Faith schools

The Torah has acted as a safeguard for the Jews throughout our history, there are elements of it which will of been relevant millenia ago (but not now) while there are other elements that wont safeguard us until much later in our history.

I suppose a cynic could say that Jews didn't eat mussels because they caused illness, the circumcised babies for ritualistic reasons, they explained the big bang theory because it was logical, they said love thy neighbour because of darwinian urges, they knew that only Jewish intellect could make Israel fertile, they guessed that of all the millions of species of life on this planet only four would lack one of the qualities of chewing the cud & splitting the hoof, they thought there could be a profound order to the universe... Of course that would be the cynical view... I hold my own.

So what you're saying is that even though HIV has only been around for 50 years, G-d knew this and decided to reduce the risk by ordering surgery with no anaesthics, instruments or antibiotics for millenia before? If a G-d as powerful as you suggest wanted to protect the Jews against HIV, I'm sure he would do better than a 50% reduction in transmission rate through surgery. I'd be very surprised indeed if this had saved more lives than have been lost to infection after the operation over the centuries (the torah neglects to mention antibiotics and sterile procedures).

Let's also not forget, science has soundly denounced the Torahs in most other respects, including but not limited to its view of the origin of the universe, the origin of the world, the efficacy of prayer, the origin of the species, etc etc etc

And, let's not forget that modern philosophy and ethics has denounced a number of actions of your god in the old testament as thoroughly inethical, and, indeed, criminal.

It is a primitive, fictional book, and the fact that it can be twisted to fit some modern thinking reflects the vagueness and inherent imprecision in its writing, rather than any particular knowledge.

I didn't hear any Jewish person saying 'I advocate circumcision because it reduces my risk of HIV, I'd rather not use a condom which is more effective.' before this research came out.

What's the point of saying it teaches you stuff if it's so vague you can't get anything out of it until it's been proven by modern methods?

You misunderstand the relationship of Hashem and his people, if he wanted to make us an immortal people then we wouldn't die... death is a part of life.

In no shape or form has it done any of the above.

What an utterly naive comment, modern ethics evolve; whats inhumaine today may be considered humaine tomorrow... If we were jduging the morality of a deity - you could not compare it to what is acceptable today... as what is acceptable today may change tomorrow.

Of course you wouldn't no Jew would propose to the know the reasoning behind the Torah, we accept it as the word of G-d and act accordingly.

What are you talking about?

Circumcision may of saved the lives of millions of Jews, I don't care if I need to wait for science to catch up?

Yes Joe.

The world was formed 3000 years ago. god wants children to die from cancer, it's 'part of life'. The fossil record is a hoax. It's perfectly moral to slaughter the innocent inhabitants of a city. Accepting the 'word of god' without questioning it is a sensible thing to do, and has not brought the world suicide bombers, crusades, jihads and other monumental sufferings.

I take it should you ever get HIV (you'll be more likely to than me, I'll be using science and not superstition and therefore a condom ) you'll also being eschewing other backward scientific developments such as anti-retrovirals etc, and putting your faith in hashem instead?

Where in Judaism does it say this?!?!?

Your arrogant cloaked ignorance is your downfall andy.

If there were a deity and he created us as mortals then surely we'd need to die? For death to have meaning then (at times) this would need to be a random process... Death helps sculpt the soul.

Where in the Tanakh does it say anything about the fossil record being a hoax?!?!?

You can't make things up to compliment your argument andy.

In the grand scale of planet earth it may well be, many Jews looking for reason in the Holocaust believe that the tragedy occured so that Jews would be able to return from the exile.

Like death, from tragedy comes life, value and meaning... If life were perfect would there be any motivation to excel?

Where in all of Judaism does it say this? We are told the total opposite - it clearly states in the Torah that we are to wrestle with G-d.

Why wouldn't a Jew use modern science?

By that logic I shouldn't use a knife and fork as it is a man made creation?

Andy you clearly don't know the first thing about Judaism and this debate is getting tiresome... if you want to debate with knee jerk literalist I suggest you talk to an evangelical christian.

Your argument has no relationship to Judaism in the slightest.

So, how do you know which bits of your old book to interpret literally, and which bits to merely gloss over? Sort of accept the bits that modern science hasn't disproved (yet) and say that the rest is due to 'differing interpretations'?

Not a very solid basis for one's entire belief system imo.

haha I loved how you avoided backing up any of your statements... anyway...

We believe all that exists in the Torah is true and when reading the Torah we read it with the knowledge of our Talmud (the Oral Law and discussion revolving around the Oral Law), wisdom (both traditional and modern) and our own personal interpretation/relationship with the text.

But my answer to your question is simple, we don't take any of the Torah on face value... We know that behind every word is a delicious depth that we can only scratch at with out limited wisdom.

I could back it up but I'd be repeating myself.

The Torah says that man was here 6 days after the formation of the world. This is clearly stupid.

Naturally, this is incompatible with the fossil record, so you'd have to assume it was a hoax to believe it.

I thought you said that Jews were responsbile for the modern ethics of the world? Well, modern ethics doesn't quite agree with their actions at Jericho, or quite a lot of other places. You linked the first, thus I thought this more than appropriate.

You don't take the word of god literally? You were trying to tell me a few posts ago that the reason god told you to surgically remove your foreskin (why couldn't he just remove the genes for it?) was to reduce HIV risk, and that science had only just caught up! Doesn't get much more literal than that.

Why don't you just read a book that has facts in? You will learn quite a lot more.

Better still...do some real research.

He also says that universe was created on the first.... clearly these aren't earth days as planet earth and the sun hadn't yet been created.

You're mistaking christian interpretation with Jewish, we have documents thousands of years old stating that 1 of G-d's days at the beginning of time is not the same as the day a human experiences on planet earth.

I am telling you the Jewish perspective, while you're attempting to guess it... How naive can one be?

When did I say that?

I said Judaism lay the foundations of the modern conscience, in the west this seems to be evolving into the liberal conscience (which often contradicts Judaism).

Yet another manipulation from you.

Where in the Torah does it say G-d commanded the Jews to circumcise themselves to prevent aids?!?!?

A literal translation would say "On the eighth day, the childs foreskin shall be circumcised so that he shant catch HIV when the virus surfaces 3500 years from now".

The Torah doesnt say that, any current reasoning behind brit milah is an interpretation of man.

You seem to get very confused when discussing religion andy.

and wind up like you.....

what a delightful idea.

Joe I'm truly amazed.

I've never encountered somone prepared to make such truly massive assumptions in the face of such pathetic 'evidence'. The mentality is revealing: "Science has proved that the world couldn't have been made in 6 days like we thought (and they did, lest we forget). Just call each day a billion years! Call it 'G-d time'! Then switch back to human time for the rest of it. Noone will ever be able to prove it's not what we meant all along".

You're clinging to an infinitessimal possibility of existence of an utterly implausible being for the basis of your life. I actually think you'd still believe in G-d even if science ever does find the long-awaited way to disprove it, or even, proved that, say the Christians, or the Buddhists, or the Vikings or the Ancient Romans had actually been right all along with Thor and Zeus.

It's completely bemusing to a rational person. The only other time I've seen this is when I was speaking to a patient with schizophrenia last year, who thought he was god (or gods dog, I forget). Every time I posed the impossibility of what he was saying, he would find some reason around it, and after 3h I left having made no indent on his beliefs at all. (I'm not trying to say you're mentally unwell by the way, it's just the only other time I've encountered such persistence in the face of what I see as common sense).

If you're convinced, I mean, really convinced by the minute, miniscule possibility in the face of such a gaping and vast lack of evidence, then no rational argument of probabilities or evidence will ever make the slightest indent on you. Maybe it's because I spend too much time with scientists that I find this so utterly baffling.

That would make sense if Jews had taught for 3400 years that 1 day = 24 earth hours; then upon the discoveries of modern science re-evaluated their position and stated that 1 day = G-d time.

But this isn't so, we have scholars and sages from nearly every recorded century stating that 1 day is much longer ( from calculations of billions to thousands of YEARS).

No one is re-evaluating Torah in the face of new evidence; we're stating what we've always stated.

This is something you seem to be unable to comprehend.

This is what I mean about you being an absolute idiot.

In the scale of intellects you are a dunce; a Walter Mitty character studying for some mediocre qualification at an average university, yet you have the fucking audacity to dismiss all Jews (who have reached far greater heights, possess wisdom you could only dream of achieving and lived a life you're barely a week into) as schizophrenics?!?!

Do you realize how utterly childish that makes you appear?

You may of read a few of Dawkins books, but that’s not an indication of intelligence... Any fool can recite the latest theories he stumbles upon.

Real intelligence is knowing that you know nothing... Something you haven't yet grasped... I look forward to you maturing.

Did you read the bit where I very specifically and clearly said I wasn't trying to imply that you were anything like mentally unwell?

The point was that that people can believe things very strongly in the absence of any evidence for it, and that I find the concept alien. It's unfortunate you chose not to read what I write.

You call me close-minded and arrogant about my opinions, and I was considering this earlier. I honestly don't think it's true. As soon as evidence becomes available that appears to shift the balance of probabilities in favour of something religious or superstitious, or a new and better scientific theory I would evaluate it carefully and become a proponent of it. You've taken one hugely improbable theory (I obviously can't explain why, my best guess is that it's for sociocultural reasons), and you're utterly close-minded to it....I find this to be an arrogance of opinion far in excess of mine, the confidence in which is based on the evidence available.

Oh, and if you want to slate my qualifications.....you know what I'm going to say.

You'll no doubt be delighted to hear that I've managed to find a copy of this

I look forward to reading it

good man, bare in mind its still not a substitute for the hebrew... but at least you can read the bible in a language closer to its original format.

if you can bear to read any more on this subject.......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1976582,00.html

I'm going to join these guardian forums, look at the quality of debate (not so much in this case as there isn't really anyone even on this board who'd take the other side, but you get the picture)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_dawkins/2006/12/post_845.html

yeh good stuff (although there are still some incredibly thick people posting)
essentially though they all boil down to 'I'm right because god says it's so' and 'I'm right because logic and reason say so' and never the twain shall meet.
It seems to me that the religious pposition, if probed deeply enough leads to the sort of position which Joe sometimes espouses ie god is the universe or the creator of the universe and everything else is a matter of faith and may be open to interpretation.
And the scientific position if probed deeply enough has to admit that, at the most basic level there is and can never be any conclusive proof about the creation of the universe or it's nature.
At the very edge of the study of cosmology there will always remain an unknown which can equate to the god theory if one so chooses.
This seems to me to be of no danger to, or problem for society and so can be accomodated without contention by both the religious and the scientific mindsets.

to return to the subject of this thread

Where it becomes something taught to innocent children as 'fact' then it has serious implications for a society where that happens. See North Korea for an extreme example. But even a society that teaches it's children as a 'fact' that the supreme creator of the universe knows (and cares) wether you eat pork, snip off your foreskin, wear a beard, or use a condom is in deep shit. and if those children then decide this gives them the right to blow up tube trains or bash pakis or blow up the centre of Omagh or murder palestinians then faith schools can be held in some way responsible. And that alone is a reason for not having them