Noony vs Furry, an invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Noony vs Furry, an invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING.

Now, both of you have had me blast both of you. I will NOT post in this thread and consider it ONE ON ONE.  I may start another peanut gallery thread. But this one is between the two of you.

But keep this in mind. I hear constantly in the news how both sides want peace. And I am sure there are PLENTY in both camps who do.

However, it seems that it is a peace based on all or nothing and the submission of the other.

My postulation TO BOTH SIDES, is that neither wants to budge because of history of tradition and RELIGION.

"Just follow me" seems to be what the other side says will solve all the problems, which WONT happen.

So how DO each of you think this problem can be solved without the baggage of the past? Neither side can undo what has been done. Neither can get rid of the other.

I would like to think BOTH of you know ultimately no matter how much each side in this conflict disagrees, that ultimately we are still dealing with humans.

So without HE SAID SHE SAID, and with out "MINE" or "THEY STARTED IT"

What would each of you do if you could have the power to end this conflict right now?

I want each of you to talk as humans, not labels. As if BOTH of you were trying to arbitrate a fight between co-workers or friends or family members.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:When it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

When it comes to trivial ... The oral law is self-reflexive in claiming it came from Moses. Moses is a myth. Therefore the oral law is a myth.

I think Furry is saying that the "oral law," or "oral tradition," is just the common interpretation of the text.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
When it comes to trivial ... The oral law is self-reflexive in claiming it came from Moses. Moses is a myth. Therefore the oral law is a myth.
I think Furry is saying that the "oral law," or "oral tradition," is just the common interpretation of the text.

To put it bluntly google it yourself and see who is telling the truth.

Since she started attacking me personally I have notice her, not before that.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:To put it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

To put it bluntly google it yourself and see who is telling the truth.

Since she started attacking me personally I have notice her, not before that.

It seems you're both correct. From the wikipedia page "Oral Torah":

 

The Oral Torah comprises the legal and interpretative traditions that, according to tradition, were transmitted orally from Mount Sinai, and were not written in the Torah. According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition was given by God orally to Moses in conjunction with the written Torah, after which it was passed down orally through the ages. Later to be codified and written in the Talmud. While other cultures and Jewish groups maintained oral traditions, only the Rabbis gave ideological significance to the fact that they transmitted their tradition orally.

Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Law in two distinct ways. First, Rabbinic tradition conceived of the Oral law as an unbroken chain of transmission. The distinctive feature of this view was that Oral Law was "conveyed by word of mouth and memorized." Second, the Rabbis also conceived of the Oral law as an interpretive tradition, and not merely as memorized traditions. In this view, the written Torah was seen as containing many levels of interpretation. It was left to later generations, who were steeped in the oral tradition of interpretation to discover those interpretations not revealed by Moses.

 

The last sentence of the first paragraph is what makes me think both of you are correct. Furry's right in that Jewish groups passed down a common tradition of understanding the Torah. And you're right in that only Rabbinic Jews considered this "oral tradition" something distinct from, and beyond, the "written Torah".

By the way, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as non-Rabbinic Judaism, seems I have a lot more learning to do...

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

To put it bluntly google it yourself and see who is telling the truth.

Since she started attacking me personally I have notice her, not before that.

It seems you're both correct. From the wikipedia page "Oral Torah":

 

The Oral Torah comprises the legal and interpretative traditions that, according to tradition, were transmitted orally from Mount Sinai, and were not written in the Torah. According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition was given by God orally to Moses in conjunction with the written Torah, after which it was passed down orally through the ages.

May I ask how what I said makes us both correct?

That also contrary to what he/she/they said.

Let us not get away from the other central point. Rabbis started as unemployed priests after the temple was put out of business by the Romans. They did NOT exist before the 76AD revolt was put down. All evidence to the contrary is invited. They were not around to give advice on the written law. What you quoted does not say that.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
It was left to later generations, who were steeped in the oral tradition of interpretation to discover those interpretations not revealed by Moses.
The last sentence of the first paragraph is what makes me think both of you are correct. Furry's right in that Jewish groups passed down a common tradition of understanding the Torah. And you're right in that only Rabbinic Jews considered this "oral tradition" something distinct from, and beyond, the "written Torah".

Her example was of slaughtering an animal while playing a shepherd role playing game without a scroll but just happening to have a rabbi passing by to give instruction. Please. You are no longer a child.

Quote:
By the way, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as non-Rabbinic Judaism, seems I have a lot more learning to do...

If you are familiar with Christian sects I can explain it very simply.

Catholics and Orthodox Jews both require belief in Scripture and tradition, written and oral law. In the former there are no priests in scripture and in the latter there are no rabbis in scripture.They are mirrors of each other. In fact they are the same with or without an arrived Messiah.

There are as many Christian sects as there are Reform and Conservative Synagogues. Catholics and Orthodox Jews do not consider non-Catholics or non-Orthodox to be real Christians or real Jews respectively.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Her

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Her example was of slaughtering an animal while playing a shepherd role playing game without a scroll but just happening to have a rabbi passing by to give instruction.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You might say "Well, what if I want to do it differently?", that case is handled in Deut 17:11 and following -- if it's a difficult question (like, how to properly kill that goat), the Torah says that we are supposed to ask certain people who are given the authority to answer such questions (originally Moses, then he divided that up to various people among the tribes).

So, if you accept that you can't run off to the Torah every time you have a question, you have to accept that there must have been an oral tradition which you learned so you don't have to run off to the Torah every 10 or 15 minutes.  And if you don't buy that rationale, then the Torah is explicit -- if you have a hard question, ask someone who has the authority to give you answers.

I'm assuming, then, that the sentences about "certain people with the authority to answer" are referring to rabbis?  Because she never explicitly states "rabbis", and I do not have the ability to read minds.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If you are familiar with Christian sects I can explain it very simply.

Catholics and Orthodox Jews both require belief in Scripture and tradition, written and oral law. In the former there are no priests in scripture and in the latter there are no rabbis in scripture.They are mirrors of each other. In fact they are the same with or without an arrived Messiah.

Ok, that makes sense. Well, the Old Testament talks about priests a lot. Of course, the Bible does not talk about anything resembling the Catholic Church.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Her example was of slaughtering an animal while playing a shepherd role playing game without a scroll but just happening to have a rabbi passing by to give instruction.
FurryCatHerder wrote:
You might say "Well, what if I want to do it differently?", that case is handled in Deut 17:11 and following -- if it's a difficult question (like, how to properly kill that goat), the Torah says that we are supposed to ask certain people who are given the authority to answer such questions (originally Moses, then he divided that up to various people among the tribes).

So, if you accept that you can't run off to the Torah every time you have a question, you have to accept that there must have been an oral tradition which you learned so you don't have to run off to the Torah every 10 or 15 minutes.  And if you don't buy that rationale, then the Torah is explicit -- if you have a hard question, ask someone who has the authority to give you answers.

I'm assuming, then, that the sentences about "certain people with the authority to answer" are referring to rabbis?  Because she never explicitly states "rabbis", and I do not have the ability to read minds.

There is nothing she could mean but rabbis. Should you read haaretz.com you will be amazed to learn the Orthodox (real) Jews tend to hold their rabbis in higher regard than Catholics do their popes.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
If you are familiar with Christian sects I can explain it very simply.

Catholics and Orthodox Jews both require belief in Scripture and tradition, written and oral law. In the former there are no priests in scripture and in the latter there are no rabbis in scripture.They are mirrors of each other. In fact they are the same with or without an arrived Messiah.

Ok, that makes sense. Well, the Old Testament talks about priests a lot. Of course, the Bible does not talk about anything resembling the Catholic Church.

The trick with the OT is to think through the implications of the religious tradition of its origin, that it is the creation of the priests.

Thus a rational person would expect a similar collection by the priests of Baal to say much the same things while condemning the child sacrificing Yahweh priests.

The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is nothing she could mean but rabbis. Should you read haaretz.com you will be amazed to learn the Orthodox (real) Jews tend to hold their rabbis in higher regard than Catholics do their popes.

Wow, they must like worship them or something...  Thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

The trick with the OT is to think through the implications of the religious tradition of its origin, that it is the creation of the priests.

Thus a rational person would expect a similar collection by the priests of Baal to say much the same things while condemning the child sacrificing Yahweh priests.

The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.

So, basically, the OT is favorable to priests because they wrote it that way?

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is nothing she could mean but rabbis. Should you read haaretz.com you will be amazed to learn the Orthodox (real) Jews tend to hold their rabbis in higher regard than Catholics do their popes.

Wow, they must like

worship

them or something...  Thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

I find it amazing. The Rabbis literally tell the government and the Supreme Court to fuck off. The criminal squatters in occupied territory do the same and they are lead by "god gave us this land" rabbis. Think Jerry Falwell on steriods.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The trick with the OT is to think through the implications of the religious tradition of its origin, that it is the creation of the priests.

Thus a rational person would expect a similar collection by the priests of Baal to say much the same things while condemning the child sacrificing Yahweh priests.

The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.

So, basically, the OT is favorable to priests because they wrote it that way?

I do know they did not write it. But I suggested IF the religious tradition is correct then the religious tradition of the priests of Baal would say roughly the same thing. What I can say is the folks who were supported by the Ptoemeys, the Maccabes, created the mythology. The point remains the Ptolemeys would have created a mythology supporting whichever side it chose to support. That is why the old testament first appears in Greek in the mid 2nd c. BC with only a forgery claiming it is a translation.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I find it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I find it amazing. The Rabbis literally tell the government and the Supreme Court to fuck off. The criminal squatters in occupied territory do the same and they are lead by "god gave us this land" rabbis. Think Jerry Falwell on steriods.

Wow, if there's one thing almost every government hates, it's people ignoring its rules. Those rabbis must have lots of friends high up in the government; or maybe just lots of money... On second thought, maybe they just have so much influence over the people that it's impossible for any politician to be elected without their approval.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I do know they did not write it. But I suggested IF the religious tradition is correct then the religious tradition of the priests of Baal would say roughly the same thing. What I can say is the folks who were supported by the Ptoemeys, the Maccabes, created the mythology. The point remains the Ptolemeys would have created a mythology supporting whichever side it chose to support. That is why the old testament first appears in Greek in the mid 2nd c. BC with only a forgery claiming it is a translation.

Whoa, I just did a quick google search for "oldest copy of bible" and all the results confirm your statement about the old testament. Furthermore, I also found that the oldest surviving copy of the new testament dates from the mid first century CE. Why do people think these books are accurate!? The oldest surviving copies are merely fragments that date at least a century after the events they describe!

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I find it amazing. The Rabbis literally tell the government and the Supreme Court to fuck off. The criminal squatters in occupied territory do the same and they are lead by "god gave us this land" rabbis. Think Jerry Falwell on steriods.

Wow, if there's one thing almost every government hates, it's people ignoring its rules. Those rabbis must have lots of friends high up in the government; or maybe just lots of money... On second thought, maybe they just have so much influence over the people that it's impossible for any politician to be elected without their approval.

In many ways Israel is indistinguishable from a theocracy. The gov pays the salaries of the rabbis and for religious schools and builds housing segregated by religion as the most obvious examples.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I do know they did not write it. But I suggested IF the religious tradition is correct then the religious tradition of the priests of Baal would say roughly the same thing. What I can say is the folks who were supported by the Ptoemeys, the Maccabes, created the mythology. The point remains the Ptolemeys would have created a mythology supporting whichever side it chose to support. That is why the old testament first appears in Greek in the mid 2nd c. BC with only a forgery claiming it is a translation.

Whoa, I just did a quick google search for "oldest copy of bible" and all the results confirm your statement about the old testament. Furthermore, I also found that the oldest surviving copy of the new testament dates from the mid first century CE. Why do people think these books are accurate!? The oldest surviving copies are merely fragments that date at least a century after the events they describe!

Careful with how it is written. Oldest copy and oldest mention are very different things but oldest mention is good enough for its existence. While the Septuagint is the oldest mentioned the oldest copy is presumed in the Vatican and the second oldest is the Codex Sinaiticus or some spelling like that. It is an unevidenced assumption to suggest the canonical collection in the bibles is the same as was meant in the 1st c. BC. The thing is the idea of canonical is from the 3rd c. AD and authentic is late 2nd c. Promulgating an official list was somewhat later and the Roman Catholic proclamation is sufficiently weasel-worded that it might not be an official list.

Beyond just the collection of which books their exact contents is essentially unknown prior to the surviving oldest copies. The Septuagint versions of the books is the longest, the Dead Sea Scroll versions are abbreviated and the currently used Jewish (Masoretic) version the shortest. Abbreviated means verses are deleted. Further nothing is found in either the DSS or the Masoretic which is not in the Septuagint. This shows there was no source other than the Septuagint for later content. The case is closed.

The Judeans have always claimed the Septuagint is the copy rather than vice versa as the facts indicate. That leads to the modern claim, based upon the Masoretic, that the Septuagint is also an incorrect translation. The problem is the only ancient sources mentioning the Septuagint from the forged Letter of Aristeas, through Josephus, the Mishna and the Talmud all speak of it amazing accuracy. Clearly someone screwed up the Masoretic.

For the NT, I once came across a description of the oldest fragment as being the size of a postage stamp. That suggests so few words that identification of what it is has to be no more than tradition.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml