Copper Bezel wrote:The difference does seem marginal, in the sense that declaring one acceptable and the other straight out is fairly questionable. But, eh.
I think that you misunderstand the law. It is allowed for a man and a woman to sit next to each other on public transport, even if they are strangers. The question is, 'if a person feels uncomfortable sitting next to someone of the opposite sex, to what extent should society accommodate them?'
For example; a subway car has all of the sits taken and several people standing. Half the car has only female passengers and half the car has only male passengers. I know that this is very unlikely to happen, but it simplifies the situation and does not change the argument. At a stop, no one gets off the train and 1 woman named Alice enters. Alice is not comfortable being at the end of the cart that has male passengers, so she goes to the other end. Her decision has made her more content, but made the women in the car less content. By choosing to stand on this side, Alice has made it more crowded. Is the amount of contentment Alice gains worth more than the than the burden placed on the women? We need to ask the same question regarding a similar situation that happens on a plane. To do so, we need to analyze several factors including, but not limited to, amount of contentment gained, amount of people accommodated, size of burden, amount of people burdened, morality accepted by society, established customs and norms of society, laws of the government etc. etc.
Copper Bezel wrote: It's very easy to get people to hate themselves for allowing themselves pleasure. The diet industry makes this one of its strongest marketing tactics. It's disgusting when they do it, and it's disgusting when religious leaders do, too.
I think the rest of this conversation will go better if I describe how Judaism views sexuality. First, Judaism does not see physical pleasure as being inherently evil. Because it allows humans to partner with the Creator, its misuse
is a very severe transgression. I am not saying that the only purpose of intimacy is to produce children; I am showing that sexuality is an unparalleled entity. In the context of a marriage, it is responsible for the emotional and spiritual bond between a husband and wife. Sexuality is used to create pleasure, which in turn is used to strengthen a husband's and wife's relationship. When it is used by a man (or woman) for pleasure and recreation, it does nothing more than teaches him (or her) to view women as objects to derive gratification from. Sexuality is used to be a man (or woman) to dehumanize women (or men) in order to generate self-indulging ecstasy.
The second aspect you need to understand is that sin is not a binary. Actions are not simple labeled as good or bad and then counted by the Creator. Nearly infinite factors are considered when the Creator judges a person's actions. A 16 year old on the Las Vegas strip will be judged in a completely different way than a 65 year old in his rabbi's house. Also, if a thought 'pops' into a person's head, it is not a sin; it is a test. If he dwells and focuses on it, he loses merit; if he rejects it and diverts his attention, he gains merit. The youth from the example above would receive immeasurable rewards for passing the test while losing only a little if he fails. I am assuming he did not put himself in this situation just to be tested. The opposite is true for the elder, sort of. The test of rejecting immoral thoughts is always considered a great challenge; he would receive much merit, but not as much as the youth.
CorruptUser wrote:Umm, "Haredi" are ultra-orthodox, "Chassid" are the messianics. To outsiders, the differences are minimal, but to them it's huge. Chabad/Lubavitch are the most friendly of all the Chassidim, but they still worship their founder as
Jesus the Messiah. Both of them have dynasties within each that openly hate each other.
Most Jews harbor some animosity towards both groups as they are viewed as bickering over pilpul (Yiddish for 'esoteric bullshit') and causing divisions among Judaism in the worst possible times. Israeli Jews openly despise them, because they don't join the army and don't pay tax but they are such a powerful political group they still get benefits (this is the one thing the Haredim and Chassidim unite on).
CorruptUser wrote:I'm an Orthodox Jew, who spent a lot of time around Chabad. Well, sort of. Conservadox/apatheist at this point.
I first though that you were not Jewish and had just been reading the wrong books and going to the wrong websites but now I am legitimately concerned. How can an Orthodox Jew think that two groups of Jews hate each other? That is not even considering the fact that every form of Chabad is based on the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, whose entire philosophy is based on Jews loving and caring for fellow Jews unconditionally. You even suggested that Chassidim (people who follow Chabad) worship their rebbe (major rabbi) like what the Christians do (no offense to any Christians, we are just different religions)!
I don't need no stinkin sources
Have you ever read a page of Gemora (books on Jewish law)?! Almost every sentence starts with the phrase, 'Rabbi A said in the name of Rabbi B...' If you can find a single page of Gemora that does not have one citation in it, I will boil and eat the leather parts of my shoes, bli neder. Ethics of Our Fathers has 6 chapters, and 9/18 paragraphs of the first chapter about who was the teacher of whom. What kind of education did you receive that taught you that you do not need sources? Even in public school, we learned how to make citations every year in English. The fact than ANY
Jew is so ill informed about Judaism that they would dare say what you said shocks me. I am not just referring to your last two posts; I am talking about every post on this thread. What disturbs me the most is that an Orthodox Jew would use the term 'Ultra-Orthodox.' I cannot understand what logic when through your head when you used that term. Please go here and start reading anything. What you read does not matter, I just want you to be better informed.http://www.chabad.org/
jewish_scientist wrote:krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.
Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.
This... doesn't really work in the real world. In fact, if this were the case, you would probably find these cities would be overrun by shrewd capitalists able to exploit the fact that the people of Sodom would buy garbage for gold coins, and then just leave with the gold afterward.
If the traveler was a businessman, then they would probably have used one of their other plans. For example:
A particularly wealthy traveler arrives in the city. He is invited to spend the night as a guest by one of the locals. In the middle of that night, everyone (in the sense of 'everyone was at the graduation ceremony') would form a crowd around that house. Then the traveler, who is asleep and not expecting an attack, is dragged outside by the head of the household. The mob then rapes the traveler until he dies, leaving everything he had for the head of the household. (Citation: the story of the Lott and the angels in Sodom)
Or, for that matter, someone within the city itself could easily accumulate all of these resources themselves (by selling stuff to the "foreigners" in exchange for it), and then just leave with all of the gold.
No local would cheat everyone else like this. The land in that area was so fertile and rich in precious metals before it was destroyed that there would be no point. It would be common place for a man to pick a turnip from his garden and find a gold nugget in the hole. That is actually one of the reasons they were judged harshly; they stole and robbed even though the money gained was pennies compared to what they already had.
Unless they were also physically preventing people from leaving, there's no way that this scam could ever work in practice.
They probably did stop their victims from leaving. It was common for tolls to be required in order to leave a city. Unable to pay the toll, the victims were trapped.
-This is not the only sin the people of Sodom did. It is just one example of one way they committed theft. Think of any law needed for a just society and the people of those five cities violated it casually and probably made the opposite into a law.
Again, this doesn't work in the real world. There are certain kinds of rules that pretty much have to be in place for large numbers of people to be able to work and live together. If you had a city where murder was legal, what you'd find is that the city would either pretty quickly become empty as everyone left, or some sort of de facto law against murder would get set up and would be enforced at the community level.
I did not mean that there were no laws at all. I meant that the laws were set up such that the people could do the most immoral things. Remember the trap to legally rape travelers. Here is another example;
A local speaking to a traveler:"You have a strong male donkey. I have a female donkey. She was strong, but now she is weak from age. If I do not have a donkey, I will not be able to run my business. If your donkey were to mate with my donkey, the offspring would be very strong and allow me to run my business with much success. It would only take a day or two for your donkey to impregnate my donkey. That is about how long you will need to do your business in the city. I could pay two gold coins in order to have your donkey mate with my donkey, while hosting you as a guest. Would you let me have your donkey for two silver coins (I am guessing that would be a more than fair deal for the traveler)?"
Reread that paragraph very closely, keeping formal logic in mind. Do you see the tricks? The statements have no connection to the question except that they are close temporally. The question by itself is asking to buy, not rent, the donkey. He says he could
pay two silver coins to rent the traveler's donkey, meaning he has the ability to do so. He never said that he will. However, the context set up by the preceding statements makes the traveler thinks he is only renting his donkey. In addition, the local says he could
host the traveler, not that he will. When the traveler wants to leave with his donkey, the local would refuse to let the traveler have him. Then the local would demand payment for the time spent in his inn. When taken to court, the judgment will obviously be in the local's favor, with the judge adding any extra charges he can find.
krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.
Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.
I am saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because you made a mistake when you were interpreting the Bible.
You are saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because the author(s) of the Bible were horrible people.
Is this correct?