Health Benefits of Kosher as Evidence of Divine Influence?
Avi Norowitz
I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
this way by chance. I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
says. I will try to summarize his evidence, but I'm likely to make errors
as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very limited.
- When creating a "medium" for most pathogens to grow, milk on its own is
unsuitable and meat on its own is unsuitable. The reason is that milk on
its own makes it too acidic, and meat on its own grows an antibiotic which
kills the bacteria. According to kosher, meat products and dairy products
cannot be eaten together. In particular, one can eat meat shortly after
dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
eating meat. Dairy products do not often get stuck in a person's teeth
while meat products do. As a result, someone who eats meat or dairy
together or first eats meat and then dairy increases the risk of harmful
pathogens growing in their mouth. Someone who doesn't eat them together or
eats dairy and then meat minimizes the risk. In addition, cooking meat and
dairy together can result in pathogens growing in the food.
- The speaker says a medical encyclopedia writes that despite the fact
that many people claim Jews have a genetic resistance to tuberculosis, the
author says that he believes Jews have a resistence to tuberculosis
because they didn't eat tubercular meat as a result of keeping kosher. The
author of the article in the encyclopedia doesn't go any further, but the
speaker says that the laws of kosher involving the examination of the
lungs of animals is the reason. The lungs are inflated and if air leaks
out, the animal is considered to be not kosher. One of the affects of
tuberculosis is that an infected animals will develop holes in their
lungs. Since tuberculosis takes years to take show symptoms, there is no
way humans prior to modern times could have correlated holes in an
animal's lungs to symptoms of tuberculosis in animals or humans.
- The speaker comments that people may respond that plenty of cultures
have their own "folk medicine." He responds that this is not the case with
kosher, because "folk medicine" can only be discovered when the affects
are immediate. When the affects are delayed, such as in the case of
tuberculosis, there is no way they could have tested the medicine.
- People in the past usually didn't wash their hands after using the
restroom or before they ate. In Jewish tradition, washing your hands
(although not necessarily thoroughly) after using the restroom and before
eating is required.
- Blood happens to be a good medium for growing bacteria. Eating blood is
forbidden according to kosher. When preparing meat, one must make sure all
the blood is washed off before it can be cooked and eaten.
- The laws of kosher and sanitation have been saved Jews from diseases
such as the Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages, where 40% of the
population of Europe died while only a small percentage of Jews died.
(Inevitably more of them died anyways as a result them being murdered on
the basis that the Jews, not being affected, must have caused it.)
- Kosher only permits that sea animals that have fins and scales may be
eaten. When crustaceans (which are not kosher) are affected by algae such
as red tide that is toxic to humans, they tend to survive. In contrast
fish, which have digestive systems more similar to humans, tend to die
quickly. Humans end up eating the toxic crustaceans which appear to be
unaffected but don't eat the dead toxic fish. As a result, people get sick
from eating crustaceans but rarely fish.
- Metal utensils that are "contaminated" (they were used for non-kosher
food - I think) can be purified with a ritual, while earthen utensils
cannot be purified and must be disposed of. Bacteria can penetrate into
the pores of earthen material, while bacteria cannot penetrate the pores
of metal.
- The speaker says he has many more examples, and if an honest
statistical evaluation was applied, there would be a very low probability
that the health benefits of these laws are a result of chance.
Unfortunately, people are reluctant to apply statistical analyses to
religious laws.
Answers to questions people raise:
- Not all kosher laws have a health benefit that is currently known. For
example, the hind quarter of a cow isn't kosher, despite the fact that it
makes the best meat. He doesn't know any health benefits of this.
- There's a "glob of fat" called the kidney knob in the belly of a cow
that isn't kosher. Upon examination, all the fat within the animal, this
fat has by far the highest concentration of cholesterol.
- In recent times, a high concentration of fat and toxic chemicals get
stuck in the liver of animals. (According to kosher, liver is only kosher
if it is broiled. I suppose he might be implying that broiling helps
reduce the toxic chemicals, but I'm not sure.)
I would be very curious for responses.
Thanks.
--
"This APT has Super Cow Powers." http://ulag.net
chano
[snip]
According to kosher, meat products and dairy products
cannot be eaten together. In particular, one can eat meat shortly after
dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
eating meat. Dairy products do not often get stuck in a person's teeth
while meat products do. As a result, someone who eats meat or dairy
together or first eats meat and then dairy increases the risk of harmful
pathogens growing in their mouth. Someone who doesn't eat them together or
eats dairy and then meat minimizes the risk. In addition, cooking meat and
dairy together can result in pathogens growing in the food.
--------------------------
It would appear that despite the Jewish sounding name, Mr Norowitz is either
not a Jew or he has been living on the moon for the past 100 years. He
displays a monumental ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Judaism, a
fact which he himself admits to, " ...I'm likely to make errors
as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very limited."
Further he is abysmally confused in the way he present his facts; for
example he cites the following, "In particular, one can eat meat shortly
after
dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
eating meat." These two propositions mean exactly the same thing and
contradict each other. Mr Norowitz is sowing the seeds of deliberate
confusion in the mind of anyone reading his post. Quite simply he is talking
garbage, there are millions of recipes world wide where meat and dairy
products are cooked or eaten together with absolutely no harmful affects
whatsoever, pathogens are identifiable in all foodstuff, kosher or
non-kosher. The reason why Jews do not combine meat with milk is quite
simply because the Torah forbids it. It is written 3 times; " Thou shall not
cook the kid (goat) in its mother's milk" Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26,
Deuteronomy 14:22. It has absolutely nothing to do with acidity or
alkalinity or pathogens in the mouth.
As for tuberculosis Jews are just as susceptible to TB as any other human
group, it is passed on when one inhales the breath of an infected person.
The examination of animals' lungs is again an injunction against eating any
meat from an injured animal, the holes in lungs which you speak of may have
been caused by the animal ingesting thorns or other sharp objects.
Millions of people eat without washing their hands, with no ill effect. The
Jewish tradition of washing hands before eating is not hygiene related. It
is symbolic of "elevating" the hands from the mundane to a higher spiritual
level in order to eat food which God Almighty has provided.
As to kosher and non-kosher seafood, again millions of people all over the
world enjoy eating such non-kosher seafood as lobster, crab, oysters,
shrimps, skate, whale-meat and eels with absolutely no harm. On the other
hand try eating a herring that's not fresh and see if it doesn't affect you.
Again it is a Torah injunction that only fish with both scales and fins are
kosher, Leviticus 11:9,10,12 and Deuteronomy 14:9&10.
There is no "contamination" as you call it with eating-utensils, and
bacteria has nothing to do with it, and it is not "earthen" utensil as you
incorrectly said, it is "earthenware". Your confusion stems from the fact
that you are unaware that Jews not only do not cook meat and milk together
but they also do not cook or serve both on the same kitchen utensils and
separate dishes, pots and silverware are used for meat and milk.
Hind quarter of beef (or cow) is definitely kosher, it is not consumed
because it requires the removal of the sciatic nerve, and other sinews
before it may be eaten; the required skill to remove them is not available
these days. The non-consumption of kidney fat has nothing whatsoever to do
with cholesterol, the humble chicken egg, known to be high in cholesterol,
is perfectly kosher. The reason why kidney fat is not eaten is because it
was used in Temple times by the High priest, since in our days there is no
temple, we do not use it.
As for liver-broiling, it has nothing to do with toxicity; since Jews are
forbidden to consume blood the broiling method extracts the blood from liver
more efficiently than other methods.
I suggest that before making such posts in future you educate yourself in
the subject matter at hand, the little knowledge you have is a most
dangerous thing.
Chano
Yang
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
>biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
>benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
>developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
>outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
>this way by chance.
Kosher food is hazardous to my health. Many Asians cannot digest milk,
so there goes that argument.
-----
"Close a bigger deal to hide the loss"
-Thomas White, in an interanl email memo to his staff at Enron Retail Division, responding to worsening cashflow in February 2001. White currently serves as the secretary of the US Army as appointed by George W. Bush.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/08/29/white/index.html
Avi Norowitz
> - When creating a "medium" for most pathogens to grow, milk on its own
> is
> unsuitable and meat on its own is unsuitable. The reason is that milk on
> its own makes it too acidic, and meat on its own grows an antibiotic
> which kills the bacteria.
I'm sorry, I left out that although when they're seperated milk and meat
are a poor environment for pathogens, milk and meat together make an
effective environment for growing pathogens.
Josef Balluch
> Hello,
>
> I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
> biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
> benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
> developments in science.
"unobvious benefits" seems like an oxymoron.
> He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
> outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
> this way by chance.
A classic theist straw man.
> I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
> demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
> says.
...
> Since tuberculosis takes years to take show symptoms, there is no
> way humans prior to modern times could have correlated holes in an
> animal's lungs to symptoms of tuberculosis in animals or humans.
An Argument from Ignorance, at best. The ancient Jews weren't as dumb as
this biochemist thinks they were.
> - The speaker comments that people may respond that plenty of cultures
> have their own "folk medicine." He responds that this is not the case with
> kosher, because "folk medicine" can only be discovered when the affects
> are immediate. When the affects are delayed, such as in the case of
> tuberculosis, there is no way they could have tested the medicine.
Silly twaddle. Again, the Jews deserve a little more credit than this.
> - People in the past usually didn't wash their hands after using the
> restroom or before they ate. In Jewish tradition, washing your hands
> (although not necessarily thoroughly) after using the restroom and before
> eating is required.
I would be surprised if the washing of hands has "unobvious benefits".
> Blood happens to be a good medium for growing bacteria. Eating blood is
> forbidden according to kosher. When preparing meat, one must make sure all
> the blood is washed off before it can be cooked and eaten.
The cooking process would certainly destroy bacteria, so the reason and
benefit of this restriction is unclear. Perhaps there was a problem with
undercooked meat. However, the dangers of contaminated meat are not
particularly subtle so there is an "obvious benefit" to avoiding it.
> - The laws of kosher and sanitation have been saved Jews from diseases
> such as the Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages, where 40% of the
> population of Europe died while only a small percentage of Jews died.
> (Inevitably more of them died anyways as a result them being murdered on
> the basis that the Jews, not being affected, must have caused it.)
The fact that these laws are effective does not in any way establish
that they are supernatural.
> - Kosher only permits that sea animals that have fins and scales may be
> eaten. When crustaceans (which are not kosher) are affected by algae such
> as red tide that is toxic to humans, they tend to survive. In contrast
> fish, which have digestive systems more similar to humans, tend to die
> quickly. Humans end up eating the toxic crustaceans which appear to be
> unaffected but don't eat the dead toxic fish. As a result, people get sick
> from eating crustaceans but rarely fish.
Avoiding toxic shell fish certainly would seem to have "obvious
benefits".
> - Metal utensils that are "contaminated" (they were used for non-kosher
> food - I think) can be purified with a ritual, while earthen utensils
> cannot be purified and must be disposed of. Bacteria can penetrate into
> the pores of earthen material, while bacteria cannot penetrate the pores
> of metal.
The benefits would not be all that unobvious here.
> - The speaker says he has many more examples, and if an honest
> statistical evaluation was applied, there would be a very low probability
> that the health benefits of these laws are a result of chance.
Yup. Wonder why.
> Unfortunately, people are reluctant to apply statistical analyses to
> religious laws.
<chuckle> Perhaps because at least some theists are smarter than
certain biochemists.
> Answers to questions people raise:
>
> Not all kosher laws have a health benefit that is currently known. For
> example, the hind quarter of a cow isn't kosher, despite the fact that it
> makes the best meat. He doesn't know any health benefits of this.
Kinda makes the "God knew it best" hypothesis a little shaky.
> - There's a "glob of fat" called the kidney knob in the belly of a cow
> that isn't kosher. Upon examination, all the fat within the animal, this
> fat has by far the highest concentration of cholesterol.
The rather crushing pain of oxygen starvation of the heart muscle might
have tipped them off.
> In recent times, a high concentration of fat and toxic chemicals get
> stuck in the liver of animals. (According to kosher, liver is only kosher
> if it is broiled. I suppose he might be implying that broiling helps
> reduce the toxic chemicals, but I'm not sure.)
http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-beef-liver.htm
As the info at this site states, the reason for broiling liver is to
facilitate the removal of blood. As mentioned earlier in the post, the
eating of blood is forbidden.
Regards,
Josef
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
-- Robert Burton
Harlan Messinger
>Hello,
>
>I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
>biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
>benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
>developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
>outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
>this way by chance.
He wouldn't consider the possibility that people noticed that various
ill effects seemed to correlate with certain dietary practices,
leading them to avoid those practices entirely NOT by chance? What
does this biochemist make of cultures that knew enough not to eat with
the hand that they had just wiped themselves with? Does that
demonstrate the validity of *their* religious beliefs?
>
> - The speaker says a medical encyclopedia writes that despite the fact
>that many people claim Jews have a genetic resistance to tuberculosis, the
>author says that he believes Jews have a resistence to tuberculosis
>because they didn't eat tubercular meat as a result of keeping kosher.
Both medical and evolutionary principles would lead one to expect the
opposite. From the medical viewpoint, exposure would lead to
resistance. From the evolutionary viewpoint, exposure would kill the
weak, so that the genes of those having resistance would be
propagated. I'm not getting a very good impression of this
biochemist's grasp of the issues.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Harlan Messinger
>The Chinese eat everything, from crickets to crabs. 1 billion Chinese cant
>be wrong.
>
Please don't force me to deliver the line about 500 billion flies.
Avi Norowitz
"chano" <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> It would appear that despite the Jewish sounding name, Mr Norowitz is
> either not a Jew or he has been living on the moon for the past 100
> years. He displays a monumental ignorance of even the most basic tenets
> of Judaism, a fact which he himself admits to, " ...I'm likely to make
> errors as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very
> limited."
I am Jewish and I keep kosher. Please excuse me for not being a mashgiach.
>
> Further he is abysmally confused in the way he present his facts; for
> example he cites the following, "In particular, one can eat meat shortly
> after
> dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
> eating meat." These two propositions mean exactly the same thing and
> contradict each other.
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but what I intended to say
was not contradictory. It is in most cases acceptable to first eat dairy
and then eat meat a few minutes later. It is not acceptable to first eat
meat and then eat dairy a few minutes later. That was what I intended to
say.
> Mr Norowitz is sowing the seeds of deliberate
> confusion in the mind of anyone reading his post. Quite simply he is
> talking garbage, there are millions of recipes world wide where meat and
> dairy products are cooked or eaten together with absolutely no harmful
> affects whatsoever, pathogens are identifiable in all foodstuff, kosher
> or non-kosher.
If I was sowing seeds of confusion, then it certainly wasn't deliberate. I
wasn't attempting to prove anything. I was merely attempting to present
the speaker's argument as accurately as possible. I do not necessarily
agree with him. I posted it to Usenet because it seemed like an
interesting argument, and I was curious to see what flaws people could
find in it and what other insights people could provide.
> The reason why Jews do not combine meat with milk is quite
> simply because the Torah forbids it. It is written 3 times; " Thou shall
> not cook the kid (goat) in its mother's milk" Exodus 23:19, Exodus
> 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:22. It has absolutely nothing to do with acidity
> or alkalinity or pathogens in the mouth.
I am aware of the official reason. I was not suggesting that religious
Jews follow these laws for health reasons. The speaker was simply
suggesting that there are underlying health reasons for these laws that he
believes were intentional.
>
> As for tuberculosis Jews are just as susceptible to TB as any other
> human group,
Possibly, but the speaker didn't make it up.
