Even my freezer is “Woke”

Seriously? Your house is on fire and “it gets a bit complicated”? I’m struggling to think of anything more simple.

“My house is on fire, quick, get a bucket of water!” – “Sorry chum, no can do, it’s the sabbath. Give me a shout tomorrow and I’m all yours.”

Pretty much.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/if-my-home-is-on-fire-on-shabbos-or-yom-tov-what-can-i-do

Yeah… don’t become Jewish 😀

the default communication style is hectoring.

Maybe, but some forum users do find it hilarious…

I find it hilarious that you talk about avoiding contempt when it drips out of every sentence you write along with clear sense of superiority and absolute inability to understand others position.

See?  It might look more like projection many might say, but I believe in a literal interpretation

I love it – but do let’s not ridicule religion …

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/25924/if-my-home-is-on-fire-on-shabbos-or-yom-tov-what-can-i-do

What he is allowed to save is:

[…]

A much clothing as he can wear at one time. He can then take all the clothing off outside, go inside and repeat

Potentially interesting thread predictably descends into pissing contest. Every. Single. Time. I wonder what odds Paddy power are giving on it being closed before the day’s out?

It’s so hard not to ridicule religions of all kinds. They’re basically an open goal. Most religious texts have more plotholes than your average summer blockbuster and that rule link is a mad rabbit hole and fascinating.

that rule link is a mad rabbit hole and fascinating

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.

that rule link is a mad rabbit hole and fascinating.

To me it’s like reading Dune or something, so far removed from my experience and the way I think to essentially be sci fi/fantasy.

that rule link is a mad rabbit hole and fascinating

Don’t you mean rabbi hole?

If a holy book isn’t what it claims to be / what its followers claim it to be then it makes a mockery of the entire religion.

What does the Bible claim to be, exactly? What do its followers claim it to be?

People have been killed to death over the centuries across various religions for daring to go “hang on a moment…”

Christians have been discussing exactly what the Bible is really about for centuries and Jews for centuries before that. There are literally four different versions of the same events that don’t even correlate included in the same volume – why would they do that if not to promote debate? There are even multiple versions of it, published by people who weren’t killed. There have always been scholars discussing what it all means, most of whom disagree, and most of them were not killed.

Religious wars don’t really happen because people disagree on theology. It’s always about politics, land or resources primarily. The English Civil War was not about Catholicism vs protestantism, it was about who has the right to tell people what to do.

You know Jesuits are a Catholic order, right? One with a reputation (in the past anyway) of getting involved in power struggles with secular authorities. Hence why they got kicked out of many countries and were even formally shut down by the pope for a time.

Ok fair point I might be thinking of someone else.

Most religious texts have more plotholes than your average summer blockbuster

How many are you actually properly familiar with? Be honest now…

Its mostly I find it hilarious that you talk about avoiding contempt when it drips out of every sentence you write along with clear sense of superiority and absolute inability to understand others position.

Point of order: I’m not trying to be condescending.

Regarding understanding others’ position, that’s literally my entire point. On these threads the general position is that anyone who is at all religious is a credulous idiot with no critical reasoning skills. THAT is what I am arguing against because I know for a fact it is not true. I know many very intelligent and thoughtful religious people. I cannot stand untruths especially when they denigrate people I care about.

I am an atheist.

I’m familiar with the Bible most of all, Qu’ran, I Ching, a couple of Taoist texts a bit and  have read books on Hinduism, Sikhism and a lot of creation myths from all around the world. I see no difference between the various creation myths and religious texts bar the majority of creation myths being much more entertaining and engaging. Particularly the Norse, Greek, Mayan and Egyptian. I find religion and myths and legends very interesting.

What I find odd is that some are accepted and others just seen as stories. I stick them all firmly in the latter camp. Most of them share similar elements too.

I accept that there are intelligent people who are religious, just as there are idiots who aren’t. Still doesn’t alter the fact that I find following some really rather ridiculous rules and protocols extremely funny. That link up there leads to some utterly bizarre questions and responses. At some point, if you were genuinely thinking critically, you’d have to stop and think ‘what the **** am I actually doing’ if you don’t then your critical thinking skills aren’t great. Letting your house burn down, putting on all your clothes whilst said house is on fire and not taking fallen hairs out of your beard because rules’ are not the actions of someone using critical thinking regardless of how it is dressed up or interpreted.

