Those Racist Jews
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
"Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham," Dr. Harry Ostrer,
director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of
Medicine, who worked on the study, said in a statement.
"And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000
years."
They also found that Jews had remained remarkably similar on the
genetic level over the millennia.
"Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation
from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different
from one another at the genetic level," Hammer's group wrote in their
report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Very few non-Jewish European genes have gotten into the Ashkenazi and
Roman Jewish populations, they said.
"The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of
Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended
from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggests that most
Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring
non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora," they wrote.
Noah's grandchildren repopulated the earth.
http://christianparty.net/genealogy.htm
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Ken Shackleton
Then where did the rest of us come from?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<19e69654-6fd6-426b...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>):
We're all Racist Jews. Obviously.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Zuca
Bill254
> On Apr 13, 9:15 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> Then where did the rest of us come from?
Well your the illigitimate unwanted Village Idiot,
offspring of Whore & Donkey.
"Ye Old One" was found on a fromt porch in Juy 4th 1776.
He'd been kicked in the head by a horse, and suffered severe brain
damage.
"Lennys" father is a serial killer on death row.
And "wf3h" is the "zx spectrum" offspring of "R2D2 & C3PO" with an I.Q
to match.
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> (in article
In which case how can we be racist towards our own kind?
But then that makes me wonder what is a "kind"?
Will we ever find out?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html
and that is spooky. :P
>
>
>
> >http://christianparty.net/genealogy.htm
>
> > --
> > It is all about the truth with:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
> (in article
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
A broch! Just because that meshuggene goy says so? I mean,he is
obviously a richt in kop, and as we all know, a nahr bleibt a nahr
wf3h
given adman's hatred of jews, a view shared by 'spintronic', it seems
creationism creates its own version of jews
Ernest Major
<fb53fae0-42ff-4a03...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
<wf...@vsswireless.net> writes
whacked out as to take them seriously.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 14, 5:07 am, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 9:15 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
>
>> Then where did the rest of us come from?
>
>Well your the illigitimate unwanted Village Idiot,
Well you're the illiterate unwanted troll.
>offspring of Whore & Donkey.
>
>
>"Ye Old One" was found on a fromt porch in Juy 4th 1776.
>He'd been kicked in the head by a horse, and suffered severe brain
>damage.
>
>
>"Lennys" father is a serial killer on death row.
>
>And "wf3h" is the "zx spectrum" offspring of "R2D2 & C3PO" with an I.Q
>to match.
Oh dear - on the drugs again Spincronic?
--
Bob.
Burkhard
> In message
> <fb53fae0-42ff-4a03-8d1e-0a285ce7e...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
> <w...@vsswireless.net> writes>On Apr 13, 11:15 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> Semites Have Remained Separate
>
> >given adman's hatred of jews, a view shared by 'spintronic', it seems
> >creationism creates its own version of jews
>
> Have a look at the rest of the site. I hope that M/adman isn't so
> whacked out as to take them seriously.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
I think him quoting a website that also claims 9/11 was a Jewish
conspiracy based on Bible quotes and bogus science, that claims that
only black people get aids, but got it from the Jews etc is EXACTLY
the type of source I would expect from Adman.
Ernest Major
<4b9e1f19-31a5-4dd7...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
1) he actually believes the stuff he quotes, or
2) he's trying (badly) to provide the appearance of a debate (spintronic
was better at that, but he got lazy), and distract from the substantive
arguments, or
3) he's intentionally promoting atheism by posting stuff that make the
religious appear stupid and evil, or
4) he's trolling for the perverted pleasure of it, and doesn't care that
religion suffers collateral damage.
I'm hoping that 4 is the case.
--
alias Ernest Major
Paul J Gans
Actually, Madman's posting proves the opposite of what he
preaches. Assuming that the Noah story is true and assuming
that Noah was Jewish, then Jews and non-Jews ought to be
closely related. The study shows otherwise.
But logic was never Madman's strong point.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Ye Old One, Lenny, and wf3h must *really* have gotten to you, eh?
Mike Dworetsky
news:gs2d9u$gpt$3...@reader1.panix.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biblical character known as Noah wasn't Jewish, (never mind that he was
mythical). Religious practices that have defined Judaism traditionally
began with Abraham and his descendants, and basic Jewish practices (e.g.,
circumcision, kosher definitions and prohibitions, the ten commandments) all
post-date the Exodus.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Paul J Gans
I still think he is a kind of troll. On the internet one has
the appearance of anonymity which he takes seriously. Thus
he has no qualms about saying all sorts of trollish stuff
and then laughing to himself about it.
The internet is amazing that way. It brings out the worst
in some people.
Burkhard
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message
> >Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
and here is the science to proof it :
The proper article won't before before next week though
[M]adman
I wonder. Does your ignorance know any bounds?
The "jews" are closely related. To the Arabs. Both originate from the same
father, different mothers.
And Noah was not a "Jew". Noah was a semitic as was Abraham.
wf3h
> >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >> (in article
which doesn't prevent you from hating jews because, you say, they
'murdered' (your term) christ
Paul J Gans
And from where did the Europeans come? Your quote says:
"Very few non-Jewish European genes have gotten into the
Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish populations, they said."
I will try to explain this to you. If we are all descended
from Noah, one would expect our genes to be similar. YOUR
quote says they are not similar. Thus it is unlikely that they
are all descended from Noah. This is the exact opposite of
your claim.
Wiggle as you wish. It is your hook, line, and sinker and
you have swallowed them.
>And Noah was not a "Jew". Noah was a semitic as was Abraham.
I don't think I'll play your semantic games except to note
that "semitic" is an adjective. Neither Noah nor Abraham were
adjectives.
Paul J Gans
I've heard that said. But of course you can't murder an
immortal god, can you? And certainly it is claimed that
Jesus knew he was divine. So the murder rap just won't
stick.
Besides, Jesus could work miracles. He could have miracaled
himself right off the cross. But of course God the Father had
dictated that he had to, in some sense, die. And Jesus was
an obedient son, even though Daddy had not bothered to marry
his mother, which must have worked some psychological damage
on the Lad.
So if we blame anybody, we have to blame Daddy for making the
whole crucifixion thing happen, don't we?
wf3h
exactly. i've always wondered why it was considered a 'sacrifice' for
him to 'die' when he was already immortal. certainly ALOT different
when one of us does it.
[M]adman
No.... you are just unusually dumb. And quite often too.
There was no such thing as a "Jew" until relatively recent in history.
They are Israelites and part of the Semitic race which originated in and
around the Sumarian region with Noah.
The Jew part originated from one tribe; The tribe if Juda. Much latter.
HTH
wf3h
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >>>> (in article
that's not what ancient texts say. ever read the 'gospel of john'?
perhaps you should read some ancient texts.
Burkhard
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >>>> (in article
you seem to have accidentally overlooked the cor of Paul's question,
Let me remind you:
> If we are all descended
> > from Noah, one would expect our genes to be similar. YOUR
> > quote says they are not similar. Thus it is unlikely that they
> > are all descended from Noah. This is the exact opposite of
> > your claim.
So your source is either S, or yoou hav been wrong all along with the
flood thingy, or both Which one is it?
Matt Silberstein
<gr...@hotmail.et> in <_ooFl.29257$v8....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
The world is 6,000 years old, right? A flood 4,000 years ago, a
crucifixion 2,000 years ago? There have been Jews, therefore, at least
half the time since the Flood and for at least 1/3 of history. Not all
that recent I would think.
>They are Israelites and part of the Semitic race which originated in and
>around the Sumarian region with Noah.
>
>The Jew part originated from one tribe; The tribe if Juda. Much latter.
>
>HTH
>
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Fiction - pure fiction.
--
Bob.
Mitchell Coffey
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >>>> (in article
Yet your source used the word "Jewish" exactly as Paul did, in
conformance to modern usage. So Paul's criticism of your
interpretation of you source stands, and you don't even try to counter
it. All youve done is respond with, as Paul puts it, "your semantic
games."
Mitchell Coffey
Paul J Gans
It is no accident that he "overlooked" it.
[M]adman
Neither.
I have posted a link twice in the last month on how Noah's 12 grand children
was more then enough to explain gene differences.
*Hemidactylus*
Ken Shackleton
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >(in article
That was the essence of my question. If we are all descended of Noah,
are we not *all* Jews?
*Hemidactylus*
on? If so I blame Madamn's genealogical insight for my culinary
limitations henceforth. I will never forgive him.
I am a major fan of kosher dills so that delicacy should not present a
problem.
Ken Shackleton
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >>>> (in article
If we all reproduce after own own kind....how does non-Jew ever give
birth to Jew?
rno...@umich.edu
Bacon wrapped shrimp with cheese -- now THAT is truly an abomination!
Are you sure that your pickles are truly kosher or are they merely
"kosher style"?
And, of course, once you bring them into a non-kosher kitchen and put
them on a non-kosher table served with non-koshered dishes and
flatware, they become treyf. Kashrut really is rather complex.
Stuart
Incest is the best eh?
Stuart
Matt Silberstein
Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> in
<bdbe2d1b-cf97-4892...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 10:23 am, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Actually, Madman's posting proves the opposite of what he
>> preaches. Assuming that the Noah story is true and assuming
>> that Noah was Jewish, then Jews and non-Jews ought to be
>> closely related. The study shows otherwise.
>
>That was the essence of my question. If we are all descended of Noah,
>are we not *all* Jews?
There are three Biblical notions of what is a Jew and none of them is
"those descended from Noah". A Jew is either someone descended from
Abraham (and perhaps his family, it is not clear). Or someone saved
from slavery by the exodus. Or, and this is the theologically
significant one, some present at the revelation as Sinai. (This is the
notion, midrash but very important, that all Jews, from all times,
were present at the revelation.) The biggest point to the latter is
that it is only with the revelation that the laws come into play.
*Hemidactylus*
with a Jewish wife. It's a matrilineal thing.
Given that there are black Jews from Ethiopia and IIRC other parts of
Africa, Jewishness can kinda cross perceived barriers, not unlike
being Hispanic. And on the later count there are Ladinos. How many
folks who identify as Hispanic stem from cryptos who had to hide out
after the expulsion from Spain.
*Hemidactylus*
> >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >> (in article
>
> The "jews" are closely related. To the Arabs. Both originate from the same
> father, different mothers.
>
>
> And Noah was not a "Jew". Noah was a semitic as was Abraham.
>
crossed the land bridge into the Americas? Were Odin, Thor, and Loki
among the Urashkenazim?
*Hemidactylus*
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:04:24 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Ken
> <bdbe2d1b-cf97-4892-8e08-aa786feca...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 14, 10:23 am, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Actually, Madman's posting proves the opposite of what he
> >> preaches. Assuming that the Noah story is true and assuming
> >> that Noah was Jewish, then Jews and non-Jews ought to be
> >> closely related. The study shows otherwise.
>
> >That was the essence of my question. If we are all descended of Noah,
> >are we not *all* Jews?
>
> There are three Biblical notions of what is a Jew and none of them is
> "those descended from Noah". A Jew is either someone descended from
> Abraham (and perhaps his family, it is not clear). Or someone saved
> from slavery by the exodus. Or, and this is the theologically
> significant one, some present at the revelation as Sinai. (This is the
> notion, midrash but very important, that all Jews, from all times,
> were present at the revelation.) The biggest point to the latter is
> that it is only with the revelation that the laws come into play.
>
*historically* for the actual identification as such? For some reason
this seems important in my fuzzy memory, but maybe I'm making
mountains from molehills.
Matt Silberstein
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> in
<9e1457d5-ad3f-4d43...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
You have completely switched contexts. The Torah does not discuss
anything from that time period. As a *historical* issue the Torah is
likely redacted post-exile. The *definitions* do not change, the
cultural concepts of what is a Jew do not change. That there was
likely no single founding member, no Egyptian captivity, those are
different issues.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And each time you posted it it was shot down in flames.