"Behrend, with many others, is of the opinion that the relative immunity
of the Jews is due to the careful inspection of their meat, examination
being made particularly as to disease of the lungs and pleura, and bovine
tuberculosis being thereby intercepted. More frequent house-cleaning is
another reason given. Of all the causes assigned, however, the most
probable are the careful selection of carcasses in Jewish slaughter-houses
and the infrequency of alcoholism among Jews. It has been repeatedly shown
that the flesh of tuberculous cattle sold for food is responsible for many
cases of tuberculosis, and the rigid inspection of meat practised by the
Jews has, therefore, the effect of checking to a very great extent the
ravages of the disease."
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=751&letter=C)
The article also discusses the possibility of genetic resistance.
> it is passed on when one inhales the breath of an infected person.
> The examination of animals' lungs is again an injunction against eating
> any meat from an injured animal, the holes in lungs which you speak of
> may have been caused by the animal ingesting thorns or other sharp
> objects.
The following text from Encyclopedia Britannica would seem to imply that
cattle can carry tuberculosis.
"Tuberculosis in humans is usually caused by the human variety of the
bacillus, M. tuberculosis, and in fewer cases by the bovine variety of the
bacillus, M. bovis. Besides cattle, which are infected by the bovine type
of bacillus, other domestic animals susceptible to tuberculosis include
swine and fowl, the latter being infected by the avian type of bacillus."
(Britannica, "tuberculosis")
And the following seems to imply that tuberculosis can visibly affect the
lung.
"Primary pulmonary tuberculosis occurs mostly in childhood. Often the
infection is without symptoms and immunity results. When the primary
infection heals, a small scar in the lung is visible on X ray. Sometimes
the infection does not heal but spreads into the bloodstream and through
the body, causing miliary tuberculosis, a highly fatal form if not
adequately treated."
Although the jewishencyclopedia.com article implies it, Britannica does
not list eating infected meat as a method of catching.
"Infection with tuberculosis spreads in two ways, by the respiratory route
directly from another infected person or by the gastrointestinal route by
drinking milk infected with the tubercle bacillus."
>
> Millions of people eat without washing their hands, with no ill effect.
> The Jewish tradition of washing hands before eating is not hygiene
> related. It is symbolic of "elevating" the hands from the mundane to a
> higher spiritual level in order to eat food which God Almighty has
> provided.
Once again, I am aware of the official reasons for these laws, and that
the health benefits are rarely relevent to whether Jews choose to follow
them.
The soc.culture.jewish FAQ seems to agree with the speaker regarding the
correlation between Jews washing hands and the resistence to the Black
Plague.
"The three hand washing laws, upon waking up and before and after
meals, had significant impact on survival during the Black Plague.
Jews faired much better than the rest of the population. To the
extent that it was taken as "evidence" that the plague was some
kind of Jewish conspiracy, leading some to set arson and murder."
(http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/05-Worship/section-47.html)
>
> As to kosher and non-kosher seafood, again millions of people all over
> the world enjoy eating such non-kosher seafood as lobster, crab,
> oysters, shrimps, skate, whale-meat and eels with absolutely no harm.
The speaker was only suggesting a correlation between eating non-kosher
sea food and health problems.
For example, regarding red tide and shellfish,
"Both Texas and Florida have experienced extensive red tides that have had
adverse impacts on fishing, the quality of the shoreline, and local
economies. In addition to killing fish outright, brevetoxins can also
become concentrated in the tissues of shellfish when they feed on
dinoflagellates. People who eat these shellfish may suffer from neurotoxic
shellfish poisoning, a food poisoning that can cause severe
gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. The human health effects from
consuming shellfish with high concentrations of brevetoxins in their
tissues have been well documented."
(http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/algal.htm)
> There is no "contamination" as you call it with eating-utensils, and
> bacteria has nothing to do with it, and it is not "earthen" utensil as
> you incorrectly said, it is "earthenware".
I said "contaminated" because that is the word the speaker used. I was
aware that bacteria has nothing to do with kosher. I believe the speaker's
point was that the laws of kosher appear to have insight in avoiding
bacteria. I agree that it's not a very relevant point since non-kosher
food and bacteria are two different things, and I should have left it out.
> Your confusion stems from the fact
> that you are unaware that Jews not only do not cook meat and milk
> together but they also do not cook or serve both on the same kitchen
> utensils and separate dishes, pots and silverware are used for meat and
> milk.
No, actually I was aware of that.
>
> Hind quarter of beef (or cow) is definitely kosher, it is not consumed
> because it requires the removal of the sciatic nerve, and other sinews
> before it may be eaten; the required skill to remove them is not
> available these days.
Thank you for the clarification.
> The non-consumption of kidney fat has nothing whatsoever to do
> with cholesterol, the humble chicken egg, known to be high in
> cholesterol, is perfectly kosher. The reason why kidney fat is not eaten
> is because it was used in Temple times by the High priest, since in our
> days there is no temple, we do not use it.
Once again, I was not suggesting that people keep kosher for health
reasons.
>
> As for liver-broiling, it has nothing to do with toxicity; since Jews
> are forbidden to consume blood the broiling method extracts the blood
> from liver more efficiently than other methods.
>
> I suggest that before making such posts in future you educate yourself
> in the subject matter at hand, the little knowledge you have is a most
> dangerous thing.
> Chano
>
>
>
Avi Norowitz
speaker, Jews never did have a genetic resistence to tuberculosis, but
that they didn't catch it in the past because of the lung-checking
process.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:05:05 -0500
Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Both medical and evolutionary principles would lead one to expect the
> opposite. From the medical viewpoint, exposure would lead to
> resistance. From the evolutionary viewpoint, exposure would kill the
> weak, so that the genes of those having resistance would be
> propagated. I'm not getting a very good impression of this
> biochemist's grasp of the issues.
--
Yang
wrote:
>> Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
>> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
>
>There's no such thing as a "Kosher diet." "Kosher" defines a set of rules
>that limits the types of foods you can eat and sets standards for its
>preperation. I've eaten in Kosher Chinese, Kosher Italian, and many other
>restaurants serving a variety of Kosher foods.
If that's how you define it, then I agree. However, something that is
not Kosher, such lobsters, is far healthier to me, than something that
is Kosher, such as milk by itself.
>BTW, It's actually easier to keep Kosher with an Asian diet than with other
>diets. With an Asian diet, you tend to eat less milk and less meat so it's
>less likely you'll mix milk and meat.
True. However, Asian foods also consists of shellfish and pork, and
for Chinese and SE Asian food, meat of all sorts are combined in one
dishes (tried dim sum?). Since I don't eat red meat, I'm usually the
odd man out at Chinese food gatherings.
Of course, Buddhist vegetarian diet is far stricter than Kosher diets.
And traditional Japanese diets is probably a lot healthier than Hebrew
diets- There is a reason why your average Japanese live longer than
anyone else in the world.
Cindy S.
"chano" <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kdYv9.1344$Ir6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Avi Norowitz wrote:
> [snip]
> According to kosher, meat products and dairy products
> cannot be eaten together. In particular, one can eat meat shortly after
> dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
> eating meat. Dairy products do not often get stuck in a person's teeth
> while meat products do. As a result, someone who eats meat or dairy
> together or first eats meat and then dairy increases the risk of harmful
> pathogens growing in their mouth. Someone who doesn't eat them together or
> eats dairy and then meat minimizes the risk. In addition, cooking meat and
> dairy together can result in pathogens growing in the food.
> [snip]
> --------------------------
> It would appear that despite the Jewish sounding name, Mr Norowitz is
either
> not a Jew or he has been living on the moon for the past 100 years. He
> displays a monumental ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Judaism,
a
> fact which he himself admits to, " ...I'm likely to make errors
> as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very limited."
>
[bulk of text snipped for brevity]
>
> I suggest that before making such posts in future you educate yourself in
> the subject matter at hand, the little knowledge you have is a most
> dangerous thing.
> Chano
----------------------------
This was an extremely well-written and informative post. Yasher koach,
Chano!