Look, it seems perfectly bizarre to me as well. But other people think that getting on a bike and getting out of breath riding in a big circle is equally bizarre. I have had this exact conversation.

Humans are all pretty weird, since the definition of weird is ‘not what most people I know about do’.

What I find odd is that some are accepted and others just seen as stories.

All the Christians I know are more than happy to see Genesis as a parable. Historically people were divided on the subject.

I feel really contradicted over religion, some of it, the little I’ve read, has been really interesting and helped shape the way I think, so the dismissal of religion as sky faeries etc is just and an absolutely huge section of the human population is kinda offensive and makes me wasn’t to react against out and defend religious views. On the other hand, when I’ve been to church services I’ve often felt on edge the whole time, unable to participate in singing etc, and wanted to run as fast as possible out of there before I get found out as being in league with the devil!

I’ve often wondered how we reconcile these differences, even within our own culture, is woke vs far right, the gulf of separation seems enormous, and that’s before we even get into completely juxtaposed cultures.

Look, it seems perfectly bizarre to me as well. But other people think that getting on a bike and getting out of breath riding in a big circle is equally bizarre. I have had this exact conversation.

Riding a bike is odd. Letting your house burn down is just plain daft. The former has health benefits and is a way of getting from A to B. What possible purpose does the second have? They aren’t comparable at all.

If the Christians you know accept Genesis as a parable, what are their views on the rest of the books in the Bible and how do they differentiate parable from supposed history?

I feel really contradicted over religion, some of it, the little I’ve read, has been really interesting and helped shape the way I think, so the dismissal of religion as sky faeries etc is just and an absolutely huge section of the human population is kinda offensive and makes me wasn’t to react against out and defend religious views

I’m with you on the interesting part. I genuinely find it fascinating. It hasn’t altered the way I think though. I don’t dismiss as sky faeries but I do find any sort of mass group or tribal behaviour pretty creepy. Football fans, fan culture in general and organised religion all fall in this camp. As per my previous post I’m a big fan of live and let live.

Finding humour in it is the best way as with most things in life. I find parts of religious behaviours highly amusing. Just a facet of my humour that possibly makes me a bit of a dick. I’m fine with that

I think they treat them as historical writings by humans that are divinely inspired. If it were all absolutely explicit we wouldn’t have been debating it for 3000 years, after all.

As per my previous post I’m a big fan of live and let live.

Where’ve I heard that before..? Hmm.

Divinely inspired doesn’t really sit well with critical thinking or a debate that can really be based in anything logical. Probably explains why it has been going on for so long.

Where’ve I heard that before..? Hmm.

My previous post? ?

I have no hatred of religion and I’m happy for anyone to practice anything they choose. If I’m asked about it or there’s a debate on a public forum though I’m going to join in and have an opinion. That opinion might not be the same as others. I’m the same with politics and the current situation with Trump. I think the guy and all he stands for is entirely **** up. Unlike many others on here though I’m not going to resort to calling people Russians or bots or celebrate people being banned or silenced for havig a different opinion. I may not like their opinion and if it starts moving in to the realms of violent, intimidating, abusive etc behaviour then I’ll be one of the first to jump on it.

My personal opinion is that I think all religion holds us back as a species and is a relic of a bygone era. Completely happy for people to follow any religion they want though as I appreciate everyone is different and I’ll defend their right to do so. I’ll also take the piss out of anything ridiculous, including myself! If people can’t see the humour in some of the madness outlined in this thread then they must be **** all fun at parties. I’m willing to bet a lot of practicing Jews find some of the Sabbath work arounds funny.

Argh! Winking emoji showing as a question mark.

Point of order: I’m not trying to be condescending.

Then you are failing badly.

THAT is what I am arguing against because I know for a fact it is not true.

Aside from people arent saying that. So its quite impressive that you have taken on a strawman and failed.  You seem to be struggling with the idea that particular beliefs someone holds can be badly wrong whilst the person can be generally intelligent with them compartmentalising those beliefs somehow. A classic example being young earth creationist working in fossil fuel exploration. Should be incompatible but some people manage it.

The problem is you keep lecturing people about how they should be better informed but show very limited understanding eg your erroneous ideas about Galileo, Jesuits and then this “The English Civil War was not about Catholicism vs protestantism”.  Well no considering it was mostly High Anglicanism vs other forms of Protestantism although granted quite a few of the other Protestants did think High Anglicanism is thinly disguised Roman Catholicism. So with that in mind feel free to explain why the Bishops Wars wasnt a religious dispute originally.

What I find odd is that some are accepted and others just seen as stories

And how many move between them eg Mount Olympus and Valhalla disappearing as options.

Leaving creation myths and legends aside it is interesting to speculate how much history distorted by years of partial remembering and also people going “this makes it better” is in the myths and legends.

Adrienne Mayor for example has a couple of interesting books suggesting a lot of the mythical creatures like giants, griffins etc are based on people finding dinosaur bones and then coming up with an explanation for them.

As I said, my main gripe is the general attitude of flippancy and dismissive-ness. I love a good historical discussion, and yes I am shit with details and get names wrong. But I think that you can’t dismiss the value of something without really understanding it. You can still be critical, but that’s not the same as outright dismissal.

So with that in mind feel free to explain why the Bishops Wars wasnt a religious dispute originally.

I have read about this, but I went to Wikipeda to remind myself and it says this:

In 1637, Charles I, then king of both Scotland and England, imposed changes in religious practice on the Church of Scotland. Strongly opposed by many Scots, this led to the 1638 National Covenant, whose supporters became known as Covenanters. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland then expelled bishops from the church, turning a religious dispute into a struggle for political supremacy

This is what I am talking about. Religion is so completely intertwined with power and politics I don’t think you can point the finger at it alone.

You can still be critical, but that’s not the same as outright dismissal.

You seem to be assuming people havent looked at it before dismissing it. How long do you want me to spend studying scientology?

This is what I am talking about. Religion is so completely intertwined with power and politics I don’t think you can point the finger at it alone.

If only you had read what I wrote.

Although the dispute about x turning into a general “why are you in charge again?” is a standard feature of revolutions. It doesnt stop the original factor being the trigger though.

what’s imporant is not just WHAT people believe but WHY they do

That would be a short lesson. In the vast majority of cases, folk believe what their parents told them to be true.

What does the Bible claim to be, exactly? What do its followers claim it to be?

That’s not a question for an atheist to answer. Ask them.

I was taught at school that the Bible was god’s message to its creation, the Haynes Manual to life if you will. It’s wholly possible that I was misled, but if the Bible (your words not mine, I didn’t single out any specific religion) is not divine then it’s little more than a book of fables and thus an odd thing to hang a lifestyle off of.

Christians have been discussing exactly what the Bible is really about for centuries and Jews for centuries before that.

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?

If someone is preaching to the masses as to how they’re supposed to live their lives according to a book that they themselves don’t understand, isn’t that flat-out dangerous?

There are literally four different versions of the same events that don’t even correlate included in the same volume – why would they do that if not to promote debate?

An obvious answer presents itself.

On these threads the general position is that anyone who is at all religious is a credulous idiot with no critical reasoning skills. THAT is what I am arguing

Then you’re arguing against a straw man of your own devising. You’ve come into this discussion with preconceptions and then have the gall to challenge everyone else about theirs. You’re accusing folk of a lack of knowledge on the basis of nothing – “How many are you actually properly familiar with? Be honest now…” – well, the same question right back at you, what are your credentials? How dare you presume to assume that everyone else must be an ignoramus.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that particular beliefs someone holds can be badly wrong whilst the person can be generally intelligent with them compartmentalising those beliefs somehow. A classic example being young earth creationist working in fossil fuel exploration. Should be incompatible but some people manage it.

I used to work with a bloke who was a polymath, possibly the single most intelligent person I’ve ever known (and I’ve known a few). He was also a practicing Christian. I asked him once how he rationalised that, and we lost a day to the discussion. The TL;DR version is that he put his faith in a box marked “other” in his brain. It couldn’t be explained but it was extra-real so didn’t need to be. To my mind this was (oh look, the middle of this conversation) a loophole, but it worked for him.

On an ebike? How about one you don’t have to peddle?

Anyone peddling bikes in the Cyclists’ Temple is definitely going to have their table overturned.

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: