http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th

Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology very
dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.

Beach Runner wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>
> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology very
> dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.

You're off topic.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>
>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology
>> very dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>
>
> You're off topic.

It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
supply.

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
> >
> > Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology very
> > dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>
> You're off topic.

You're off your rocker.

Beach Runner > spewed incessantly:

> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
> supply.

Fossil based food supply???

Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Bumbling Twit wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>
>>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology
>>> very dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>
>> You're off topic.
>
> It's all

off topic.

CARP wrote:
>>It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
>>supply.
>
> Fossil based food supply???
>
> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.

Not to mention, our food supply absorbs radiation.

Beach Runner wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>
>>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology
>>> very dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're off topic.
>
>
> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
> supply.

usual suspect wrote:
> CARP wrote:
>
>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
>>> supply.
>>

Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>>
>> Fossil based food supply???
>>
>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>
>
> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.

wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>
>>>Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology very
>>>dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>
>>You're off topic.
>
>
> You're off your rocker.
>

Plants and meat absorb atomic polution.

usual suspect wrote:

> CARP wrote:
>
>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
>>> supply.
>>
>>
>> Fossil based food supply???
>>
>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>
>
> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.

The anti semite pushes another lie.

The brilliant Unusual Suspects can't understand that atomic wastes
entering our the environment gets absorbed by people and animals. I'm
sure he knows that many atomic wastes have a half life of hundreds of
thousands of years, and plutonium is arguably the most toxic material on
the planet. He can't see the relevance. Do you ever drink any Florida
Produce?

Neither of you can understand that cheap food requires fossil based
truck delivery systems. Raise the cost, food costs increase. Never
mind that Monsanto and a few other companies are getting a monopoly on
food production, and then you'll see prices rice.

And for those who don't remember
Unusual Suspects calls Kosher a sickness. The laws proved to be HEALTHY
over time. But that's not why a Jew is Kosher. It is because it is the
religious law.

Bumbling Bob wrote:
>>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
>>>> supply.
>>>
>
> Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>
>>>
>>> Fossil based food supply???
>>>
>>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>
>> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
>
> Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.

No, I'm not. I wrote NOTHING that would indicate that. I elaborated in
response just a few moments ago about the difference between kashrut and
what the texts actually say which leads to my position that kashrut is
orthorexic.

Bumbling Boob wrote:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>>
>>>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology very
>>>> dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're off topic.
>>
>> You're off your rocker.
>
> Plants and meat absorb atomic polution.

Is that why you're so slow, or do you blame it on your drugs?

Bumbling Boob wrote:
<...>
> Neither of you can understand that cheap food requires fossil based
> truck delivery systems.

Perhaps you should review the archives and note that I've used that
argument against Skanky, whose predilections for imported foods outweigh
her concerns about killing animals.

<...>
> And for those who don't remember
> Unusual Suspects calls Kosher a sickness.

To the extent that people have two sets of cookware, dining ware, etc.,
and when they go beyond the Scriptures in a twisted pursuit.

> The laws proved to be HEALTHY
> over time.

How is keeping two sets of cookware healthier than using the same set, Boob?

> But that's not why a Jew is Kosher. It is because it is the
> religious law.

No, for the most part it's a made up law which goes far beyond the point
of being reasonable in its irrational search for micrograms -- just like
veganism.

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Bob wrote:
>
>>>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based food
>>>>> supply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Fossil based food supply???
>>>>
>>>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
>>
>>
>> Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.
>
>
> No, I'm not. I wrote NOTHING that would indicate that. I elaborated in
> response just a few moments ago about the difference between kashrut and
> what the texts actually say which leads to my position that kashrut is
> orthorexic.

You've called me a drug addict, which is a lie.

You've called Kosher a sickness, which is anti Semitic.

And, I explained why a fossil based food supply system depends on cheap
oil, or prices go up. Food gets to stores in trucks. It is a fossil
based fuel system.

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Boob wrote:
> <...>
>
>> Neither of you can understand that cheap food requires fossil based
>> truck delivery systems.
>
>
> Perhaps you should review the archives and note that I've used that
> argument against Skanky, whose predilections for imported foods outweigh
> her concerns about killing animals.
>
> <...>
>
>> And for those who don't remember
>> Unusual Suspects calls Kosher a sickness.
>
>
> To the extent that people have two sets of cookware, dining ware, etc.,
> and when they go beyond the Scriptures in a twisted pursuit.
>
>> The laws proved to be HEALTHY over time.
>
>
> How is keeping two sets of cookware healthier than using the same set,
> Boob?
>
>> But that's not why a Jew is Kosher. It is because it is the religious
>> law.
>
>
> No, for the most part it's a made up law which goes far beyond the point
> of being reasonable in its irrational search for micrograms -- just like
> veganism.

I am not fully kosher. I respect those that are. It is mostly symbolic,
part of keeping kosher is keeping with the oral laws of Judaism and not
assimilating.

The Jews of Germany assimilated, and in fact as a group, more Jews
volunteered to fight in WW I than any group. That presented a problem
for Hitler. He had to quietly weed out these highly decorated German
patriots.

You are not the authority on understanding Jewish laws. Many great
thinkers have over the ages. Generally, over time, science proves that
the laws have helped protect the Jews from various diseases. A lot is
ritual. Much of religion is ritual. Most religions have rituals, it
units the people and establishes their identity.

Look at the lesson of the fully assimilated German Jews.

That is off topic. The topic was Atomic Wastes horribly mistreated and
even with your great mind couldn't make the connection to that and our
food and water supply. I helped you make the connection and you should
thank me.

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Boob wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>>>
>>>>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology
>>>>> very
>>>>> dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're off topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're off your rocker.
>>
>>
>> Plants and meat absorb atomic polution.
>
>
> Is that why you're so slow, or do you blame it on your drugs?


That doesn't answer the issue. The toxic wastes enter the food supply
system.

Bumbling Bob wrote:
>>>>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based
>>>>>> food
>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fossil based food supply???
>>>>>
>>>>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>>>
>>>> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
>>>
>>> Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.
>>
>> No, I'm not. I wrote NOTHING that would indicate that. I elaborated in
>> response just a few moments ago about the difference between kashrut
>> and what the texts actually say which leads to my position that
>> kashrut is orthorexic.
>
> You've called me a drug addict,

You've blamed your poor posting habits on your use of drugs.

> You've called Kosher a sickness, which is anti Semitic.

No, it isn't. Most of my Jewish friends aren't kosher. Some of them eat
ham and snicker about it. All except of them eat shellfish and
cheeseburgers. The Orthodox are orthorexic: they follow minute rules
beyond the rules given in Torah, Bob. Some of the "super Jews" like the
Hasidim even go to the point of avoiding meat and dairy in extended time
periods -- as much as 24 hours -- just to be on the "safe side." They do
it in the pursuit of "purity," which is the definition of orthorexia.

I've also written that the same irrational pursuit of avoiding
carbohydrates (in Atkins, South Beach, Zone, and similar diets) is every
bit as orthorexic as the irrational pursuit of micrograms of "animal
parts" in veganism. I'm not singling out the Jews, and not even the
vegans, when pointing out eating disorders.

Bumbling Bob wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>> Neither of you can understand that cheap food requires fossil based
>>> truck delivery systems.
>>
>> Perhaps you should review the archives and note that I've used that
>> argument against Skanky, whose predilections for imported foods
>> outweigh her concerns about killing animals.
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> And for those who don't remember
>>> Unusual Suspects calls Kosher a sickness.
>>
>> To the extent that people have two sets of cookware, dining ware,
>> etc., and when they go beyond the Scriptures in a twisted pursuit.
>>
>>> The laws proved to be HEALTHY over time.
>>
>> How is keeping two sets of cookware healthier than using the same set,
>> Boob?

Answer this question, dumb ass.

>>> But that's not why a Jew is Kosher. It is because it is the
>>> religious law.
>>
>> No, for the most part it's a made up law which goes far beyond the
>> point of being reasonable in its irrational search for micrograms --
>> just like veganism.
>
> I am not fully kosher.

Too bad you're fully nitwitted about veganism.

> I respect those that are.

I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
homosexuals, not any of them.

> It is mostly symbolic,

IOW, a token (empty) gesture.

> You are not the authority on understanding Jewish laws.

I never claimed to be, but I apparently have a better grasp of
contemporary Jewish thought and how so many Jews don't observe kashrut:

Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are no
longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have considered these laws a
hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of piety; this is still the
mainstream Reform position. Some parts of the Reform community have
begun to move towards a more traditional position. This
tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules
concerning kashrut are no longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher
is an important way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus
Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement advocates
that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut, but does so in a
non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is the same as the
tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different movements' positions on
kashrut are reflective of their broader perspectives on Jewish law as a
whole.

Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of Kashrut
nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance, abstaining
from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid drinking milk with
a meat dish, without knowing why doing so seems alien. Similarly, many
keep a degree of Kashrut at home while having no problems eating in a
non-kosher restaurant.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut

> Generally, over time, science proves that
> the laws have helped protect the Jews from various diseases.

Any proof? The only "proof" of the benefits of kosher I've seen have to
do with how quickly animals die compared to other slaughter techniques.
And as far as diseases go, kashrut doesn't protect Jews from Bloom's
syndrome, familial dysautonomia, torsion dystonia, or Tay-Sachs;
further, Jews are also more likely to have diabetes than the general
population.

http://www.mendosa.com/jewish.htm

> A lot is ritual.

Ritual is, of itself, irrelevant to health.

> That is off topic.

And you should stop straying from the topic.

Bumbling Boob wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/na...html?th&emc=th
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yhis only goes to show that man made error make nuclear technology
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> dangerous, not including design errors or terrorism.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're off topic.
>>>>
>>>> You're off your rocker.
>>>
>>> Plants and meat absorb atomic polution.
>>
>> Is that why you're so slow, or do you blame it on your drugs?
>
> That doesn't answer the issue.

You should try to answer the question.

> The toxic wastes enter the food supply system.

You should be much more concerned about diesel emissions since nearly
all agricultural equipment (combines and tractors, trucks, etc.) are
powered by diesel engines.

Diesel exhaust contains 20-100 times more particles than
gasoline exhaust. These particles carry cancer-causing
substances known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Gases in diesel exhaust, such as nitrous oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, formaldehyde, benzene, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide can also create
health problems.
http://www.afscme.org/health/faq-dies.htm

(The above is a leftist labor group. The following is another leftist
group.)

The scientific evidence is clear: diesel exhaust is a complex
mixture comprised of hazardous particles and vapors, some of
which are known carcinogens and others probable carcinogens.
Diesel exposure poses a significant and avoidable increase in
human health risks. Compelling evidence from dozens of
well-designed studies supports the conclusion that diesel
exhaust causes cancer. In addition, fine particles from diesel
exhaust aggravate respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma and are associated with premature deaths
from cardio-pulmonary disorders.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ebd/chap2.asp

What's in diesel exhaust? Here's a *partial* list from OSHA:
* Major Components.
o Carbon dioxide, ID-172
o Carbon monoxide, ID-210
o Nitrogen dioxide, ID-182, NIOSH 6014
o Nitric oxide, ID-190, NIOSH 6014
o Particulates, NIOSH 5040 (new method for Diesel Exhaust
Particulates), NIOSH 0500 (*.zip file in WordPerfect format)
o Sulfur dioxide, ID-200
* Minor Components
o Acrolein, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2539
o o-Anisaldehyde
o Benzene, OSHA 12, NIOSH
o 2,3-Benzofuran
o Coumarin
o Formaldehyde, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2541 (*.zip file in
WordPerfect format), NIOSH 2539
o 4-Hydroxycoumarin
o m-Hydroxyacetophenone
o 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxyacetophenone
o Menadione
o 6-Methoxytetralone
o 6-Methylcoumarin
o 3-Methyl-2-cyclopentene-2-ol-one
o Trimethylbenzene
o Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, OSHA 58, NIOSH 5506,
NIOSH 5515
+ Acenaphthene
+ Acenaphthylene
+ Anthracene
+ Benz[a]anthracene
+ Benzo[b]fluoranthene
+ Benzo[k]fluoranthene
+ Benzo[ghi]perylene
+ Benzo[a]pyrene
+ Benzo[e]pyrene
+ Crysene
+ Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
+ Fluoranthene
+ Fluorene
+ Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
+ Naphthalene, OSHA 35
+ Phenanthrene
+ Pyrene
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/dieselexhaust/chemical.html

Approximately *27,000 tons* of particulate matter pour into California's
air every year.

See:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/factsht1.pdf
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089

Etc.

[--snip--]

> > I respect those that are.
>
> I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
> nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
> stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> homosexuals, not any of them.

Whoa, where did you hear that
one? Jews stoning children and
gays??? I know some very
orthodox Jews and they do NOT
do the above. Where are you
getting your info from, the KKK?
Usual, you're even more of a
prejudiced loser than I thought.

[--snip--]




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky wrote:
>>>I respect those that are.
>>
>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>homosexuals, not any of them.
>
> Whoa, where did you hear that
> one? Jews stoning children and
> gays???

I've read it in the Bible.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:19-22

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15, 17

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:

'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut

> I know some very
> orthodox Jews and they do NOT
> do the above.

Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
which rules to follow and obsess over?

> Where are you
> getting your info from, the KKK?

No, the Bible.

> Usual, you're even more of a
> prejudiced

There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Bob wrote:
>
>>>>>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile based
>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fossil based food supply???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm not. I wrote NOTHING that would indicate that. I elaborated
>>> in response just a few moments ago about the difference between
>>> kashrut and what the texts actually say which leads to my position
>>> that kashrut is orthorexic.
>>
>>
>> You've called me a drug addict,
>
>
> You've blamed your poor posting habits on your use of drugs.
>
Some of my typos were written after taking prescription drugs. I try to
avoid them. I can't always. When I take them my typing goes out the
window. You now know I can no longer feel most of my fingers. There
are no typos here.

>> You've called Kosher a sickness, which is anti Semitic.
>
>
> No, it isn't. Most of my Jewish friends aren't kosher.

My grandparents followed thousand year old traditions. One reason was
to avoid assimilation. They all lived into their 90s.

Some of them eat
> ham and snicker about it. All except of them eat shellfish and
> cheeseburgers. The Orthodox are orthorexic:

What part of Judaism do they observe. Are they really your friends?
Ask if they would agree that keeping kosher is a sickness.
The orthodox, which I'm not deserve respect for observing the laws as
they have for thousands of years.

they follow minute rules
> beyond the rules given in Torah, Bob. Some of the "super Jews" like the
> Hasidim even go to the point of avoiding meat and dairy in extended time
> periods -- as much as 24 hours -- just to be on the "safe side." They do
> it in the pursuit of "purity," which is the definition of orthorexia.
And Hasidism, which I'm not, have the happiest marriages, and are very
successful in life. They came with nothing and built a life based on
their view of morality. Their view is to make the world a better place.

Besides, unless you read Hebrew, you've never read the Torah, only
translations of translations.

And that gets away from the topic that atomic wastes are treated
horribly. Perhaps Bush's biggest mistake is pushing Yucca mountain down
everyone's throat.


http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...2001-12-08.htm

where David Comarow gave Nevada's official testimony to Congress.

Did you know that while they belittled the accident at 3 mile island,
the exposed reality was we almost had a meltdown, which would have made
the Philly area uninhabitable for many thousands of years.

The more plants, the greater the chance for a major catastrophe, because
people make mistakes, engineers, workers, contractors (often on purpose),
and even the experts admit that there will be accidents.


>
> I've also written that the same irrational pursuit of avoiding
> carbohydrates (in Atkins, South Beach, Zone, and similar diets) is every
> bit as orthorexic as the irrational pursuit of micrograms of "animal
> parts" in veganism. I'm not singling out the Jews, and not even the
> vegans, when pointing out eating disorders.
It's a set of moral beliefs. Some people have moral beliefs. That seems
beyond you to understand.

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Bob wrote:
>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> Neither of you can understand that cheap food requires fossil based
>>>> truck delivery systems.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should review the archives and note that I've used that
>>> argument against Skanky, whose predilections for imported foods
>>> outweigh her concerns about killing animals.
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> And for those who don't remember
>>>> Unusual Suspects calls Kosher a sickness.
>>>
>>>
>>> To the extent that people have two sets of cookware, dining ware,
>>> etc., and when they go beyond the Scriptures in a twisted pursuit.
>>>
>>>> The laws proved to be HEALTHY over time.
>>>
>>>
>>> How is keeping two sets of cookware healthier than using the same
>>> set, Boob?
>
>
> Answer this question, dumb ass.
>
>>>> But that's not why a Jew is Kosher. It is because it is the
>>>> religious law.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, for the most part it's a made up law which goes far beyond the
>>> point of being reasonable in its irrational search for micrograms --
>>> just like veganism.
>>
>>
>> I am not fully kosher.
>
>
> Too bad you're fully nitwitted about veganism.
>
>> I respect those that are.
>
>
> I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
> nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
> stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> homosexuals, not any of them.
>
>> It is mostly symbolic,
>
>
> IOW, a token (empty) gesture.
>

It's not token, it an opportunity to sit around a differ table and
hopefully maintain a culture.



>> You are not the authority on understanding Jewish laws.
>
>
> I never claimed to be, but I apparently have a better grasp of
> contemporary Jewish thought and how so many Jews don't observe kashrut:

Few non orthodox Jews are kosher. I am generally kosher, except that I
eat food that hasn't been inspected for insects. And I drink wine not
made by Jews. Since wine is often a symbol, we should not use a symbol
of another religion. You got me there, I love late season German Ice
Wines, which are clearly not made by Geed, but no one would use that
expensive stuff in a ceremony. It's expensive old in small bottles, but
worth the gastronomic delight. IMHO it would still be kosher since it
is not used symbolically.

German Ice Wines are incredible sweet. They are picked as raises, have
a nobel fungus on them, are pure grape (the quality mit predicate means
only grapes were used) But then I feed animals before myself and treat
animals kindly, as requested by Torah.

Ritual is part of all religions. Strangely, Communism became more
ritualistic, where pictures of Mao were required, books were banned,
and any reference to the past was destroyed with the failed cultural
revolution. Any western musical instrument was destroyed. It as a
great loss. Now China is coming back as a tiger, but is devoid of human
rights.

So as I admit to eating some hidden vegan ingredients (but never add
themselves) I call myself vegnaish and perhaps Kosherish if there was
such a word. I might might a cake knowing it had some hidden egg. And
I would eat a vegetarian cake made for me by a neighbor, though it's not
strictly kosher.


>
> Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are no
> longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have considered these laws a
> hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of piety; this is still the
> mainstream Reform position. Some parts of the Reform community have
> begun to move towards a more traditional position. This
> tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules
> concerning kashrut are no longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher
> is an important way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus
> Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
> kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement advocates
> that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut, but does so in a
> non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is the same as the
> tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different movements' positions on
> kashrut are reflective of their broader perspectives on Jewish law as a
> whole.
>
> Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of Kashrut
> nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance, abstaining
> from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid drinking milk with
> a meat dish, without knowing why doing so seems alien. Similarly, many
> keep a degree of Kashrut at home while having no problems eating in a
> non-kosher restaurant.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>
Reform Judaism was an attempt to keep Jews. Rabbi Kirsch showed the joy
of Judaism. Rabbi Samson Hirsch is still quoted for his brilliance in
all forms of Judaism. He certainly was against animal cruelty. his
work has permeated all forms of Judaism.

In summary, the poster had her food altered.

>> Generally, over time, science proves that the laws have helped protect
>> the Jews from various diseases.
>
>

They avoid bacteria laden shellfish, carnivores, and trigonsis ((sp>) i
have no idea how to spell. It avoided cross contamination, so complete
write-up in restaurants healh inspector. I would be glad to send local
urns.
> Any proof? The only "proof" of the benefits of kosher I've seen have to
> do with how quickly animals die compared to other slaughter techniques.

I will write after getting rest .
> And as far as diseases go, kashrut doesn't protect Jews from Bloom's
> syndrome, familial dysautonomia, torsion dystonia, or Tay-Sachs;
> further, Jews are also more likely to have diabetes than the general
> population.
>
> http://www.mendosa.com/jewish.htm
>
>> A lot is ritual.
>
>
> Ritual is, of itself, irrelevant to health.
>
>> That is off topic.
>
>
> And you should stop straying from the topic.

Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>I respect those that are.
>>
>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>homosexuals, not any of them.
>
>
> Whoa, where did you hear that
> one? Jews stoning children and
> gays??? I know some very
> orthodox Jews and they do NOT
> do the above. Where are you
> getting your info from, the KKK?
> Usual, you're even more of a
> prejudiced loser than I thought.
>
> [--snip--]
>
>
>
>

Bumbling Bob wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's all related. To maintain our food supply is a fossile
>>>>>>>> based food
>>>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Our food supply is dependent on cheap fossil fuels for distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fossil based food supply???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wha?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't mind Bob. He's addicted to and heavily sedated on painkillers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unusual Suspects is an anti semite.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not. I wrote NOTHING that would indicate that. I elaborated
>>>> in response just a few moments ago about the difference between
>>>> kashrut and what the texts actually say which leads to my position
>>>> that kashrut is orthorexic.
>>>
>>> You've called me a drug addict,
>>
>> You've blamed your poor posting habits on your use of drugs.
>
> Some of my typos were written after taking prescription drugs.

Maybe you should lie down instead of get on usenet when you're under the
influence.

> I try to avoid them. I can't always. When I take them my typing
> goes out the window. You now know I can no longer feel most of my
> fingers. There are no typos here.

Amazing. *yawn*

>>> You've called Kosher a sickness, which is anti Semitic.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Most of my Jewish friends aren't kosher.
>
> My grandparents followed thousand year old traditions. One reason was
> to avoid assimilation. They all lived into their 90s.

My grandmother, bless her heart, is approaching 100. Her mother lived to
her late 90s. And so on. No kashrut in my family.

>> Some of them eat
>> ham and snicker about it. All except of them eat shellfish and
>> cheeseburgers. The Orthodox are orthorexic:
>
> What part of Judaism do they observe.

Belief in G-d, doing mitzvahs, etc.

> Are they really your friends?

Yes. I have a key to one family's house so I can turn their lights on
during Shabbos. Nitwit.

> Ask if they would agree that keeping kosher is a sickness.

They do. They believe one's devotion isn't based on what they eat, but
what they do, think, and believe.

> The orthodox, which I'm not deserve respect for observing the laws as
> they have for thousands of years.

They don't deserve respect for thinking that their choice of diet has
any bearing on their holiness or devotion to G-d.

>> they follow minute rules
>> beyond the rules given in Torah, Bob. Some of the "super Jews" like
>> the Hasidim even go to the point of avoiding meat and dairy in
>> extended time periods -- as much as 24 hours -- just to be on the
>> "safe side." They do it in the pursuit of "purity," which is the
>> definition of orthorexia.
>
> And Hasidism, which I'm not, have the happiest marriages,

I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced that they're even happy people.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/csswp/res...rent/hasid.htm

> and are very successful in life.