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Susan Cohen
Yang wrote:
> Kosher food is hazardous to my health.
No, it isn't.
> Many Asians cannot digest milk,
> so there goes that argument.
Except that keeping kosher does not force you to digest milk.
You don't have to eat any milk at all.
You just have to keep it separate from meat when you do.
Susan
Yang
wrote:
>Yang wrote:
>
>> Kosher food is hazardous to my health.
>
>No, it isn't.
Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
>> Many Asians cannot digest milk,
>> so there goes that argument.
>
>Except that keeping kosher does not force you to digest milk.
>You don't have to eat any milk at all.
>You just have to keep it separate from meat when you do.
-----
Matt Giwer
> Hello,
>
> I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
> biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
> benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
> developments in science.
One would generally prefer a physician to discuss such matters,
> He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
> outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
> this way by chance.
And therefore divinely inspired making them an indirect confirmation of faith.
> I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
> demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
> says. I will try to summarize his evidence, but I'm likely to make errors
> as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very limited.
If kosher laws have to do with health, if god were dispensing them for the good
of his people, they could all be replaced by, "Cook everything longer, dummies!"
--
The number of holocaust survivors increased from
40,000 in 1945 to 500,000 in 2000.
It's a miracle!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2035
Paul Abeles
Roger Smith
> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
There's no such thing as a "Kosher diet." "Kosher" defines a set of rules
that limits the types of foods you can eat and sets standards for its
preperation. I've eaten in Kosher Chinese, Kosher Italian, and many other
restaurants serving a variety of Kosher foods.
BTW, It's actually easier to keep Kosher with an Asian diet than with other
diets. With an Asian diet, you tend to eat less milk and less meat so it's
less likely you'll mix milk and meat.
-- Roger
http://www.harrynilsson.com/
A Little Touch of Schmilsson on the Net
Francois Tremblay
law benefits would be "unobvious to anyone prior to recent
developments in science" ? Until you explain this, you are merely
discussing the religious enforcment of obvious pragmatic health
concerns.
--Francois Tremblay
www.insolitology.com
www.insolitology.com/personal/ (personal page)
Steve Dufour
perhaps Hinduism and Buddhism are also divinely inspired.
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply
Tremblay) wrote:
>I would like to know why you consider these facts as proof that kosher
>law benefits would be "unobvious to anyone prior to recent
>developments in science" ? Until you explain this, you are merely
>discussing the religious enforcment of obvious pragmatic health
>concerns.
It was not until the mid-1800s that Semmelweiss noticed that if the
nurses washed their hands between patients there were much fewer
diseases spread.
The Jewish reiligious texts pre-date Pasteur, Koch, Leeuwenhoek, and
so on. And what is meant by "recent" on this time frame could well
mean "the past 300 years". What we know as infectious disease was
attributed to superstition, witchcraft, and wacky theories. No one
would have known before the germ theory was proposed that diseases
could be spread by not keeping clean. Thus, it does not surprise me
when the speaker says that persons thought that the Black Plague was a
Jewish conspiracy when most Jews were spared. They washed their hands
as ritual, and that is what spared them. However, germs were unknown
at the time, so people thought it was more rational to blame the Jews
for casting some kind of evil spell on everyone else, rather than
accept that the washing of hands prevents its spread.
While reading the passage, I just thought that what was "unobvious to
anyone prior to recent developments in science" was intuitive.
Matt Giwer
> I'm sure this is correct. Also vegetarianism has great health benefits, so
> perhaps Hinduism and Buddhism are also divinely inspired.
Steak and potatoes have great health benefits so America is divinely inspired.
Pork rinds ahve great health benefits so Bush senior is divinely inspired.
--
The criminal settlements will continue until resistance
to the criminals ceases.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2027
Susan Cohen
Yang wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:49:15 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yang wrote:
> >
> >> Kosher food is hazardous to my health.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
And I reapeat, the Kosher diet is NOT less healthy because, as I wrote last time:
>Except that keeping kosher does not force you to digest milk.
>You don't have to eat any milk at all.
>You just have to keep it separate from meat when you do.
Susan
> >> Many Asians cannot digest milk,
> >> so there goes that argument.
> >-----
> >Except that keeping kosher does not force you to digest milk.
> >You don't have to eat any milk at all.
> >You just have to keep it separate from meat when you do.
>
>
>
Susan Cohen
Yang wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:48 GMT, "Roger Smith" <roger@ns_jadebox.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
> >> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
> >
> >There's no such thing as a "Kosher diet." "Kosher" defines a set of rules
> >that limits the types of foods you can eat and sets standards for its
> >preperation. I've eaten in Kosher Chinese, Kosher Italian, and many other
> >restaurants serving a variety of Kosher foods.
>
> If that's how you define it, then I agree. However, something that is
> not Kosher, such lobsters, is far healthier to me, than something that
> is Kosher, such as milk by itself.
And if there was a law of Kashrus that said you *had* to eat/drink milk/products, then you'd be right about kosher being worse for you. *However*, since one's health always comes *first*, you would have no worries.
> >BTW, It's actually easier to keep Kosher with an Asian diet than with other
> >diets. With an Asian diet, you tend to eat less milk and less meat so it's
> >less likely you'll mix milk and meat.
>
> True. However, Asian foods also consists of shellfish and pork, and
> for Chinese and SE Asian food, meat of all sorts are combined in one
> dishes (tried dim sum?).
That's usually one type of meat per...item/dish, tho'.
However, your point is taken.
> Since I don't eat red meat, I'm usually the
> odd man out at Chinese food gatherings.
>
> Of course, Buddhist vegetarian diet is far stricter than Kosher diets.
No, it's just vegetarian.
Unless there are rules about when you can eat one food after another, have different dishes for different foods, & then have to change these dishes once a year for a week....
Or do you use strict to mean "you may eat less types of food"?
> And traditional Japanese diets is probably a lot healthier than Hebrew
> diets-
You are not referring to a religious regimen; you arereferring to a stereotypical conglomeration o Middle European food fixed within religious guidelines.
> There is a reason why your average Japanese live longer than
> anyone else in the world.
Did you know that prolonged eating of tofu rots your brain?
I was stunned myself, but a research doctor posted the results of the study awhile back on the moderated Jewish group.
Susan
Francois Tremblay
question. We're talking about Jews particularily, not the entire
Western world.
--Francois Tremblay
www.insolitology.com
www.insolitology.com/personal/ (personal page)
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply <NOSPAM....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a532suosq75i4i7i7...@4ax.com>...
Susan Cohen
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> "Paul Abeles" <spama...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Chinese eat everything, from crickets
No, they do not. These are good-luck.
> to crabs. 1 billion Chinese cant
> >be wrong.
> >
>
> Please don't force me to deliver the line about 500 billion flies.
Funny, but I only just last night for the first time heard the 20's song "50
Million Frenchmen Can't be Wrong." Which proves that Sophie Tucker never met
Jerry Lewis :-)
Susan
Mickey
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply
Tremblay) wrote:
>Although that's an interesting story, it doesn't really answer my
>question. We're talking about Jews particularily, not the entire
>Western world.
>
>
>--Francois Tremblay
No, I wasn't talking about the western world, I was talking directly
about the development of science, and why the health benefits would
not be obvious to any Jew who kept Kosher before the cause of
infectious disease was elucidated, and the relationship between
cleanliness and disease was known. For that, we need to read up on a
little science history, no?
How can we expect Kosher to be "a religious enforcement of pragmatic
health concerns" if the causes of infectious disease were unknown to
the original scribes?
If it does pre-date science, which it does, then it is most certainly
not an enforcement of pragmatic health concerns, since no one would
have seen the connections between clean practices and health we take
as obvious. No one knew what a germ was before 1800, let alone at the
time of the Talmud and the Old Testament.
I am afraid that expecting people to know about cleanliness and
disease before any discovery was made is like putting the cart before
the horse. The story as offered in the original post is consistent
with the development of science history. The controversy is
undeserved.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:49:15 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Yang wrote:
>> >> Kosher food is hazardous to my health.
>> >No, it isn't.
>> Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
>> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
>And I reapeat, the Kosher diet is NOT less healthy because, as I wrote last time:
>>Except that keeping kosher does not force you to digest milk.
>>You don't have to eat any milk at all.
>>You just have to keep it separate from meat when you do.
Actually he wouldn't if a) he were keeping kosher and b) his body
required him to ingest meat and milk at the same time. Health comes
before kasruth. Health comes before even observance of the Sabbath.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
Al Klein
<spama...@ozemail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>The Chinese eat everything, from crickets to crabs. 1 billion Chinese cant
>be wrong.
If they ate healthier there'd be 2 billion of them. :)
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>I apologize, that was my error. What I meant was that according to the
>speaker, Jews never did have a genetic resistence to tuberculosis, but
>that they didn't catch it in the past because of the lung-checking
>process.
Since TB is usually passed in the milk, not the meat, he's wrong. The
one single thing that almost completely eliminated TB in the US was
milk pasteurization.
Cindy S.
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7lo3sug4ejod9s9an...@Pern.rk...
> required him to ingest meat and milk at the same time. Health comes
> before kasruth. Health comes before even observance of the Sabbath.
You are thinking of *pikuach nefesh* (saving your own life or someone
else's in a life-threatening situation). Pikuach nefesh does take
precedence over kashrus and Sabbath observance. However, *pikuach nefesh* is
quite different than the generic word *health* and applies only to those
situations which are truly life-threatening.
Best regards,
Cindy S.
Kevin D. Quitt
>Hello,
>
>He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
>outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
>this way by chance.
He's certainly right. And (see the .sig) if statistics are applied, it can
trivially be demonstrated that such a set of laws was certain to come about. It
all depends on your assumptions. In other words, the statement is vacuous.
About milk and meat: that come from the statement that a kid should not be
boiled in its mothers milk. To me that speaks of cruelty, not a dietary
restriction - but Talmudic scholars had to justify their existence, somehow.
As to milk or meat having antibiotics - rubbish. In Bulgaria, if you milk a cow
and leave the jar full out over night, you have yogurt in the morning (been
there, done that, got the bagpipe).
>author says that he believes Jews have a resistence to tuberculosis
>because they didn't eat tubercular meat as a result of keeping kosher.
Again, pure rubbish.
> - Blood happens to be a good medium for growing bacteria. Eating blood is
>forbidden according to kosher. When preparing meat, one must make sure all
>the blood is washed off before it can be cooked and eaten.
Meat without blood is just as good a medium. Lots of cultures have prohibitions
about eating blood.
> - Kosher only permits that sea animals that have fins and scales may be
>eaten. When crustaceans (which are not kosher) are affected by algae such
>as red tide that is toxic to humans, they tend to survive.
The Mediterranean Sea is warm water and has high bacterial counts. Shellfish
are likely to be infected. On the other hand, 22 varieties (IIRC) of locust are
also Kosher. So what?
> - The speaker says he has many more examples, and if an honest
>statistical evaluation was applied, there would be a very low probability
>that the health benefits of these laws are a result of chance.
Actually there is a low probability that any such analysis can produce
meaningful results. This is "argument from incredulity", and not a valid form.
One's lack of imagination is not proof of anything.
> - In recent times, a high concentration of fat and toxic chemicals get
>stuck in the liver of animals. (According to kosher, liver is only kosher
>if it is broiled. I suppose he might be implying that broiling helps
>reduce the toxic chemicals, but I'm not sure.)
Not just in recent times. And broiling the liver would have little effect on
most of the nasty stuff it's storing.
Again, note the .sig:
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial list
Matt Giwer
>>Yang wrote:
>>>Kosher food is hazardous to my health.
>>No, it isn't.
> Then Kosher diet is less healthy to me than Asian diet, since in Asian
> diet soy substitutes for many of the minerals that milk offers.
For any population any reduction in caloric intake due to a prohibition of some
food sources is unhealthy. Not in good times but in times of food shortages.
Before about 150 years ago that was every place in the world every few years.
--
The government of Israel regularly discusses the timeframe
for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes.
Milosevic in on trial for that war crime. Not even the US
has warned Israel against doing it. Ever wonder?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2176
Matt Giwer
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:08:24 -0500, Avi Norowitz <use...@ulag.net> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
>>outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
>>this way by chance.
> He's certainly right. And (see the .sig) if statistics are applied, it can
> trivially be demonstrated that such a set of laws was certain to come about. It
> all depends on your assumptions. In other words, the statement is vacuous.
Speaking of statistics ... Speaking of statistics in this context is meaningless
unless compared to a control group.
--
Keep in mind that another terrorist attack is the fondest
wish of the redneck fundie alcoholic in the White House.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2003
Francois Tremblay
upon you.
Science and medicine in ancient times was not like science today, as
the people from sci.bio.food-science and sci.med can testify. There
was no, relatively easily followed, "leading edge" of science from
which one can deduce what was possible and what was not possible to
humans at a given time. The societies of the time had little knowledge
transmission or means to effect that transmission.
My point is simply that in order to say :
"the dietary laws of the Talmud are not explainable by acceptable
natural means, therefore they favour the divine hypothesis rather than
the natural hypothesis"
you must show that :
"It is not possible to rationally expect people of the time to be able
to arrive at such laws by natural means"
Proving the proposition :
"No one else found these laws, therefore the laws could not have been
found"
is ridiculous, since by definition any discovery is made in a context
where the laws were not found. However such a discovery was by
definition made possible by a given prior context of knowledge.
--Francois Tremblay
www.insolitology.com
www.insolitology.com/personal/ (personal page)
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply <NOSPAM....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<glk3susl82bbe885r...@4ax.com>...
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
more likely to not to die young from infection. Eventually, these dietary
laws got written into the religious laws. As pointed out, not all of the
laws helped, but all of the laws, when taken as a group, greatly help vs. no
laws.
The author would also have to explain the Muslim dietary laws, which I
believe are quite similar. Or they both came from the same source, God.
All the best,
Wyle
"Avi Norowitz" <use...@ulag.net> wrote in message
news:20021030140824....@ulag.net...
> Hello,
>
> I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
> biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
> benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
> developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
> outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
> this way by chance. I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
> demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
> says. I will try to summarize his evidence, but I'm likely to make errors
> as my knowledge of biology, medicine, and kosher are very limited.
>
> - When creating a "medium" for most pathogens to grow, milk on its own is
> unsuitable and meat on its own is unsuitable. The reason is that milk on
> its own makes it too acidic, and meat on its own grows an antibiotic which
> kills the bacteria. According to kosher, meat products and dairy products
> cannot be eaten together. In particular, one can eat meat shortly after
> dairy, but must wait a long period of time between eating dairy and then
> eating meat. Dairy products do not often get stuck in a person's teeth
> while meat products do. As a result, someone who eats meat or dairy
> together or first eats meat and then dairy increases the risk of harmful
> pathogens growing in their mouth. Someone who doesn't eat them together or
> eats dairy and then meat minimizes the risk. In addition, cooking meat and
> dairy together can result in pathogens growing in the food.
>
> - The speaker says a medical encyclopedia writes that despite the fact
> that many people claim Jews have a genetic resistance to tuberculosis, the
> author says that he believes Jews have a resistence to tuberculosis
> because they didn't eat tubercular meat as a result of keeping kosher. The
> author of the article in the encyclopedia doesn't go any further, but the
> speaker says that the laws of kosher involving the examination of the
> lungs of animals is the reason. The lungs are inflated and if air leaks
> out, the animal is considered to be not kosher. One of the affects of
> tuberculosis is that an infected animals will develop holes in their
> lungs. Since tuberculosis takes years to take show symptoms, there is no
> way humans prior to modern times could have correlated holes in an
> animal's lungs to symptoms of tuberculosis in animals or humans.
>
> - The speaker comments that people may respond that plenty of cultures
> have their own "folk medicine." He responds that this is not the case with
> kosher, because "folk medicine" can only be discovered when the affects
> are immediate. When the affects are delayed, such as in the case of
> tuberculosis, there is no way they could have tested the medicine.
>
> - People in the past usually didn't wash their hands after using the
> restroom or before they ate. In Jewish tradition, washing your hands
> (although not necessarily thoroughly) after using the restroom and before
> eating is required.
>
> - Blood happens to be a good medium for growing bacteria. Eating blood is
> forbidden according to kosher. When preparing meat, one must make sure all
> the blood is washed off before it can be cooked and eaten.
>
> - The laws of kosher and sanitation have been saved Jews from diseases
> such as the Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages, where 40% of the
> population of Europe died while only a small percentage of Jews died.
> (Inevitably more of them died anyways as a result them being murdered on
> the basis that the Jews, not being affected, must have caused it.)
>
> - Kosher only permits that sea animals that have fins and scales may be
> eaten. When crustaceans (which are not kosher) are affected by algae such
> as red tide that is toxic to humans, they tend to survive. In contrast
> fish, which have digestive systems more similar to humans, tend to die
> quickly. Humans end up eating the toxic crustaceans which appear to be
> unaffected but don't eat the dead toxic fish. As a result, people get sick
> from eating crustaceans but rarely fish.
>
> - Metal utensils that are "contaminated" (they were used for non-kosher
> food - I think) can be purified with a ritual, while earthen utensils
> cannot be purified and must be disposed of. Bacteria can penetrate into
> the pores of earthen material, while bacteria cannot penetrate the pores
> of metal.
>
> - The speaker says he has many more examples, and if an honest
> statistical evaluation was applied, there would be a very low probability
> that the health benefits of these laws are a result of chance.
> Unfortunately, people are reluctant to apply statistical analyses to
> religious laws.
>
> Answers to questions people raise:
>
> - Not all kosher laws have a health benefit that is currently known. For
> example, the hind quarter of a cow isn't kosher, despite the fact that it
> makes the best meat. He doesn't know any health benefits of this.
>
> - There's a "glob of fat" called the kidney knob in the belly of a cow
> that isn't kosher. Upon examination, all the fat within the animal, this
> fat has by far the highest concentration of cholesterol.
>
> - In recent times, a high concentration of fat and toxic chemicals get
> stuck in the liver of animals. (According to kosher, liver is only kosher
> if it is broiled. I suppose he might be implying that broiling helps
> reduce the toxic chemicals, but I'm not sure.)
>
> I would be very curious for responses.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> "This APT has Super Cow Powers." http://ulag.net
Susan Cohen
"Cindy S." wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7lo3sug4ejod9s9an...@Pern.rk...
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:54:23 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
Well, I didn't write anything here, & I know I didn't write anything in
contradiction to pikuach nefesh. But I'd have to say that a lie-lomg diet would
be considered to fall under pikuach nefesh.
Susan
Yang
wrote:
>> And traditional Japanese diets is probably a lot healthier than Hebrew
>> diets-
>
>You are not referring to a religious regimen; you arereferring to a stereotypical conglomeration o Middle European food fixed within religious guidelines.
I suppose we can compare the average lifespan of a Japanese against
that of a Orthodox Jew. If I have to bet right now, I put my money on
the Japanese
>> There is a reason why your average Japanese live longer than
>> anyone else in the world.
>
>Did you know that prolonged eating of tofu rots your brain?
>I was stunned myself, but a research doctor posted the results of the study awhile back on the moderated Jewish group.
Although I wouldn't be surprised were this the case, I would like to
see the reference to this particular study.
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply
Tremblay) wrote:
>You seem to be failing to grasp the burden of evidence which is placed
>upon you.
>
>Science and medicine in ancient times was not like science today, as
>the people from sci.bio.food-science and sci.med can testify. There
>was no, relatively easily followed, "leading edge" of science from
>which one can deduce what was possible and what was not possible to
>humans at a given time. The societies of the time had little knowledge
>transmission or means to effect that transmission.
>
agreed.
>My point is simply that in order to say :
>"the dietary laws of the Talmud are not explainable by acceptable
>natural means, therefore they favour the divine hypothesis rather than
>the natural hypothesis"
>you must show that :
>"It is not possible to rationally expect people of the time to be able
>to arrive at such laws by natural means"
>
I am not sure what you mean by "natural means". I take it to mean
"based on simple experience and trial-and-error". If you mean
something different, you are going to have to correct me.
Well, we cannot go back in time to know people's thoughts, but we have
ancient texts from which we must draw our conclusions.
In an earlier post, the original author and some others referred back
to the Old Testament, which gave reasons for some of the Kosher rules.
They seem to be referring more to religious reasons than "natural"
reasons. They cited Exodus. Any attempt to regard laws as they are
written in the OT or the Talmud as "health advice" would appear to be
more of an interpretation, since the evidence of emphasis on "health
concerns" cannot be seen there (unless you know something I don't).
The original post (a quote of a speech by another author) assumed _a
priori_ that Jews *did* arrive at these conclusions by natural means.
My opionion that it was coincidence. (Perhaps a divine one at that).
Is not the burden of proof on the original speaker to prove that they
*did* arrive at Kosher laws by natural means?
I think the author the original poster cites must have the burden of
proof that the scribes *did* have access to such knowledge. That would
be much more conclusive than my proving that they had *no* access. In
fact the only evidence we do have (ancient texts) appear to tell us
that there were religious reasons for these norms instead. On that I
base my conclusions.
>Proving the proposition :
>"No one else found these laws, therefore the laws could not have been
>found"
>is ridiculous, since by definition any discovery is made in a context
>where the laws were not found.
I am not so sure of that. Scientific discoveries, for instance, are
for the most part, derived from experiment. All experiment requires
prior knowledge. Sure there are happy accidents where an unforseen
event formed the basis of a discovery, but these are in a minority.
Even then, these happy accidents could later be explained in terms of
theories we already know about.
But all experiment begins with a question. In order to ask a question,
you must already know something about the question in order to have
your thoughts clear enough to ask it. Otherwise, all experiment would
proceed at random, with scientists looking at anything and everything
to come up with scientific laws. But in reality, the vast majority of
science progresses in the direction to where there is already existing
prior evidence to base the next experiement.
Thus, the scribes could not have had any such prior knowledge. Thus,
any "discovery" must have been entirely the product of "happy
accidents". And even then, did they attribute the cause of infection
to Germ theory or to God?
>However such a discovery was by
>definition made possible by a given prior context of knowledge.
>
Where would you say they got this prior knowledge from?
Paul King
satyr
>On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:01:37 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>> And traditional Japanese diets is probably a lot healthier than Hebrew
>>> diets-
>>
>>You are not referring to a religious regimen; you arereferring to a stereotypical conglomeration o Middle European food fixed within religious guidelines.
>
>I suppose we can compare the average lifespan of a Japanese against
>that of a Orthodox Jew. If I have to bet right now, I put my money on
>the Japanese
>
>>> There is a reason why your average Japanese live longer than
>>> anyone else in the world.
>>
>>Did you know that prolonged eating of tofu rots your brain?
>>I was stunned myself, but a research doctor posted the results of the study awhile back on the moderated Jewish group.
>
>Although I wouldn't be surprised were this the case, I would like to
>see the reference to this particular study.
I was surprised that this was very easy to find. Here are a couple of the
better links:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/soy.htm
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/Refs/Brain.htm
I think you are probably right about Japanese vs. Orthodox Jew life spans.
About the only substantive elements of the Kosher diet are avoidance of certain
animal products. The other rules are just preparation rules that are either
irrelevant to health (special rules for passover, not mixing dairy and meat,
worrying about the sharpness of the knife used to kill the cow) or are routine
sanitation (it is not hard to learn through observation that unsanitary
conditions have immediate health consequences.)
I am not aware that pigs are worse for you than cows or that eels are worse than
piceian(sp) fishes. The traditional Middle Eastern diet is certainly more
healthful than the modern American diet, but the what diet isn't? More
important for this discussion, what does that have to do with Kosher law? You
can have a Big Mac if you substitute soy cheese for dairy. Would you like
Kosher fries with that? Super-Kosher-Size it? There are traces of dairy in the
Thick Shake but you can have a Super-Bucket of Kosher Coke to wash down the
salty fat. Pie?
>
>
>-----
>
>"Close a bigger deal to hide the loss"
> -Thomas White, in an interanl email memo to his staff at Enron Retail Division, responding to worsening cashflow in February 2001. White currently serves as the secretary of the US Army as appointed by George W. Bush.
>
>http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/08/29/white/index.html
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Francois Tremblay
> I am not sure what you mean by "natural means". I take it to mean
> "based on simple experience and trial-and-error". If you mean
> something different, you are going to have to correct me.
Whatever means were available to the people of the time.
> The original post (a quote of a speech by another author) assumed _a
> priori_ that Jews *did* arrive at these conclusions by natural means.
> My opionion that it was coincidence. (Perhaps a divine one at that).
> Is not the burden of proof on the original speaker to prove that they
> *did* arrive at Kosher laws by natural means?
The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. We have
discharged that burden by saying that they probably arrived to it by
simple trial and error. In my opinion, that is sufficient, and the
claim that not only there is a god, but that god informed the jews
about proper nutritional behaviour, is extraordinary.
Since you seem to think otherwise, you should endeavour to prove to us
that natural means were insufficient, or at least why it is not
extraordinary.
> Thus, the scribes could not have had any such prior knowledge. Thus,
> any "discovery" must have been entirely the product of "happy
> accidents". And even then, did they attribute the cause of infection
> to Germ theory or to God?
Once again, you didn't get the point. In no case do we have "prior
knowledge" of a new discovery ! All there is, is a prior context of
knowledge. And I see no reason to say that the Jews lacked such a
context, i.e. that food can affect the body and make people ill, for
example.
Al Klein
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7lo3sug4ejod9s9an...@Pern.rk...
>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:54:23 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>> Actually he wouldn't if a) he were keeping kosher and b) his body
>> required him to ingest meat and milk at the same time. Health comes
>> before kasruth. Health comes before even observance of the Sabbath.
>You are thinking of *pikuach nefesh* (saving your own life or someone
>else's in a life-threatening situation). Pikuach nefesh does take
>precedence over kashrus and Sabbath observance. However, *pikuach nefesh* is
>quite different than the generic word *health* and applies only to those
>situations which are truly life-threatening.
I said "[if] his body required him to ingest meat and milk at the same
time" - that's understood to mean "in order to not die" so, in the
particular case I was discussing, it would apply.
buckfastswallier
mentioned in our time and context (there is so much famine, poverty,
getting by, etc)... also, science is not purely rational, just like
comments on these posts are not purely rational, ideas come from
somewhere, if we realise that ideas are not purely rational but have
their basis in us as well as our lives then mibbe we can get off our
horse and look at how things are created by US. Food is one of those
highly significant cultural, geographical and economic aspects of our
lives that we identify with and differentiate. Dosn't mean to say it
doesn't change or that everyone has a choice. But that is the point,
does it make the slightest bit of difference if kosher is healthier?
healthier in relation to what? who says? divine influence? science and
god meet head on and all those who prefer kebabs and beer had better
run for cover cos god is known through a desert of yoghurt. let's see,
who lives the longest is an approximation to our distance from god,
just like education is an approximation to our ideas of
intelligence... and look where that has led us.
Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply <NOSPAM....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<22k7sukpbb5udpaph...@4ax.com>...
Cindy S.
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
If such a situation existed, I would agree that this would be a situation of
pikuach nefesh. I was responding to your blanket statement "Health comes
before kashruth. Health comes before even observance of the Sabbath." I was
concerned that someone else who was reading this post might misunderstand
and then use this statement as a justification for violating kashruth/the
Sabbath in other ways.
Sometimes individuals pose questions on the moderated Jewish group along
this vein. For example, one time someone posted: "If it's a hot summer day,
and I forgot to turn on the air conditioning before the Sabbath, shouldn't I
be allowed to do so on the Sabbath if I need it for my health?" (We were not
talking about a situation of imminent heatstroke here, just someone who was
feeling uncomfortable. The answer was no.) On another occasion, someone
posted asking if it was okay to remove dog poop from a public street on the
Sabbath because it's a "health hazard." (It's not a life threatening
emergency, so the answer is no. One must wait until the Sabbath is over.)
Again, my purpose was not to offend, only to clarify a point for anyone
reading this who may have misunderstood.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Al Klein
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>> I said "[if] his body required him to ingest meat and milk at the same
>> time" - that's understood to mean "in order to not die" so, in the
>> particular case I was discussing, it would apply.
>If such a situation existed, I would agree that this would be a situation of
>pikuach nefesh. I was responding to your blanket statement "Health comes
>before kashruth. Health comes before even observance of the Sabbath."
I was referring back to this particular situation. Perhaps I should
have said something along the lines of "health, when it comes to life
or death, ..."
> I was concerned that someone else who was reading this post might misunderstand
>and then use this statement as a justification for violating kashruth/the
>Sabbath in other ways.
He who wants to find justification will.
>Sometimes individuals pose questions on the moderated Jewish group along
>this vein. For example, one time someone posted: "If it's a hot summer day,
>and I forgot to turn on the air conditioning before the Sabbath, shouldn't I
>be allowed to do so on the Sabbath if I need it for my health?" (We were not
>talking about a situation of imminent heatstroke here, just someone who was
>feeling uncomfortable.
Then it's a matter of comfort, not health. If he was 90, had already
had 5 heart attacks, and his doctor warned him to not get overheated,
I would suspect that even a Chassidic rabbi would tell him to turn it
on. Or, at least, to get a Shabbat Goy to turn it on for him.
>On another occasion, someone
>posted asking if it was okay to remove dog poop from a public street on the
>Sabbath because it's a "health hazard." (It's not a life threatening
>emergency
It can be - it can spread fatal disease. This is a case of a doctor
determining religious law. :)
But even this non-Jew knows how to apply common sense and how to find
loop holes, and the difference between the two.
>Again, my purpose was not to offend, only to clarify a point for anyone
>reading this who may have misunderstood.
I understand. No offense was taken, even before the explanation.
Even if we disagreed I wouldn't be offended. Now, if you were to tell
me how my afterlife was going to be affected because I wasn't
converting to Judaism ... :)
But Judaism isn't a proselytizing religion.
Yang
wrote:
>I was surprised that this was very easy to find. Here are a couple of the
>better links:
>
>http://users.erols.com/igoddard/soy.htm
Interesting. I did some digging and it seems that isoflavan, which the
study cites as the culprit for soy's correlation with demetia, has
also beneficial effects:
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~stratsoy/soyhealth/isoflavones.html
So I guess the trick is to find the optimal level of soy.
>I am not aware that pigs are worse for you than cows or that eels are worse than
>piceian(sp) fishes. The traditional Middle Eastern diet is certainly more
>healthful than the modern American diet, but the what diet isn't? More
>important for this discussion, what does that have to do with Kosher law? You
>can have a Big Mac if you substitute soy cheese for dairy. Would you like
>Kosher fries with that? Super-Kosher-Size it? There are traces of dairy in the
>Thick Shake but you can have a Super-Bucket of Kosher Coke to wash down the
>salty fat. Pie?
Avoid Pie. A regular serving of chicken pot pie from the market
contains 70 grams of fat, most of them saturated.
