This is what happened.
Factual Bull Crap has tried to display his great commitment to democratic ideals by linking to two blogs that he disagrees with. Then I challenged him to be in favor of better science education in orthodox enclaves in my previous post by saying:
"Unless Factual Basis says that orthodox jews living in enclaves such as Lakewood, New Jersey, Kiryas Joel, New York and Mea Shearaim, Israel should at minimum be aware of the findings of science (and the proofs that science uses) on how the universe began and how life developed on Earth, Factual Basis' link to me and DK is a meaningless publicity stunt"
Then Factual Bull Crap replies in a post on his blog by saying:
“I AM NOT THE EMPEROR OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.” First of all, who am I to tell them what to do or what to think"
So in other words, while Factual Bull Crap is giving himself a facade of being nice and democratic on his website, he intends on being completely silent about the orthodox enclave's lack of being able to see all possible sides to an issue before coming to a conclusion on what to believe. Factual Bull Crap is not on a true search for truth in his blog, he is just being a salesman.
Secondly, Factual Bull Crap uses the internet while many people living in orthodox enclaves are not even allowed to use the internet by their rabbis. So in other words, Factual Bull Crap is advocating a lifestyle that disallows their followers in their enclaves the same freedom to use the internet that Factual Bull Crap uses.
Is censorship good for Judaism? Does Judaism require limiting the free flow of information? I have a pretty good feeling that the answer to those questions are no and no. Censorship displays a lack of confidence and I highly doubt that the Old Testament calls for censors amongst its followers.
Thirdly Factual Bull Crap has a law degree (so he says) and he is advocating a lifestyle that in Israel prevents his coreligionists from college and working (aka economic opportunity) while Factual Bull Crap has much economic opportunity for himself.
In this post I have elaborated on perhaps one of the worst most corrupt hypocrisies that orthodox judaism has to offer and lastly I would like to say that if Factual Bull Crap does not come out as being against censorship in orthodox communities, then what Factual Bull Crap is trying to sell is in fact censorship in orthodox communities. A brand new attorney at law in the USA the oldest republic in the world, Factual Bull Crap, is selling censorship in orthodox communities.
If you are reading this post, please politely request on the blog of Factual Bull Crap (the address is http://www.factualbasis.wordpress.com/) that he makes a statement against censorship in orthodox communities. (Chances are he's gonna find some way to cop out of it.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Factual Bull Crap Is At It Again
This Factual Bull Crap guy got his friend DK to vouch for him to me to stop calling him "Factual Bull Crap" on my blog roll. The problem is, Factual Basis is full of crap.
The post he wrote on his blog to answer my previous post is total nonsense.
It starts out with him whining about me calling him "Factual Bull Crap." Then as a publicity stunt, he links to 2 bloggers, me and DK, who he disagrees with. I am totally not impressed. Unless Factual Basis says that orthodox jews living in enclaves such as Lakewood, New Jersey, Kiryas Joel, New York and Mea Shearaim, Israel should at minimum be aware of the findings of science (and the proofs that science uses) on how the universe began and how life developed on Earth, Factual Basis' link to me and DK is a meaningless publicity stunt.
Its like, for Public Relations purposes, Factual Basis is like ya ok disagreements are cool, but behind the backs of people who Factual Basis would want to sway, Factual Basis is like, 'dang, science sucks. We can't let our sheeple know about science.'
Then Factual Basis compares the interpretive power that Judaism supposedly grants rabbis to interpret the Pentateauch, to the Supreme Court vis a vis the legislature.
I have two points to respond to that.
1) Sometimes in the Supreme Court, sometimes there's issues on whether or not the supreme court is playing legislature. A conservative in American politics may say that the Row vs. Wade decision is an example of that.
Orthodox Judaism has a similar problem in dietary laws and dress code rules. I feel that total separation of meat and dairy is so much of a stretch from don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk that it qualifies as creating a new religious rule (creating new religious rules are not allowed in the Pentateauch.) Also, not allowing jeans in yeshivas for sure qualifies as creating a new religious rule, again not allowed in the Pentateuch.
2) Does the Pentateuch or the oral law give the rabbis the sole power to interpret? Rabbinical Judaism started in 70 AD after the destruction of the Second Temple, over a thousand years after the giving of the Pentateuch, if one were to believe that the event happened. So, the answer is no. (The precursors of rabbinic judaism are the pharissee religious party, which began in 160 BC. as a response to the sadducees who did not even believe in an oral law)
After that, Factual Basis got his history all fucked up. He wrote "Since many non-Jews also accept the Bible as sacred the Oral Torah is the main thing that distinguishes Judaism and makes it unique. The Oral Torah could therefore not be written until the non-Jews had adopted their own religion based on the bible. G-d thus said, “if I would have written the majority of the Torah, [Israel] would be counted as the same as strangers (Hosea 8:12)"
This is wrong. The supposed oral law was written down into the Mishna and Talmud to try to avoid balkanization.
Finally, Factual Basis tries to respond to my post, but he responds to something I didn't say with arguments that are not even his own. Factual Basis responded as if I said that an oral law is impossible. It certainly is possible for God to have given Moses extra info that wasn't written down, if the giving of the Pentateuch did indeed happen. However, oral traditions are less reliable than written traditions because duh there's no physical evidence ... its ORAL. There's much more room for twisting it, getting it wrong, making it up, etc. in an oral tradition.
The post he wrote on his blog to answer my previous post is total nonsense.
It starts out with him whining about me calling him "Factual Bull Crap." Then as a publicity stunt, he links to 2 bloggers, me and DK, who he disagrees with. I am totally not impressed. Unless Factual Basis says that orthodox jews living in enclaves such as Lakewood, New Jersey, Kiryas Joel, New York and Mea Shearaim, Israel should at minimum be aware of the findings of science (and the proofs that science uses) on how the universe began and how life developed on Earth, Factual Basis' link to me and DK is a meaningless publicity stunt.
Its like, for Public Relations purposes, Factual Basis is like ya ok disagreements are cool, but behind the backs of people who Factual Basis would want to sway, Factual Basis is like, 'dang, science sucks. We can't let our sheeple know about science.'
Then Factual Basis compares the interpretive power that Judaism supposedly grants rabbis to interpret the Pentateauch, to the Supreme Court vis a vis the legislature.
I have two points to respond to that.
1) Sometimes in the Supreme Court, sometimes there's issues on whether or not the supreme court is playing legislature. A conservative in American politics may say that the Row vs. Wade decision is an example of that.
Orthodox Judaism has a similar problem in dietary laws and dress code rules. I feel that total separation of meat and dairy is so much of a stretch from don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk that it qualifies as creating a new religious rule (creating new religious rules are not allowed in the Pentateauch.) Also, not allowing jeans in yeshivas for sure qualifies as creating a new religious rule, again not allowed in the Pentateuch.
2) Does the Pentateuch or the oral law give the rabbis the sole power to interpret? Rabbinical Judaism started in 70 AD after the destruction of the Second Temple, over a thousand years after the giving of the Pentateuch, if one were to believe that the event happened. So, the answer is no. (The precursors of rabbinic judaism are the pharissee religious party, which began in 160 BC. as a response to the sadducees who did not even believe in an oral law)
After that, Factual Basis got his history all fucked up. He wrote "Since many non-Jews also accept the Bible as sacred the Oral Torah is the main thing that distinguishes Judaism and makes it unique. The Oral Torah could therefore not be written until the non-Jews had adopted their own religion based on the bible. G-d thus said, “if I would have written the majority of the Torah, [Israel] would be counted as the same as strangers (Hosea 8:12)"
This is wrong. The supposed oral law was written down into the Mishna and Talmud to try to avoid balkanization.
Finally, Factual Basis tries to respond to my post, but he responds to something I didn't say with arguments that are not even his own. Factual Basis responded as if I said that an oral law is impossible. It certainly is possible for God to have given Moses extra info that wasn't written down, if the giving of the Pentateuch did indeed happen. However, oral traditions are less reliable than written traditions because duh there's no physical evidence ... its ORAL. There's much more room for twisting it, getting it wrong, making it up, etc. in an oral tradition.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Factual Bull Crap is a Factual Pain in the Ass
Ok so this orthodox hotshot who probably thinks that girlfriends are forbidden comes along to my blog with the name "Factual Basis" and his mission is to "prove" that orthodox judaism aka religion, has a "factual (provable) basis" in his own blog which he calls, * drum roll * Factual Basis.
Since he can't come up with one coherent argument I started calling him Factual Bull Crap and he has been a pain in the ass whining about it.
The thing is on the about section of his blog he wrote "The Torah is G-d’s word and it is a FACT! This is a blog of my thoughts, views and ideas on traditional/observant Judaism today. It is an answer to some of those attacking the Rabbis and G-d’s word as man’s word."
In other words, he is saying that the word of the rabbis is equal to the word of God (should one exist).
There are two issues with this statement that I can see.
1) Oral traditions (the ones that were supposedly passed down to present day rabbis all the way from Moses) are not as reliable for accuracy as written traditions. To pretend that oral traditions and written traditions have equal reliability is intellectually dishonest, and this kind of pretending is exactly what orthodox judaism does.
2) The word of men simply cannot equal the word of God (should one exist). The word of the rabbis is indeed man's word.
In conclusion, Factual Bull Crap is a nut job for equating something that a human being may say to something that God (should one exist) may say.
Since he can't come up with one coherent argument I started calling him Factual Bull Crap and he has been a pain in the ass whining about it.
The thing is on the about section of his blog he wrote "The Torah is G-d’s word and it is a FACT! This is a blog of my thoughts, views and ideas on traditional/observant Judaism today. It is an answer to some of those attacking the Rabbis and G-d’s word as man’s word."
In other words, he is saying that the word of the rabbis is equal to the word of God (should one exist).
There are two issues with this statement that I can see.
1) Oral traditions (the ones that were supposedly passed down to present day rabbis all the way from Moses) are not as reliable for accuracy as written traditions. To pretend that oral traditions and written traditions have equal reliability is intellectually dishonest, and this kind of pretending is exactly what orthodox judaism does.
2) The word of men simply cannot equal the word of God (should one exist). The word of the rabbis is indeed man's word.
In conclusion, Factual Bull Crap is a nut job for equating something that a human being may say to something that God (should one exist) may say.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Intermarriage is Natural
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.
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.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Orthodox Judaism and Science
On http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/3588, Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman wrote for Ohr Somayach that the human body has 248 limbs as per orthodox tradition.
limb as defined by dictionary.com: a part or member of an animal body distinct from the head and trunk, as a leg, arm, or wing: the lower limbs; artificial limbs.
Does the human body have 248 parts that meet that definition? nope.
the american heritage dictionary defines a limb as: One of the jointed appendages of an animal, such as an arm, leg, wing, or flipper, used for locomotion or grasping..
Does the human body have 248 parts that meet that definition? nope.
let us say that 248 organs was meant instead of actual limbs.
1) The human body has more than 630 muscles. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=238&fsdt=16075&q=number+of+muscles+in+the+human+body)
2) Humans are born with anywhere from 300 to 350 bones and they later fuse to an average adult total of 208 bones. (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-body/how-many-bones-human-body)
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/14-anatomy.htm says that bones and muscles are considered organs.
Conclusion: the idea that the human body has 248 organs is full of crap. This is coming from people who believe that autopsies are disallowed by God. Make no mistake, if the whole world were orthodox jews, biology and medicine would not be at the level at it is today because of their ban on autopsies, and as an aside, Maimonides would probably not have been a famous doctor.
limb as defined by dictionary.com: a part or member of an animal body distinct from the head and trunk, as a leg, arm, or wing: the lower limbs; artificial limbs.
Does the human body have 248 parts that meet that definition? nope.
the american heritage dictionary defines a limb as: One of the jointed appendages of an animal, such as an arm, leg, wing, or flipper, used for locomotion or grasping..
Does the human body have 248 parts that meet that definition? nope.
let us say that 248 organs was meant instead of actual limbs.
1) The human body has more than 630 muscles. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=238&fsdt=16075&q=number+of+muscles+in+the+human+body)
2) Humans are born with anywhere from 300 to 350 bones and they later fuse to an average adult total of 208 bones. (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-body/how-many-bones-human-body)
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/14-anatomy.htm says that bones and muscles are considered organs.
Conclusion: the idea that the human body has 248 organs is full of crap. This is coming from people who believe that autopsies are disallowed by God. Make no mistake, if the whole world were orthodox jews, biology and medicine would not be at the level at it is today because of their ban on autopsies, and as an aside, Maimonides would probably not have been a famous doctor.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Orthodox Judaism and Hell
This is the orthodox talking about hell when they are doing public relations.
'When a person dies, his soul gets a chance to 'think objectively' about his lifetime spent on earth. Depending on how the person spent his lifetime, this can be a painful process in which the soul mourns its bad deeds, lost opportunities and wasted potential or it can be a process of joy in which the soul delights in its closeness to G-d. Ultimately, the gehinom process is temporary, and eventually enables the person to enjoy the benefits of all the good things he did during his lifetime." (from http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/132/Q2/)
This is the orthodox talking about hell when they are doing their scare tactics.
"Unless you rescind the post, prepare yourself for some deep 'splainin come the big 'ol day of judgement, my friend. Wee-haw." (from lina's post on https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3627627202031486081&postID=8580802837893007828)
point 1: is the punishment of hell truely temporary in orthodox judaism? Lina's post would leave one questioning because she brought judgement day into this. clearly she believe's in some kind of eternal punisment.
point 2: hell was clearly meant to be a bitter punishment. duh, its fire.
'When a person dies, his soul gets a chance to 'think objectively' about his lifetime spent on earth. Depending on how the person spent his lifetime, this can be a painful process in which the soul mourns its bad deeds, lost opportunities and wasted potential or it can be a process of joy in which the soul delights in its closeness to G-d. Ultimately, the gehinom process is temporary, and eventually enables the person to enjoy the benefits of all the good things he did during his lifetime." (from http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/132/Q2/)
This is the orthodox talking about hell when they are doing their scare tactics.
"Unless you rescind the post, prepare yourself for some deep 'splainin come the big 'ol day of judgement, my friend. Wee-haw." (from lina's post on https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3627627202031486081&postID=8580802837893007828)
point 1: is the punishment of hell truely temporary in orthodox judaism? Lina's post would leave one questioning because she brought judgement day into this. clearly she believe's in some kind of eternal punisment.
point 2: hell was clearly meant to be a bitter punishment. duh, its fire.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Aish.com: Propaganda. Lies. Disinformation.
Aish.com is featuring a propaganda video on its website called Why Investigate (orthodox) Judaism First. The URL of it is http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Why_Investigate_Judaism_First0.asp.
I see several flaws with Rabbi Becher's case, which reeks of duplicity.
1) (orthodox) Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion.
True, but many of the stringency practiced in present day orthodox judaism weren't commanded in the giving of the Pentateuch, in other words they are later additions.
For example, it is dubious that an earlier document than the mishna (70-200 AD) interprets into the religion the laws of Shabbat. That's over a thousand years between the giving of the pentateuch and the mishna where anything could have happened.
2) Is orthodox Judaism accessible?
In the sense of being clear about what orthodox judaism demands of its followers, then perhaps, but not in the sense of being a pleasant easy religion to follow. There's a reason why the majority of american jews are not orthodox, and it has a lot to do with its lack of accessibility.
3) Does orthodox judaism demand that you give up your mind?
In orthodox judaism only rabbis are allowed to make decisions on what followers are supposed to believe. Disagree at your own risk.
4) Does orthodox judiasm promote the spread of information?
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2000/01/33583
5) The soul.
The problem of bringing "the soul" into this as a case for investigating (orthodox) judaism first, is that it uses something that is neither provable or falsifiable (the soul) to try to establish something that is neither provable or falsifiable (religion).
6) Claim to truth.
I have never heard of an established religion not claiming to be true.
I see several flaws with Rabbi Becher's case, which reeks of duplicity.
1) (orthodox) Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion.
True, but many of the stringency practiced in present day orthodox judaism weren't commanded in the giving of the Pentateuch, in other words they are later additions.
For example, it is dubious that an earlier document than the mishna (70-200 AD) interprets into the religion the laws of Shabbat. That's over a thousand years between the giving of the pentateuch and the mishna where anything could have happened.
2) Is orthodox Judaism accessible?
In the sense of being clear about what orthodox judaism demands of its followers, then perhaps, but not in the sense of being a pleasant easy religion to follow. There's a reason why the majority of american jews are not orthodox, and it has a lot to do with its lack of accessibility.
3) Does orthodox judaism demand that you give up your mind?
In orthodox judaism only rabbis are allowed to make decisions on what followers are supposed to believe. Disagree at your own risk.
4) Does orthodox judiasm promote the spread of information?
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2000/01/33583
http://orthomom.blogspot.com/2005/11/nyt-on-lakewood-internet-ban.html
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2006/11/thursday_night_.html5) The soul.
The problem of bringing "the soul" into this as a case for investigating (orthodox) judaism first, is that it uses something that is neither provable or falsifiable (the soul) to try to establish something that is neither provable or falsifiable (religion).
6) Claim to truth.
I have never heard of an established religion not claiming to be true.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy Independence Day, Special Post
Yesterday I saw some orthodox jews at a concert that celebrated america's independence day. I saw something ironic about that.
For one thing, in american values, the pursuit of happiness is paramount. In orthodox values, the pursuit of asceticism is paramount. It is like a game of limbo in which everyone bends over backwars to a reggae chant of "how strict can you go, how strict can you go."
Secondly, a primary advantage of someone being secular over someone being orthodox, is that the secular person is able to choose how s/he approaches religion without the fear of loosing one's family and one's community. No orthodox jew can say with a straight face that he or she has this ability.
Thirdly, secular jews don't have to wear orthodox attire long pants jacket and hat in the summer like retards XD honestly, who needs nazi crematoriums when you have the orthodox dress code?
For one thing, in american values, the pursuit of happiness is paramount. In orthodox values, the pursuit of asceticism is paramount. It is like a game of limbo in which everyone bends over backwars to a reggae chant of "how strict can you go, how strict can you go."
Secondly, a primary advantage of someone being secular over someone being orthodox, is that the secular person is able to choose how s/he approaches religion without the fear of loosing one's family and one's community. No orthodox jew can say with a straight face that he or she has this ability.
Thirdly, secular jews don't have to wear orthodox attire long pants jacket and hat in the summer like retards XD honestly, who needs nazi crematoriums when you have the orthodox dress code?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)