They're dole scroungers.

Rabbi Leib Glanz, whose United Talmudic Academy employs about
700 teachers in Southside, said: ``If they can't take what I can
pay, I get someone else. I do not count on welfare when I hire.
But clearly welfare has been beneficial to the yeshivas.''

From household incomes to school budgets, public assistance has
penetrated the world of Southside's Hasidim. The Hasidim's
ability to make the welfare system work for them has provoked
both admiration and suspicion among welfare agency officials and
many people who live alongside the Hasidim in Southside. The
deep roots of welfare show how benefits subsidize industry, but
they also call attention to an unsettling question that lies
behind the debate about welfare reform: What if work is not
enough?
http://tinyurl.com/77zd5

> They came with nothing and built a life based on
> their view of morality.

They came here with weird beliefs about their messiah-rebbe who died and
is still at room (well, ground) temperature.

> Their view is to make the world a better place.

What religious group's view isn't that? They're hardly unique in that
respect.

> Besides, unless you read Hebrew, you've never read the Torah, only
> translations of translations.

I do, but that's irrelevant because I would still know enough about
various religious dietary customs because they're (fairly) widely known.

> And that gets away from the topic that atomic wastes are treated
> horribly. Perhaps Bush's biggest mistake is pushing Yucca mountain down
> everyone's throat.

Where would you rather we store nuclear wastes, in mountainous,
geographically-isolated, sparsely-populated areas or within large cities?

>> I've also written that the same irrational pursuit of avoiding
>> carbohydrates (in Atkins, South Beach, Zone, and similar diets) is
>> every bit as orthorexic as the irrational pursuit of micrograms of
>> "animal parts" in veganism. I'm not singling out the Jews, and not
>> even the vegans, when pointing out eating disorders.
>
> It's a set of moral beliefs.

No, it's not. There is nothing inherently moral about South Beach,
Atkins, Zone, veganism, or kashrut.

> Some people have moral beliefs.

There is nothing inherently moral about South Beach, Atkins, Zone,
veganism, or kashrut.

> That seems beyond you to understand.

I know what you're trying to convey, but I just happen to disagree with you.

Beach Runner wrote:
<...>
>>>>> The laws proved to be HEALTHY over time.
>>>>
>>>> How is keeping two sets of cookware healthier than using the same
>>>> set, Boob?
>>
>> Answer this question, dumb ass.

Answer the question.

<...>
>>> It is mostly symbolic,
>>
>> IOW, a token (empty) gesture.
>
> It's not token,

Yes, it is.

> it an opportunity to sit around a differ table and
> hopefully maintain a culture.

Kashrut is a token effort at maintaining a "culture." How many Jews buy
pareve fake sausages so they can eat them without violating the command
not to eat pork, or to eat with dairy foods without violating that
command? I respect the Jews who eat the real thing more because they
know their piety and devotion is based on what they put into their mouths.

>>> You are not the authority on understanding Jewish laws.
>>
>> I never claimed to be, but I apparently have a better grasp of
>> contemporary Jewish thought and how so many Jews don't observe kashrut:
>
> Few non orthodox Jews are kosher. I am generally kosher,

My Jewish friends would take issue with that: it's an either or
situation. Either you're kosher (clean) or you're treif (dirty). There's
no half-kosher in between.

> except that I
> eat food that hasn't been inspected for insects.

Treif.

> And I drink wine not made by Jews.

Treif (rabinically).
http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/treif.php

> Since wine is often a symbol, we should not use a symbol
> of another religion. You got me there, I love late season German Ice
> Wines, which are clearly not made by Geed, but no one would use that
> expensive stuff in a ceremony. It's expensive old in small bottles, but
> worth the gastronomic delight. IMHO it would still be kosher since it
> is not used symbolically.

No.
http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033155.htm

> German Ice Wines are incredible sweet. They are picked as raises, have
> a nobel fungus on them, are pure grape (the quality mit predicate means
> only grapes were used) But then I feed animals before myself and treat
> animals kindly, as requested by Torah.

So you pick and choose what commands you follow.

> Ritual is part of all religions. Strangely, Communism became more
> ritualistic, where pictures of Mao were required, books were banned,
> and any reference to the past was destroyed with the failed cultural
> revolution. Any western musical instrument was destroyed. It as a
> great loss. Now China is coming back as a tiger, but is devoid of human
> rights.

I'm not convinced that China is a tiger. All these predictions remind me
of expectations that South America was the next big boom. It wasn't, and
I don't think the Chinese economy can continue to expand at this rate (a
lot of which is smoke and mirror because of the central government's
peculiar fiscal policies, which have recently received well-deserved
media attention).

> So as I admit to eating some hidden vegan ingredients (but never add
> themselves) I call myself vegnaish and perhaps Kosherish if there was
> such a word. I might might a cake knowing it had some hidden egg. And
> I would eat a vegetarian cake made for me by a neighbor, though it's not
> strictly kosher.

At least you're not orthorexic in your own life, even if you recommend
it to others.

>> Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are
>> no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have considered these
>> laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of piety; this is still
>> the mainstream Reform position. Some parts of the Reform community
>> have begun to move towards a more traditional position. This
>> tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules
>> concerning kashrut are no longer binding, but holds that keeping
>> kosher is an important way for people to bring holiness into their
>> lives. Thus Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of
>> the rules of kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist
>> movement advocates that its members accept some of the rules of
>> kashrut, but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut
>> is the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
>> movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
>> perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
>>
>> Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of Kashrut
>> nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance,
>> abstaining from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid
>> drinking milk with a meat dish, without knowing why doing so seems
>> alien. Similarly, many keep a degree of Kashrut at home while having
>> no problems eating in a non-kosher restaurant.
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>
> Reform Judaism was an attempt to keep Jews. Rabbi Kirsch showed the joy
> of Judaism. Rabbi Samson Hirsch is still quoted for his brilliance in
> all forms of Judaism. He certainly was against animal cruelty. his
> work has permeated all forms of Judaism.
>
> In summary, the poster had her food altered.

No, that was never suggested.

>>> Generally, over time, science proves that the laws have helped
>>> protect the Jews from various diseases.
>
> They avoid bacteria laden shellfish,

So do the goyim who follow health department warnings when oyster beds
are contaminated, for example.

> carnivores, and trigonsis ((sp>) i
> have no idea how to spell.

Trichinosis is something easily prevented through freezing and/or
properly cooking meats.

> It avoided cross contamination, so complete
> write-up in restaurants healh inspector. I would be glad to send local
> urns.

Produce can be contaminated without ever coming near meat, such as the
application of or proximity to manure or irrigation with water
contaminated with manure. And don't forget that it wasn't
cross-contamination that caused the green onion hepatitis scare in
Pennsylvania. It was direct contamination with human feces in the fields
where the onions were grown.

>> Any proof? The only "proof" of the benefits of kosher I've seen have
>> to do with how quickly animals die compared to other slaughter
>> techniques.
>
> I will write after getting rest .

Just respond in the right thread.

>> And as far as diseases go, kashrut doesn't protect Jews from Bloom's
>> syndrome, familial dysautonomia, torsion dystonia, or Tay-Sachs;
>> further, Jews are also more likely to have diabetes than the general
>> population.
>>
>> http://www.mendosa.com/jewish.htm
>>
>>> A lot is ritual.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ritual is, of itself, irrelevant to health.
>>
>>> That is off topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you should stop straying from the topic.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>I respect those that are.
> >>
> >>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
> >>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
> >>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> >>homosexuals, not any of them.
> >
> > Whoa, where did you hear that
> > one? Jews stoning children and
> > gays???
>
> I've read it in the Bible.

The bible is what Christians follow.
It's a book full of a lot of violence,
both by man and his god. The
Jewish torah is the same but just
leaves out some parts, the parts
about Jesus being a messiah.
So if you're going to blame Jews
of old for abominations, blame
the Christians of old too. They
were one and the same. Above
you refer to stoning as if it is
happening in present day
Judaism, whereas it is only
happening modernly in Muslim
countries, usually to women
who have been victims of rape.

> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
> the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
> when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
> shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
> out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
> And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
> stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
> glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
> him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
> among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
> Deuteronomy 21:19-22

What a full-of-love book.

> And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
> put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
> shall surely be put to death.
> Exodus 21:15, 17

What a gentle and kind god.

> If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
> have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
> death. Their blood shall be upon them.
> Leviticus 20:13

No violent intentions by a fascist
god there, eh? Man sure knows
how to make them up.

> And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
> deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
>
> 'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
> commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
> adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
> Leviticus 20:10

Do you actually believe in this
stuff?

> The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
> which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
> rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
> some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
> point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
> Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
> laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
> considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
> piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
> of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
> traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
> mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
> longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
> way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
> encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
> kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
> advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
> but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
> the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
> movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
> perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>
> > I know some very
> > orthodox Jews and they do NOT
> > do the above.
>
> Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
> which rules to follow and obsess over?

Why do the ones who have talked
you into turning on their lights (work)
during their sabbath not stone
people to death? Are they not
picking and choosing? And since
it's a part of both the bible and
the torah, why aren't you accusing
Christians of stoning?

> > Where are you
> > getting your info from, the KKK?
>
> No, the Bible.

Nice book, that.

> > Usual, you're even more of a
> > prejudiced
>
> There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.

Loathsome bitch? I guess if I
were your mother or father, I would
have to stone you to death for
cursing at me.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
. ..
> Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.

Although I've never read the entire
thing, both the old and new
testaments are too violent for my
tastes. Present day Jews and
Christians don't stone their
children, gays or adulterers

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > [--snip--]
> >
> >
> >>>I respect those that are.
> >>
> >>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
> >>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
> >>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> >>homosexuals, not any of them.
> >
> >
> > Whoa, where did you hear that
> > one? Jews stoning children and
> > gays??? I know some very
> > orthodox Jews and they do NOT
> > do the above. Where are you
> > getting your info from, the KKK?
> > Usual, you're even more of a
> > prejudiced loser than I thought.
> >
> > [--snip--]
> >
> >
> >
> >

Skanky wrote:
>>>>>I respect those that are.
>>>>
>>>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
>>>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
>>>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>>>homosexuals, not any of them.
>>>
>>>Whoa, where did you hear that
>>>one? Jews stoning children and
>>>gays???
>>
>>I've read it in the Bible.
>
> The bible is what Christians follow.

Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).

> It's a book full of a lot of violence,
> both by man and his god. The
> Jewish torah is the same

The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.

> but just leaves out some parts,

You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
theologians attended.

> the parts about Jesus being a messiah.

You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see Jesus
Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.

> So if you're going to blame Jews
> of old for abominations, blame
> the Christians of old too. They
> were one and the same.

You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.

> Above you refer to stoning as if it is
> happening in present day Judaism,

No, DUMB ASS, I was making a point most people with SOME familiarity
with the Bible can comprehend: that the very same texts which outline
kashrut (or kosher since you appear especially dim today) commandments
also command stoning for a variety of offenses. IOW, why should someone
who finds all the commands to stone homosexuals, adulterers, or
insubordinate children objectionable insist that the peculiarities of
dietary commands given to desert nomads 5000 years ago be practiced today?

>>If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
>>the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
>>when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
>>shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
>>out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
>>And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
>>stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
>>glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
>>him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
>>among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
>>Deuteronomy 21:19-22
>
> What a full-of-love book.

Given your juvenile defiance, you're quite lucky you weren't around then.

>>And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
>>put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
>>shall surely be put to death.
>>Exodus 21:15, 17
>
> What a gentle and kind god.
>
>
>>If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
>>have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
>>death. Their blood shall be upon them.
>>Leviticus 20:13
>
> No violent intentions by a fascist
> god there, eh? Man sure knows
> how to make them up.
>
>>And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
>>deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
>>
>>'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
>>commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
>>adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
>>Leviticus 20:10
>
> Do you actually believe in this stuff?

That's the whole deal, stupid Skank. I made a point in response to two
****ing idiots who called me either an anti-Semite (Bob) or "prejudiced"
(you) on the basis of my rejection of OT dietary laws and elaboration
that asked why Jews uphold the archaic dietary laws but none of the
others. Those dietary laws come from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the same
two books which told the Israelites to stone insubordinate children,
homosexuals, adulterers, and everyone else outside of Israel. Funny how
you now sarcastically write it's "full of love" and so on; you're a
****ing hypocritical asshole for impugning me on a point which you seem
to concur. You're a blithering ditz.

>>The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
>>which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
>>rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
>>some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
>>point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):

Why did you not apologize for calling me prejudiced when you find those
commands at least as objectionable as I do?! Whore!!

>>Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
>>laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
>>considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
>>piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
>>of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
>>traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
>>mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
>>longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
>>way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
>>encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
>>kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
>>advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
>>but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
>>the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
>>movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
>>perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
>>http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>>
>>
>>>I know some very
>>>orthodox Jews and they do NOT
>>>do the above.
>>
>>Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
>>which rules to follow and obsess over?
>
> Why do the ones who have talked
> you into turning on their lights (work)
> during their sabbath not stone
> people to death?

Go ask them, ****.

> Are they not
> picking and choosing?

It appears so to me. That was my whole point, you ignorant buffoon.

> And since it's a part of both the bible and
> the torah,

The Torah IS the Bible, you illiterate fool. Torah is also called the
Pentateuch, or first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy.

> why aren't you accusing
> Christians of stoning?

Because Christianity isn't based on keeping OT law (vicarious atonement:
Christ is the fulfillment of the law).

>>>Where are you
>>>getting your info from, the KKK?
>>
>>No, the Bible.
>
> Nice book, that.

With your sarcasm dripping all over the place, why do you hold so much
contempt for my statement that Jews should follow ALL of the laws rather
than just (some of) the dietary ones?

>>>Usual, you're even more of a
>>>prejudiced
>>
>>There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.
>
> Loathsome bitch?

Yes, a loathsome, insufferable, boorish, uncreative, slacking,
home-bound, agoraphobic, stoned, CAR-LESS psycho BITCH.

> I guess if I were your mother or father,

You aren't.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Skanky wrote:
>>
>>>>>I respect those that are.
>>>>
>>>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not Jewish,
>>>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones about
>>>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>>>homosexuals, not any of them.
>>>
>>>Whoa, where did you hear that
>>>one? Jews stoning children and
>>>gays???
>>
>>I've read it in the Bible.
>
>
> The bible is what Christians follow.
> It's a book full of a lot of violence,
> both by man and his god. The
> Jewish torah is the same but just
> leaves out some parts, the parts
> about Jesus being a messiah.
> So if you're going to blame Jews
> of old for abominations, blame
> the Christians of old too. They
> were one and the same. Above
> you refer to stoning as if it is
> happening in present day
> Judaism, whereas it is only
> happening modernly in Muslim
> countries, usually to women
> who have been victims of rape.
>
>
>>If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
>>the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
>>when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
>>shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
>>out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
>>And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
>>stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
>>glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
>>him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
>>among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
>>Deuteronomy 21:19-22
>
>
> What a full-of-love book.
>
>
>>And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
>>put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
>>shall surely be put to death.
>>Exodus 21:15, 17
>
>
> What a gentle and kind god.
>
>
>>If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
>>have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
>>death. Their blood shall be upon them.
>>Leviticus 20:13
>
>
> No violent intentions by a fascist
> god there, eh? Man sure knows
> how to make them up.
>
>
>>And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
>>deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
>>
>>'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
>>commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
>>adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
>>Leviticus 20:10
>
>
> Do you actually believe in this
> stuff?
>
>
>>The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
>>which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
>>rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
>>some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
>>point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
>>Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
>>laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
>>considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
>>piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
>>of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
>>traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
>>mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
>>longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
>>way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
>>encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
>>kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
>>advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
>>but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
>>the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
>>movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
>>perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
>>http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>>
>>
>>>I know some very
>>>orthodox Jews and they do NOT
>>>do the above.
>>
>>Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
>>which rules to follow and obsess over?
>
>
> Why do the ones who have talked
> you into turning on their lights (work)
> during their sabbath not stone
> people to death? Are they not
> picking and choosing? And since
> it's a part of both the bible and
> the torah, why aren't you accusing
> Christians of stoning?
>
>
>>>Where are you
>>>getting your info from, the KKK?
>>
>>No, the Bible.
>
>
> Nice book, that.
>
>
>>>Usual, you're even more of a
>>>prejudiced
>>
>>There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.
>
>
> Loathsome bitch? I guess if I
> were your mother or father, I would
> have to stone you to death for
> cursing at me.
>
>
To summarize Torah, "Don't do what is hateful to others what is hateful
to others. All the rest is commentary." All the rest is commentary. by
the Great Rabbi Hillel.

usual suspect wrote:

> Skanky wrote:
>
>>>>>> I respect those that are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not
>>>>> Jewish,
>>>>> nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones
>>>>> about
>>>>> stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>>>> homosexuals, not any of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whoa, where did you hear that
>>>> one? Jews stoning children and
>>>> gays???
>>>
>>>
>>> I've read it in the Bible.
>>
>>
>> The bible is what Christians follow.
>
>
> Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
> Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).
>
>> It's a book full of a lot of violence,
>> both by man and his god. The
>> Jewish torah is the same
>
>
> The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.
>
>> but just leaves out some parts,
>
>
> You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
> theologians attended.
>
>> the parts about Jesus being a messiah.
>
>
> You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see Jesus
> Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.
>
>> So if you're going to blame Jews
>> of old for abominations, blame
>> the Christians of old too. They
>> were one and the same.
>
>
> You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
> theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.
>
>> Above you refer to stoning as if it is
>> happening in present day Judaism,
>
>
> No, DUMB ASS, I was making a point most people with SOME familiarity
> with the Bible can comprehend: that the very same texts which outline
> kashrut (or kosher since you appear especially dim today) commandments
> also command stoning for a variety of offenses. IOW, why should someone
> who finds all the commands to stone homosexuals, adulterers, or
> insubordinate children objectionable insist that the peculiarities of
> dietary commands given to desert nomads 5000 years ago be practiced today?
>
>>> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
>>> the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
>>> when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
>>> shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
>>> out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
>>> And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
>>> stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
>>> glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
>>> him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
>>> among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
>>> Deuteronomy 21:19-22
>>
>>
>> What a full-of-love book.
>
>
> Given your juvenile defiance, you're quite lucky you weren't around then.
>
>>> And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
>>> put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
>>> shall surely be put to death.
>>> Exodus 21:15, 17
>>
>>
>> What a gentle and kind god.
>>
>>
>>> If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
>>> have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
>>> death. Their blood shall be upon them.
>>> Leviticus 20:13
>>
>>
>> No violent intentions by a fascist
>> god there, eh? Man sure knows
>> how to make them up.
>>
>>> And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
>>> deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
>>>
>>> 'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
>>> commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
>>> adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
>>> Leviticus 20:10
>>
>>
>> Do you actually believe in this stuff?
>
>
> That's the whole deal, stupid Skank. I made a point in response to two
> ****ing idiots who called me either an anti-Semite (Bob) or "prejudiced"
> (you) on the basis of my rejection of OT dietary laws and elaboration
> that asked why Jews uphold the archaic dietary laws but none of the
> others. Those dietary laws come from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the same
> two books which told the Israelites to stone insubordinate children,
> homosexuals, adulterers, and everyone else outside of Israel. Funny how
> you now sarcastically write it's "full of love" and so on; you're a
> ****ing hypocritical asshole for impugning me on a point which you seem
> to concur. You're a blithering ditz.
>
>>> The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
>>> which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
>>> rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
>>> some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
>>> point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
>
>
> Why did you not apologize for calling me prejudiced when you find those
> commands at least as objectionable as I do?! Whore!!
>
>>> Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
>>> laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
>>> considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
>>> piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
>>> of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
>>> traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
>>> mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
>>> longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
>>> way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
>>> encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
>>> kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
>>> advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
>>> but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
>>> the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
>>> movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
>>> perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know some very
>>>> orthodox Jews and they do NOT
>>>> do the above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
>>> which rules to follow and obsess over?
>>
>>
>> Why do the ones who have talked
>> you into turning on their lights (work)
>> during their sabbath not stone
>> people to death?
>
>
> Go ask them, ****.
>
>> Are they not
>> picking and choosing?
>
>
> It appears so to me. That was my whole point, you ignorant buffoon.
>
>> And since it's a part of both the bible and
>> the torah,
>
>
> The Torah IS the Bible, you illiterate fool. Torah is also called the
> Pentateuch, or first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
> and Deuteronomy.
>
>> why aren't you accusing
>> Christians of stoning?
>
>
> Because Christianity isn't based on keeping OT law (vicarious atonement:
> Christ is the fulfillment of the law).
>
>>>> Where are you
>>>> getting your info from, the KKK?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, the Bible.
>>
>>
>> Nice book, that.
>
>
> With your sarcasm dripping all over the place, why do you hold so much
> contempt for my statement that Jews should follow ALL of the laws rather
> than just (some of) the dietary ones?
>
>>>> Usual, you're even more of a
>>>> prejudiced
>>>
>>>
>>> There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.
>>
>>
>> Loathsome bitch?
>
>
> Yes, a loathsome, insufferable, boorish, uncreative, slacking,
> home-bound, agoraphobic, stoned, CAR-LESS psycho BITCH.
>
>> I guess if I were your mother or father,
>
>
> You aren't.

The Torah is not part of the Bible, is is the 5 books of Moses. The New
Testament translates incorrectly into Greek and hundreds of years later
add some books.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>I respect those that are.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not
Jewish,
> >>>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones
about
> >>>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> >>>>homosexuals, not any of them.
> >>>
> >>>Whoa, where did you hear that
> >>>one? Jews stoning children and
> >>>gays???
> >>
> >>I've read it in the Bible.
> >
> > The bible is what Christians follow.
>
> Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
> Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).
>
> > It's a book full of a lot of violence,
> > both by man and his god. The
> > Jewish torah is the same
>
> The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.

Duh. I said the torah is the
same. It's just missing the
Jesus stuff.

> > but just leaves out some parts,
>
> You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
> theologians attended.
>
> > the parts about Jesus being a messiah.
>
> You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see Jesus
> Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.

Jesus is in the torah? Where?

> > So if you're going to blame Jews
> > of old for abominations, blame
> > the Christians of old too. They
> > were one and the same.
>
> You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
> theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.

That's no answer. You know that
they were one and the same
before separating off into 2
different religions.

> > Above you refer to stoning as if it is
> > happening in present day Judaism,
>
> No, DUMB ASS, I was making a point most people with SOME familiarity
> with the Bible can comprehend: that the very same texts which outline
> kashrut (or kosher since you appear especially dim today) commandments
> also command stoning for a variety of offenses. IOW, why should someone
> who finds all the commands to stone homosexuals, adulterers, or
> insubordinate children objectionable insist that the peculiarities of
> dietary commands given to desert nomads 5000 years ago be practiced today?

Why should any of it be believed
or practiced? Those objectionable
parts are not revoked somewhere
later down the road. They are still
in the bible.

> >>If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
> >>the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
> >>when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
> >>shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
> >>out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
> >>And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
> >>stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
> >>glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
> >>him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
> >>among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
> >>Deuteronomy 21:19-22
> >
> > What a full-of-love book.
>
> Given your juvenile defiance, you're quite lucky you weren't around then.

Do you actually follow and believe
this book of killings. Do you not
mind that the god you've chosen
to believe in is vengeful, wrathful,
authoritarian, and fascist?

> >>And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
> >>put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
> >>shall surely be put to death.
> >>Exodus 21:15, 17
> >
> > What a gentle and kind god.
> >
> >
> >>If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
> >>have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
> >>death. Their blood shall be upon them.
> >>Leviticus 20:13
> >
> > No violent intentions by a fascist
> > god there, eh? Man sure knows
> > how to make them up.
> >
> >>And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would have to
> >>deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
> >>
> >>'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
> >>commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
> >>adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
> >>Leviticus 20:10
> >
> > Do you actually believe in this stuff?
>
> That's the whole deal, stupid Skank. I made a point in response to two
> ****ing idiots who called me either an anti-Semite (Bob) or "prejudiced"
> (you) on the basis of my rejection of OT dietary laws and elaboration
> that asked why Jews uphold the archaic dietary laws but none of the
> others. Those dietary laws come from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the same
> two books which told the Israelites to stone insubordinate children,
> homosexuals, adulterers, and everyone else outside of Israel. Funny how
> you now sarcastically write it's "full of love" and so on; you're a
> ****ing hypocritical asshole for impugning me on a point which you seem
> to concur. You're a blithering ditz.

But do you actually believe in
the bible, selectively picking
out passages?

> >>The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
> >>which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
> >>rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
> >>some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
> >>point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
>
> Why did you not apologize for calling me prejudiced when you find those
> commands at least as objectionable as I do?! Whore!!

Whore? Why would I apologize for
anything regarding you the insulter.
Apologize first for Whore!! and
everything else you've ever called
me. Or does that only go one way?

> >>Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
> >>laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
> >>considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
> >>piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
> >>of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
> >>traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
> >>mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
> >>longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
> >>way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
> >>encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
> >>kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
> >>advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
> >>but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
> >>the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
> >>movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
> >>perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
> >>http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
> >>
> >>
> >>>I know some very
> >>>orthodox Jews and they do NOT
> >>>do the above.
> >>
> >>Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
> >>which rules to follow and obsess over?
> >
> > Why do the ones who have talked
> > you into turning on their lights (work)
> > during their sabbath not stone
> > people to death?
>
> Go ask them, ****.

If they had done it to you, I wouldn't
have to.

> > Are they not
> > picking and choosing?
>
> It appears so to me. That was my whole point, you ignorant buffoon.

You either are Kashrut or not.
No inbetween. That's what you
said somewhere else, isn't it?

> > And since it's a part of both the bible and
> > the torah,
>
> The Torah IS the Bible, you illiterate fool. Torah is also called the
> Pentateuch, or first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
> and Deuteronomy.
>
> > why aren't you accusing
> > Christians of stoning?
>
> Because Christianity isn't based on keeping OT law (vicarious atonement:
> Christ is the fulfillment of the law).

Where does it say to ignore the
past rules? And you can't claim
that Christ's killing atones you for
some bad things but not all.

> >>>Where are you
> >>>getting your info from, the KKK?
> >>
> >>No, the Bible.
> >
> > Nice book, that.
>
> With your sarcasm dripping all over the place, why do you hold so much
> contempt for my statement that Jews should follow ALL of the laws rather
> than just (some of) the dietary ones?

That's your all or nothing point
of view. What's wrong with them
just following the parts they agree
with?

> >>>Usual, you're even more of a
> >>>prejudiced
> >>
> >>There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.
> >
> > Loathsome bitch?
>
> Yes, a loathsome, insufferable, boorish, uncreative, slacking,
> home-bound, agoraphobic, stoned, CAR-LESS psycho BITCH.

You're a prejudiced insulter. That's
why you have no friends.

> > I guess if I were your mother or father,
>
> You aren't.

If I was, I'd have to stone you to death
in the old testament.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Bob took some drugs and wrote:
>>>>>>> I respect those that are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not
>>>>>> Jewish,
>>>>>> nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>>>>> homosexuals, not any of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoa, where did you hear that
>>>>> one? Jews stoning children and
>>>>> gays???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've read it in the Bible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The bible is what Christians follow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
>> Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).
>>
>>> It's a book full of a lot of violence,
>>> both by man and his god. The
>>> Jewish torah is the same
>>
>>
>>
>> The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.
>>
>>> but just leaves out some parts,
>>
>>
>>
>> You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
>> theologians attended.
>>
>>> the parts about Jesus being a messiah.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see
>> Jesus Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.
>>
>>> So if you're going to blame Jews
>>> of old for abominations, blame
>>> the Christians of old too. They
>>> were one and the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
>> theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.
>>
>>> Above you refer to stoning as if it is
>>> happening in present day Judaism,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, DUMB ASS, I was making a point most people with SOME familiarity
>> with the Bible can comprehend: that the very same texts which outline
>> kashrut (or kosher since you appear especially dim today) commandments
>> also command stoning for a variety of offenses. IOW, why should
>> someone who finds all the commands to stone homosexuals, adulterers,
>> or insubordinate children objectionable insist that the peculiarities
>> of dietary commands given to desert nomads 5000 years ago be practiced
>> today?
>>
>>>> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
>>>> the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
>>>> when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then
>>>> shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
>>>> out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
>>>> And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
>>>> stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a
>>>> glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone
>>>> him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from
>>>> among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
>>>> Deuteronomy 21:19-22
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a full-of-love book.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given your juvenile defiance, you're quite lucky you weren't around then.
>>
>>>> And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely
>>>> put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother,
>>>> shall surely be put to death.
>>>> Exodus 21:15, 17
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a gentle and kind god.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them
>>>> have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
>>>> death. Their blood shall be upon them.
>>>> Leviticus 20:13
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No violent intentions by a fascist
>>> god there, eh? Man sure knows
>>> how to make them up.
>>>
>>>> And fwiw, Dreck, who's claimed before to be "part" Jewish, would
>>>> have to
>>>> deal with his wife and brother in similar fashion:
>>>>
>>>> 'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who
>>>> commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
>>>> adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
>>>> Leviticus 20:10
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you actually believe in this stuff?
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the whole deal, stupid Skank. I made a point in response to two
>> ****ing idiots who called me either an anti-Semite (Bob) or
>> "prejudiced" (you) on the basis of my rejection of OT dietary laws and
>> elaboration that asked why Jews uphold the archaic dietary laws but
>> none of the others. Those dietary laws come from Leviticus and
>> Deuteronomy, the same two books which told the Israelites to stone
>> insubordinate children, homosexuals, adulterers, and everyone else
>> outside of Israel. Funny how you now sarcastically write it's "full of
>> love" and so on; you're a ****ing hypocritical asshole for impugning
>> me on a point which you seem to concur. You're a blithering ditz.
>>
>>>> The dietary laws come from these same texts in Deuteronomy and
>>>> Leviticus
>>>> which prescribe stoning and hanging for various transgressions. If the
>>>> rigid laws about human relationships are no longer operative, why do
>>>> some Jews believe other rigid laws about diet are? THAT, stupid, was my
>>>> point. As I've also noted (and you snipped):
>>
>>
>>
>> Why did you not apologize for calling me prejudiced when you find
>> those commands at least as objectionable as I do?! Whore!!
>>
>>>> Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these
>>>> laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have
>>>> considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of
>>>> piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts
>>>> of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more
>>>> traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with
>>>> mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no
>>>> longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important
>>>> way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are
>>>> encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of
>>>> kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement
>>>> advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut,
>>>> but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is
>>>> the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different
>>>> movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader
>>>> perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.
>>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/kashrut
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know some very
>>>>> orthodox Jews and they do NOT
>>>>> do the above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then maybe they're not Orthodox enough. Why do they pick and choose
>>>> which rules to follow and obsess over?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do the ones who have talked
>>> you into turning on their lights (work)
>>> during their sabbath not stone
>>> people to death?
>>
>>
>>
>> Go ask them, ****.
>>
>>> Are they not
>>> picking and choosing?
>>
>>
>>
>> It appears so to me. That was my whole point, you ignorant buffoon.
>>
>>> And since it's a part of both the bible and
>>> the torah,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Torah IS the Bible, you illiterate fool. Torah is also called the
>> Pentateuch, or first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
>> and Deuteronomy.
>>
>>> why aren't you accusing
>>> Christians of stoning?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because Christianity isn't based on keeping OT law (vicarious
>> atonement: Christ is the fulfillment of the law).
>>
>>>>> Where are you
>>>>> getting your info from, the KKK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the Bible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice book, that.
>>
>>
>>
>> With your sarcasm dripping all over the place, why do you hold so much
>> contempt for my statement that Jews should follow ALL of the laws
>> rather than just (some of) the dietary ones?
>>
>>>>> Usual, you're even more of a
>>>>> prejudiced
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was nothing prejudiced in what I wrote, you loathsome bitch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loathsome bitch?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, a loathsome, insufferable, boorish, uncreative, slacking,
>> home-bound, agoraphobic, stoned, CAR-LESS psycho BITCH.
>>
>>> I guess if I were your mother or father,
>>
>>
>>
>> You aren't.
>
> The Torah is not part of the Bible, is is the 5 books of Moses.

