On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:15:10 -0700, "Ellen K."
> wrote:

>I'm not sure exactly about the temperature of the liquid itself, however it
>might be related to the more general rule that in order to put a cooked
>solid food on a hot surface in order to warm (but not further cook) it on
>the sabbath, the hot surface has to be a temperature where a normal person
>can comfortably rest their hand. So I would guess maybe it has been
>determined that somewhere around 45 C is the highest temperature where a
>normal person can comfortably rest their hand.

Makes sense - thanks.

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 150ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.2% BMI 26

Julie Bove > wrote:
>By the same token, nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in
>this world is diminished if you don't take communion. Or eat fish on
>Fridays. Or on Christmas Eve. Or don't eat beef. Or... Or... See what I
>mean?

I entirely do. We don't eat any specific foods on specific days. We take
communion in order to get closer to God and each other as worshiping brethren.
But you're entirely right, the quality of daily life doesn't improve because of
it.

Orlando

Julie Bove > wrote:
>By the same token, nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in
>this world is diminished if you don't take communion. Or eat fish on
>Fridays. Or on Christmas Eve. Or don't eat beef. Or... Or... See what I
>mean?

Most religions intentionally blur the lines between God's laws and Man's laws,
to the point where the hapless practitioner can't tell the difference. Some guy
figures out that if he wants to stay king and ensure that right for his
successive generations, the best way to do it is to say that God gave him the
right to rule. Some rabbi comes up with the idea that the more minutia he and
his fellow clergy prescribe to orthodox Jews, the more future generations will
depend on rabbinical wisdom for everything. Some priest comes up with a link
between Jesus' crucifixion and fish on Fridays, proclaims it as God's law and
ensures that ignorant Catholics will respect that Man-made tradition for
centuries. I hope you see a pattern here. Religious clergy don't want people
thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not to
think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated by
language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings. Then, the
Word is mediated by exegetical or hermeneutic interpretation, which means
worshipers aren't supposed to make whatever they will from direct access to
God's word; they're supposed to depend on rabbis, theologians, priests,
bishops, popes and even saints to interpret scripture. All this is of course
nonsense. God has always made His word directly accessible. When the Jewish
people spoke and wrote Hebrew, He gave them Torah in their own language. But
when Hebrew ceased being the lingua franca for Jews, they needed rabbis
specially trained in Hebrew to read scripture. The same held true for Catholics
and Latin scripture until Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. The
clergy have purposely withheld scriptures from the masses for centuries because
direct access to scriptures would diminish their choke hold over worshipers. If
people could read the word autonomously, they might just get the notion that
all these laws are ridiculous, which we can't have. That's why we have a
situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able to say
meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only worried
about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's final
pronouncement on this matter. Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got it
all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless tomes of
laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate from
God.

Orlando

Alan S > wrote:
>"My mother" is totally specific.
>"(insert ethnic or religious group of your choice) don't like it" is
>general and total in coverage but specific as to race or religion.
>"Jews don't like it when their absurd legalism is pointed out." A
>generalisation not only that all Jews are absurdly legalistic - in
>your opinion - but also that they all object to being advised that
>they are.
>Seems pretty clear to me.

Not all Jews are legalistic. Some Jews don't even mind when legalism is pointed
out. But others object strenuously when it is. Happy now?

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..

Well, all I can say is...thank God that we have *you* to interpret our
religions for us! All those centuries of ignorance, and then you came along
to lead us out of darkness. LMAO

