on the Factual Bullcrap blog, the editor has a post called Intermarriage = Out of Judiasm.
Is intermarriage good for the jewish people or bad for the jewish people?
let us see what happens to other peoples who shun intermarriage.
Since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th century founders, genetic disorders from inbreeding exist in more isolated districts.
"One of the biggest problems facing the [Samaritan] community today is the issue of continuity. With such a small population, divided into only four families (Cohen, Tsedakah, Danfi and Marhib; a fifth family died out in the last century) and a general refusal to accept converts, there has been a history of genetic disease within the group due to the small gene pool. "
Anyone care to guess what will happen to jews if there is no intermarriage?
The second part of this post has nothing to do with this post but it is peripherally relevant to the first part on how jewish law kills jews. It is about ancient Israel. Why did ancient Israel fall to the Romans? The answer is, in the age when geographical expansion was the name of the game, Israel was not expanding because of the religion, and the Romans were. So when ancient Israel and the Romans clashed, no more Israel.
The moral of this post is, do your own research on whatever rabbis may tell you.
39 comments:
First of all, the number of Amish and the number of Jews aren't comparable. The Jewish population is much larger and varied due to our dispersions. In addition, we accept converts. Thus genetic variety is not an issue like it obviously was in your family.
Secondly, where did you learn history? The Romans were expansionist and the Jews weren't? What about the Carthaginians, the Gauls, the Britons and the dozens of other peoples the Roman's squashed?
The Romans didn't get along with the Jews because Judaism was philosophically opposed to Roman hegemony and the imposition of idolatrous customs into Jewish worship. There were long periods of time where the Romans left our ancestors alone and we did just fine under their rule.
Sorry not going to debate, discuss or relate to you on any civilized form until you act a little more mature.
All I ask is that you change the name of my blog on your blogroll to my ACTUAL name. You want to make fun of my name in a posting, like this one? I have no problem with that. Even you friend DK has people he totally disagrees with on his blogroll but he calls them by their ACTUAL names.
ps you should have a SJ email address so i dont have to post this stuff on the blog itself.
Goodbye till you grow up
you will love this! conversations with jesus, devil books, armageddon, bill burroughs, jewish aliens....read on!!!
Is Lars the blood of Louis V1111 and catherine de barra...or dov ber???
1) no intermarriage over a a long period of time in terms of number of generations causes genetic disorders. period.
2) garnel, the romans were equal opportunity conquerors.
3) factual bullcrap, stop whining. lol
4) lars, no thanks.
2) garnel, the romans were equal opportunity conquerors.
That's what I said. You're the one who made it sound like we had some kind of special conflict with them.
I think lars is a spam machine. A living one, yes, but a spam machine no less.
SJ,
I appreciate you finding time to read my blog and comment (although you can feel free to email me).
So, does this mean that you have intermarried or will you be intermarrying?
I would intermarry.
Do genetic disorders occur in inbred populations? Yes, and thus the problem with Tay Sachs and a couple of other genetic disorders that have appeared in the Jewish population. BUT- that occurred in the shtetls with far more insular populations that were very in bred.
However, this is not the reality today- aside from some of the extreme right wing where they only marry within a specific community, the numbers of Jews worldwide means that there is enough genetic diversity to prevent genetic disorders promulgating and spreading. Intermarriage isn't even a solution to this- my cousin married a Scottish Catholic that converted- she was positive for Tay Sachs so the doctor was insistent he get tested despite the fact there was no way he should carry the gene. The test came back that he was borderline- in other words, he carried the marker but could not pass it on. A bit of digging at the family skeleton closet brought up rumours of an affair three generations(rumour confirmed!)
However, te genetics debate is a physical one which ignores the sporotual aspect, as well as a direct commandment not to intermarry in the marry. The reality is, that as long as there is a direct commandment not to do something, we cannot do it- no matter how many good reasons we may think we have!
>> However, this is not the reality today- aside from some of the extreme right wing where they only marry within a specific community, the numbers of Jews worldwide means that there is enough genetic diversity to prevent genetic disorders promulgating and spreading.
The problem is orthodox leaders want to take us back to 17th century eastern europe. No internet & tv, no secular newspapers, minimized contact with the outside world etc. Everyone would live in their own isolated communities.
>> The reality is, that as long as there is a direct commandment not to do something, we cannot do it- no matter how many good reasons we may think we have!
This is the mark of a fundamentalist as opposed to a rationalist. If there is a so called command to do something that if everyone does it, you know will be self destructive, would you still follow it?
"The problem is orthodox leaders want to take us back to 17th century eastern europe. No internet & tv, no secular newspapers, minimized contact with the outside world etc. Everyone would live in their own isolated communities."
A generalisation that is blatantly untrue. Are there some communities with that attitude? Yep- and there are as many, if not more, communities that make use if the internet to disseminate information about Torah, to talk to other Orthodox Jews and so on. Any group has extreme- but people like to take the extremes in Orthodox Judaism and claim them to be representative of the entire group. After all- you have examples of observant Orthodox Jews right here who have their own blogs and use the internet quite freely
"This is the mark of a fundamentalist as opposed to a rationalist. If there is a so called command to do something that if everyone does it, you know will be self destructive, would you still follow it?"
Guess we're lucky that their aren't any commandments that are self destructive- and if there were, the law of pikuach nefesh tells us what has to be done. When a commandment (aside form the three explicit ones of murder, idoltary and sexual immorality (incest, adultery, sodomy)) would lead to the death of someone, the commandment is put aside and the life saved.
Gotta talk to you, and can't find your email, either here or in wordpress comments, so email me. stopkvetchingATgmail
Cheers.
The above request was mine.
>> A generalisation that is blatantly untrue. Are there some communities with that attitude? Yep- and there are as many, if not more, communities that make use if the internet to disseminate information about Torah, to talk to other Orthodox Jews and so on.
the orthodox are at heart antitelevision and anti-internet.
secondly, ohr somayach has a website while they forbid the internet to their students.
>> and if there were, the law of pikuach nefesh tells us what has to be done.
so u have to admit that some intermarriage is good for jews.
i am not sayin that one should intermarry to save da jews from genetic disease, if someone jewish ends up with a jewish spouse then fine, and if someone jewish finds and ends up with a gentile spouse, then equally fine.
DK, I have no plans on having a separate email account for blogging.
as for the newspaper thing i have seen some black hat orthodox being anti newspaper.
I am not writing out of something I haven't seen for myself.
No- I did not say some intermarriage is good for Jews- I said in the case of something life threatening pikuach nefesh tells us what to do. To try and extrapolate that to a claim that some intermarriage is allowed makes an elastic band look unstretchable!
No intermarriage is good- nobody has to intermarry on the threat of death (with the possible exception of Esther to Ahasverus- somehow I doubt saying no to an absolute ruler would be good for your health!)
oh please orthodox judaism is full of stretches, how the fuck does don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk mean total separation of meat and dairy?
good point sj, I would trust any inference made.
oh wait a min...where in the constitution is the right of privacy? I'm pretty sure the word privacy doesn't even appear. yet it has been inferred by the court based on american tradition. do u disagree with them too?
sorry that would read..."wouldnt trust inferences made"
privacy makes sense. that's the difference.
Are there stretches in Orthodox Judaism? Not if you bother to go and study the rationales behind the decisions that are found in the Talmud. The fact that you haven't studied some particular area to get to how a decision was arrived doesn't ,mean its a stretch- it just means you haven't studied something. The lazy way is to say- well, it doesn't make sense therefore its a stretch; the correct way is to go and study it- then actually know what you are talking about. (Nope, I haven't studied issur v'heter properly so I can't give you the answer- but I'm prepared to admit to ignorance and accept it until I do get to study it and understand the issue properly!)
i don't need to study some bull shit runon sentences made by rabbis who were paranoid of evil spirits to know basic english, that don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk simply does not mean total separation of meat and dairy.
SJ:
"I would intermarry."
Would or will?
Either way, you can watch TV on Shabbos, eat everything you want to, and even intermarry, and still be a Secular Jew.
BTW, I've been reading your early postings, and I'm curious when you decided to go from posting serious questions to just griping?
Be well.
>> Would or will?
look in above post.
>> BTW, I've been reading your early postings, and I'm curious when you decided to go from posting serious questions to just griping?
I do believe i raise legitimate issues in every post.
SJ,
I realize that you do bring up legitimate issues (that's one reason I'm investing time to read and post a comment or two-despite your language choices). I'm only observing that your tone, as I read your previous posts, has changed. Believe me, it's not a critique or an attack. Blogs, in general, provide voices for ideas.
>> I'm only observing that your tone, as I read your previous posts, has changed.
Bashing someone who writes stupid shit on my blog is more fun than giving them the verbal red carpet.
Keep it up, SJ. Each and every day you alienate more and more people who haven't figured you out yet and still think you can be spoken to nicely.
Look, in the spirit of Jewish brotherliness, I'm offering to help. Give me the girl's number and I'll call her and see if I can set something up for you.
garnel, its not about a girl.
this is the last time i am going to say that.
its not about a girl? maybe its about a boy...after all if that's what makes sense to SJ then who cares what the torah says. jk
btw if its all about whatever WE find logical who is to say there can't be jews who believe in 16 gods? where do we draw the line if all the laws are subject to our standards?
First of all, I'm not that anonymous. Although he makes a very valid point.
In fact, once one rejects the idea of the Torah being God's law for us and the source of objective definitions of right and wrong, there are no more universal standards. Contrary to the whining of various prominent atheists, in the absence of an object law given by an external authority, there is no real "good" and "bad", just what a person likes and calls "good", and what he doesn't like and calls "bad". So 1, 4, 16 gods or cocker spaniels, it's morally all the same.
So you want me to call that guy for you, SJ?
>> In fact, once one rejects the idea of the Torah being God's law for us and the source of objective definitions of right and wrong,
Right and wrong exists separate from religion. Even in the Pentateuch, Cain was punished for murder long before a commandment against murder was given.
And I am straight. -.-
Right and wrong exist in lots of cultures and philosophies. But as Western secular liberalism likes to point out, exactly what is right and what is wrong ranges from group to group. In some philosophies, it's affirmative action. In others it's equal opportunity. For some, not believing in global warming is a cardinal sin. But is there an objective stand of what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? No, of course not, because all these relative values were picked and chosen by people based on their knowledge, opinions, feelings and innate biases.
That's what makes the Torah's version so different. The source of authority is external. It doesn't matter how much I might want a piece of pork or how happy it might make me. Pork is forbidden to me as a Jew. It is an absolute wrong according to Torah values and that cannot be altered based on fashion or political correctness.
Any other system is just a relative one that satisfies its adherents until they change it to something else.
Right and wrong in orthodox sects are just as divergent as in the secular world.
The satmars see it as a grave sin to be in support of Israel, while other orthdox thinks the opposite. The gers might as well put garbage bags over their women in the name of modesty, the "modern orthodox" aren't so crazy.
Some hasidim make it a big deal to have long payusot while others don't care.
then there's the charedim vs. the mitnagdim, the satmars vs. the lubavitchers, the ashkenaz vs. the sefardic, the charedim vs. the modern orthodox.
the viewpoints of the orthodox comunity are far from the uniformity that you would have us believe that they are in, garnel.
Never said they were. But each group has the security of believing that their views are THE right views and the consistency that comes with it.
so does everyone else.
*** i meant hassidim vs. mitnagdim
Said by SJ on July 22, 2008 11:54 PM
"DK, I have no plans on having a separate email account for blogging."
LIAR!!!!!!!!!
It's not a lie. People change their minds sometimes and I started an email address much later.
You have to express more your opinion to attract more readers, because just a video or plain text without any personal approach is not that valuable. But it is just form my point of view
Post a Comment