Torah - the first of three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures
comprising the first five books of the Hebrew Bible considered
as a unit.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Torah

Those first five books are the books of Moses (as I noted above):
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

> The New Testament translates incorrectly into Greek

No, it doesn't. The NT is consistent with the Septuagint (aka LXX),
which is the Greek version of the OT dating to the third century BC
(i.e., it was translated by Jews long before Jesus' birth).

Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>I respect those that are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not
>
> Jewish,
>
>>>>>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones
>
> about
>
>>>>>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
>>>>>>homosexuals, not any of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whoa, where did you hear that
>>>>>one? Jews stoning children and
>>>>>gays???
>>>>
>>>>I've read it in the Bible.
>>>
>>>The bible is what Christians follow.
>>
>>Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
>>Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).
>>
>>>It's a book full of a lot of violence,
>>>both by man and his god. The
>>>Jewish torah is the same
>>
>>The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.
>
> Duh. I said the torah is the
> same. It's just missing the
> Jesus stuff.

You have no idea what you're writing.

>>>but just leaves out some parts,
>>
>>You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
>>theologians attended.
>>
>>
>>>the parts about Jesus being a messiah.
>>
>>You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see Jesus
>>Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.
>
> Jesus is in the torah? Where?

Christians point to the various Messianic references throughout the OT,
including the Pentateuch.

Among other sources:
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/christ.htm

>>>So if you're going to blame Jews
>>>of old for abominations, blame
>>>the Christians of old too. They
>>>were one and the same.
>>
>>You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
>>theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.
>
> That's no answer.

You asked no question.

>>>I guess if I were your mother or father,
>>
>>You aren't.
>
> If I was,

You're not, so go **** yourself.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .

Your fake return email makes me
have to ask. Why are you not
supporting your troops by
enlisting?

> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>I respect those that are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I don't. Their diets and customs are their own business. I'm not
> >
> > Jewish,
> >
> >>>>>>nor am I under their laws -- not the ones about food, not the ones
> >
> > about
> >
> >>>>>>stoning children for insubordination, not the ones about stoning
> >>>>>>homosexuals, not any of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Whoa, where did you hear that
> >>>>>one? Jews stoning children and
> >>>>>gays???
> >>>>
> >>>>I've read it in the Bible.
> >>>
> >>>The bible is what Christians follow.
> >>
> >>Non-Christians also follow it, or parts of it (as the Jews accept the
> >>Torah -- which is part of the Bible, dummy -- and prophets).
> >>
> >>>It's a book full of a lot of violence,
> >>>both by man and his god. The
> >>>Jewish torah is the same
> >>
> >>The Torah is included in the Bible, dumb ass.
> >
> > Duh. I said the torah is the
> > same. It's just missing the
> > Jesus stuff.
>
> You have no idea what you're writing.

Does it refer to Jesus by name
anywhere?

> >>>but just leaves out some parts,
> >>
> >>You must've attended the same seminary some of Karen Winter's favorite
> >>theologians attended.
> >>
> >>
> >>>the parts about Jesus being a messiah.
> >>
> >>You're in over your head, dummy. Christians point to TORAH and see Jesus
> >>Christ; Jews reject him _in toto_.
> >
> > Jesus is in the torah? Where?
>
> Christians point to the various Messianic references throughout the OT,
> including the Pentateuch.

Jews don't believe Jesus was
a messiah. You won't find him
referred to as such in the torah.

> Among other sources:
> http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
> http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/christ.htm
>
> >>>So if you're going to blame Jews
> >>>of old for abominations, blame
> >>>the Christians of old too. They
> >>>were one and the same.
> >>
> >>You're incredibly ignorant of Judeo-Christian history, not to mention
> >>theology. That doesn't exactly surprise me.
> >
> > That's no answer.
>
> You asked no question.

Before Jesus, the Christians
and Jews were all Jews.

> >>>I guess if I were your mother or father,
> >>
> >>You aren't.
> >
> > If I was,
>
> You're not, so go **** yourself.

Snip, insult, and run,


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Beach Runner wrote:
> Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.

Do you stone homosexuals, adulterers, psychics, wizards, or disobedient
children? Do you cut your hair and shave? Have you ever had sex with a
menstruating woman, or a woman who's just off her period (within a week)?

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.
>
>
> Do you stone homosexuals, adulterers, psychics, wizards, or disobedient
> children? Do you cut your hair and shave? Have you ever had sex with a
> menstruating woman, or a woman who's just off her period (within a week)?

i've made clear my view of the bible. "Don't do to other what is
hateful to you, all the rest is commentary" - Hillel

Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.
>>
>> Do you stone homosexuals, adulterers, psychics, wizards, or
>> disobedient children? Do you cut your hair and shave? Have you ever
>> had sex with a menstruating woman, or a woman who's just off her
>> period (within a week)?
>
> i've made clear my view of the bible. "Don't do to other what is
> hateful to you, all the rest is commentary" - Hillel

IOW, you pick and choose the parts you like and then impugn others as
"anti-Semitic" for disagreeing with your choices.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> Read levitius. I obviously use it as a guide.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you stone homosexuals, adulterers, psychics, wizards, or
>>> disobedient children? Do you cut your hair and shave? Have you ever
>>> had sex with a menstruating woman, or a woman who's just off her
>>> period (within a week)?
>>
>>
>> i've made clear my view of the bible. "Don't do to other what is
>> hateful to you, all the rest is commentary" - Hillel

No, you are anti semetic for saying Jews who follow tradition are sick.
>
>
> IOW, you pick and choose the parts you like and then impugn others as
> "anti-Semitic" for disagreeing with your choices.

I respect other religions and moralities. I don't have to follow them.
I'm not Buddhist but I would never call them sick.


I still can't believe you didn't recognize immediately the consequence
of atomic wastes in the food chain. For someone so "smart" if it doesn't
fit your agenda, you become oblivious. Not minor incident, a major,
prolonged process.