Cheri


> Most religions intentionally blur the lines between God's laws and Man's
> laws,
> to the point where the hapless practitioner can't tell the difference.
> Some guy
> figures out that if he wants to stay king and ensure that right for his
> successive generations, the best way to do it is to say that God gave him
> the
> right to rule. Some rabbi comes up with the idea that the more minutia he
> and
> his fellow clergy prescribe to orthodox Jews, the more future generations
> will
> depend on rabbinical wisdom for everything. Some priest comes up with a
> link
> between Jesus' crucifixion and fish on Fridays, proclaims it as God's law
> and
> ensures that ignorant Catholics will respect that Man-made tradition for
> centuries. I hope you see a pattern here. Religious clergy don't want
> people
> thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
> incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
> Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not
> to
> think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated
> by
> language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings. Then,
> the
> Word is mediated by exegetical or hermeneutic interpretation, which means
> worshipers aren't supposed to make whatever they will from direct access
> to
> God's word; they're supposed to depend on rabbis, theologians, priests,
> bishops, popes and even saints to interpret scripture. All this is of
> course
> nonsense. God has always made His word directly accessible. When the
> Jewish
> people spoke and wrote Hebrew, He gave them Torah in their own language.
> But
> when Hebrew ceased being the lingua franca for Jews, they needed rabbis
> specially trained in Hebrew to read scripture. The same held true for
> Catholics
> and Latin scripture until Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.
> The
> clergy have purposely withheld scriptures from the masses for centuries
> because
> direct access to scriptures would diminish their choke hold over
> worshipers. If
> people could read the word autonomously, they might just get the notion
> that
> all these laws are ridiculous, which we can't have. That's why we have a
> situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able
> to say
> meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only
> worried
> about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's
> final
> pronouncement on this matter. Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
> themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
> before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got
> it
> all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless
> tomes of
> laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate
> from
> God.
>
> Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>By the same token, nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in
>>this world is diminished if you don't take communion. Or eat fish on
>>Fridays. Or on Christmas Eve. Or don't eat beef. Or... Or... See what
>>I
>>mean?
>
> Most religions intentionally blur the lines between God's laws and Man's
> laws,
> to the point where the hapless practitioner can't tell the difference.
> Some guy
> figures out that if he wants to stay king and ensure that right for his
> successive generations, the best way to do it is to say that God gave him
> the
> right to rule. Some rabbi comes up with the idea that the more minutia he
> and
> his fellow clergy prescribe to orthodox Jews, the more future generations
> will
> depend on rabbinical wisdom for everything. Some priest comes up with a
> link
> between Jesus' crucifixion and fish on Fridays, proclaims it as God's law
> and
> ensures that ignorant Catholics will respect that Man-made tradition for
> centuries. I hope you see a pattern here. Religious clergy don't want
> people
> thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
> incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
> Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not
> to
> think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated
> by
> language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings. Then,
> the
> Word is mediated by exegetical or hermeneutic interpretation, which means
> worshipers aren't supposed to make whatever they will from direct access
> to
> God's word; they're supposed to depend on rabbis, theologians, priests,
> bishops, popes and even saints to interpret scripture. All this is of
> course
> nonsense. God has always made His word directly accessible. When the
> Jewish
> people spoke and wrote Hebrew, He gave them Torah in their own language.
> But
> when Hebrew ceased being the lingua franca for Jews, they needed rabbis
> specially trained in Hebrew to read scripture. The same held true for
> Catholics
> and Latin scripture until Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.
> The
> clergy have purposely withheld scriptures from the masses for centuries
> because
> direct access to scriptures would diminish their choke hold over
> worshipers. If
> people could read the word autonomously, they might just get the notion
> that
> all these laws are ridiculous, which we can't have. That's why we have a
> situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able
> to say
> meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only
> worried
> about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's
> final
> pronouncement on this matter. Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
> themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
> before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got
> it
> all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless
> tomes of
> laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate
> from
> God.

Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right to
choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them that
they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.

Julie Bove > wrote:
>Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right to
>choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them that
>they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.

That's where you're wrong, my friend. People are free to choose what they
believe, but I am also free to tell them I think it's wrong if that's what I
believe. I would never stop anyone from practicing any religion, but it is my
right to opine on their religion just as anyone can feel free to opine on mine.

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right to
>>choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them
>>that
>>they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.
>
> That's where you're wrong, my friend. People are free to choose what they
> believe, but I am also free to tell them I think it's wrong if that's what
> I
> believe. I would never stop anyone from practicing any religion, but it is
> my
> right to opine on their religion just as anyone can feel free to opine on
> mine.

And by the same token we're free to tell you that we don't want to hear it.
I know I don't.

Julie Bove > wrote:
>And by the same token we're free to tell you that we don't want to hear it.
>I know I don't.

Ding ding ding! It's called democracy and freedom of speech.

Orlando

Isn't it wonderful how threads warp ... looking at the subject field
who would have thought it would end up where it has, only on ASD ? :-)

(- -)
=m=(_)=m=
RodS T2
Australia

"RodS" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it wonderful how threads warp ... looking at the subject field who
> would have thought it would end up where it has, only on ASD ? :-)

There's always one!

"RodS" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it wonderful how threads warp ... looking at the subject field
> who would have thought it would end up where it has, only on ASD ?
> :-)

Except its AFD

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right to
>>choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them
>>that
>>they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.
>
> That's where you're wrong, my friend. People are free to choose what they
> believe, but I am also free to tell them I think it's wrong if that's what
> I
> believe. I would never stop anyone from practicing any religion, but it is
> my
> right to opine on their religion just as anyone can feel free to opine on
> mine.
>
> Orlando

OK, so take it to a religious newsgroup.

Cheri

Why would you imagine I or any other Jew would be interested in your opinion
of religious practice no one is asking you to observe?


"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>I vaguely remember that Protestantism's big innovation was the "faith
>>alone"
>>idea, sounds like that's where you are comfortable. Normative Judaism is
>>about how one lives in *this* world, not about getting into "heaven", but
>>the "how one lives in this world" includes many concrete aspects of
>>everyday
>>life in addition to the very important more abstract ones like the way one
>>treats other people.
>
> Nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in this world is
> diminished
> if you kindle a fire on shabat or give God thanks without first eating
> bread.
> These are man made laws with no practical or spiritual basis other than
> the
> pleasure in dictating to observant Jews how they should live.
>
> Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
Religious clergy don't want people
> thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
> incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
> Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not
> to
> think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated
> by
> language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings.

Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about normative Judaism.
One of the most important requirements is to study. And the study is done
in the original texts.

> That's why we have a
> situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able
> to say
> meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only
> worried
> about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's
> final
> pronouncement on this matter.

You again repeat these untrue statements despite my having previously
provided the correct description of your original misinterpretation.

Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
> themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
> before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got
> it
> all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless
> tomes of
> laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate
> from
> God.
>

It's true that there are Jews who choose not to practice the religion their
ancestors practiced. That doesn't invalidate the experience of those who
do.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right to
>>choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them
>>that
>>they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.
>
> That's where you're wrong, my friend. People are free to choose what they
> believe, but I am also free to tell them I think it's wrong if that's what
> I
> believe. I would never stop anyone from practicing any religion, but it is
> my
> right to opine on their religion just as anyone can feel free to opine on
> mine.
>
> Orlando

Ah, Orlandoism, the new religion for the 21st century, main tenet "If it
feels good, do it". Not very original.

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>>Whatever. I don't do religon. But I do believe it is everyone's right
>>>to
>>>choose what they want to believe. And nobody else's right to tell them
>>>that
>>>they are wrong. Or why they are wrong.
>>
>> That's where you're wrong, my friend. People are free to choose what they
>> believe, but I am also free to tell them I think it's wrong if that's
>> what I
>> believe. I would never stop anyone from practicing any religion, but it
>> is my
>> right to opine on their religion just as anyone can feel free to opine on
>> mine.
>>
>> Orlando
>
> OK, so take it to a religious newsgroup.
>
> Cheri
>

+1000

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>I'm not sure exactly about the temperature of the liquid itself, however
>>it
>>might be related to the more general rule that in order to put a cooked
>>solid food on a hot surface in order to warm (but not further cook) it on
>>the sabbath, the hot surface has to be a temperature where a normal person
>>can comfortably rest their hand. So I would guess maybe it has been
>>determined that somewhere around 45 C is the highest temperature where a
>>normal person can comfortably rest their hand.
>
> Men have made these absurdly legalistic laws oblivious of bacterial issues
> and
> food needing to be hotter than comfortable hand resting temperature. It's
> a
> shame that you are imprisoned by man made laws masquerading as divine
> ordinances.
>
> Orlando

You didn't read what I wrote. Only *cooked* (or baked) *solid* food can be
put on a hot surface for rewarming. Raw foods are not allowed to be put on
the hot surface, and neither are cooked foods that have a liquid component.
In practice this means that the only item put on a hot surface for rewarming
will be the bread that is to be served at the meal. I've never heard of
bread that was already baked developing harmful bacteria from being warmed,
if you have a source for this please provide a cite.

