Orthodox Jewish texts coming to iPad

[jont]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...You're either allowed to use machinery or you aren't. ...

Harry, you're neglecting a third possibility: you're not allowed to control/operate it, but you may make use of it if it's already running. A classic example is fire. We're not allowed to light a fire on the sabbath (see e.g. Ex. 35:3), but we can certainly use the light of a candle that was lit before the sabbath started.

[HarryT]

I'm sorry; I don't mean to be disrespectful to your religion, but I just don't see the point of it. The Jewish dietary laws, for example, made perfect sense in a hot country before the days of refrigeration, but what's the point of them today? Aren't you just following outdated rules for the sake of tradition, rather than stopping to rationally consider whether or not they serve any useful purpose?

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Aren't you just following outdated rules for the sake of tradition, rather than stopping to rationally consider whether or not they serve any useful purpose?

Isn't that the very definition of pretty much any organized religion though? Especially the older ones? I mean no matter what religion you choose (except for something completely universal like the Universal Life Church whose only rule is "do what's right," but you get to decide how to interpret that phrase), it's going to have rules that adherents are expected to follow which to an outsider seem to be ridiculous.

I don't want to start offering examples from specific religions lest I offend anyone so I'll take an example that applies to most old order religions -- most of them cast those who leave the faith into eternal damnation. Why? Because you chose to worship God in a different way? Because you aren't willing to accept a leap of faith that there is a god at all?

If a religion really is the "one true" religion, as all older religions claim, then why cast someone in eternal damnation for leaving the faith? It's obvious that once he or she discovers the truth that he or she will return. However, we still have these practices in most old order religions (including things like Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, etc.).

The real reason (my personal opinion rather than any religious doctrine) is that the ancient law givers understood that in order for the religion to survive, there needed to be severe consequences for leaving when something else came along to tempt us. Otherwise, the religion would splinter and possibly disappear altogether.

I read a book called God's Debris by Scott Adams (the guy who writes the Dilbert comic strip) and in it, he has this great concept which I used to bring up every time I spoke at an interfaith meeting (I am an ordained rabbi and worked as a Reform rabbi back in the States).

He suggests the idea that two people set out on two different paths with the intention of getting to a specific place. Both of them eventually make it to that place. One path was hilly while the other path was rocky. Maybe some people might find one path easier than the other, but the people who first traversed the path pass this one path down to their ancestors as the path to follow to find this particular place. Over time, the descendants of the original path walkers deify the path and say that this is the way to go.

He suggests that religion is a lot like that. While different religions choose different paths to the "truth," ultimately,they come to the same basic sets of conclusions even if the conclusions aren't exactly identical.

Anyway, as I said before, this isn't really the place to discuss religion. It should be discussed in the religion and politics forum. So, if this thread is going to move in that direction, may I suggest that one of the mods move it to the appropriate forum and those who are interested in continuing the debate can sign up to use that forum?

Eric

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is all pure sophistry. For goodness sake, why not be honest about it all? You're either allowed to use machinery or you aren't. If you aren't, then trying to get around the restriction with this ridiculous "double think" ("elevators are OK as long as you don't press the buttons?" Spare us!) makes me even more convinced than ever of the utter ludicrousness of it all.

Judaism is an intellectually engaged religion in which legal texts enjoy primacy. As such, there will always be arguments about the boundaries of the law. Islam is similar in many ways, although original intent may be given more weight in juristic reasoning. This may seem odd to someone raised in a protestant environment, but to those engaged with religious law, these distinctions are important.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry; I don't mean to be disrespectful to your religion, but I just don't see the point of it. The Jewish dietary laws, for example, made perfect sense in a hot country before the days of refrigeration, but what's the point of them today? Aren't you just following outdated rules for the sake of tradition, rather than stopping to rationally consider whether or not they serve any useful purpose?

I don't think avoiding meat and milk combinations has anything to do with food sanitation. It's an extremely strict animal cruelty law.

[Andrew H.]

I think that there are two points to these kinds of restrictions nowadays.

The first is that their inconvenience reminds you of your religion. When you're not taking the elevator, not eating fish on Friday, not eating pork, etc., you are both reminded of the fact that you belong to religion X and forced to submit to that religion's teaching by doing something inconvenient.

The second factor is that it provides an external sign of group identity, which probably helps perpetuate the religion (as people pass down various customs), but which is also, to some extent, its own reward: people who keep the ashes on their forehead on Ash Weds. are engaging in the same behavior, basically, as people who wear team jerseys to work - they are demonstrating that they are proud to belong to a particular "team."

There are lots of explanations for dietary laws; my favorite one for the meat/milk thing (i.e., don't seethe the kid in the milk of the mother) is that it was an animal husbandry principle that you shouldn't kill off the younger generation of animals while the older one was still alive. Or something like that.

I think that the health related ideas are interesting, but I think that they are more appealing in our more rational age. And it's not like the Chinese all died of trichinosis from eating pork in their pre-refrigeration tropical climate.