--
Bob.
Dr. Acula
This article largely deals with the right of return but does provide
some background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F
Matt Silberstein
Acula" <jerr...@gmail.com> in
<c16c5016-dcde-4694...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Yes, but from an entirely different perspective and context. That
article discusses the issues of who today is a Jew, it covers the
Halachic (legal) mechanisms for determination. But when you are done
sorting you have J and ~J, but no understanding of what, other than
the sorting criteria, it means to be J. I gave a deeper, theological,
and entirely useless explanation of what it means to be a Jew.
Paul J Gans
>Given that there are black Jews from Ethiopia and IIRC other parts of
>Africa, Jewishness can kinda cross perceived barriers, not unlike
>being Hispanic. And on the later count there are Ladinos. How many
>folks who identify as Hispanic stem from cryptos who had to hide out
>after the expulsion from Spain.
That's an interesting thing. I'm told that at one point prior
to Mohammed Judaism had spread quite widely across the Arabian
peninsula and that places such as Oman were majority Jewish.
From Oman to Ethiopia is a fairly small distance and trade was
very common. The Queen of Sheba is supposed by some to have
come from there.
In any event there were soon a large number of Ethiopian converts
(or perhaps settlers from Arabia) to Judaism. All they had of
the current Old Testament were the first five books.
With the rise of Islam the link was broken and the Ethiopian Jews
receded into the mists of time until more recently. They were
not forgotten as much as ignored.
As far as cryptos are concerned, there seem to have been quite
a few of them. A number settled in what are not Arizona and
New Mexico when those were Spanish possessions.
Paul J Gans
I *love* "Urasheknazim"! Of course the term "ashkenazi" literally
applies only to European Jews of German descent. AFAIK, they seem
to pop up in history only in the 9th century. The Jews of Spain
are not ashkenazi, but Sephardim.
It seems that the Diaspora led to Jews coming into Europe via
two routes. Both originated in Roman times and predate Christ.
One was through the Roman colonies in North Africa and eventually
into Spain. The other was through the Italian Jewish community
up into southern France and Germany.
Since the Jews were expelled from France several times, the last
time being in 1394, the link between Spanish Jews and those of
the Rhineland (the Ashkenazi Jews) was broken. Customs and language
are very different -- and again different from Jews who lived under
Islam (of which only a few remain because of the 20th century
expulsions from Islamic lands.)
For reasons known only to geneticists, the Jews in any particular
region begin to physically resemble the natives -- even though
they retain some genetic distinctions. This is typical of
subpopulations.
Dr. Acula
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , "Dr.
> <c16c5016-dcde-4694-b255-f32ea3843...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Sure. I just thought the article might provide some context and junk,
even if it too is useless (at least in the phenomenological sense of
"jewishness").
Paul J Gans
Not a hell of a lot is known about all that, though the biblical
literature is rich. It seems clear that there was an influx of
"Jews" into Palestine from Babylon, but where they came from is,
I think, at times disputed. Nobody doubts that they were a
related people with similar religious ideas, but the existance
of two parallel stories in the bible (and two parallel methods
of worship) can be best explained as the melding of two separate
semi-legendary collections of tales.
That would mean that the relatively short "Babylonian Captivity"
would be two short to account for that. Of course this is NOT
what the Rabbis say...
*Hemidactylus*
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:49:36 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> <9e1457d5-ad3f-4d43-b063-994834647...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
retrospective bias is put into the books of the Tanakh coming from a
post-exile perspective. Of course there's the documentary hypothesis,
but the redactor part is significant here, more than the multiple
authorships of previous times.
>
> The *definitions* do not change, the
> cultural concepts of what is a Jew do not change. That there was
> likely no single founding member, no Egyptian captivity, those are
> different issues.
>
can say Jewishness emerged as a cultural concept and made its mark on
biblical literature and subsequent history. The terms Judah and Yehud
ring a bell.
