On May 16, 8:30 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 7:01 PM, cindys wrote:
snip
> > The "no" was because it wasn't "wild-a@@ speculation" on his part but
> > rather that he thinks the year is still 1965. But, on second thought,
> > it may have been "wild-a@@ speculation" too, as I don't think they
> > contracted cleaning companies back in 1965.
> The very big companies had their own employees. Smaller than the giant
> ones did contract out. Also, I think you meant 1955. By the mid '60s
> the times they were a-changing.
-----
I meant he thinks it's still 1965 with respect to corporate culture
(in general).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>> > I wouldn't read that much into it. The recent years have been
>> > characterized by de-conglomeration in the business world. The mantra
>> > now is "concentrate on your core business."
>> Of course there is often more than one reason for a decision.
>> But contempt for menial labour is I think an important factor.
>Because you say it is?
>>That's an attitude the 1950s yeshivah was free of.
>What do you know about attitudes in 1950s yeshivos? And what do you
>know about attitudes in 2012 yeshivos? Is this your personal
>experience? Have you researched this independently? or are you just
>talking out of your hat again (as my father a"h would have said)?
I'd like to know that, too.
>You have labeled the hiring of cleaning companies and vegetarianism as
>being "dangerous" (sic) trends and believe at face value faith-based
>religious claims amongst other things. Personally, I think it's
>dangerous when a person whose scientific work has the potential to
>impact on countless people's lives lacks the ability to think
>critically, cannot follow a line of logic without meandering off the
>subject, and attempts to pass himself off as an authority about
>subjects he doesn't know and couldn't possibly know the first thing
>about. As a scientist, don't you find that dangerous?
Now this I find unwarranted. IMHO Malcolm is both logical and
intelligent. He also has a knack for looking at things from unusual
angles. Combined with his coming from a somewhat different cultural
milieu, his observations may seem strange sometimes, sure. But I think
that it's very useful, especially for a scientist, to be able to think
outside the box.
-- Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
On May 17, 5:51 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:09:00 +0000 (UTC), cindys
snip
> >You have labeled the hiring of cleaning companies and vegetarianism as
> >being "dangerous" (sic) trends and believe at face value faith-based
> >religious claims amongst other things. Personally, I think it's
> >dangerous when a person whose scientific work has the potential to
> >impact on countless people's lives lacks the ability to think
> >critically, cannot follow a line of logic without meandering off the
> >subject, and attempts to pass himself off as an authority about
> >subjects he doesn't know and couldn't possibly know the first thing
> >about. As a scientist, don't you find that dangerous?
> Now this I find unwarranted. IMHO Malcolm is both logical and
> intelligent.
Not that I've seen at all. How is it logical to claim that the torah
is true because it was written on parchment, and therefore the only
possible conclusion is that people must have thought it important? How
is it logical to take at face value anything you read in a book? And
how about this assertion (assertion mind you, not speculation, not
suggestion, but assertion) that companies don't have cleaning people
on staff as company employees because they don't want to see them at
the company Christmas party, or their presence is going to somehow be
damaging to the company's image? And this is not to mention his
assertions regarding how 1950s yeshivos operate. There have been other
things, too, but those are just a few that I can think of off the top
of my head. The bulk of his posts seem to me to be from outer space.
>He also has a knack for looking at things from unusual
> angles. Combined with his coming from a somewhat different cultural
> milieu
He's from the UK and he was working temporarily in Israel. I don't
think this is such a different cultural milieu. There are other
posters on SCJM who live in the UK and/or Israel, and they don't seem
to hold these opinions.
> his observations may seem strange sometimes, sure.
To put it mildly.
>But I think
> that it's very useful, especially for a scientist, to be able to think
> outside the box.
I can't see where there is anything scientific about anything he's
posted at all. Just wild assertions with no proof to back any of it
up (and phrased in an authoritarian manner, as if there can be no
argument about the correctness of his statement/opinion).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
<cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>And
>how about this assertion (assertion mind you, not speculation, not
>suggestion, but assertion) that companies don't have cleaning people
>on staff as company employees because they don't want to see them at
>the company Christmas party,
When I was compujter programmer contractor at Beth Steel, the
contractors were also invited to the company Xmas party, (which was
held at the country club that Beth Steel** owned and whose members
were all past and present Beth Steel employees.) The party I went to
was for Main Office employees. I think there were other parties other
nights for mill supervisors and maybe workers (but none of them were
contractors)
As the company lost money, the party was no longer free, but the
contracting companies paid for their employees to go. OTOH, the
employees of Beth Steel had to pay themselves and maybe half of the
people I knew didn't think it was worth it, so from the offices that
had contractors, the contractors attended at a much greater rate than
the employees.
**I keep mixing this up. I worked for a contracting company at
Bethlehem Steel Corportation, a company that made steel. Beth Steel
was a synagogue on the southeast side of Baltimore, so I hear. A
better joke if you live in Balitimore. --
Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> <mm2...@bigfoot.com>:
>>Have you noticed that there are two parts to the whilte of an egg?
>>They are hard to see but they fry differently. What is the
>>difference? Do they have different names in English or Hebrew?
> Egg whites are made up of the thin and thick white; when the egg is
> growing, the white is constructed in alternate layers of different
> consistency. However, the contents are the same: mostly water and
> protein. There is something in the egg called the chalaza; it is white,
> but it anchors the yolk to the shell and is not part of the egg white.
Very interesting, thanks.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from mm
><mm2...@bigfoot.com>:
>>On Thu, 10 May 2012 02:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Alex Fisher
>><peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au> wrote:
>>>OTOH, when you cook an egg, the protein becomes much less digestible the >>>more it is cooked. Raw egg, however, is not really all that nice, so we >>>cook it anyway. Soft boiled are more digestible than hard boiled, and >>>for centuries convalescent patients were served coddled eggs (left in >>>hot water just long enough to heat through. The whites were still runny, >>>but showing signs of coagulating).
>>Have you noticed that there are two parts to the whilte of an egg?
>>They are hard to see but they fry differently. What is the
>>difference? Do they have different names in English or Hebrew?
>Egg whites are made up of the thin and thick white; when the egg is
>growing, the white is constructed in alternate layers of different
>consistency. However, the contents are the same: mostly water and
>protein.
You are the first person I've "talked" to who even knew there were two
kinds. I guess the others don't pay attention when they fry eggs.
>There is something in the egg called the chalaza; it is white,
>but it anchors the yolk to the shell and is not part of the egg white.
Others have mentioned that, and I've since read about it, but I've
rarely seen it, or maybe I've never seen it. .
Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
> On 5/15/2012 7:29 AM, Alex Fisher wrote:
>> In the Torah, it is called "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
>> Evil". The vast majority don't seem to hear/see the last part:
>> "... Good and Evil", and simply refer to it as the Tree of
>> Knowledge, which is actually incorrect.
Very good point.
>> Prior to eating the fruit, they had no knowledge or concept of
>> Good v Evil, meaning in effect these things did not exist.
I wouldn't say that. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears
it, does it make a noise?") Rather, before sinning, Good v Evil was
_external_. Afterwards, the Evil Inclination became part of man's
psyche.
> To them. I think that it was essential that they ate the apple
> because otherwise they would have been nothing more than like fish
> in God's fishbowl.
NO! They _should_ have used their "human" faculties to continually
increase their knowlege and awareness of G-d. G-d is Infinite, so
there is no end to coming *nearer* to Him.
I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>topaygalaxy said
>>......
>> I have found it interesting for many years that the tree from which
>> that sinful apple
> For the record, it's not called an apple in the Torah, just the fruit
> of the tree of knowledge of good an evil.
> But at the time of the first English (or maybe French or earlier?)
> translation, apple was sort of a common name for some other fruits and
> vergetables or maybe fruits in generall. Compare with pomme de
> terrre, earth apple, potato And iirc??? pear in Spanish??. And
> later, in modern Hebrew an orange, which wasn't known to Hebrew
> speakers until they first moved to Miami Beach, is tapuz, tapuach
> zahav, apple of gold., golden apple. .
> Well, I was just looking for more examples of non-apples sometimes
> called an apple when I found this in wikip apple:
> "The forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden
> Though the forbidden fruit in the Book of Genesis is not identified,
> popular Christian tradition has held that it was an apple that Eve
> coaxed Adam to share with her.[24] This may have been the result of
> Renaissance painters adding elements of Greek mythology into biblical
> scenes (alternative interpretations also based on Greek mythology
> occasionally replace the apple with a pomegranate). In this case the
> unnamed fruit of Eden became an apple under the influence of story of
> the golden apples in the Garden of Hesperides. As a result, in the
> story of Adam and Eve, the apple became a symbol for knowledge,
> immortality[**], temptation, the fall of man into sin, and sin itself.
> In Latin, the words for "apple" and for "evil" are similar (ma-lum "an
> apple", ma(lum "an evil, a misfortune"). This may also have influenced
> the apple becoming interpreted as the biblical "forbidden fruit". The
> larynx in the human throat has been called Adam's apple because of a
> notion that it was caused by the forbidden fruit sticking in the
> throat of Adam.[24] The apple as symbol of sexual seduction has been
> used to imply sexuality between men, possibly in an ironic vein.[24]"
> I never came across what's in the last sentence.
> **Wow. "immortality", when the Torah says that when you eat of the
> fruit, you will die, meaning no longer be immortal. So they have it
> backwards. > Meir
Thanks for this exposition.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
> Shelly<sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>> On 5/15/2012 7:29 AM, Alex Fisher wrote:
>>> In the Torah, it is called "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
>>> Evil". The vast majority don't seem to hear/see the last part:
>>> "... Good and Evil", and simply refer to it as the Tree of
>>> Knowledge, which is actually incorrect.
> Very good point.
>>> Prior to eating the fruit, they had no knowledge or concept of
>>> Good v Evil, meaning in effect these things did not exist.
> I wouldn't say that. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears
> it, does it make a noise?") Rather, before sinning, Good v Evil was
> _external_. Afterwards, the Evil Inclination became part of man's
> psyche.
>> To them. I think that it was essential that they ate the apple
>> because otherwise they would have been nothing more than like fish
>> in God's fishbowl.
> NO! They _should_ have used their "human" faculties to continually
> increase their knowlege and awareness of G-d. G-d is Infinite, so
> there is no end to coming *nearer* to Him.
> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic. So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO* mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an attempt at a knowledge of God.
No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal reading.
mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Egg whites are made up of the thin and thick white; when the egg is
>>growing, the white is constructed in alternate layers of different
>>consistency. However, the contents are the same: mostly water and
>>protein.
> You are the first person I've "talked" to who even knew there were two
> kinds. I guess the others don't pay attention when they fry eggs.
>>There is something in the egg called the chalaza; it is white,
>>but it anchors the yolk to the shell and is not part of the egg white.
> Others have mentioned that, and I've since read about it, but I've
> rarely seen it, or maybe I've never seen it. .
Look for it in a soft-boiled egg before you break the yolk.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
> On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
>> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
> Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
> First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It > is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic. > So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative > is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
> If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message > then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that > differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO* > mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of > intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point > where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol > of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish > in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an > attempt at a knowledge of God.
> No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation > and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal > reading.
Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
"ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
You said you would stop. Please do.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
> Shelly<sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>> On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
>>> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
>> Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
>> First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It
>> is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic.
>> So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative
>> is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
>> If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message
>> then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that
>> differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO*
>> mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of
>> intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point
>> where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol
>> of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish
>> in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an
>> attempt at a knowledge of God.
>> No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation
>> and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal
>> reading.
> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
> You said you would stop. Please do.
A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be characterized as "simplistic".
A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are what they are.
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:34:43 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>> Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Egg whites are made up of the thin and thick white; when the egg is
>>>growing, the white is constructed in alternate layers of different
>>>consistency. However, the contents are the same: mostly water and
>>>protein.
>> You are the first person I've "talked" to who even knew there were two
>> kinds. I guess the others don't pay attention when they fry eggs.
>>>There is something in the egg called the chalaza; it is white,
>>>but it anchors the yolk to the shell and is not part of the egg white.
>> Others have mentioned that, and I've since read about it, but I've
>> rarely seen it, or maybe I've never seen it. .
>Look for it in a soft-boiled egg before you break the yolk.
Aha. I don't eat soft-boiled eggs anymore. Nothing against them, but
I got started throwing things like salarmi or vegetables into the
scrambled eggs. But I'll soft-boiled again and maybe I'll see the
chalaza.
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:37:08 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>> On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
>>> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
>> Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
>> First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It >> is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic. >> So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative >> is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
>> If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message >> then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that >> differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO* >> mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of >> intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point >> where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol >> of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish >> in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an >> attempt at a knowledge of God.
>> No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation >> and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal >> reading.
>Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>"ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
I think he means to be nasty. And that that represents his true
feelings
>You said you would stop.
Especially since he said, after years, that he woudl stop and didn't.
> Please do.
I postponed posting this, but then I made an exception and read his
answer to your post, and it confirmed my views above. The notion
that Shelly doesn't know how to be civilized would be believable if
he'd been fired from one job after another and divorced by one wife
after another. But from what I red when I red his posts, that's not
true. His excuses are not believable. Rather it's his venom showing,
not his peculiar use of Englsih words. --
>> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
>> You said you would stop. Please do.
>A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's >side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be >characterized as "simplistic".
>A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching >what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
>A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six >days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the >shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are >what they are.
Yes. However, your opinion about what things are is only that.
There are people who read those stories differently, rather than as
caricatures that you present.
-- Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
בתאריך יום חמישי, 24 במאי 2012 16:18:32 UTC+1, מאת shel...@thevillages.net:
> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six > days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
So if someone says that, at creation, a giant child's party rubber balloon was inflated, would you find that equally ridiculous?
On 5/25/2012 9:48 AM, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום חמישי, 24 במאי 2012 16:18:32 UTC+1, מאת shel...@thevillages.net:
>> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six
>> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
> So if someone says that, at creation, a giant child's party rubber balloon was inflated, would you find that equally ridiculous?
Yes. I hope you are not headed in the direction of the big bang. I direct you to EXACTLY what I said above -- "everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six days".
>> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six >> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>So if someone says that, at creation, a giant child's party rubber balloon was inflated, would you find that equally ridiculous?
Shelly should watch that movie about the Scopes trial. Even the side
against "creation" can show Shelly how bad his "argument" above is. --
> Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
> > On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
> >> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
> > Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
> > First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It
> > is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic.
> > So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative
> > is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
> > If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message
> > then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that
> > differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO*
> > mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of
> > intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point
> > where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol
> > of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish
> > in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an
> > attempt at a knowledge of God.
> > No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation
> > and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal
> > reading.
> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
> You said you would stop. Please do.
> --
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
I agree with your post.
I believe sometimes it is easy for people to confuse 'freedom of
speech' with "yes I am allowed to be insulting". OTOH posting
here as we all do, it is a very two dimensional ( or should I say
"dementional"-- pun there) way of communicating which lends itself to
misunderstanding.
> On 5/24/2012 10:37 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > Shelly<sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
> >> On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >>> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
> >>> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
> >> Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
> >> First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It
> >> is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic.
> >> So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative
> >> is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
> >> If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message
> >> then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that
> >> differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO*
> >> mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of
> >> intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point
> >> where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol
> >> of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish
> >> in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an
> >> attempt at a knowledge of God.
> >> No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation
> >> and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal
> >> reading.
> > Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
> > "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
> > You said you would stop. Please do.
> A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's
> side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be
> characterized as "simplistic".
> A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching
> what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six
> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
> If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the
> shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are
> what they are.
> --
> Shelly
Perhaps it was G-d's intention that we interpret that section of
Genesis and not take it literally. You are interpreting it literally
as if that is the only way to take it.
Also, we (most of the human race today) can look back and say our
science is way more advanced than thousands of years ago however,
there may have been a wisdom of nature and spirit that we as
"advanced' human beings have lost.
Perhaps the word 'ancient' may be more respectful than 'primitive.'
> On May 24, 11:18 am, Shelly<sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 10:37 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> Shelly<sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>>> On 5/24/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>>> I have heard this argument many times on SCJM, usually by people
>>>>> who are looking for an excuse not to obey the rules of the Torah.
>>>> Sorry, Moshe, but there is no "excuse" here.
>>>> First of all, there was no actual Adam nor Eve. It is just a story. It
>>>> is a story about how mankind came to be -- and it is quite simplistic.
>>>> So much so simplistic (meant for a primitive people), that the narrative
>>>> is rather ridiculous, scientifically speaking.
>>>> If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message
>>>> then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that
>>>> differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO*
>>>> mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of
>>>> intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point
>>>> where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol
>>>> of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish
>>>> in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an
>>>> attempt at a knowledge of God.
>>>> No, Moshe, it is not an "excuse" for anything. It is a real explanation
>>>> and an attempt to find meaning in the text beyond the ridiculous literal
>>>> reading.
>>> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>>> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
>>> You said you would stop. Please do.
>> A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's
>> side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be
>> characterized as "simplistic".
>> A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching
>> what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
>> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six
>> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>> If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the
>> shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are
>> what they are.
>> --
>> Shelly
> Perhaps it was G-d's intention that we interpret that section of
> Genesis and not take it literally. You are interpreting it literally
> as if that is the only way to take it.
Uh, no, I am not. Reread again what I wrote. I quote myself:
"If we now move from the literal reading to the meaning of the message
then the story starts to get real meaning. What is it that
differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (and I *DO*
mean "rest of the animal kingdom")? It is the vastly superior level of
intelligence. The eating of the apple represents the breaking point
where our level of intelligence started to exponentiate. It is a symbol
of the breaking point. It is what separates us from merely being fish
in God's fishbowl. We know strive for higher things, including an
attempt at a knowledge of God."
and again:
"A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous"."
As you can see, I said just the opposite of what you thought i said.
> Also, we (most of the human race today) can look back and say our
> science is way more advanced than thousands of years ago however,
> there may have been a wisdom of nature and spirit that we as
> "advanced' human beings have lost.
> Perhaps the word 'ancient' may be more respectful than 'primitive.'
No, I think the people who believed that story as the literal truth were "primitive". It is the correct word.
>> > Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>> > "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
>> > You said you would stop. Please do.
>> A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's
>> side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be
>> characterized as "simplistic".
>> A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching
>> what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
>> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six
>> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>> If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the
>> shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are
>> what they are.
>> Shelly
> Perhaps it was G-d's intention that we interpret that section of
> Genesis and not take it literally. You are interpreting it literally
> as if that is the only way to take it.
As I believe that there was some Divine inspiration, I agree
with this point. Even some Rishonim, and I believe Maimonides
was one, believed that it was not to be taken literally.
It seems quite difficult to see what the point of this
section is, unless you apply Art Kamlet's interpretation
that God put Adam and Eve to the test and they PASSED!
That the goal was not "paradise" but striving, and that
whatever our ideas of "heavenly bliss" are, they are not
even desirable on Earth, or as I would put it, in the
material universe.
> Also, we (most of the human race today) can look back and say our
> science is way more advanced than thousands of years ago however,
> there may have been a wisdom of nature and spirit that we as
> "advanced' human beings have lost.
Questionable at best.
> Perhaps the word 'ancient' may be more respectful than 'primitive.'
Ancient may be more respectful, but primitive is more appropriate.
This is the case both in their degree of knowledge, and also their ability to foresee consequences.
-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
בתאריך יום ראשון, 27 במאי 2012 20:01:03 UTC+1, מאת Herman Rubin:
> On 2012-05-27, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps it was G-d's intention that we interpret that section of
> > Genesis and not take it literally. You are interpreting it literally
> > as if that is the only way to take it.
> As I believe that there was some Divine inspiration, I agree
> with this point. Even some Rishonim, and I believe Maimonides
> was one, believed that it was not to be taken literally.
One of the myths is that fundamentalism and biblical literalism, which are linked but not quite the same, always represent the older tradition. On examination, you often find they are relatively modern.
> It seems quite difficult to see what the point of this
> section is, unless you apply Art Kamlet's interpretation
> that God put Adam and Eve to the test and they PASSED!
> That the goal was not "paradise" but striving, and that
> whatever our ideas of "heavenly bliss" are, they are not
> even desirable on Earth, or as I would put it, in the
> material universe.
The Adam and Eve story isn't the same story as the six days' creation. The six days' creation story was obviously written for a culture in which the sabbath was deeply embedded, because it leads up to "and blessed it and made it holy". it also appears to be a sort of demythologisation of the Babylonian story, in which Tiamat is split by Marduk. In Biblical account, the only active agent is God who, with the sole exception of the vision of the divine wind playing on the surface of the chaos, simply calls things into existence - "and God said ... and there was". Even the Sun and moon are just lights, they're not even, unscientifically for the time, the primary sources of light itself, which is created on day one.
> > Also, we (most of the human race today) can look back and say our
> > science is way more advanced than thousands of years ago however,
> > there may have been a wisdom of nature and spirit that we as
> > "advanced' human beings have lost.
> Questionable at best.
Being early makes you ignorant, but not a fool. Ancient people were not less intelligent than ourselves. I don't really buy the "ancient wisdom" argument, but I think you get that illusion, because every age has its follies, which are unique to it and not ahared by those living in other historical periods.
>>> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>>> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
>>> You said you would stop. Please do.
>>A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's >>side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be >>characterized as "simplistic".
>>A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching >>what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
>>A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six >>days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>>If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the >>shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are >>what they are.
> Yes. However, your opinion about what things are is only that.
> There are people who read those stories differently, rather than as
> caricatures that you present.
Thank you Yisroel. I didn't respond to Shelly because I didn't
trust myself to be as civil as you.
-- Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
>>>> Shelly, it's using pejorative language like "simplistic" "primitive"
>>>> "ridiculous" that make your posts nastier than yuo mean them to be.
>>>> You said you would stop. Please do.
>>> A story about one man and one woman (who was created from the mans's
>>> side/rib) in a utopian place that started all of mankind can best be
>>> characterized as "simplistic".
>>> A people without scientific knowledge even distantly remotely touching
>>> what we know today to be factual can best be characterized as "primitive".
>>> A story that says everything was LITERALLY created as it is today in six
>>> days and in the order specified can best be characterized as "ridiculous".
>>> If you find that pejorative, well so be it. I have to go with "if the
>>> shoe fits..." No matter how one may want to dress it up, things are
>>> what they are.
>> Yes. However, your opinion about what things are is only that.
>> There are people who read those stories differently, rather than as
>> caricatures that you present.
People who read these stories as stories to convey a message and not as literal truth are not primitive, simplistic, nor ridiculous. Those that read them as literal truth are such.
> Thank you Yisroel. I didn't respond to Shelly because I didn't
> trust myself to be as civil as you.