Susan Cohen
Yang wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:01:37 -0500, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And traditional Japanese diets is probably a lot healthier than Hebrew
> >> diets-
> >
> >You are not referring to a religious regimen; you arereferring to a stereotypical conglomeration o Middle European food fixed within religious guidelines.
>
> I suppose we can compare the average lifespan of a Japanese against
> that of a Orthodox Jew. If I have to bet right now, I put my money on
> the Japanese
Which still does not change what I said.
> >> There is a reason why your average Japanese live longer than
> >> anyone else in the world.
> >
> >Did you know that prolonged eating of tofu rots your brain?
> >I was stunned myself, but a research doctor posted the results of the study awhile back on the moderated Jewish group.
>
> Although I wouldn't be surprised were this the case, I would like to
> see the reference to this particular study.
Me, too. I asked the person who posted it - he may have missed it; or I may have missed his answer.
Susan
Cindy S.
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >reading this who may have misunderstood.
>
> I understand. No offense was taken, even before the explanation.
> Even if we disagreed I wouldn't be offended. Now, if you were to tell
> me how my afterlife was going to be affected because I wasn't
> converting to Judaism ... :)
>
> But Judaism isn't a proselytizing religion.
You got that right! Lol!
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Elroy Willis
> satyr <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote:
>> There are traces of dairy in the Thick Shake but you can have a
>> Super-Bucket of Kosher Coke to wash down the salty fat. Pie?
> Avoid Pie. A regular serving of chicken pot pie from the market
> contains 70 grams of fat, most of them saturated.
I think he may have been talking about a different kind of pie,
like apple pie, strawberry pie, etc.
What do you eat for a sweet desert, anything?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
> On another occasion, someone posted asking if it was okay to remove
> dog poop from a public street on the Sabbath because it's a "health
> hazard." (It's not a life threatening emergency, so the answer is no.
LOL.
Steve Harris
>Sometimes individuals pose questions on the moderated Jewish group along
>this vein. For example, one time someone posted: "If it's a hot summer day,
>and I forgot to turn on the air conditioning before the Sabbath, shouldn't
I
>be allowed to do so on the Sabbath if I need it for my health?" (We were
not
>talking about a situation of imminent heatstroke here, just someone who was
>feeling uncomfortable. The answer was no.) On another occasion, someone
>posted asking if it was okay to remove dog poop from a public street on the
>Sabbath because it's a "health hazard." (It's not a life threatening
>emergency, so the answer is no. One must wait until the Sabbath is over.)
Hadn't thought of that. Which brings up the interesting question of what
orthodox Jews in NYC who own dogs do, when their dogs have to defecate on
the sabbeth. Do they pay goys to clean up?
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Matt Giwer
> Cindy S. wrote in message <2JZw9.51199$TX.17...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>Sometimes individuals pose questions on the moderated Jewish group along
>>this vein. For example, one time someone posted: "If it's a hot summer day,
>>and I forgot to turn on the air conditioning before the Sabbath, shouldn't
>> I
>>be allowed to do so on the Sabbath if I need it for my health?" (We were
>> not
>>talking about a situation of imminent heatstroke here, just someone who was
>>feeling uncomfortable. The answer was no.) On another occasion, someone
>>posted asking if it was okay to remove dog poop from a public street on the
>>Sabbath because it's a "health hazard." (It's not a life threatening
>>emergency, so the answer is no. One must wait until the Sabbath is over.)
> Hadn't thought of that. Which brings up the interesting question of what
> orthodox Jews in NYC who own dogs do, when their dogs have to defecate on
> the sabbeth. Do they pay goys to clean up?
I can't answer that question but I did come across a website selling kosher dog
food.
--
What is the difference between a military governor and
a military dictator? And which is the closest to a
democracy?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2041
satyr
>Steve Harris wrote:
>> Cindy S. wrote in message <2JZw9.51199$TX.17...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
>>>Sometimes individuals pose questions on the moderated Jewish group along
>>>this vein. For example, one time someone posted: "If it's a hot summer day,
>>>and I forgot to turn on the air conditioning before the Sabbath, shouldn't
>>> I
>>>be allowed to do so on the Sabbath if I need it for my health?" (We were
>>> not
>>>talking about a situation of imminent heatstroke here, just someone who was
>>>feeling uncomfortable. The answer was no.) On another occasion, someone
>>>posted asking if it was okay to remove dog poop from a public street on the
>>>Sabbath because it's a "health hazard." (It's not a life threatening
>>>emergency, so the answer is no. One must wait until the Sabbath is over.)
>
>> Hadn't thought of that. Which brings up the interesting question of what
>> orthodox Jews in NYC who own dogs do, when their dogs have to defecate on
>> the sabbeth. Do they pay goys to clean up?
>
> I can't answer that question but I did come across a website selling kosher dog
>food.
Interesting. I wonder if they have puppy moyles(sp) too.
Cindy S.
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:eLEx9.1192>
>
> Hadn't thought of that. Which brings up the interesting question of what
> orthodox Jews in NYC who own dogs do, when their dogs have to defecate on
> the sabbeth. Do they pay goys to clean up?
Orthodox Jews in NYC generally don't own dogs.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Mickey
news:jmUx9.69979$c51.21...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
> news:eLEx9.1192>
> >
> > Hadn't thought of that. Which brings up the interesting question of what
> > orthodox Jews in NYC who own dogs do, when their dogs have to defecate
on
> > the sabbeth. Do they pay goys to clean up?
>
> Orthodox Jews in NYC generally don't own dogs.
Never saw one that did. They do own cats, as cats use littler boxes, and if
you clean then just before sundown, they can keep for 24 hours.
Mickey
chano
------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I like his reference to "goys" (sic). This steve harris
character smells of the dog crap he's talking about, an Anti-Semite if there
was.
Chano
Mickey
news:Pb7y9.23617$xF....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Then again, the idea is good. Hanging around this group for any length of
time makes one think that cleaning up dog shit is the best use for goyim.
Mickey
Cindy S.
"chano" <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pb7y9.23617$xF....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? :-) I knowingly responded to
this troll because I saw that he had crossposted to quite a few groups. My
concern was that a heretofore non-anti-Semitic person innocently reading
bio.food.sci or sci.med would read this idiot's post, see it go unrefuted,
and jump to the conclusion that it was true.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
AuntieLib
> Hello,
Hello, Avi.
> I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
> biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
> benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
> developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
> outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
> this way by chance. I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
> demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
> says.
<snipped>
When I eat raw onions, my stomach hurts and I get bad acid reflux.
So, I don't eat raw onions. In fact, it is a law in my house that no
raw onion shall be served *ever*!
It's just common sense, dude. Whether the physiological and
biological reasons are known or not, the effect of eating certain
foods, together or separately, is the same. Cause and effect is as
true now as it was thousands of years ago. No divine intervention
needed.
elizabeth
aa#2098
**************************************
Nanny-In-Residence
EAC Youth Division
(Spare the rod, cherish the child)
**************************************
Susan Cohen
AuntieLib wrote:
> Avi Norowitz wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> Hello, Avi.
>
> > I listened to an interesting audio tape of a lecture given by a
> > biochemist, who argues that the various laws of kosher have health
> > benefits that would have been unobvious to anyone prior to recent
> > developments in science. He concludes that if statistics were applied, the
> > outcome would be that the laws were extremely unlikely to have arised in
> > this way by chance. I'm posting this to Usenet to see whether it can be
> > demonstrated that these laws are or are not as special as this person
> > says.
>
> <snipped>
>
> When I eat raw onions, my stomach hurts and I get bad acid reflux.
> So, I don't eat raw onions. In fact, it is a law in my house that no
> raw onion shall be served *ever*!
>
> It's just common sense, dude. Whether the physiological and
> biological reasons are known or not, the effect of eating certain
> foods, together or separately, is the same. Cause and effect is as
> true now as it was thousands of years ago. No divine intervention
> needed.
Except that you are describing a very simplistic, automatic response that is
impossible not to notice. What we are talking about is pertty much the exact
opposite.
Susan