In article >,
"Ellen K." > wrote:

> "Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
> . ..
> Religious clergy don't want people
> > thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
> > incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
> > Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not
> > to
> > think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated
> > by
> > language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings.
>
> Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about normative Judaism.
> One of the most important requirements is to study. And the study is done
> in the original texts.
>
> > That's why we have a
> > situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able
> > to say
> > meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only
> > worried
> > about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's
> > final
> > pronouncement on this matter.
>
> You again repeat these untrue statements despite my having previously
> provided the correct description of your original misinterpretation.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
> > themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
> > before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got
> > it
> > all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless
> > tomes of
> > laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate
> > from
> > God.
> >
>
> It's true that there are Jews who choose not to practice the religion their
> ancestors practiced. That doesn't invalidate the experience of those who
> do.

You know, his MO is becoming increasingly Kurt-ish. He ignores what
he's been told and repeats his own straw versions of reality.

PP

On 19/09/2010 5:26 PM, Ellen K. wrote:

>
> You didn't read what I wrote. Only *cooked* (or baked) *solid* food can
> be put on a hot surface for rewarming. Raw foods are not allowed to be
> put on the hot surface, and neither are cooked foods that have a liquid
> component. In practice this means that the only item put on a hot
> surface for rewarming will be the bread that is to be served at the
> meal. I've never heard of bread that was already baked developing
> harmful bacteria from being warmed, if you have a source for this please
> provide a cite.
>
>

I have to say, disregarding the idiot (who I have kill-filed long ago) I
have found this discussion really interesting, I was reading and old
Encyclopaedia Britannica (early 1900s) entry today about bread and
totally understood the reference to Matzos, thanks to everyone who
contributed to my ongoing education :-)

(- -)
=m=(_)=m=
RodS T2
Australia

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Why would you imagine I or any other Jew would be interested in your opinion
>of religious practice no one is asking you to observe?

Because no observing those practices might improve the quality of your life if
you'd only open your mind and heart enough to try.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about normative Judaism.
>One of the most important requirements is to study. And the study is done
>in the original texts.

I of course know what Jews learn to do in yeshiva. However, their understanding
of Hebrew is already filtered through rabbinical scholarship rather than daily
speech. Modern Israeli Hebrew has ultimately little in common with Biblical
Hebrew; knowledge of the former will therefore not help study of the latter.

>It's true that there are Jews who choose not to practice the religion their
>ancestors practiced. That doesn't invalidate the experience of those who
>do.

Ancestral practices are meant to change over time. That's partially why I doubt
animal sacrifices will be made when the Jerusalem tabernacle is someday
rebuilt. Orthodox Jews have largely chosen to freeze their practice in a
historical moment rather than embrace time's necessary changes, many of which
were heralded by the messiah Jews refuse to acknowledge.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Ah, Orlandoism, the new religion for the 21st century, main tenet "If it
>feels good, do it". Not very original.

What a misreading! On the contrary, it makes orthodox Jews feel sanctimoniously
righteous when they practice Judaism as close to how their ancestors supposedly
did. Gone is the capacity for critical evaluation of whether those practices
actually fulfill any purpose in modern times. Thank God, not all Jews have
abandoned the enterprise of critical thinking.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>You didn't read what I wrote. Only *cooked* (or baked) *solid* food can be
>put on a hot surface for rewarming. Raw foods are not allowed to be put on
>the hot surface, and neither are cooked foods that have a liquid component.
>In practice this means that the only item put on a hot surface for rewarming
>will be the bread that is to be served at the meal.

What good can these arbitrary regulations possibly serve? Do you honestly
believe God would be appalled by an observant Jew reheating food with a liquid
component? If nothing new is allowed to be created on the sabbath, why eat at
all? Even leftover food from the previous night will become newly created waste
after being consumed. If someone offers you food in the street on your way to
synagogue, are you allowed to accept it? If so, why is it okay for you to buy
food someone else has made? That was creation on the sabbath.

