[Yonah ben Amittai]

You would think so. But, Jewish theologians have generally accorded Christianity a place among the monotheisms of the world.

Where are you getting that we're discussing monotheism? Idolatry has nothing to do with how many gods a religion has.

Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.

Most civilised beings try not to insult any religions. I understand, of course, that atheists are generally less than civilised.

Haha, okay, at least you admit freedom of speech is not a freedom Judaism believes in.

I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.

I am inclined to disagree with you, and the statement about mental gymnastics approaches the ad hominem. It simply indicates a puerile nature in yourself.

Okay. You simply say "I disagree" and then insult me. At least I explained why you're wrong before I insulted you. May I also suggest you take a biology course at some point in your lifetime.

I have taken a couple. Your point?


Time for bed. See you tomorrow.

[Rushy]

Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.

Except they all forbid idolatry before their god. And no, their god is not your god. To a Muslim, the Jewish and Christian gods are false idols. To a Christian, both Muslims and Jews worship a false idol. And yes, to Jews (except you, apparently) Muslims and Christians worship false idols.

I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.

So you agree that a law against blasphemy is dumb, then? I feel like I'm arguing with an agnostic more than a Jew, you never outright state anything.

I have taken a couple. Your point?

I'll make it simple. Do you believe DNA mutates? Yes/No.

[Rama Set]

Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.

And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.

Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.

I meant the religious mainstream.  Regardless, your contention that "...the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant." is demonstrably false.  So much for your attempted high ground on getting data straight, you can't do that within the religion you supposedly follow so fervently.  Furthermore, there are more than one form of so-called sexual immorality that could be imposed upon a people that are not particularly immoral.  I would say that imposition of this Noahide law would be a call to surrender after all.

If it is demonstrably false, you have to demonstrate that it is false. The Orthodox have failed to do that. I admit, my views on the subject are at present deemed "liberal'. But I don't think they will be for long. And in terms of Judaism imposing much of anything in that respect, I don't think that anyone would have to worry, for the simple reason that Jews engage in pilpul just for the sake of it. You know the old joke. When you have four Jews in a room, you have five opinions. So, no, I wouldn't think there would be a call for surrender at all.

Everything I have read, except your own objection,  says that the passage in Leviticus is a ban on homosexual sex.  This is bolstered by the Oral Law stating that two men shall not engage in sodomy, no matter in a temple or not.  The basis of your objection is a bizarre syntax of the sentence whereby the descriptor "abomination" refers to no explicit notion in the sentence, but some shoe-horned caveat that you weakly introduced in your post.  In fact, the manner of sex which is banned is homosexual sex!  So I have the interpretation of the majority of Jewish thought on my side, and have only your muddled objection barring it.

I think, in this case, you are wrong.

I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.

So are you an atheist then? There are probably a dozen dozen quotes that could be pulled from this thread where you insult Islam. I imagine this is not the only place you do that either.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Regardless of the last minutiae of detail in the 'no idols/blasphemy/sexual immorality' rules, the fact that you demand that a people accept Jewish interpretation of these rules or be destroyed is a demand for surrender, not peace.

The people of ISIS could argue that they're peaceful by that logic:
"Hey, we're not going to hurt you if you convert to our narrow interpretation of Islam and don't attack us."

[Vindictus]

Nah, they're cunts to their own followers as well.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.

Except they all forbid idolatry before their god. And no, their god is not your god. To a Muslim, the Jewish and Christian gods are false idols. To a Christian, both Muslims and Jews worship a false idol. And yes, to Jews (except you, apparently) Muslims and Christians worship false idols.

THIS IS FUN. Actually, Most Muslims and Jews and Christians tend to acknowledge that each is worshipping essentially the same Deity. Arabic speaking Christians, for example, use the word "Allah' to refer to the First Person of the Trinity, "God the Father". Arabic speaking Jews have been known to use the term to refer to Adonai the Lord, since we do not use the Personal Name of God. So, thank you for making yourself look like a schmuck.

I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.

So you agree that a law against blasphemy is dumb, then? I feel like I'm arguing with an agnostic more than a Jew, you never outright state anything.

I didn't say that either. In fact, I think the only people uncivilised enough to commit deliberate blasphemy are the  atheists.

I have taken a couple. Your point?

I'll make it simple. Do you believe DNA mutates? Yes/No.

I'll refrain from answering that until I have more data. But I repeat that I do NOT believe that a cat can become a dog.

Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.

And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.

Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.

I meant the religious mainstream.  Regardless, your contention that "...the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant." is demonstrably false.  So much for your attempted high ground on getting data straight, you can't do that within the religion you supposedly follow so fervently.  Furthermore, there are more than one form of so-called sexual immorality that could be imposed upon a people that are not particularly immoral.  I would say that imposition of this Noahide law would be a call to surrender after all.

If it is demonstrably false, you have to demonstrate that it is false. The Orthodox have failed to do that. I admit, my views on the subject are at present deemed "liberal'. But I don't think they will be for long. And in terms of Judaism imposing much of anything in that respect, I don't think that anyone would have to worry, for the simple reason that Jews engage in pilpul just for the sake of it. You know the old joke. When you have four Jews in a room, you have five opinions. So, no, I wouldn't think there would be a call for surrender at all.

Everything I have read, except your own objection,  says that the passage in Leviticus is a ban on homosexual sex.  This is bolstered by the Oral Law stating that two men shall not engage in sodomy, no matter in a temple or not.  The basis of your objection is a bizarre syntax of the sentence whereby the descriptor "abomination" refers to no explicit notion in the sentence, but some shoe-horned caveat that you weakly introduced in your post.  In fact, the manner of sex which is banned is homosexual sex!  So I have the interpretation of the majority of Jewish thought on my side, and have only your muddled objection barring it.

I think, in this case, you are wrong.

You are of course welcome to think as you wish. And yes, from the Orthodox perspective you are correct. But, the Conservatives and the Reform have both changed their position, and the Orthodox are beginning to consider the matter. I've already said that at present, my views are considered "liberal". I don't dispute that. But I expect that within five to ten years, they will become standard thought within Judaism (and within mainline Christianity as well). In fact, within mainline Protestant Christianity, the Episcopal Church already blesses gay unions, and I expect others to follow. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America already allows the ordination of non-celibate gay ministers (as does the Episcopal Church).

I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.

So are you an atheist then? There are probably a dozen dozen quotes that could be pulled from this thread where you insult Islam. I imagine this is not the only place you do that either.

I never insult Islam in terms of its theology or its basic beliefs, many of which I happen to agree with. Their beliefs about God happen to be far closer to our own than anybody else's on the planet, pretty much. I insult its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its tendency to want to make everybody be good little Muslims or live as second-class citizens. There is a difference. Schmuck.

Regardless of the last minutiae of detail in the 'no idols/blasphemy/sexual immorality' rules, the fact that you demand that a people accept Jewish interpretation of these rules or be destroyed is a demand for surrender, not peace.

The people of ISIS could argue that they're peaceful by that logic:
"Hey, we're not going to hurt you if you convert to our narrow interpretation of Islam and don't attack us."

Depending on who is doing the interpretation, I think that is a serious risk, I'll admit. That is why you can't have some crazy bastard at the helm. I understand that as well as you do.

Nah, they're cunts to their own followers as well.

For about the second time in this thread, I actually agree with you.

[Lord Dave]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.
However, the Dormaalocyon latouri is the common ancestor to the cat and dog.  So technically that species could become a cat or a dog.  (though it would take many species in between to do it)

[Rama Set]

You are of course welcome to think as you wish.

It has nothing to do with what I think, it what the Torah says.

And yes, from the Orthodox perspective you are correct. But, the Conservatives and the Reform have both changed their position, and the Orthodox are beginning to consider the matter.

People can shoehorn the passage all they want, it does not change the fact that the Torah has a ban on homosexual sex and it is supported by the Oral Law.

I've already said that at present, my views are considered "liberal". I don't dispute that. But I expect that within five to ten years, they will become standard thought within Judaism (and within mainline Christianity as well). In fact, within mainline Protestant Christianity, the Episcopal Church already blesses gay unions, and I expect others to follow. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America already allows the ordination of non-celibate gay ministers (as does the Episcopal Church).

Irrelevant.

[Rama Set]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.
However, the Dormaalocyon latouri is the common ancestor to the cat and dog.  So technically that species could become a cat or a dog.  (though it would take many species in between to do it)

Don't confuse him.

[Thork]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.

Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution.

[Rama Set]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.

Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution describes why so many different creatures have arrived at similar features.  Not why a cat can become a dog.

[Thork]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.

Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution describes why so many different creatures have arrived at similar features.  Not why a cat can become a dog.

No, if a cat and dog indulge in convergent evolution, cats will become dogs. They will be indistinguishable. I'm not saying that happens with cats and dogs, only that evolution theorists do have a fall back for such a ludicrous claim.

[Rama Set]

Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog.  Such a change is magic, not evolution.

Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution describes why so many different creatures have arrived at similar features.  Not why a cat can become a dog.

No, if a cat and dog indulge in convergent evolution, cats will become dogs. They will be indistinguishable. I'm not saying that happens with cats and dogs, only that evolution theorists do have a fall back for such a ludicrous claim.

No your source says:

Convergent evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.

So if a cat and dogs indulge(??) in convergent evolution, they would both arrive at having a keen sense of smell for example.  You will notice, that by definition, to indulge (it's starting to grow on me) in convergent evolution, there must be different species involved.

[Rushy]

Thork is once again wrong. Convergent evolution is the idea the a species will evolve similar traits in order to fill specific roles that don't change. For example, animals evolve noses above their mouth rather than anywhere else because they need to sense the smell of food before eating it and because pungent food smells rise in air. In addition, animals evolve two (complex) eyes because more than two is too energy consuming and less than two results in a lack of depth perception.

I could go on for a while but hopefully Thork gets the point.

[Vindictus]

How do you get "cats become dogs" from convergent evolution?

[Ghost of V]

Anyone have any tips on how to turn my dog into a cat or vice versa?

[Particle Person]

Anyone have any tips on how to turn my dog into a cat or vice versa?

You just use convergent evolution. Aren't you paying attention?

[Ghost of V]

Anyone have any tips on how to turn my dog into a cat or vice versa?

You just use convergent evolution. Aren't you paying attention?

How many points in BS do I have to invest to learn this craft?

[Lord Dave]

By convergent evolution hasn't this already occurred?  Cats and dogs both have heightened senses of smell and hearing. 

[Rama Set]

By convergent evolution hasn't this already occurred?  Cats and dogs both have heightened senses of smell and hearing. 

Science is right!