Very intelligent people at that, we’re told. You’d think they’d have worked it out by now. What are us idiots supposed to do, smile and wave?
Just to pick up on that bit as I made the original comment and you've mentioned it a couple of times now - I didn't mean to be at all condescending and I'm sorry if anyone took it that way.
I was simply trying to illustrate my point that these detailed laws people like to point and laugh at actually have solid logical reasoning behind them. With the basic assumption that the source and rules are genuine, of course.
Let's try another example: take a Shimano Hyperglide chain & sprockets, it's got all these angles and funny shapes etc on it, very expensive...
From the point of view of someone who thinks cycling is utter nonsense, this is utter nonsense.
From the point of view of most of us here, this is very clever stuff, makes cycling easier, takes a lot of skill to make, and has many hours of research and testing behind it.
Now, all I'm trying to ask is that people can (at least for the purposes of discussion) be someone who thinks cycling is utter nonsense but can also see that drivetrain tech is very clever stuff, makes cycling easier, takes a lot of skill to make, and has many hours of research and testing behind it while still thinking cycling itself is stupid.
I know these things seem ridiculous. Just accept there's some process behind it other than cheating for the sake of a hot drink or whatever.
We have some firefighters on the forum. Perhaps they can comment on the idea that they turn up to a 999 call and respond by putting paper cups of water near the fire.
Now it's things like this that get my back up a bit, not because it's a joke or poking fun, I get that, also that you're exaggerating for effect. But in the context of this thread it just comes across as wilfully misunderstanding and paints you as ignorant (not meant in a rude sense, simply meaning lacking knowledge).
Essentially by exaggerating the law you're ridiculing, you change the situation into one that no longer makes sense - if firefighters are called to a fire it's for an emergency and I already said that if life's in danger then anything can be done. If someone's putting cups of water by a fire (not sure why, I assume you're talking about the "What one can do to avoid financial loss is place container full of liquid or wet clothing in a place the fire has not yet reached even knowing that the container will break and put out the fire" part?) then firstly it's pretty obviously a small fire and secondly it only doesn't make sense to you because you don't know, for example, the difference between biblical and rabbinic law, which cases are covered by each, the reasons for the rabbinic laws and how that affects any exceptions, the difference between active or passive actions in both negative and positive commandments, the different stringency levels of either the laws or the actions........
Yes I appreciate that to an extent the amount of detail can make it seem even more ridicule-worthy, hopefully I still got my main point across though!
DISCLAIMER - This post was written at 4.30am and I didn't get much sleep last night either, it may not be entirely coherent.
I was simply trying to illustrate my point that these detailed laws people like to point and laugh at actually have solid logical reasoning behind them. With the basic assumption that the source and rules are genuine, of course.
Well there’s your clue right there. If you start with a set of assumptions and proceed logically and reach an absurd conclusion - and I’d say that running in and out of a burning house putting clothes on and off is clearly absurd - then you need to re-examine your assumptions. Then maybe the firefighters won’t need to appreciate the difference between rabbinic and biblical law.
I know these things seem ridiculous. Just accept there’s some process behind it other than cheating for the sake of a hot drink or whatever.
I for one appreciate your patience.
Let's take these sentences in turn. "I know these things seem ridiculous." Assuming sincerity here then you understand why people are going "well, that's daft," it's because from the outside looking in it is daft. There's no two ways about it. The notion that you're not allowed to make a brew, not allowed to ask someone outwith your faith to make a brew for you, yet it's perfectly fine to go "gosh, I could really do with a brew right now" and hope someone takes the hint beggars all logic.
"Just accept there’s some process behind it other than cheating for the sake of a hot drink or whatever." Sure. What is it? This is what I'd be scratching at if it were me, surely the way to transpose ancient wisdom onto sometimes incompatible modern life is to establish what the original meaning was. If the underlying principle was that you got the day off like god did then I see no harm in going "do us a brew would you, mate?" If instead the goal is self-sacrifice then yawning and looking pointedly at a teabag doesn't seem to be playing fair. If it's "because we said so, do as you're told" then that's a terrible reason to be doing anything. And if it's something else then, well, that's evaded me thus far.
You said yourself, the sabbath is supposed to be enjoyable. It sounds like a right pain in the arse to me.
yet it’s perfectly fine to go “gosh, I could really do with a brew right now” and hope someone takes the hint
Actually, it's not 😉
There are many intricacies (surprise) over when this kind of thing is fine, not allowed, allowed for certain people, technically allowed but breaking the spirit of sabbath and therefore ok under some circumstances, and so on. I don't pretend to know anywhere near all of it, this is why we have rabbis!
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/7835
And the other answer in that link offers something towards the second half of your post.
Nicely, ta. I shall have a read.
Might make a cup of tea first though... 🙂
Might make a cup of tea first though…
Have you thought that through properly ?
Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever performs work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.'
Quite. We're back to 'compatibility' again. How can the first half of that be critical to a faith yet the murdering part be cheerfully handwaved?
It seems to me from that Stack Exchange discourse is that the point is to put your trotters up for the afternoon, which makes sense. In which case, why not have the heathens run around after you? Surely having an infidel make you a cup of tea is better than not having a cup of tea.
We’re back to ‘compatibility’ again. How can the first half of that be critical to a faith yet the murdering part be cheerfully handwaved?
See, now we're back to preconception/assumption again.
You see it as being discarded because "oh, we don't like this bit, let's just not do that any more" but it's not so simple. This practice ended around 2000 years ago near the end of the second temple period, while the Romans were in charge, mostly due to them I think. Capital punishment requires a beis din (court of law) of 23 judges amongst other things, which we don't have any more nowadays.
Therefore for various reasons capital punishment is impossible to do nowadays whether we wanted to or not, quite handy really seeing as we don't but it wasn't removed for that reason as you imply.
Incidentally, it was an extremely rare occurrence even then, to the point that if it happened more than once in 7 (or 70 in some opinions) years the court got the name of a "beis din of murderers".
In which case, why not have the heathens run around after you? Surely having an infidel make you a cup of tea is better than not having a cup of tea.
Answered right there.
Although biblically there is no prohibition against a non-Jew doing something for a Jew on Shabbat, to keep the spirit of Shabbat, and as a safeguard against violating it, the Sages prohibited a melacha (form of work prohibited on Shabbat) to be done by a non-Jew for a Jew on Shabbat.
So a Jew can get a non-Jew to do work for them on the Sabbath but at the same time a non-Jew cannot do work for a Jew on the Sabbath?!
Uh... Depends on what the work is, doesn't it. And it would more likely be the other way around if anything.
On the RE thing I can unequivocally state that it is taught as fact in some schools.
I must have lucked out then, my RE teacher at secondary school was a semi retired Professor of Theology from either Oxford or Cambridge, he'd moved home to run his family farm. Many interesting discussions about the ins and outs of various religions of the world in between him nipping out to check on the lambing ewe in the trailer he'd parked out the back of the portacabin.
On the flip side, we pretty much all failed the exam, because a) the syllabus was utter garbage and b) the teacher really didn't give a toss if we passed or not c) 50% of the class would rather sit outside and smoke.
there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.
Age, connections to local legislative structure?
You see it as being discarded because “oh, we don’t like this bit, let’s just not do that any more” but it’s not so simple.
Got it, ta. So we're saying the faith is flexible and open to (eventual) change?
Answered right there.
But it doesn't answer why.
as a safeguard against violating it
Sensible.
the Sages prohibited a melacha... to be done by a non-Jew for a Jew on Shabbat.
How do we suppose a non-Jew is going to be bound by such prohibitions? You can ban what you like, I'm watching Strictly in a minute and I know it's your favourite.
Sure, one could say that friends would do as the believers wish out of respect, and isn't there a clause about marrying outside of your faith?(*) But it seems awfully presumptuous to demand that non-believers toe the line.
(* - a family member converted recently for just this reason, I really should talk to him about it)
Age, connections to local legislative structure?
Care to expand on this?
Care to expand on this?
All religions were "cults" to start with. They get bigger with time, until they either become a problem for the incumbent religion, if there is one (and then they get thrown to the metaphoric lions) or get big enough/connected enough to become an "official" part of the community at large.
Did Cougar have so many posts it was causing the site to glitch or is there some other reason for his being born again?
On a societal level there's the question of whether organised religion is a force for good or evil. On an individual level there are a number of reasons for belonging to a religion the main ones being faith, fear of not belonging or self interest. My own observations suggest organised religion does more harm than good but personal faith does more good than harm to believers. Some people even have faith without really believing.
A sabbath respecting freezer did make me smile but then I thought about the other daft things people do, I mean some people walk thousands of kms in sandals to a place it's just possible someone might be burried and then do it again and again every which way. 450 000 in 2023, not quite so many this year so there were places in the inns. Bonkers:
Got it, ta. So we’re saying the faith is flexible and open to (eventual) change?
Well, the change in this example being the Romans smashing the temple and kicking us out the country, yeah.
Answered right there.
But it doesn’t answer why.
as a safeguard against violating it
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How do we suppose a non-Jew is going to be bound by such prohibitions? You can ban what you like, I’m watching Strictly in a minute and I know it’s your favourite.
You can do what you like. I'll ignore it or, worst case, leave the room.
But it seems awfully presumptuous to demand that non-believers toe the line
Not at all. Just don't do certain things specifically for my benefit and not yours. Not a hard ask 🙂 You can even do that if you like! But then I can't benefit, so it somewhat defeats the purpose. In fact, you're not allowed to keep the sabbath even if you wanted to. Don't tell me you're getting miffed about that, now 😉
