> preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
> countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.
>
> It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
> It makes zero practical sense, and it is a better test of faith as a
> result, say they.

I suppose doing something stupid is even more effective than believing
something stupid for keeping the flock in line.

"brique"
> Actually, the third, regarding diet and permitted
> foods was the most sensible of the lot, the reason to
> avoid pork is not that pigs are 'dirty' but because
> they share a great many diseases with humans and they
> are easily transmitted in poorly prepared or cooked
> pork.

And the prohibition against eating crabs, oysters, and
rabbits?

And what is wrong with boiling a goat in its mother's
milk?

What I suspect happened is that one religious leader saw
a plague going among the animals that spread into humans
- issued some sensible bans "Bury your ****, don't eat
animals that died of natural causes". The plague goes
away. His idiot successor then issues a bunch more bans
because his illustrious predecessor banned stuff.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"brique"
> Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
> in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
> any commercial food storage or preperation area.

Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.

Thjere is no reason why one should not eat meat and
dairy products together Omelettes are a good example.
Every omelette should have both meat and cheese. So
should beans.

Further, cheese proteins are unbalanced. Cheese
*should* be eaten at the same meal as meat. Wine and
cheese parties are bad for you.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Michael Gray
> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis. It
> > makes zero practical sense, and it is a better test
> > of faith as a result, say they.

Walter Bushell
> I suppose doing something stupid is even more
> effective than believing something stupid for keeping
> the flock in line.

Environmentalists apply the same principle: Compel
outward behavior to inculcate inward faith, hence the
deliberately arbitrary illogic of so many recycling
laws.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

In rec.arts.sf.written flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
> On 20-Dec-2007, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > Cows don't share as many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our steaks
> > 'rare'. Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible, in fact,
> > so sensible that it is standard practice in any commercial food storage
> > or preperation area.
>
> And again, this was a kindness measure, not a health one.

According to several observant friends, it's a "don't emulate other
religions" measure - there "calf cooked in its mother's milk" thing was a
specific other group's practice (Canaanites?). Is that the same as a
kindness measure?

Extrapolating that to "don't combine any meat and dairy" is standard
Rabbinical extrapolation (start with "make sure you couldn't do it
accidentally," then "make sure it doesn't LOOK like you could be doing it,"
etc.)

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

In rec.arts.sf.written James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
> Further, cheese proteins are unbalanced. Cheese
> *should* be eaten at the same meal as meat. Wine and
> cheese parties are bad for you.

Definitely are if you're on (most) MAOI inhibitors; why are they bad for you
in other cases?

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:17:40 -0800, Nate Edel wrote:

> In rec.arts.sf.written James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>> Further, cheese proteins are unbalanced. Cheese *should* be eaten at
>> the same meal as meat. Wine and cheese parties are bad for you.
>
> Definitely are if you're on (most) MAOI inhibitors; why are they bad for
> you in other cases?

If you do then you're going to hell.

--Regards, Curly
================================================== ===========================
http://tinyurl.com/nrqzw
================================================== ===========================

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:5mhlm35mmdta42kiis7n1m9re3hodqaak9@4ax.com...
> "brique"
> > Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
> > in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
> > any commercial food storage or preperation area.
>
> Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.

Correct, which occurs after the food is no longer stored or prepared
but......ahem......cooked.


<snipped : some wierd **** about wine and cheese parties being bad for
you......>

"brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
news:1198214506.10125.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:5mhlm35mmdta42kiis7n1m9re3hodqaak9@4ax.com...
>> "brique"
>> > Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
>> > in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
>> > any commercial food storage or preperation area.
>>
>> Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.
>
> Correct, which occurs after the food is no longer stored or prepared
> but......ahem......cooked.

The Biblical rule is about cooking a young goat in it's mother's milk,
not about storing raw cheese next to raw meat.

Karl Johanson

Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:gI%aj.1539$DP1.588@pd7urf2no...
> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1198214506.10125.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> >
> > James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > news:5mhlm35mmdta42kiis7n1m9re3hodqaak9@4ax.com...
> >> "brique"
> >> > Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
> >> > in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
> >> > any commercial food storage or preperation area.
> >>
> >> Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.
> >
> > Correct, which occurs after the food is no longer stored or prepared
> > but......ahem......cooked.
>
> The Biblical rule is about cooking a young goat in it's mother's milk,
> not about storing raw cheese next to raw meat.
>
> Karl Johanson
>
>

As ever, the original point is getting lost in a welter of salami-slicing of
the original post, we are now down to arguing about goats milk.

My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one christians most readily
discarded was the only one which had any material benefit. In the climate as
existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food storage, preperation and
such were of great importance, try living without your refridgerator for a
few weeks and you will soon recognise that. That the local
crazymother****ers then set about turning custom into 'law', observance into
'faith' and 'law'-breaking into 'sin' and buy your indulgences here, folks,
is a fine example of crazymother****er madness, but shoudln't detract from
the basic premise, in a hot climate, food use needs to be thought about if
you don't want to be sick all the time.

"This post should be read within 24hours of opening. Store in a cool dry
place."

"brique"
> > > Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
> > > in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
> > > any commercial food storage or preperation area.

James A. Donald>
> > Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.

"brique"
> Correct, which occurs after the food is no longer stored or prepared
> but......ahem......cooked.

The old testament command - sensibly and universally discarded by
Christians - prohibits mixing them while cooking. It does not command
separate storage.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

--
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
<briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
> christians most readily discarded was the only one
> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
> storage, preperation and such were of great importance

The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
when Christianity started, there was no food storage
rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
something people eat.

The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
and serious rules - such as the rules that command them
to massacre those different from themselves, stone
preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
"defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Do you try to be this uninformed or are you just naturally stupid?

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:d2irm3h2uoqvt4e34vtjh7vk006gf4e1uv@4ax.com...
> --
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
> <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>> christians most readily discarded was the only one
>> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>
> The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> something people eat.
>
> The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
> rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
> and serious rules - such as the rules that command them
> to massacre those different from themselves, stone
> preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
> seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
> rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
> risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
> "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:d2irm3h2uoqvt4e34vtjh7vk006gf4e1uv@4ax.com...
> --
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
> <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
> > christians most readily discarded was the only one
> > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
> > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
> > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>
> The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> something people eat.

But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary rules.....
so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules to
discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?

Still, going by your apparent definition of 'contemporary' such a gap is
only a day or so, historically speaking......

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:38:32 -0500, "TheZ" <TheZ@nospam.com> wrote:

>Do you try to be this uninformed or are you just naturally stupid?

JAD is BOTH!!
And more beside.

On 20-Dec-2007, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:

> n article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
> > preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
> > countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.
> >
> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.

It's also a method by which we raise the mundane to the spiritual.

> > It makes zero practical sense, and it is a better test of faith as a
> > result, say they.
>
> I suppose doing something stupid is even more effective than believing
> something stupid for keeping the flock in line.

& I suppose being gratuitously insulting is a way of pretending
to elevate yourself when you have nothing concrete to do it,
otherwise.

Susan

On 20-Dec-2007, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

> Environmentalists apply the same principle: Compel
> outward behavior to inculcate inward faith, hence the
> deliberately arbitrary illogic of so many recycling
> laws.

I knew you were stupid - this rather cinches it.

On 21-Dec-2007, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

> "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1198214506.10125.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> >
> > James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > news:5mhlm35mmdta42kiis7n1m9re3hodqaak9@4ax.com...
> >> "brique"
> >> > Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible,
> >> > in fact, so sensible that it is standard practice in
> >> > any commercial food storage or preperation area.
> >>
> >> Not so. Standard practice is cheeseburgers.
> >
> > Correct, which occurs after the food is no longer stored or prepared
> > but......ahem......cooked.
>
> The Biblical rule is about cooking a young goat in it's mother's milk,
> not about storing raw cheese next to raw meat.

Excatly. The laws which proceeded from it are merely
extrapolations, so as to make sure.

Susan

On 22-Dec-2007, "TheZ" <TheZ@nospam.com> wrote:

> Do you try to be this uninformed or are you just naturally stupid?

Seems to me there's some anger/hatred in there as well.

Susan

>
> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:d2irm3h2uoqvt4e34vtjh7vk006gf4e1uv@4ax.com...
> > --
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> >> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
> >> christians most readily discarded was the only one
> >> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
> >> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
> >> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
> >
> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> > something people eat.
> >
> > The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
> > rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
> > and serious rules - such as the rules that command them
> > to massacre those different from themselves, stone
> > preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
> > seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
> > rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
> > risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
> > "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it
> > --
> > ----------------------
> > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> > right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
> >
> > http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On 20-Dec-2007, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

> In rec.arts.sf.written flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 20-Dec-2007, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > > Cows don't share as many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our
> > > steaks
> > > 'rare'. Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible, in
> > > fact,
> > > so sensible that it is standard practice in any commercial food
> > > storage
> > > or preperation area.
> >
> > And again, this was a kindness measure, not a health one.
>
> According to several observant friends, it's a "don't emulate other
> religions" measure - there "calf cooked in its mother's milk" thing was a
> specific other group's practice (Canaanites?). Is that the same as a
> kindness measure?

Yes, because the very reason the Canaanites did it was cruelty -
can you imagine the heartlessness it takes to not only kill a baby
animal (instead of a grown one), but to cook it in it's own mother's
milk?

Your friends are not wrong - they just didn't tell you every little thing
about it.
>
> Extrapolating that to "don't combine any meat and dairy" is standard
> Rabbinical extrapolation (start with "make sure you couldn't do it
> accidentally," then "make sure it doesn't LOOK like you could be doing
> it,"
> etc.)

Yes, exactly.
That's also why we don;t mix fowl with milk - some people don't
even do fish with milk.

Susan

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:LUnbj.1459$6V3.589@trnddc08...
>
> On 20-Dec-2007, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>
>> n article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
>> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
>> > preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
>> > countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.
>> >
>> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
>
> It's also a method by which we raise the mundane to the spiritual.

Idiot.

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:5Vnbj.1462$6V3.1284@trnddc08...
>
> On 20-Dec-2007, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> Environmentalists apply the same principle: Compel
>> outward behavior to inculcate inward faith, hence the
>> deliberately arbitrary illogic of so many recycling
>> laws.
>
> I knew you were stupid - this rather cinches it.

He's right on the money, you stupid, dyslexic, thick Irish ****.

You're too ****ing stupid to understand what he's speaking of. Too many
polysyllabic words.

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:VWnbj.1473$6V3.618@trnddc08...
>
> On 22-Dec-2007, "TheZ" <TheZ@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you try to be this uninformed or are you just naturally stupid?
>
> Seems to me there's some anger/hatred in there as well.

Nope. You're the arsehole consumed by anger/hatred, cohen.




>
> Susan
>
>>
>> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2irm3h2uoqvt4e34vtjh7vk006gf4e1uv@4ax.com...
>> > --
>> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> >> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>> >> christians most readily discarded was the only one
>> >> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>> >> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>> >> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>> >
>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>> > something people eat.
>> >
>> > The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
>> > rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
>> > and serious rules - such as the rules that command them
>> > to massacre those different from themselves, stone
>> > preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
>> > seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
>> > rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
>> > risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
>> > "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it
>> > --
>> > ----------------------
>> > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>> > of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>> > right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>> >
>> > http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%Ynbj.1486$6V3.1443@trnddc08...
>
> On 20-Dec-2007, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.sf.written flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
>> > On 20-Dec-2007, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> > > Cows don't share as many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our
>> > > steaks
>> > > 'rare'. Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible, in
>> > > fact,
>> > > so sensible that it is standard practice in any commercial food
>> > > storage
>> > > or preperation area.
>> >
>> > And again, this was a kindness measure, not a health one.
>>
>> According to several observant friends, it's a "don't emulate other
>> religions" measure - there "calf cooked in its mother's milk" thing was a
>> specific other group's practice (Canaanites?). Is that the same as a
>> kindness measure?
>
> Yes, because the very reason the Canaanites did it was cruelty -
> can you imagine the heartlessness it takes to not only kill a baby
> animal (instead of a grown one), but to cook it in it's own mother's
> milk?

Shoveari has no qualms about cooking Palestinian children, let alone
animals.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:14:09 GMT, flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

>
>On 20-Dec-2007, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> Environmentalists apply the same principle: Compel
>> outward behavior to inculcate inward faith, hence the
>> deliberately arbitrary illogic of so many recycling
>> laws.
>
>I knew you were stupid - this rather cinches it.

Mere "Stupid"??
That ain't the hundredth of it!

He is a compulsive liar.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:18:19 GMT, flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

>
>On 20-Dec-2007, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.sf.written flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
>> > On 20-Dec-2007, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> > > Cows don't share as many diseases, which is why we can enjoy our
>> > > steaks
>> > > 'rare'. Seperating dairy and meat products is rather sensible, in
>> > > fact,
>> > > so sensible that it is standard practice in any commercial food
>> > > storage
>> > > or preperation area.
>> >
>> > And again, this was a kindness measure, not a health one.
>>
>> According to several observant friends, it's a "don't emulate other
>> religions" measure - there "calf cooked in its mother's milk" thing was a
>> specific other group's practice (Canaanites?). Is that the same as a
>> kindness measure?
>
>Yes, because the very reason the Canaanites did it was cruelty -
>can you imagine the heartlessness it takes to not only kill a baby
>animal (instead of a grown one), but to cook it in it's own mother's
>milk?
>
>Your friends are not wrong - they just didn't tell you every little thing
>about it.
>>
>> Extrapolating that to "don't combine any meat and dairy" is standard
>> Rabbinical extrapolation (start with "make sure you couldn't do it
>> accidentally," then "make sure it doesn't LOOK like you could be doing
>> it,"
>> etc.)
>
>Yes, exactly.
>That's also why we don;t mix fowl with milk - some people don't
>even do fish with milk.

Are you 'kidding'/

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:16:05 GMT, flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

>
>On 22-Dec-2007, "TheZ" <TheZ@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you try to be this uninformed or are you just naturally stupid?
>
>Seems to me there's some anger/hatred in there as well.
>
>Susan

And entirely justified against the delibertae liar that is JAD.

In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
> >
> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> > something people eat.
>
> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary rules.....
> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules to
> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?

That's not what he said.

What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in biblical
times.

Neither of these contradict either (A) that there were some dietary rules in
place at the time Christianity started and (B) that Christians at some point
chose to discard them (or that gentile Christians never adopted them,
depending on your perspective.)

Now, you can argue the correctness of points [1] and [2], but neither [1]
nor [2] contradicts either (A) or (B). They're just plain separate points.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food
> > storage rule only happened around two or four
> > hundred AD. Back when Christianity started, there
> > was no food storage rule about cheese for them to
> > discard. In the bible, cheese requires no special
> > treatment. It is just food, something people eat.

> But you most clearly said that the Christians did
> discard dietary rules.....

There were no Jewish dietary rules about cheese at that
time.

> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were
> no such rules to discard until after christianity had
> existed for four hundred years?

There were lots of silly dietary rules, such as not
eating crabs, which the Christians did discard.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:a6f7d056-985f-4c9c-a655-d9782f0933a9@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> James A. Donald
> > > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food
> > > storage rule only happened around two or four
> > > hundred AD. Back when Christianity started, there
> > > was no food storage rule about cheese for them to
> > > discard. In the bible, cheese requires no special
> > > treatment. It is just food, something people eat.
>
> brique
> > But you most clearly said that the Christians did
> > discard dietary rules.....
>
> Christians discarded the Jewish dietary rules that then
> existed. It would be a bit difficult for them to
> discard the dietary rules that the Jews did not start
> conjuring up until 200AD or considerably later.
>
> The Jews eventually followed the Christians in ditching
> the problem parts of the Mosaic law - the homicidal
> stuff, starting around 170AD but not entirely completing
> the job until around 400AD, but while the Christians
> just said "Christ died for our sins, therefore new
> covenant", without worrying much about making sense,
> Jews proceeded to legalistically weasel their way out
> from underneath the problem parts of the mosaic law with
> immensely complicated and logical sounding reasoning,
> and feeling bad about doing so, proceeded to greatly
> elaborate those parts of the Mosaic law that were not a
> problem.

Oh Ii see your logic here..... christians just blushed and said, 'ignore it
all. it might go away and if anyone asks, it wasn't us'... and the Jews
argued about it, reached the conclusion it didn't make sense and so dumped
it.

Interesting to note which action you characterise as 'weaseling'.

Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> > > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
> > > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
> > > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
> > > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
> > > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
> > >
> > > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> > > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> > > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> > > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> > > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> > > something people eat.
> >
> > But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
rules.....
> > so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules to
> > discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?
>
> That's not what he said.
>
> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in biblical
> times.
>

I agree there were no rules about storing cheeseburgers in pre-biblical
times, but then I dont always manage to guess what strawman James will
introduce so was unable to formulate a choice of words which woudl indicate
that I was not making such a claim (if anyone chose to read between the
lines and assume what I was thinking based on what I had not said).

Anyway, James now claims elsewhere that the rules got discarded in the
second century, so the date has moved again.

Which rather illustrates my point above, James claims tend to be a movable
feast.....


> Neither of these contradict either (A) that there were some dietary rules
in
> place at the time Christianity started and (B) that Christians at some
point
> chose to discard them (or that gentile Christians never adopted them,
> depending on your perspective.)
>
> Now, you can argue the correctness of points [1] and [2], but neither [1]
> nor [2] contradicts either (A) or (B). They're just plain separate
points.
>
> --
> Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
> preferred email |
> is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
> posting domain |

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote
> --
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
> <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>> christians most readily discarded was the only one
>> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>
> The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> something people eat.
>
> The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
> rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
> and serious rules

Interesting idea. Likely a lot to that idea.

> - such as the rules that command them
> to massacre those different from themselves, stone
> preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
> seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
> rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
> risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
> "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it

Well said.

Karl Johanson

"B'injamin Cr'amer" <yidsrbollocks@mosttimes.yes> wrote in message
news:OuudnfgngKUTkvPanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:LUnbj.1459$6V3.589@trnddc08...
>>
>> On 20-Dec-2007, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> n article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
>>> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
>>> > preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
>>> > countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.
>>> >
>>> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
>>
>> It's also a method by which we raise the mundane to the spiritual.
>
> Idiot.

Your sig. is most appropriate.

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

On 23-Dec-2007, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

> > The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
> > rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
> > and serious rules
>
> Interesting idea. Likely a lot to that idea.

No, not in the slightest.
I can see that, like James, you have also not bothered to
study Judaism, & yet claim to actually know something
about it.

Susan

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TsEbj.26657$gF4.14649@trnddc02...
>
> On 23-Dec-2007, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> > The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
>> > rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
>> > and serious rules
>>
>> Interesting idea. Likely a lot to that idea.
>
> No, not in the slightest.
> I can see that, like James, you have also not bothered to
> study Judaism, & yet claim to actually know something
> about it.

How the hell would you be in a position to suggest such a thing, cohen?


>
> Susan

"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in message
news:s_Abj.18550$1j1.375@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "B'injamin Cr'amer" <yidsrbollocks@mosttimes.yes> wrote in message
> news:OuudnfgngKUTkvPanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>
>> <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:LUnbj.1459$6V3.589@trnddc08...
>>>
>>> On 20-Dec-2007, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> n article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
>>>> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
>>>> > preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
>>>> > countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by Rabbis.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
>>>
>>> It's also a method by which we raise the mundane to the spiritual.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Your sig. is most appropriate.

Childish ****. And idiot.



>
> Smiler,
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
>

"B'injamin Cr'amer" <yidsrbollocks@mosttimes.yes> wrote in message
news:joadnadIs6TbFfLanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in message
> news:s_Abj.18550$1j1.375@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "B'injamin Cr'amer" <yidsrbollocks@mosttimes.yes> wrote in message
>> news:OuudnfgngKUTkvPanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>
>>> <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:LUnbj.1459$6V3.589@trnddc08...
>>>>
>>>> On 20-Dec-2007, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> n article <cc9km35dd9v8053abk5kql0ccefkjgn1h8@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Teh Jewish preoccupation with "unclean" and "clean" foodstuffs and
>>>>> > preparation techniques has NOTHING to do with hygeine, as has been
>>>>> > countlessly debunked by scientists, and freely admitted to by
>>>>> > Rabbis.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It is a random test of faith, say the Rabbis.
>>>>
>>>> It's also a method by which we raise the mundane to the spiritual.
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>> Your sig. is most appropriate.
>
> Childish ****. And idiot.
>

That's an even more appropriate .sig for you.

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:d2irm3h2uoqvt4e34vtjh7vk006gf4e1uv@4ax.com...
> --
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
> <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>> christians most readily discarded was the only one
>> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>
> The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
> rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
> when Christianity started, there was no food storage
> rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
> cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
> something people eat.
>
> The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
> rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
> and serious rules - such as the rules that command them
> to massacre those different from themselves, stone
> preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
> seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
> rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
> risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
> "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it

Do you make this stuff up yourself, or do you have someone else do it for
you?

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
>> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>> >
>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>> > something people eat.
>>
>> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
>> rules.....
>> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules to
>> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?
>
> That's not what he said.
>
> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in biblical
> times.

Is not cheese a dairy product?

>
> Neither of these contradict either (A) that there were some dietary rules
> in
> place at the time Christianity started and (B) that Christians at some
> point
> chose to discard them (or that gentile Christians never adopted them,
> depending on your perspective.)
>
> Now, you can argue the correctness of points [1] and [2], but neither [1]
> nor [2] contradicts either (A) or (B). They're just plain separate
> points.
>
> --
> Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
> preferred email |
> is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
> posting domain |

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:hAzbj.6360$vd4.6296@pd7urf1no...
> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote
>> --
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0000, "brique"
>> <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>> My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>>> christians most readily discarded was the only one
>>> which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>>> existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>>> storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>>
>> The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>> rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>> when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>> rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>> cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>> something people eat.
>>
>> The Jewish legalistic elaboration of trivial and silly
>> rules is because they feel guilty about ditching major
>> and serious rules
>
> Interesting idea. Likely a lot to that idea.
>
>> - such as the rules that command them
>> to massacre those different from themselves, stone
>> preachers to death etc, so they proceed to demonstrate how
>> seriously they are taking all those other rules - other
>> rules which don't involve significant hardship or undue
>> risk of holy war, much as the supreme court elaborately
>> "defends" freedom of speech in the course of dumping it
>
> Well said.

It was pure fantasy.

"thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:477122e5$0$2089$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
>> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>>> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
>>> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>>> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>>> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>>> >
>>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>>> > something people eat.
>>>
>>> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
>>> rules.....
>>> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules
>>> to
>>> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?
>>
>> That's not what he said.
>>
>> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
>> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in
>> biblical
>> times.
>
> Is not cheese a dairy product?

The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
doesn't say "dairy products".

Karl Johanson

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
> > What he said was that [1] the rules about food
> > storage postdate Christianity, and [2] that there
> > weren't rules about cheese in biblical times.

"thomas p."
> Is not cheese a dairy product?

There were no rules about dairy products in biblical
times. There was a very limited rule about one
particular dairy product.

The Jews did not start elaborating up the innocuous
parts of the Mosaic law until after they dumped the
homicidal parts of Mosaic law, and they dumped the
homicidal parts of Mosaic law over the period of
approximately 200 AD to 500AD.

Of course some anti semites on this newsgroup will
complain that Jews have not in fact dumped the homicidal
parts of Mosaic law, and some Jews on this newsgroup
will claim that modern Judaism is faithful to historic
Judaism and has not dumped anything. What they did is
bury the bigoted and homicidal parts of Mosaic law in a
deep snow of words that argue with impeccable logic and
careful reasoning that up is down and black is white.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On 25-Dec-2007, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

> >> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
> >> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in
> >> biblical
> >> times.
> >
> > Is not cheese a dairy product?
>
> The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
> doesn't say "dairy products".

Have you read the story of Yael?

Susan

James A. Donald:
> > The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
> > doesn't say "dairy products"

flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
> Have you read the story of Yael?

Which does not in anyway criticize the fact that Jael gave Sisera a
bottle of milk to drink.

The business about dairy products being unclean was invented out of
the whole cloth some time after 200 AD, possibly to compensate for all
the Mosaic laws they were interpreting away

And no it was not cheese, she gave him, because he asked for water,
and processed milk products are not a good substitute for water, nor
do they come in bottles.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:l_fcj.15531$DP1.3808@pd7urf2no...
> "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:477122e5$0$2089$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>>
>> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
>>> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>>>> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
>>>> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>>>> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>>>> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>>>> >
>>>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>>>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>>>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>>>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>>>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>>>> > something people eat.
>>>>
>>>> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
>>>> rules.....
>>>> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules to
>>>> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?
>>>
>>> That's not what he said.
>>>
>>> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
>>> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in biblical
>>> times.
>>
>> Is not cheese a dairy product?
>
> The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
> doesn't say "dairy products".
>
> Karl Johanson

You didn't actually say the Bible but "in biblical times".

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mg23n3he50vbcmgkis4p25t0jh3m2vnmvc@4ax.com...
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
>> > What he said was that [1] the rules about food
>> > storage postdate Christianity, and [2] that there
>> > weren't rules about cheese in biblical times.
>
> "thomas p."
>> Is not cheese a dairy product?
>
> There were no rules about dairy products in biblical
> times. There was a very limited rule about one
> particular dairy product.
>
> The Jews did not start elaborating up the innocuous
> parts of the Mosaic law until after they dumped the
> homicidal parts of Mosaic law, and they dumped the
> homicidal parts of Mosaic law over the period of
> approximately 200 AD to 500AD.

I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons for elaborations of the
Mosaic law, but they started way before the beginning of the Talmud -
centuries before as a matter of fact.



>
> Of course some anti semites on this newsgroup will
> complain that Jews have not in fact dumped the homicidal
> parts of Mosaic law, and some Jews on this newsgroup
> will claim that modern Judaism is faithful to historic
> Judaism and has not dumped anything.


And some lunatic anti-semites will pretend that they are not anti-semites.

What they did is
> bury the bigoted and homicidal parts of Mosaic law in a
> deep snow of words that argue with impeccable logic and
> careful reasoning that up is down and black is white.



>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4772319e$0$2083$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>
> "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:l_fcj.15531$DP1.3808@pd7urf2no...
>> "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:477122e5$0$2089$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>>>
>>> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
>>>> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>>> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>>>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>>> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>>>>> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
>>>>> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>>>>> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>>>>> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>>>>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>>>>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>>>>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>>>>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>>>>> > something people eat.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
>>>>> rules.....
>>>>> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such
>>>>> rules to
>>>>> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred
>>>>> years?
>>>>
>>>> That's not what he said.
>>>>
>>>> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
>>>> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in
>>>> biblical
>>>> times.
>>>
>>> Is not cheese a dairy product?
>>
>> The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
>> doesn't say "dairy products".
>>
>> Karl Johanson
>
> You didn't actually say the Bible but "in biblical times".

No I didn't.

Karl Johanson

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:fAwcj.16779$DP1.11669@pd7urf2no...
> "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4772319e$0$2083$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>>
>> "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:l_fcj.15531$DP1.3808@pd7urf2no...
>>> "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:477122e5$0$2089$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk ...
>>>>
>>>> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:tll145xcpb.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
>>>>> In rec.arts.sf.written brique <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>>>> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> > <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>>>> > > My point was that of all the old 'laws', the one
>>>>>> > > christians most readily discarded was the only one
>>>>>> > > which had any material benefit. In the climate as
>>>>>> > > existed when the laws arose, customs regarding food
>>>>>> > > storage, preperation and such were of great importance
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The elaboration of an eating rule into a food storage
>>>>>> > rule only happened around two or four hundred AD. Back
>>>>>> > when Christianity started, there was no food storage
>>>>>> > rule about cheese for them to discard. In the bible,
>>>>>> > cheese requires no special treatment. It is just food,
>>>>>> > something people eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you most clearly said that the Christians did discard dietary
>>>>>> rules.....
>>>>>> so now you contradict yourself by claiming there were no such rules
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> discard until after christianity had existed for four hundred years?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> What he said was that [1] the rules about food storage postdate
>>>>> Christianity, and [2] that there weren't rules about cheese in
>>>>> biblical
>>>>> times.
>>>>
>>>> Is not cheese a dairy product?
>>>
>>> The Bible talks about cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. It
>>> doesn't say "dairy products".
>>>
>>> Karl Johanson
>>
>> You didn't actually say the Bible but "in biblical times".
>
> No I didn't.
>
> Karl Johanson
>

Apparently I mixed two posts up.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:10:57 +1000, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:


>
>And no it was not cheese, she gave him, because he asked for water,
>and processed milk products are not a good substitute for water, nor
>do they come in bottles.

The word used was "no'd", which can be translated as "skin", "skin
bottle", or just bottle.

On 28-Dec-2007, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:10:57 +1000, James A. Donald
> <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >And no it was not cheese, she gave him, because he asked for water,
> >and processed milk products are not a good substitute for water, nor
> >do they come in bottles.
>
> The word used was "no'd", which can be translated as "skin", "skin
> bottle", or just bottle.

And she did give him "cheese in a lowly bowl" - her entire idea
was to make him thirsty.
It was translated as cheese because it was a dairy product, but
it was not cheese as we understand it.
IOW, you can't use English to figure out Torah most of the time.

Susan

James A. Donald
> > And no it was not cheese, she gave him, because he
> > asked for water, and processed milk products are not
> > a good substitute for water, nor do they come in
> > bottles.

Dubh Ghall
> The word used was "no'd", which can be translated as
> "skin", "skin bottle", or just bottle.

Or canteen:

Cheese does not come in canteens either.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"thomas p."
> I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons for
> elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they started way
> before the beginning of the Talmud - centuries before
> as a matter of fact.

When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic law,
while rationalizing away the violent parts, this
modifies the way one translates the original. The
translations into Greek around 0AD show no indication of
this elaboration and rationalization.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:51bhn3184svt63k7c3t4vufcen6dsmo9au@4ax.com...
> "thomas p."
>> I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons for
>> elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they started way
>> before the beginning of the Talmud - centuries before
>> as a matter of fact.
>
> When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic law,
> while rationalizing away the violent parts, this
> modifies the way one translates the original. The
> translations into Greek around 0AD show no indication of
> this elaboration and rationalization.


I still have no idea where you get your ideas from beyond your imagination.

>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"thomas p."
> > > I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons
> > > for elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they
> > > started way before the beginning of the Talmud -
> > > centuries before as a matter of fact.

James A. Donald:
> > When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic
> > law, while rationalizing away the violent parts,
> > this modifies the way one translates the original.
> > The translations into Greek around 0AD show no
> > indication of this elaboration and rationalization.

"thomas p."
> I still have no idea where you get your ideas from
> beyond your imagination.

Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations of
Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?

If you claim elaborated and rationalized Mosaic law
preceded Christianity, it your job to produce historical
references, not my job to produce the absence of
historical references.

We have historical evidence of Jews following old style
Mosaic law as late as four hundred AD - and not much
evidence of the Talmud existing and being important very
much before four hundred AD. One seventy AD is likely
the first small beginnings.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald wrote:
> "thomas p."
>>>> I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons
>>>> for elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they
>>>> started way before the beginning of the Talmud -
>>>> centuries before as a matter of fact.
>
> James A. Donald:
>>> When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic
>>> law, while rationalizing away the violent parts,
>>> this modifies the way one translates the original.
>>> The translations into Greek around 0AD show no
>>> indication of this elaboration and rationalization.
>
> "thomas p."
>> I still have no idea where you get your ideas from
>> beyond your imagination.
>
> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations of
> Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?

From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not rationalization, but
fact) that the Talmud was a codification and discussion of existing
ideas. You might as well ask why we think there was C++ before the
C++ standard was released.

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:k6min3tslpoh7hqrsnljo3cefv500a3t3k@4ax.com...
> "thomas p."
>> > > I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons
>> > > for elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they
>> > > started way before the beginning of the Talmud -
>> > > centuries before as a matter of fact.
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic
>> > law, while rationalizing away the violent parts,
>> > this modifies the way one translates the original.
>> > The translations into Greek around 0AD show no
>> > indication of this elaboration and rationalization.
>
> "thomas p."
>> I still have no idea where you get your ideas from
>> beyond your imagination.
>
> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations of
> Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?

Where did I say that it did? Elaborations on Mosaic law did not begin with
the Talmud.


>
> If you claim elaborated and rationalized Mosaic law
> preceded Christianity, it your job to produce historical
> references, not my job to produce the absence of
> historical references.




>
> We have historical evidence of Jews following old style
> Mosaic law as late as four hundred AD - and not much
> evidence of the Talmud existing and being important very
> much before four hundred AD. One seventy AD is likely
> the first small beginnings.

So you claim there were no changes to the law from the supposed time of
Moses up to the time the Talmud began?



>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MYhej.2421$El5.1885@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> "thomas p."
>>>>> I have no idea where you get your claimed reasons
>>>>> for elaborations of the Mosaic law, but they
>>>>> started way before the beginning of the Talmud -
>>>>> centuries before as a matter of fact.
>>
>> James A. Donald:
>>>> When one elaborates the innocuous parts of Mosaic
>>>> law, while rationalizing away the violent parts,
>>>> this modifies the way one translates the original.
>>>> The translations into Greek around 0AD show no
>>>> indication of this elaboration and rationalization.
>>
>> "thomas p."
>>> I still have no idea where you get your ideas from
>>> beyond your imagination.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations of
>> Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?
>
> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not rationalization, but fact)
> that the Talmud was a codification and discussion of existing ideas. You
> might as well ask why we think there was C++ before the C++ standard was
> released.
>
>

It is odd that he apparently thinks that the Jews at the time of Jesus had
the same religious practices based on Mosaic law as they did at the supposed
time of Moses that all the changes began with the writing of the Talmud.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:55:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I still have no idea where you get your ideas from beyond your imagination.

Ideas from Beyond Your Imagination, tonight at 10:00.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations
> > of Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?

"Mike Schilling"
> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not
> rationalization, but fact) that the Talmud was a
> codification and discussion of existing ideas.

You need to produce some evidence that these ideas
existed.

The behavior, and the writings, of Jews of that era
contain no indication of such ideas.

The Jews were a literate people. They had been writing
stuff down for a long time. If these ideas existed
around the time of Christ, we would have some evidence
that they existed. In particular, they would have
influenced religious writings, such as the dead sea
scrolls, and the various translations into Greek of the
books of Moses and Deuteronomy.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"thomas p."
> It is odd that he apparently thinks that the Jews at
> the time of Jesus had the same religious practices
> based on Mosaic law as they did at the supposed time
> of Moses that all the changes began with the writing
> of the Talmud.

If Talmudic elaboration, denial, and rationalization of
Mosaic law began before a few hundred AD, there would be
references to it dating from before a few hundred AD.

Early Jewish writers show absolutely no awareness of
such elaboration. Christian writers of around four
hundred AD believed the Talmud to be a new thing, and a
radical departure from existing and long established
Jewish religion - believed that Judaism was changing in
front of them into something very different.

If such elaboration existed substantially earlier, we
would expect to see indications of it in the Christian
Gospels, in the Jewish translations of existing Hebrew
books, and in Jewish religious writings such as the dead
sea scrolls.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"thomas p."
> So you claim there were no changes to the law from the
> supposed time of Moses up to the time the Talmud
> began?

No large and glaringly obvious differences in the law.
The Talmud turns arse over tit, and argues with
impeccable logic and minutely careful reasoning that
black is white and up is down.

Up to the time of the Talmud, changes in the law were
plausibly deniable, and were reasonably denied, rather
than elaborately explained away. The Talmud is a
manifestation of the fact that around the time of the
Talmud, Jews felt they had some explaining to do - that
denying the changes in the law now required heroic, and
indeed largely incomprehensible, effort.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

thomas p.
> Elaborations on Mosaic law did not begin with
> the Talmud.

Jews were not fussing about cheese and suchlike until around four
hundred AD, and up to around four hundred AD they felt that the
commandments to commit mass murder had moral force.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald wrote:
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations
>>> of Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?
>
> "Mike Schilling"
>> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not
>> rationalization, but fact) that the Talmud was a
>> codification and discussion of existing ideas.
>
> You need to produce some evidence that these ideas
> existed.

No, you need to do a tiny bit of research on how the Talmud was
written. It wasn't by a bunch of Rabbis who said "OK, time to invent
new laws!"

Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VZBej.2629$6%.1933@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > James A. Donald wrote:
> >>> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations
> >>> of Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?
> >
> > "Mike Schilling"
> >> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not
> >> rationalization, but fact) that the Talmud was a
> >> codification and discussion of existing ideas.
> >
> > You need to produce some evidence that these ideas
> > existed.
>
> No, you need to do a tiny bit of research on how the Talmud was
> written. It wasn't by a bunch of Rabbis who said "OK, time to invent
> new laws!"
>

Donald doesn't _do_ research...... it all comes to him in blinding flashes
of inspiration whilst seated upon the lavatory.

brique wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VZBej.2629$6%.1933@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations
>>>>> of Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?
>>>
>>> "Mike Schilling"
>>>> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not
>>>> rationalization, but fact) that the Talmud was a
>>>> codification and discussion of existing ideas.
>>>
>>> You need to produce some evidence that these ideas
>>> existed.
>>
>> No, you need to do a tiny bit of research on how the Talmud was
>> written. It wasn't by a bunch of Rabbis who said "OK, time to
>> invent
>> new laws!"
>>
>
> Donald doesn't _do_ research...... it all comes to him in blinding
> flashes of inspiration whilst seated upon the lavatory.

"seated upon"?

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
news:kgpln35178erjdll65d659jrnl9ba06kis@4ax.com:

> If such elaboration existed substantially earlier, we
> would expect to see indications of it in the Christian
> Gospels, in the Jewish translations of existing Hebrew
> books, and in Jewish religious writings such as the dead
> sea scrolls.
>

This is in fact what we do see.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 03:40:22 -0000, "brique" <briquenoir@freeuk.c0m>
wrote:

>
>Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:VZBej.2629$6%.1933@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > James A. Donald wrote:
>> >>> Where do you get the idea that Talmudic elaborations
>> >>> of Mosaic law existed before the Talmud existed?
>> >
>> > "Mike Schilling"
>> >> From the fact (not opinion, not fantasy, not
>> >> rationalization, but fact) that the Talmud was a
>> >> codification and discussion of existing ideas.
>> >
>> > You need to produce some evidence that these ideas
>> > existed.
>>
>> No, you need to do a tiny bit of research on how the Talmud was
>> written. It wasn't by a bunch of Rabbis who said "OK, time to invent
>> new laws!"
>>
>
>Donald doesn't _do_ research...... it all comes to him in blinding flashes
>of inspiration whilst seated upon the lavatory.

He actually relieves himself?
He's so full of **** that I do not believe you.

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:kgpln35178erjdll65d659jrnl9ba06kis@4ax.com...
> "thomas p."
>> It is odd that he apparently thinks that the Jews at
>> the time of Jesus had the same religious practices
>> based on Mosaic law as they did at the supposed time
>> of Moses that all the changes began with the writing
>> of the Talmud.
>
> If Talmudic elaboration, denial, and rationalization of
> Mosaic law began before a few hundred AD, there would be
> references to it dating from before a few hundred AD.


Please read what I wrote again. Obviously Talmudic elaboration did not
begin before the Talumd, but neither did the ideas expressed in the Talmud.


>
> Early Jewish writers show absolutely no awareness of
> such elaboration. Christian writers of around four
> hundred AD believed the Talmud to be a new thing, and a
> radical departure from existing and long established
> Jewish religion - believed that Judaism was changing in
> front of them into something very different.

Of course it was changing. It had lost Jerusalem, but that does not mean
that it had not changed in the more than thousand years before that.


>
> If such elaboration existed substantially earlier, we
> would expect to see indications of it in the Christian
> Gospels, in the Jewish translations of existing Hebrew
> books, and in Jewish religious writings such as the dead
> sea scrolls.

You do see it in the gospels. What do you think Jesus is arguing with the
Pharisees about?


>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.