Taking the retrospective historical context I was thinking in terms of
the cultural shift from say "Israelite" to "Jew". Something I read had
maybe put a silly notion into my head that Judaism proper started to
gel post-exile, such as the Second Temple period, but I could be
having a brain fart. I checked out Schiffman's Modern Scholar lectures
on _The Hebrew Bible_ again (plus his Dead Sea Scroll lectures again)
to see what he says on the topic. In the book accompanying the lecture
he does draw some distinction between "Israelite" and "Jewish" and the
distinction of the 1st and 2nd Temple periods, but I can't get a clear
idea.
*Hemidactylus*
what may have been perceived as Europe. Since deities seem to be
legendary reflections of people who might have lived at one time, one
could invent a bizarre story where descendants of Noah went off into
Germanic and Scandanavian lands and founded religions based on major
cultural leaders they revered. Then they encountered those evil frost
giants who might have been remnants of the Nephilim. Loki mates with
Angrboda and seals the fate of the world with his nasty offspring.
Madamn is a harbinger of this fate, being a Loki troll. The end is
nigh.
>
> It seems that the Diaspora led to Jews coming into Europe via
> two routes. Both originated in Roman times and predate Christ.
> One was through the Roman colonies in North Africa and eventually
> into Spain. The other was through the Italian Jewish community
> up into southern France and Germany.
>
> Since the Jews were expelled from France several times, the last
> time being in 1394, the link between Spanish Jews and those of
> the Rhineland (the Ashkenazi Jews) was broken. Customs and language
> are very different -- and again different from Jews who lived under
> Islam (of which only a few remain because of the 20th century
> expulsions from Islamic lands.)
>
Ladino and German-Eastern European Yiddish.
Burkhard
> > on? If so I blame Madamn's genealogical insight for my culinary
> > limitations henceforth. I will never forgive him.
>
> > I am a major fan of kosher dills so that delicacy should not present a
> > problem
>
> Bacon wrapped shrimp with cheese -- now THAT is truly an abomination!
>
Is that really more of an abomination than Bacon and Shrimp? I always
thought the basis of this prohibition is to "not to boil a kid in its
mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19), which then got extended to serve meat and
milk together. But no cheese I know is made from sow's milk.
metspitzer
wrote:
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message
>><4b9e1f19-31a5-4dd7...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>On 14 Apr, 11:45, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <fb53fae0-42ff-4a03-8d1e-0a285ce7e...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
>>>> <w...@vsswireless.net> writes>On Apr 13, 11:15 pm, "[M]adman"
>>>><g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>>> >> Semites Have Remained Separate
>>>>
>>>> >given adman's hatred of jews, a view shared by 'spintronic', it seems
>>>> >creationism creates its own version of jews
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at the rest of the site. I hope that M/adman isn't so
>>>> whacked out as to take them seriously.
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>
>>>I think him quoting a website that also claims 9/11 was a Jewish
>>>conspiracy based on Bible quotes and bogus science, that claims that
>>>only black people get aids, but got it from the Jews etc is EXACTLY
>>>the type of source I would expect from Adman.
>>>
>>Yes, but the question is whether
>
>>1) he actually believes the stuff he quotes, or
>>2) he's trying (badly) to provide the appearance of a debate (spintronic
>>was better at that, but he got lazy), and distract from the substantive
>>arguments, or
>>3) he's intentionally promoting atheism by posting stuff that make the
>>religious appear stupid and evil, or
>>4) he's trolling for the perverted pleasure of it, and doesn't care that
>>religion suffers collateral damage.
>
>>I'm hoping that 4 is the case.
>>--
>>alias Ernest Major
>
>I still think he is a kind of troll. On the internet one has
>the appearance of anonymity which he takes seriously. Thus
>he has no qualms about saying all sorts of trollish stuff
>and then laughing to himself about it.
>
>The internet is amazing that way. It brings out the worst
>in some people.
It seems more likely, that being in a community suppresses the asshole
in everyone. The chance for a broken nose has a way of getting people
to act more civilized.
Matt Silberstein
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> in
<1c24b73a-8513-4946...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
But the prohibition is repeated, meaning it is more important. More
importantly (for Jews, if not for you), there is the Oral Torah, not
just the Written Torah.
Burkhard
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I am a major fan of kosher dills so that delicacy should not present a
> >> > problem
>
> >> Bacon wrapped shrimp with cheese -- now THAT is truly an abomination!
>
> >Is that really more of an abomination than Bacon and Shrimp? I always
> >thought the basis of this prohibition is to "not to boil a kid in its
> >mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19), which then got extended to serve meat and
> >milk together. But no cheese I know is made from sow's milk.
>
> But the prohibition is repeated, meaning it is more important. More
> importantly (for Jews, if not for you), there is the Oral Torah, not
> just the Written Torah.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
Sure, and i thought that the extension to poultry is from the Oral
Torah But I never came across an extension to pork - since pork is not
kosher to begin with, the rule not to have pork with milk would
probably have been perceived as redundant, and sow's milk not kosher
anyway. So "legally", we'd have a prohibition against kosher animals
cooked in the milk of their mother, an extension against having
certain other kosher animals with kosher milk from other species,
but not a specific prohibition against having a non-kosher animal with
the milk of a kosher animal. Hence, Bacon and shrimp sandwich violates
as many and the same rules as the bacon, shrimp and cheese sandwich.
(on reflection, I might hang out with lawyers too much....)
Stuart
> On 17 Apr, 18:58, Matt Silberstein
>
>
>
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I am a major fan of kosher dills so that delicacy should not present a
> > >> > problem
>
> > >> Bacon wrapped shrimp with cheese -- now THAT is truly an abomination!
>
> > >Is that really more of an abomination than Bacon and Shrimp? I always
> > >thought the basis of this prohibition is to "not to boil a kid in its
> > >mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19), which then got extended to serve meat and
> > >milk together. But no cheese I know is made from sow's milk.
>
> > But the prohibition is repeated, meaning it is more important. More
> > importantly (for Jews, if not for you), there is the Oral Torah, not
> > just the Written Torah.
>
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein
>
> > Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> Sure, and i thought that the extension to poultry is from the Oral
> Torah But I never came across an extension to pork - since pork is not
> kosher to begin with, the rule not to have pork with milk would
> probably have been perceived as redundant,
There are other prohibitions besides "DO not boil a lamb in the milk
of its mother"
There is also "Thall not shall eat of any unclean animal".
"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
it is unclean unto you"
Stuart
[M]adman
Of course that little detail slips past you. What detail is that?
There was no such thing as a Jew until relatively recent in history.
We could all be considered Semite however.
Burkhard
Yes, but that is not the issue. The discussion started with the Bacon
and Shrimp Sandwich. This falls foul of the unclean divided hoof
animal, and also the shrimp prohibition.
The question is: Is ADDING cheese to this sandwich making is even MORE
prohibited (by adding a milk product to meat). This is what rnom
implicitly claimed.
The reason for that could be the "do not boil the kid etc" rule, or at
least the interpretation of it that prohibits all combinations of an
animal with the milk of its mother.
My argument was that this rule does not apply, since the Bacon comes
from a pig, the milk in the cheese doesn't, ergo not from "its mother"
Matt then raised the issue that the rules of the oral Torah need to be
considered in addition, which is ofc ourse correct, but as far as I
know, you get in this specific case only extension to kosher animals -
a rabbinic prohibition to have poultry with milk.
As far as I know (having had an orthodox flatmate once and cooking was
preceded by lengthy arguments ;o)) there is no _separate_rule against
non-kosher animals and milk, which would sound redundant.
So both the Bacon and Shrimp, and the Bacon Shrimp and Cheese sandwich
"only" violate the rule against shrimps and the rule against pork, but
the milk rules are not applicable.
Dr. Acula
Well I could, but we don't want you in our club.
Paul J Gans
You are right in that the term "Jew" is younger than "Hebrew".
But that's just a name.
However, we can all be considered Semites in only a very remote
sense. As Wiki puts it:
"The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and
modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians,
Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
For quite a while the term "semite" was an ethnic term used to
describe the peoples who spoke a Semitic language. Today we
understand that language and ethnicity are very different things
and the term "semitic" is properly used only to refer to a
language group.
Thus we are all semites can have only a poetic meaning in that,
supposedly, we all descended from Adam who, some hope, spoke
a semitic language. However, those reading this newsgroup
all speak (in addition to other languages) an Indo-European
derivative known as "English".
I do hope that you will assimilate this information as it will
help you in later life as you grow up.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 15, 10:42 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> > But logic was never Madman's strong point.
> >>
> >> I wonder. Does your ignorance know any bounds?
> >>
> >> The "jews" are closely related. To the Arabs. Both originate from the same
> >> father, different mothers.
> >>
> >> And Noah was not a "Jew". Noah was a semitic as was Abraham.-
>
> >which doesn't prevent you from hating jews because, you say, they
> >'murdered' (your term) christ
>
> I've heard that said. But of course you can't murder an
> immortal god, can you? And certainly it is claimed that
> Jesus knew he was divine. So the murder rap just won't
> stick.
>
> Besides, Jesus could work miracles. He could have miracaled
> himself right off the cross. But of course God the Father had
> dictated that he had to, in some sense, die. And Jesus was
> an obedient son, even though Daddy had not bothered to marry
> his mother, which must have worked some psychological damage
> on the Lad.
>
> So if we blame anybody, we have to blame Daddy for making the
> whole crucifixion thing happen, don't we?
And if was murder, it was done by the Italians.
Walter Bushell
<ba9ce5eb-fcb9-4d8f...@l5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Actually it was the Italians who executed Jesus, at least according to
the story. The Jews they would have stoned him. The early Christians
blamed the jews because of the danger of blaming the Italians.
Walter Bushell
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:05:54 -0500, in talk.origins , "[M]adman"
> <gr...@hotmail.et> in <_ooFl.29257$v8....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> [M]adman <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>> Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:26 -0400, Ken Shackleton wrote
> >>>>> (in article
> >>>>> <19e69654-6fd6-426b...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>):
> >> And from where did the Europeans come? Your quote says:
> >>
> >> "Very few non-Jewish European genes have gotten into the
> >> Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish populations, they said."
> >>
> >> I will try to explain this to you. If we are all descended
> >> from Noah, one would expect our genes to be similar. YOUR
> >> quote says they are not similar. Thus it is unlikely that they
> >> are all descended from Noah. This is the exact opposite of
> >> your claim.
> >>
> >> Wiggle as you wish. It is your hook, line, and sinker and
> >> you have swallowed them.
> >>
> >>> And Noah was not a "Jew". Noah was a semitic as was Abraham.
> >>
> >> I don't think I'll play your semantic games except to note
> >> that "semitic" is an adjective. Neither Noah nor Abraham were
> >> adjectives.
> >
> >No.... you are just unusually dumb. And quite often too.
> >
> >There was no such thing as a "Jew" until relatively recent in history.
>
> The world is 6,000 years old, right? A flood 4,000 years ago, a
> crucifixion 2,000 years ago? There have been Jews, therefore, at least
> half the time since the Flood and for at least 1/3 of history. Not all
> that recent I would think.
>
> >They are Israelites and part of the Semitic race which originated in and
> >around the Sumarian region with Noah.
> >
> >The Jew part originated from one tribe; The tribe if Juda. Much latter.
> >
> >HTH
> >
We should a look jewish. I mean we can't diverge that far in 4K years.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> For reasons known only to geneticists, the Jews in any particular
> region begin to physically resemble the natives -- even though
> they retain some genetic distinctions. This is typical of
> subpopulations.
The mechanisms are well know, and usually involve some kind of hanky
panky.
Paul J Gans
Stop giving the answers away! I keep throwing the loons softballs
and they can't answer them.
They aren't even amusing any more.
Matt Silberstein
<pr...@panix.com> in <proto-06DE21....@news.panix.com>
wrote:
My baby does the hanky panky.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide