I wonder
DoD
would they get
the same pass?
David
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> if a conservative said the same thing that MoDo (spit) just said,
> would they get the same pass?
I have _no_ idea what you're talking about. Is there any Jewish
content here? Is there _any_ content here?
--
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
chsw
What did Maureen Dowd say or write, and can you post a link to
the article or video?
chsw
DoD
> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> > if a conservative said the same thing that MoDo (spit) just said,
> > would they get the same pass?
>
> I have _no_ idea what you're talking about. Is there any Jewish
> content here? Is there _any_ content here?
Of course....
http://njjewishnews.com/article/op-eds/maureen-dowd-mines-an-anti-semitic-theme/
Keep in mind that even though, I can't stand the very sight of this
vampire, I don't believe (at this moment)
that she is a Jew hater. But as condescending and juvenile as this
putrid thing is, she way knows the meanings
of words and how to use them.
The main thrust is that she won't get called on it, but if a
conservative wrote it, then all hell would break loose. Much
in the same way Warren Ballentine got a pass calling Juan Williams a
porch monkey on the Bill O'reilly show. Could you
imagine a conservative getting away with that?
David
Amitai
> On Nov 15, 5:55 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> > DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > if a conservative said the same thing that MoDo (spit) just said,
> > > would they get the same pass?
>
> > I have _no_ idea what you're talking about. Is there any Jewish
> > content here? Is there _any_ content here?
>
> Of course....
>
>
> Keep in mind that even though, I can't stand the very sight of this
> vampire, I don't believe (at this moment)
> that she is a Jew hater. But as condescending and juvenile as this
> putrid thing is, she way knows the meanings
> of words and how to use them.
>
> The main thrust is that she won't get called on it, but if a
> conservative wrote it, then all hell would break loose. Much
> in the same way Warren Ballentine got a pass calling Juan Williams a
> porch monkey on the Bill O'reilly show. Could you
> imagine a conservative getting away with that?
>
you should have cited it along with the secondary source.). While I
concede that Maureen Dowd can be a first class bitch, you have to be
supersensitive to accuse her of antisemitism on the basis of it. She
mentions non-Jewish bankers, e.g. J.P. Morgan as equally venal. The
interviewed banker's comment about "doing God's work", which riled the
authors of the NJJN report, was obviously a tasteless joke, which MD
pounced upon - as is her wont.
Amitai
> David
Abe Kohen
not. Be that as it may there are a substantial number of Jews working at JP.
Dowd's comments OTOH were targeted at Goldman Sachs, which whether Blankfein
is Jewish or not, is code word for Jewish banker used by all antisemites -
and now including Ms. Dowd.
Best,
Abe
"Amitai" <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
news:98169863-939f-44bb...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
DoD
> On Nov 15, 9:48 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 5:55 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> > > DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > if a conservative said the same thing that MoDo (spit) just said,
> > > > would they get the same pass?
>
> > > I have _no_ idea what you're talking about. Is there any Jewish
> > > content here? Is there _any_ content here?
>
> > Of course....
>
> >http://njjewishnews.com/article/op-eds/maureen-dowd-mines-an-anti-sem...
>
> > Keep in mind that even though, I can't stand the very sight of this
> > vampire, I don't believe (at this moment)
> > that she is a Jew hater. But as condescending and juvenile as this
> > putrid thing is, she way knows the meanings
> > of words and how to use them.
>
> > The main thrust is that she won't get called on it, but if a
> > conservative wrote it, then all hell would break loose. Much
> > in the same way Warren Ballentine got a pass calling Juan Williams a
> > porch monkey on the Bill O'reilly show. Could you
> > imagine a conservative getting away with that?
>
> I read the original article and can't get too worked up about it. (IMO
> you should have cited it along with the secondary source.). While I
> concede that Maureen Dowd can be a first class bitch,
Ouch.... I can't believe you used that, but ok....
> you have to be
> supersensitive to accuse her of antisemitism on the basis of it.
Jew hating and anti-semtism TO ME, are two diffrent things. Jew hating
is straight
up hating Jews.... When I think of anti-semitism, I think of my
European definition.
"An anti-semite is someone who hates Jews more than absolutely
necessary" ....I already
said, I don't believe she is a Jew hater, but she obviously has no
qualms about saying
anti-semitic things.
> She
> mentions non-Jewish bankers, e.g. J.P. Morgan as equally venal. The
> interviewed banker's comment about "doing God's work", which riled the
> authors of the NJJN report, was obviously a tasteless joke, which MD
> pounced upon - as is her wont.
It is the use of images that she paints with her words.... Much like
Mel Gibson showed
Satan floating around the Jews in the movie Passion.....(He knew what
he was doing). She
started her whole article off with "Jesus would have thrown them out
of the Temple" line, but you
know what????? It was there a day or so ago, and now it is gone....
Just par for the course with
the sleazy NY Times.... What else could they have changed to cover
this up? NY Times an
unbiased news source? Not on your life. I don't see how I could get
more disgusted with the
left.
David
lee
> Mel Gibson showed
> Satan floating around the Jews in the movie Passion.....
I must have missed that part I'll have to download & watch it again
Seriously I love stuff like that,
like those daft old 50's & 60's films about people selling their souls
to the devil
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
So you may like the short story, the Devil and Daniel Webster.
lee
Sounds interesting, I'll check it out. I thought I recognised that
storyline & I did, from the Simpsons version,
also sounds similar to A Matter of Life and Death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Matter_of_Life_and_Death_(film)
Corny I know.
I even liked that rubbish 'Bedazzled', but I must admit for slighly
different reasons.
Incidentally I was reading that in Judaism satan is just an employee
of G-d, or even less than an employee, & that angels can be
considered as sort of automatons of G-ds processes(?) becuase they
dont have free will like us. Is that a correctish way of looking at it?
Don Levey
Are you suggesting that any use of the term "blood-sucking"
automatically refers to Jews? Even when she references protestantism
and not Judaism?
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 5:55 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> if a conservative said the same thing that MoDo (spit) just said,
> >>> would they get the same pass?
> >> I have _no_ idea what you're talking about. Is there any Jewish
> >> content here? Is there _any_ content here?
>
> > Of course....
>
>
> > Keep in mind that even though, I can't stand the very sight of this
> > vampire, I don't believe (at this moment)
> > that she is a Jew hater. But as condescending and juvenile as this
> > putrid thing is, she way knows the meanings
> > of words and how to use them.
>
> > The main thrust is that she won't get called on it, but if a
> > conservative wrote it, then all hell would break loose. Much
> > in the same way Warren Ballentine got a pass calling Juan Williams a
> > porch monkey on the Bill O'reilly show. Could you
> > imagine a conservative getting away with that?
>
> Are you suggesting that any use of the term "blood-sucking"
> automatically refers to Jews?
Yes, Don.... That is PRECISELY what I am saying.
???
Do you know how absurd that question sounded to me?
> Even when she references protestantism
> and not Judaism?
<sigh>
Why did Jesus throw them out of the temple? Who did he throw out of
the temple? Why is Dowd say that? Why
did the Times get rid of it? Take the whole thing as a WHOLE for what
you want..... I personally see this as another
case of a snotty leftist like Dowd, get away with just about whatever
they want.
David
Don Levey
that's pretty low down on the list. In this instance, I'd say it's a
stretch, and people are looking for something with which to be offended.
I'm pretty sensitive to this sort of thing (regardless of the political
leanings of the author) and it hadn't occurred to me until someone chose
to take offense.
>> Even when she references protestantism
>> and not Judaism?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Why did Jesus throw them out of the temple? Who did he throw out of
> the temple? Why is Dowd say that? Why
> did the Times get rid of it? Take the whole thing as a WHOLE for what
> you want..... I personally see this as another
> case of a snotty leftist like Dowd, get away with just about whatever
> they want.
>
Take it as you want. As someone who has spent almost 45 years
personally fighting against antisemitism, it wasn't something that
bothered me at all.
Herman Rubin
DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 11:00=A0am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> DoD wrote:
>> > On Nov 15, 5:55 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> >> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
..................
>Why did Jesus throw them out of the temple? Who did he throw out of
>the temple?
According to the New Testament, Jesus threw the money changers
out of the Temple.
The money changers were not in the Temple, but the Temple
courtyard. As to why they were there, the fee to enter
the Temple was a half shekel, and many coming were from
outside the country, and needed to convert their funds.
As to why Jesus threw them out, this was an ultra-frum
group who considered them defiling the Temple by being
in the courtyard.
--
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
Micha Berger
> As to why Jesus threw them out, this was an ultra-frum
> group who considered them defiling the Temple by being
> in the courtyard.
A HUGE line between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity
considers sanctity inhering in a retreat from worldliness. Thus, sex is
a necessary evil, money matters profane the Temple, etc... In Judaism,
sanctity is what one brings to the world in how one engages in it.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya
DoD
> No, I don't. Of all the euphemisms I'm used to hearing for "Jew",
> that's pretty low down on the list.
Calling Jews blood suckers or bankers?
> In this instance, I'd say it's a
> stretch, and people are looking for something with which to be offended.
> I'm pretty sensitive to this sort of thing (regardless of the political
> leanings of the author) and it hadn't occurred to me until someone chose
> to take offense.
What offended me was her first sentence, which was pulled. Obviously
someone
somewhere, knew someone was in the wrong.
> Take it as you want. As someone who has spent almost 45 years
> personally fighting against antisemitism, it wasn't something that
> bothered me at all.
Yeah, I have had death threats, butt kicking threats, etc for being
Jew friendly. As someone who
dislikes anti-semites, I don't like it one bit when someone uses my
religion to put forth negative
imagry of Jews, whether overt or covert. It is icing on the cake
irritating that it is just another example
the lefts pundits getting a pass to be as vile as they can get away
with.
David
DoD
> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > As to why Jesus threw them out, this was an ultra-frum
> > group who considered them defiling the Temple by being
> > in the courtyard.
>
> A HUGE line between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity
> considers sanctity inhering in a retreat from worldliness. Thus, sex is
> a necessary evil, money matters profane the Temple, etc... In Judaism,
> sanctity is what one brings to the world in how one engages in it.
I was never taught any of this.
David
Don Levey
> On Nov 17, 11:35 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>> No, I don't. Of all the euphemisms I'm used to hearing for "Jew",
>> that's pretty low down on the list.
>
> Calling Jews blood suckers or bankers?
>
and monkeys. However, I've not heard any of those used as euphemisms
for "Jew". That is, I've never heard anyone say simply "blood-sucker"
or "blood-sucking banker" when they intended to specifically refer to
Jews. Usually, "Jew" is appended in such a circumstance, from my
experience.
On the other hand, "Neocon" *is* often used as a euphemism for "Jew" in
many contexts. And no, when it was popular, many left-wing commentators
did NOT get a pass on that.
>> In this instance, I'd say it's a
>> stretch, and people are looking for something with which to be offended.
>> I'm pretty sensitive to this sort of thing (regardless of the political
>> leanings of the author) and it hadn't occurred to me until someone chose
>> to take offense.
>
> What offended me was her first sentence, which was pulled. Obviously
> someone
> somewhere, knew someone was in the wrong.
>
>> Take it as you want. As someone who has spent almost 45 years
>> personally fighting against antisemitism, it wasn't something that
>> bothered me at all.
>
> Yeah, I have had death threats, butt kicking threats, etc for being
> Jew friendly. As someone who
> dislikes anti-semites, I don't like it one bit when someone uses my
> religion to put forth negative
> imagry of Jews, whether overt or covert. It is icing on the cake
> irritating that it is just another example
> the lefts pundits getting a pass to be as vile as they can get away
> with.
>
As I said, while I am sensitive to such imagery, my sensitivity wasn't
tripped in this instance. Thus I don't see that a left-wing commentator
was getting a pass.
That said, I appreciate your looking out for us. Thank you.
Don Levey
I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
example, monks.
sheldonlg
> On the other hand, "Neocon" *is* often used as a euphemism for "Jew" in
> many contexts. And no, when it was popular, many left-wing commentators
> did NOT get a pass on that.
Honestly, I have never in my life heard that term and I have no idea of
what it means nor in what context it was used.
Don Levey
"Neocon" was short for "Neo-Conservative" - a political offshoot of the
conservative political movement. The term itself, from what I can tell,
reached ascendancy in the early Bush II years, and referred mostly to
the administration's position on foreign affairs. Many of the policy
makers (whether in the cabinet or in associated think-tanks) were Jewish
or had Jewish-sounding names (Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and the like).
Some on the left picked up on this, connected the dots (proving, in my
opinion, that you can see a pattern even in the chaos of grains of sand
on the beach) and decided that the Jews were manipulating US policy and
starting a war with Iraq at the behest of Israel. Barry Rubin once said:
"First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did
with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders
in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some
aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The
implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in
the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the
benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel."
But then again, I think he's Jewish, so those who believe this sort of
thing would discard what he has to say because he has a vested interest.
DoD
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:he0v2a$lrc$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> DoD wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>> As to why Jesus threw them out, this was an ultra-frum
>>>> group who considered them defiling the Temple by being
>>>> in the courtyard.
>>> A HUGE line between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity
>>> considers sanctity inhering in a retreat from worldliness. Thus, sex is
>>> a necessary evil, money matters profane the Temple, etc... In Judaism,
>>> sanctity is what one brings to the world in how one engages in it.
>>
>> I was never taught any of this.
>>
>
> I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
> example, monks.
How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil in
Christianity?
David
Don Levey
was revered as holy and something to which to aspire suggests that
deprivation (sex, food, speaking, money) was considered praiseworthy.
Steve Goldfarb
>How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil in
>Christianity?
Check out the wikipedia entry on Gnosticism, I think it's related to this
question.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>While we're veering off-topic here, the idea that the monastic lifestyle
>was revered as holy and something to which to aspire suggests that
>deprivation (sex, food, speaking, money) was considered praiseworthy.
The on-topic bit would be a discussion of the Nazir. Also relying on
Wikipedia, they'd take a vow to abstain from wine, cutting their hair, and
corpses (e.g., Sampson) which was both praiseworthy and yet also required
a sin offering.
--s
--
Don Levey
That it required a sin offering would reinforce the difference in
Judaism: that personal comfort, sex, and so on were not considered evil
(else why would abstaining from them require a sin offering?).
lee
I didnt know that either I thought Neo Conservatives were the
inheritors of Reaganomics
DoD
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:he1ii4$r3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> DoD wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>> news:he0v2a$lrc$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> DoD wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>>>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> As to why Jesus threw them out, this was an ultra-frum
>>>>>> group who considered them defiling the Temple by being
>>>>>> in the courtyard.
>>>>> A HUGE line between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity
>>>>> considers sanctity inhering in a retreat from worldliness. Thus, sex
>>>>> is
>>>>> a necessary evil, money matters profane the Temple, etc... In Judaism,
>>>>> sanctity is what one brings to the world in how one engages in it.
>>>>
>>>> I was never taught any of this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
>>> example, monks.
>>
>> How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil
>> in Christianity?
>>
> While we're veering off-topic here, the idea that the monastic lifestyle
> was revered as holy and something to which to aspire suggests that
> deprivation (sex, food, speaking, money) was considered praiseworthy.
I always thought, (and you know I am not scholar or expert) that those
things
are not considered evil, but :::::thinking:::::::
........................distractions.
Is there no concept of a monastic lifestyle in Judaism?
David
Don Levey
I'm not an expert in Christian theology (nor is it particularly useful
to discuss here) but I was under the impression that at least some
groups, if not the mainstream itself, that considered these things
evils. Was it the Cathars, for example?
> Is there no concept of a monastic lifestyle in Judaism?
>
Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
Micha Berger
> How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil in
> Christianity?
This is a detour for scjm, so let me try to cut it off at the pass.
I won't cite Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine. Slightly on topic it to
note that Paul speaks with a forked tongue on the matter. In general he
praises celibacy, except in his letter to the the Hebrews. An audience
that wouldn't sit for such things.
Monastic lifestyle shows that Chrisianity sees holiness in terms that
make vows of poverty and of chasisty logical.
Judaism's word for a wedding literally translates to "sanctifications".
That should suffice to show very different attitudes toward sex in
particular and the physical in general, whether or not you regard my
"necessary evil" claim to be an overstatement.
It's a legacy of the west's dualism.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction.
Herman Rubin
DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>news:he0v2a$lrc$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> DoD wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
...............
>>> I was never taught any of this.
>> I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
>> example, monks.
>How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil in
>Christianity?
It demonstrates that sex was considered to be an evil.
Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
Priest be married and living with his wife.
>David
Amitai
> In <he1hha$qm...@news.eternal-september.org> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil in
> >Christianity?
>
> Check out the wikipedia entry on Gnosticism, I think it's related to this
> question.
>
primary scriptural source of the religion in question. (I have to be
careful, as the moderators have been checking every tenth or so of my
posts).
Amitai
> --s
> --
DoD
> DoD wrote:
but I was under the impression that at least some
> groups, if not the mainstream itself, that considered these things
> evils. Was it the Cathars, for example?
I don't know who the Cathars were/are.
>> Is there no concept of a monastic lifestyle in Judaism?
>>
>
> Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
I was interested and did a search for Nazirines. All the websites that
came up were weird and nothing led me to believe Nazirines had anything
to do with Judaism.
David
sheldonlg
You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
posters here).
Steve Goldfarb
>> Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
>I was interested and did a search for Nazirines. All the websites that
>came up were weird and nothing led me to believe Nazirines had anything
>to do with Judaism.
Try "Nazirite" - Wikipedia has quite a bit of info. "Nazarene" is
something completely different. Apparently.
To Don's point, I'd agree that the sin offering is what makes it
distinguished from other religions. I guess I think it's notable, though,
that a version of the concept of asceticism exists, but it's not
necessarily fully embraced. Or something, I'm not sure.
--s
--
Herman Rubin
>David
The Nazirines as the people living in Nazareth are
quite different from those who were Nazirs according
to the Torah. However, I do not believe that Nazirs
were supposed to be celibate; they did have restrictions,
and there was a dedication to God involved.
The "life Nazirs" such as Samson and Samuel had somewhat
fewer restrictions.
Don Levey
Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
fo it may be something that you quote.
Herman Rubin
There were Essenes who were quite ascetic, and even
prohibited sex among themselves. I understand that
they tried to prohibit sex in Jerusalem, but failed
to do that.
Some of the religions around Eretz Yisrael at that
time did have strongly ascetic groups, and this seemed
to get into Judaism, and at that time, there was the
belief that a Messiah was about to come. There were
many, quite likely hundreds, of such Messiah pretenders.
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg wrote:
>> Amitai wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 10:02 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In <he1hha$qm...@news.eternal-september.org> "DoD"
>>>> <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary
>>>>> evil in
>>>>> Christianity?
>>>> Check out the wikipedia entry on Gnosticism, I think it's related to
>>>> this
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>> Would it be going off charter to cite the appropriate passage in the
>>> primary scriptural source of the religion in question. (I have to be
>>> careful, as the moderators have been checking every tenth or so of my
>>> posts).
>>>
>>> Amitai
>> You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
>> posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
>> posters here).
>
> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
> all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
> hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
> fo it may be something that you quote.
I was talking about random checks of posts of auto-approved. The
original setup allowed for that.
Micha Berger
>> Is there no concept of a monastic lifestyle in Judaism?
> Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
Do you mean Nazarites, or the early Christians?
The nazarite has to offer a sin offering afterwards, as others note.
There are times when a person has to choose to abstain, but it's clearly
a least-of-evils kind of thing and only for those who have a problem
they can't otherwise overcome.
The Essenes were pretty ascetic, but they had no impact on subsequent
Judaism.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger
> Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
> hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
> Priest be married and living with his wife.
Rabbi Yehudah even requires he have a second wife before he serves on
Yom Kippur, just in case she dies. The sages disagree, and the halakhah
follows the majority, but it shows you the vast cultural difference.
Micha Berger
> There were Essenes who were quite ascetic, and even
> prohibited sex among themselves. I understand that
> they tried to prohibit sex in Jerusalem, but failed
> to do that.
Quite the reverse -- shortly after the fall of the Temple, a group tried
to abstain (maybe they were Essenes?) and the rabbis told them that
life most go on. Asceticism wasn't lauded as an unreachable goal, it was
rejected!
DoD
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:he12lh$lq2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> sheldonlg wrote:
>> Don Levey wrote:
> But then again, I think he's Jewish, so those who believe this sort of
> thing would discard what he has to say because he has a vested interest.
Only certain circles use neocon as a codeword. The neocon founder was
Jewish, but Jews account for
just a tiny tiny fraction of neocons.
David
DoD
> In <he1n1r$2f...@news.eternal-september.org> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
> >I was interested and did a search for Nazirines. All the websites that
> >came up were weird and nothing led me to believe Nazirines had anything
> >to do with Judaism.
>
> Try "Nazirite" - Wikipedia has quite a bit of info. "Nazarene" is
> something completely different. Apparently.
Thanks, I was wondering about that.
David
Don Levey
I'm sure you're correct. At a certain point in time, though, the most
visible neocons seemed to all be Jewish, and I heard in a number of
different arenas the word used as a euphemism. At least one person I
know equated the two explicitly.
Don Levey
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>> Is there no concept of a monastic lifestyle in Judaism?
>
>> Apart from the Nazirines, I am unaware of any.
>
> Do you mean Nazarites,
You're correct - I misspoke. Thank you.
> or the early Christians?
>
> The nazarite has to offer a sin offering afterwards, as others note.
> There are times when a person has to choose to abstain, but it's clearly
> a least-of-evils kind of thing and only for those who have a problem
> they can't otherwise overcome.
>
> The Essenes were pretty ascetic, but they had no impact on subsequent
> Judaism.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
--
DoD
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:he1lml$1h...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <he1hha$qmk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>>news:he0v2a$lrc$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> DoD wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>>>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> ...............
>
>>>> I was never taught any of this.
>
>
>>> I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
>>> example, monks.
>
>>How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary evil
>>in
>>Christianity?
>
> It demonstrates that sex was considered to be an evil.
In all my years as a Catholic, I have never ever heard that.
> Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
> hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
> Priest be married and living with his wife.
I don't see how that makes the attitude toward sex that it is evil.
David
Micha Berger
>> You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
>> posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
>> posters here).
> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
> all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
> hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
> fo it may be something that you quote.
If I make brag and tempt fate (risk an ayin hara)....
Scjm has been around since late 2000. I have been on since, and have
never had a post rejected.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Herman Rubin
DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
...............
The above, plus the idea that monks and nuns are considered
higher than ordinary people, certainly conveys that impression.
Also, the attitude against birth control devices in general
adds to it.
Abe Kohen
> DoD wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 11:35 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>
>>> No, I don't. Of all the euphemisms I'm used to hearing for "Jew",
>>> that's pretty low down on the list.
>>
>> Calling Jews blood suckers or bankers?
>>
> I have heard Jews called blood-suckers and bankers. Also pigs, dogs,
> and monkeys. However, I've not heard any of those used as euphemisms
> for "Jew". That is, I've never heard anyone say simply "blood-sucker"
> or "blood-sucking banker" when they intended to specifically refer to
> Jews. Usually, "Jew" is appended in such a circumstance, from my
> experience.
Wall Street and Wall St Banker are both euphemisms for Jews, even though
most are not.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:he1psh$v8s$2...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
>> hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
>> Priest be married and living with his wife.
>
> Rabbi Yehudah even requires he have a second wife before he serves on
> Yom Kippur, just in case she dies. The sages disagree, and the halakhah
> follows the majority, but it shows you the vast cultural difference.
In my youth, I would have jumped at the opportunity to be the Kohen Gadol -
for the right to have a second wife.
In my current years - shall we say - some wisdom has finally set in.
Best,
Abe \\// Kohen
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>>
>>> While we're veering off-topic here, the idea that the monastic
>>> lifestyle was revered as holy and something to which to aspire
>>> suggests that deprivation (sex, food, speaking, money) was
>>> considered praiseworthy.
>>
Good for you Steve.
>> Also relying on Wikipedia, they'd take a vow to abstain from wine,
>> cutting their hair, and corpses (e.g., Sampson)
Actually, Sampson was not prhibited from corpses.
>> which was both praiseworthy and yet also required a sin offering.
>
> That it required a sin offering would reinforce the difference in
> Judaism: that personal comfort, sex, and so on were not considered
> evil (else why would abstaining from them require a sin offering?).
Exactly.
Umm Don, why did you add "sex" to the list? It is not forbidden to
the Nazir.
--
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
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>> There were Essenes who were quite ascetic, and even
>> prohibited sex among themselves. I understand that
>> they tried to prohibit sex in Jerusalem, but failed
>> to do that.
>
> Quite the reverse -- shortly after the fall of the Temple, a group
> tried to abstain (maybe they were Essenes?) and the rabbis told
> them that life most go on. Asceticism wasn't lauded as an
> unreachable goal, it was rejected!
Micha, I don't understand why you said "Quite the reverse". You said
exactly what Herman said.
Amitai
> sheldonlg wrote:
> > Amitai wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 10:02 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> In <he1hha$qm...@news.eternal-september.org> "DoD"
> >>> <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>>> How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary
> >>>> evil in
> >>>> Christianity?
> >>> Check out the wikipedia entry on Gnosticism, I think it's related to
> >>> this
> >>> question.
>
> >> Would it be going off charter to cite the appropriate passage in the
> >> primary scriptural source of the religion in question. (I have to be
> >> careful, as the moderators have been checking every tenth or so of my
> >> posts).
>
> >> Amitai
>
> > You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
> > posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
> > posters here).
>
> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
> all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
> hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
> fo it may be something that you quote.
>
Thanks for informing me about the existence of of a content-checking
hand-moderation trigger. I will now recheck these messages, which
appeared without much delay despite having been checked, to try and
find out what there is in my posts that keeps setting it off.
Amitai
> --
> Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
> (email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
> NOTE: Don't send mail to to sale...@the-leveys.us
> GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>Shelly Wrote (to Amitai)
>
>>> You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth
>>> of my posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a
>>> few of the posters here).
>
>> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved
>> poster, all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content*
>> trips the hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in
>> the entire message, fo it may be something that you quote.
>
>
> Scjm has been around since late 2000. I have been on since,
> and have never had a post rejected.
Ah, but you never quoted Miriam Adahan, a noted lecturer and writer,
who used the phrase "evil Arafat". That got a post of mine rejected!
Actually, I've had some posts rejected, some even legitimately!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> ...............
>>>> I was never taught any of this.
>
>>> I was (not that I received a Christian education). Consider, for
>>> example, monks.
>
>>How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary
>>evil in Christianity?
>
> It demonstrates that sex was considered to be an evil.
>
> Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
> hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
> Priest be married and living with his wife.
Members of the Sanhedrin were also supposed to be maried and have
children. The reason given AFAIK was to arouse the latent feelings
of compasion, that otherwise would lie dormant. Hmm, perhaps that's
why Catholicism was able to be so cruel.
Micha Berger
> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> There were Essenes who were quite ascetic, and even
>>> prohibited sex among themselves. I understand that
>>> they tried to prohibit sex in Jerusalem, but failed
>>> to do that.
>> Quite the reverse -- shortly after the fall of the Temple, a group
>> tried to abstain (maybe they were Essenes?) and the rabbis told
>> them that life most go on. Asceticism wasn't lauded as an
>> unreachable goal, it was rejected!
> Micha, I don't understand why you said "Quite the reverse". You said
> exactly what Herman said.
He is trying to bring a proof from the people, as though their
asceticism was in concert with Judaism. I'm saying it didn't take
because such asceticism is NOT Jewish.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and
http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham
Steve Goldfarb
>>> Also relying on Wikipedia, they'd take a vow to abstain from wine,
>>> cutting their hair, and corpses (e.g., Sampson)
>Actually, Sampson was not prhibited from corpses.
I mentioned Sampson as an example of a Nazir - not just for corpses. Why
wouldn't he have been prohibited from corpses, if that's one component of
being a nazir?
--s
--
Don Levey
I've never heard that before.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
Don Levey
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>> You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
>>> posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
>>> posters here).
>
>> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
>> all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
>> hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
>> fo it may be something that you quote.
>
> If I make brag and tempt fate (risk an ayin hara)....
>
> Scjm has been around since late 2000. I have been on since, and have
> never had a post rejected.
>
...and yet a number of your posts get kicked out for hand-moderation,
based upon the software.
Don Levey
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>>> You are being facetious, correct? They might check every tenth of my
>>>> posts, but not yours, Micha's nor Moshe's (to name just a few of the
>>>> posters here).
>>> Nope - there's no "counter" on it. If you're an auto-approved poster,
>>> all your posts get auto-approved unless the *content* trips the
>>> hand-moderation trigger. And... it's the content in the entire message,
>>> fo it may be something that you quote.
>> If I make brag and tempt fate (risk an ayin hara)....
>>
>> Scjm has been around since late 2000. I have been on since, and have
>> never had a post rejected.
>>
>
> ...and yet a number of your posts get kicked out for hand-moderation,
> based upon the software.
>
>
when posts are flagged by the system it's not an indication that they
are (or should be) rejected.
Don Levey
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>>
>
>>> which was both praiseworthy and yet also required a sin offering.
>> That it required a sin offering would reinforce the difference in
>> Judaism: that personal comfort, sex, and so on were not considered
>> evil (else why would abstaining from them require a sin offering?).
>
> Exactly.
>
> Umm Don, why did you add "sex" to the list? It is not forbidden to
> the Nazir.
>
in the list of things not considered evil (since that is where the
sub-conversation started).
fla...@verizon.net
On 19-Nov-2009, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > Scjm has been around since late 2000. I have been on since,
> > and have never had a post rejected.
>
> Ah, but you never quoted Miriam Adahan, a noted lecturer and writer,
> who used the phrase "evil Arafat". That got a post of mine rejected!
>
> Actually, I've had some posts rejected, some even legitimately!
I'm glad to say that the only posts of mine that
were rejected was when I was not paying attention
to what I was quoting, too.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 19-Nov-2009, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >>How does the monastic lifestyle demonstrate that sex is a necessary
> >>evil in Christianity?
> >
> > It demonstrates that sex was considered to be an evil.
> >
> > Note that Catholicism puts most of its authority into the
> > hands of celibates, while Judaism required that the High
> > Priest be married and living with his wife.
>
> Members of the Sanhedrin were also supposed to be maried and have
> children. The reason given AFAIK was to arouse the latent feelings
> of compasion, that otherwise would lie dormant. Hmm, perhaps that's
> why Catholicism was able to be so cruel.
Extremely cogent observation!!
If you have no children, you have no reason
to think about anyone but yourself.
Susan
Herman Rubin
Those who were nazirim for life were not subjected to
all the rules. They did not voluntarily become
nazirim, but were dedicated by their parents. In the
case of Samson, the instructions were delivery by an angel.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> There were Essenes who were quite ascetic, and even
>>>> prohibited sex among themselves. I understand that
>>>> they tried to prohibit sex in Jerusalem, but failed
>>>> to do that.
>
>>> Quite the reverse -- shortly after the fall of the Temple, a group
>>> tried to abstain (maybe they were Essenes?) and the rabbis told
>>> them that life most go on. Asceticism wasn't lauded as an
>>> unreachable goal, it was rejected!
>
>> Micha, I don't understand why you said "Quite the reverse". You said
>> exactly what Herman said.
>
> He is trying to bring a proof from the people, as though their
> asceticism was in concert with Judaism. I'm saying it didn't take
> because such asceticism is NOT Jewish.
Aha, Thanks.