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>Ah, Orlandoism, the new religion for the 21st century, main tenet "If it
>>feels good, do it". Not very original.
>
> What a misreading! On the contrary, it makes orthodox Jews feel
> sanctimoniously
> righteous when they practice Judaism as close to how their ancestors
> supposedly
> did. Gone is the capacity for critical evaluation of whether those
> practices
> actually fulfill any purpose in modern times. Thank God, not all Jews have
> abandoned the enterprise of critical thinking.
>
> Orlando

Your belief is 180 degrees from reality. Critical thinking is highly valued
and encouraged in Judaism.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about normative Judaism.
>>One of the most important requirements is to study. And the study is
>>done
>>in the original texts.
>
> I of course know what Jews learn to do in yeshiva. However, their
> understanding
> of Hebrew is already filtered through rabbinical scholarship rather than
> daily
> speech. Modern Israeli Hebrew has ultimately little in common with
> Biblical
> Hebrew; knowledge of the former will therefore not help study of the
> latter.
>

Bzzzzt, nope. The main difference between modern Israeli Hebrew and
Biblical Hebrew is that in the latter new words have been coined in order
for example to have technical terms equivalent to those found in other
modern languages. These words are however formed from the same roots that
exist in Biblical Hebrew. IAC, observant Jews living in countries other
than Israel typically learn Biblical Hebrew first, starting in early
childhood, with modern Hebrew added around high school age.

>>It's true that there are Jews who choose not to practice the religion
>>their
>>ancestors practiced. That doesn't invalidate the experience of those who
>>do.
>
> Ancestral practices are meant to change over time.

Says who?

> That's partially why I doubt
> animal sacrifices will be made when the Jerusalem tabernacle is someday
> rebuilt.

Now you have a crystal ball? When are you predicting the Temple will be
rebuilt?

> Orthodox Jews have largely chosen to freeze their practice in a
> historical moment rather than embrace time's necessary changes, many of
> which
> were heralded by the messiah Jews refuse to acknowledge.
>

Jesus does not meet the Jewish criteria for recognition of the Jewish
messiah. A person can found a new religion at any time, others are free to
follow or not.

As for embracing time's necessary changes, modern technology has not yet
presented a single question not able to be answered by the same methodology
we have been using for some 3000 years.

> Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>Why would you imagine I or any other Jew would be interested in your
>>opinion
>>of religious practice no one is asking you to observe?
>
> Because no observing those practices might improve the quality of your
> life if
> you'd only open your mind and heart enough to try.
>
> Orlando

Wrong again, I have a basis for comparison: I was not raised observant, I
chose this lifestyle. The quality of my life now is infinitely better than
the quality of my life prior to making this choice.

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Your belief is 180 degrees from reality. Critical thinking is highly valued
>and encouraged in Judaism.

Not when critical thinking inspires orthodox Jews to question dogmatic legalism
or adopt the practices of less legalistic sects. Try it; see what you get from
your observant community.

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>You didn't read what I wrote. Only *cooked* (or baked) *solid* food can
>>be
>>put on a hot surface for rewarming. Raw foods are not allowed to be put
>>on
>>the hot surface, and neither are cooked foods that have a liquid
>>component.
>>In practice this means that the only item put on a hot surface for
>>rewarming
>>will be the bread that is to be served at the meal.
>
> What good can these arbitrary regulations possibly serve? Do you honestly
> believe God would be appalled by an observant Jew reheating food with a
> liquid
> component?

You're changing your argument in the middle, first you complained that
reheating only on a surface where a person's hand can rest comfortably
doesn't take bacteria into account, now that you can no longer argue that
you're back to demeaning a way of life with perfect internal logic as being
"arbitrary". And at that, a way of life nobody is asking you to practice,
and which in no way impinges on anything you might care to do.

The commandments Jews observe are there because observing them is beneficial
to Jews' spiritual health. We do not ask anyone else to observe them, in
fact proselytization is forbidden.

> If nothing new is allowed to be created on the sabbath, why eat at
> all? Even leftover food from the previous night will become newly created
> waste
> after being consumed.

The above is not comprehensible enough to be answered.

> If someone offers you food in the street on your way to
> synagogue, are you allowed to accept it?

No, because we don't carry on the sabbath in a public area, or between a
public area and a private area.

> If so, why is it okay for you to buy
> food someone else has made?

We don't handle money on the sabbath, so we are not buying food or anything
else.

> That was creation on the sabbath.
>

In order to be certified kosher, food produced by Jews for sale is required
to be produced in facilities which are closed on the sabbath and Jewish
holidays. Food produced by non-Jews for sale is not subject to this
requirement in order to be certified kosher because the non-Jews are running
their businesses for their own convenience and as such can schedule their
production accordingly, non-Jews are not required to observe our sabbath or
holidays.


> Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Bzzzzt, nope. The main difference between modern Israeli Hebrew and
>Biblical Hebrew is that in the latter new words have been coined in order
>for example to have technical terms equivalent to those found in other
>modern languages. These words are however formed from the same roots that
>exist in Biblical Hebrew.

My Israeli and American Jewish friends do not concur with your simplistic
analysis.

>IAC, observant Jews living in countries other
>than Israel typically learn Biblical Hebrew first, starting in early
>childhood, with modern Hebrew added around high school age.

Presumably in order to maximize potential perception of similarities between
both languages.

>Says who?

Says Jehovah.

>Now you have a crystal ball? When are you predicting the Temple will be
>rebuilt?

I don't care if the temple is ever rebuilt; I've just heard there's a red
heffer involved.

>Jesus does not meet the Jewish criteria for recognition of the Jewish
>messiah.

Despite the fulfillments of Isaiah's prophesies and so many other Old Testament
predictions?

>A person can found a new religion at any time, others are free to
>follow or not.

Yes. You and other orthodox Jews are free to ignore God's revelations as long
as you like. But don't be surprised when your lives proceed poorly.

>As for embracing time's necessary changes, modern technology has not yet
>presented a single question not able to be answered by the same methodology
>we have been using for some 3000 years.

What you have now are hardly methodological solutions; they're just obstinate
traditionalist methodologies that hardly take into account modern technologies
or realities.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>As for embracing time's necessary changes, modern technology has not yet
>presented a single question not able to be answered by the same methodology
>we have been using for some 3000 years.

That depends on what your religion expects of answers to such questions. Is the
only possible technological solution to modernity and the sabbath an injunction
to refrain from electricity and cooking heat? Why should an orthodox Jew attend
an unsuitable synagogue just to avoid having to drive on the sabbath? What if a
relative needs to reach you for a dire family emergency on the sabbath when you
can't answer a telephone? Is the emergency supposed to wait until sundown? What
if a relative is in the hospital awaiting your proxy decision regarding life
support and will die by sundown? These extreme scenarios are meant to suggest
that traditionalist rabbinical answers are actually failing to grapple with
modern technological implications on fundamental levels.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>Wrong again, I have a basis for comparison: I was not raised observant, I
>chose this lifestyle.

What did you hope to gain by making that choice and how was it received by your
less observant relatives?

>The quality of my life now is infinitely better than
>the quality of my life prior to making this choice.

How can you be sure that your choice to observe more rigorously is what's
responsible for that quality of life improvement? Perhaps, your life is better
because you're older and wiser, earn more money, have simplified some excesses,
have better control over your health, etc.

Orlando

Ellen K. > wrote:
>You're changing your argument in the middle, first you complained that
>reheating only on a surface where a person's hand can rest comfortably
>doesn't take bacteria into account, now that you can no longer argue that
>you're back to demeaning a way of life with perfect internal logic as being
>"arbitrary". And at that, a way of life nobody is asking you to practice,
>and which in no way impinges on anything you might care to do.

Where is the internal logic behind heating prohibitions? Why are observant Jews
permitted to speak on the sabbath, but only in person rather than on the
telephone? It would seem more logical for silence to be universally imposed.
Why are there so many exceptions to which foods can be heated in certain ways
rather than mandatory sabbath fasting, which would seem much more logical?

>The commandments Jews observe are there because observing them is beneficial
>to Jews' spiritual health.

Says who? Your rabbinical tradition? We're on a diabetic newsgroup that bases
so much of its lore on scientific experimentation. If these arbitrary
commandments were truly beneficial for Jews' spiritual health, wouldn't they
work well for all Jews? More importantly, why are they only intended for Jews
if they're so beneficial? Logically, if keeping these commandments ultimately
benefits humanity, then everyone would theoretically benefit from keeping these
commandments. If the converse is true, that means that Jews are somehow
genetically modified such that only they derive spiritual benefits from keeping
these commandments. Stand back and examine the inconsistency of what you've
been led to believe.

>We do not ask anyone else to observe them, in
>fact proselytization is forbidden.

That's because no one would sign on .

>The above is not comprehensible enough to be answered.

If nothing new can be created on the sabbath, garbage and waste of all kinds
should be forbidden.

>No, because we don't carry on the sabbath in a public area, or between a
>public area and a private area.

What's the spiritual benefit of this?

>We don't handle money on the sabbath, so we are not buying food or anything
>else.

I understand that. But, you could theoretically accept a food gift if no money
changed hands.

>In order to be certified kosher, food produced by Jews for sale is required
>to be produced in facilities which are closed on the sabbath and Jewish
>holidays.

Even if conservative or reform Jews are running those establishments?

>Food produced by non-Jews for sale is not subject to this
>requirement in order to be certified kosher because the non-Jews are running
>their businesses for their own convenience and as such can schedule their
>production accordingly, non-Jews are not required to observe our sabbath or
>holidays.

Thank God!

Orlando

"Alan S" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:50:32 -0700, "Ellen K."
> > wrote:
>
>>Why would you imagine I or any other Jew would be interested in your
>>opinion
>>of religious practice no one is asking you to observe?
>
> Possibly because you keep responding to him?
>
> Just a thought...from another who is too often sucked into the same
> sort of reaction...

I wish he would go find some religious forum to talk about this stuff.

"M@©k®" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:31:03 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> > wrote:
>
>>Alan S > wrote:
>>>That post you just made was a surprise to me. Despite your claims of
>>>brilliance, your insensitivity on the stess/parenting thread and some
>>>of the other silly posts you have made on diabetes I had not picked up
>>>the anti-semitism those four simple words "Jews don't like it" makes
>>>very clear.
>>
>>I am appalled by your reading of four simple words. If I said, "My mother
>>doesn't like it," would that mean I'm against my mother? Fact is, many
>>Jews
>>don't like when legalism in their religion is pointed out. They equate
>>devotion
>>and orthodoxy with following the letter of the law. It is not at all
>>antisemitic to advocate liberation from the law.
>>
>>Orlando
>
>
> It is when, 1. you are not a Jew and 2. no Jew asked for your opinion
> on the religion they choose to follow willingly.

And 3...this is a diabetic food group, and it's not marked OT.

Cheri

M@©k® > wrote:
>and there it is, Orlando's chosen prejudice based on Christian
>fundamentalism. That and that alone is the basis for all this BS from
>Orlando concerning the Jewish faith in all of it's forms.

No fundamentalist Christian prejudices are involved here. Let's simply apply
elementary logic. If the God of the New and Old Testaments is the same, then
belief in God prescribe belief in all His revelations and messianic figures. I
entirely understand why people outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition accept
neither its God nor scriptures. However, for a Jew to reject Jesus as messiah
poses troubling affronts to belief in God. Surely, there are not two Gods, one
for Jews and another for Christians. Surely, if there is only one God, as Jews
acknowledge every day in recitation of the shemaa, it must follow that this one
true God has neither made mistakes or misled the faithful with false teachings.
It therefore follows logically that if God is omniscient, omnipotent and
omnipresent across time and space, His grace and revelations must extend far
beyond the Torah.

>You as a Jew, believe wrong, hence Orlando the "Christian" who
>supports polyamorous relations in opposition to Christian beliefs is
>going to save the Jews from themselves.

Polyamory and polygamy run throughout the Old Testament. Furthermore, polyamory
violates not a single Christian principle.

Orlando

i find these customes/rules/ways of culture and religion fascinating and it
is very rewarding when ellen or another is able to merge culture/religion
and health needs and tells us about it, Lee
"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0700, "Ellen K."
> > wrote:
>
>>The only restrictions
>>are that the milk is not allowed to become hotter than 113 F
>
> Why that precise figure, Ellen, do you know?
>
> Nicky (intrigued...)

i would never presume to say what is and is not productive in a religion i
am not a participant in, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ellen K. > wrote:
>>I vaguely remember that Protestantism's big innovation was the "faith
>>alone"
>>idea, sounds like that's where you are comfortable. Normative Judaism is
>>about how one lives in *this* world, not about getting into "heaven", but
>>the "how one lives in this world" includes many concrete aspects of
>>everyday
>>life in addition to the very important more abstract ones like the way one
>>treats other people.
>
> Nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in this world is
> diminished
> if you kindle a fire on shabat or give God thanks without first eating
> bread.
> These are man made laws with no practical or spiritual basis other than
> the
> pleasure in dictating to observant Jews how they should live.
>
> Orlando

you can not nor do you have the right to say what improves my life, religion
or any other aspect, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>By the same token, nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in
>>this world is diminished if you don't take communion. Or eat fish on
>>Fridays. Or on Christmas Eve. Or don't eat beef. Or... Or... See what
>>I
>>mean?
>
> I entirely do. We don't eat any specific foods on specific days. We take
> communion in order to get closer to God and each other as worshiping
> brethren.
> But you're entirely right, the quality of daily life doesn't improve
> because of
> it.
>
> Orlando

religion is as individual as each of us, and in fact neither group you
mention here, the catholics, Martin luther or my babtist upbringing are
wrong for those who feel closer to g-d for practicing it, in the end noone
can say what is right for another in religion, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>By the same token, nowhere is it demonstrated that the quality of life in
>>this world is diminished if you don't take communion. Or eat fish on
>>Fridays. Or on Christmas Eve. Or don't eat beef. Or... Or... See what
>>I
>>mean?
>
> Most religions intentionally blur the lines between God's laws and Man's
> laws,
> to the point where the hapless practitioner can't tell the difference.
> Some guy
> figures out that if he wants to stay king and ensure that right for his
> successive generations, the best way to do it is to say that God gave him
> the
> right to rule. Some rabbi comes up with the idea that the more minutia he
> and
> his fellow clergy prescribe to orthodox Jews, the more future generations
> will
> depend on rabbinical wisdom for everything. Some priest comes up with a
> link
> between Jesus' crucifixion and fish on Fridays, proclaims it as God's law
> and
> ensures that ignorant Catholics will respect that Man-made tradition for
> centuries. I hope you see a pattern here. Religious clergy don't want
> people
> thinking for themselves; that's why the Bible and Mass were kept in
> incomprehensible Latin until Vatican II, and orthodox Jews rarely read the
> Torah outside of schul or in translation. The idea is for worshipers not
> to
> think for themselves via direct access to God's word. Access is mediated
> by
> language, special scrolls, special churches or synagogue settings. Then,
> the
> Word is mediated by exegetical or hermeneutic interpretation, which means
> worshipers aren't supposed to make whatever they will from direct access
> to
> God's word; they're supposed to depend on rabbis, theologians, priests,
> bishops, popes and even saints to interpret scripture. All this is of
> course
> nonsense. God has always made His word directly accessible. When the
> Jewish
> people spoke and wrote Hebrew, He gave them Torah in their own language.
> But
> when Hebrew ceased being the lingua franca for Jews, they needed rabbis
> specially trained in Hebrew to read scripture. The same held true for
> Catholics
> and Latin scripture until Martin Luther translated the Bible into German.
> The
> clergy have purposely withheld scriptures from the masses for centuries
> because
> direct access to scriptures would diminish their choke hold over
> worshipers. If
> people could read the word autonomously, they might just get the notion
> that
> all these laws are ridiculous, which we can't have. That's why we have a
> situation today where people like Ellen are worried about not being able
> to say
> meaningful sabbath prayers without first consuming bread. She's only
> worried
> about this because her rabbis have told her what they take to be God's
> final
> pronouncement on this matter. Of course, there are plenty of Jews who find
> themselves miraculously able to worship meaningfully without eating bread
> before sabbath prayers. Either those conservative and reform Jews have got
> it
> all wrong or just maybe, it is in fact the orthodox Jews whose endless
> tomes of
> laws keep them imprisoned in anachronistic bubbles and ultimately separate
> from
> God.
>
> Orlando