[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, I would say that is the answer. I could look deeper into the matter, but I doubt I would find much. The Rabbis are probably even now formulating answers. I suspect those answers have to do with the copepods not being properly "food", any more than gelatin is food. Although in the USA, American koshrus groups do not give kosher labels to anything except gelatin made from kosher animals and vegetable matter, in some countries, gelatin of any sort (even made from pigs) is considered edible because by the time it gets to the consumer, gelatin is considered to be a non-food item. In other words, although it is passable through the digestion, it serves no legitimate purpose as food.

For example, a rock is neither kosher nor non-kosher. You can eat it if you wish, though I never met anyone that wanted to. In some countries, gelatin is classified as neither kosher nor non-kosher. You may eat it or not, just like a rock. In the USA, it is classified as a food, and therefore is subject to the kosher laws (in which case it has to come from a kosher animal or from plants. If it comes from a pig it is not kosher and cannot be eaten by Jews. In this country most gelatin comes from either cows or pigs, but no one knows which, therefore it is not kosher).

In the case of the water, since, like the gelatin, there is no value food-wise to the copepod, the Rabbis might just declare it NOT to be a food. Just like a rock, it might be edible, or like gelatin in some countries, where it has been ruled a non-food item. You can eat it or not as you choose.

To a non-Jew, this kind of formulation might not make sense, but to us it makes perfect sense. A food, to a Jew, is something that provides calories and nutrients. A rock does not do this. Gelatin does not do this, at least not in significant amounts.  (Jell-o might, I don't know what else is in the stuff). Copepods do not do this, at least not in significant amounts (a whale has to eat a SHIT-ton of the stuff, I am guessing, to get any value out of it).

Now, I don't KNOW that that is the argument that the Rabbis will use. I am just guessing that they might. Or they might come up with something totally different. Just a thought.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I wasn't directing that post at you. I have no interest discussing magic gardens, talking snakes and mentally unhinged gods, I was discussing the idea of the 'universe' providing for us, either as a conscious or unconscious benefactor.

And one wonders, do you believe the world is flat?

[jroa]

It seems odd to me that God would make something taste really good, like shrimp and ham, and then tell people they are not allowed to eat it.  Then, he puts shrimp in your drinking water, but it is ok to drink it. 

If God really does not want for you to eat shrimp, then it seems logical that he would have just not created the tasty little things.  Jewism is so confusing.   

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Taste is quite subjective, really. Its a rather stupid way to determine if you should east something. I've been told that antifreeze tastes sweet. That doesn't mean I want to eat it. And if you want to go for something natural, there are plenty of very poisonous vegetables and berries and the like out there that taste good, from what I am given to understand.

And think about it. Shrimp are bottom-feeders. They eat shit. You may enjoy the idea of eating something that eats shit, but I do not particularly find the idea appealing. Now, I realise the kosher laws are not entirely logical. There's a lot of things that aren't entirely logical. Have you ever eaten a dog? I haven't. Its not kosher, but I wouldn't anyway. Why not? Because we are accustomed in America to keep them as companion animals. The Koreans on the other hand eat them and consider them delightful.

Have you ever eaten a locust? No? Why not? They are perfectly edible. They are even kosher. That doesn't mean I'd care for one. In fact, they are supposed to be delicious, rather like shrimp, from what I hear. So, if you like shrimp, you ought to eat one. Feel free.

[Rama Set]

I would eat a locust. No question.

It is pretty telling though that the reasoning for micro-shrimp being kosher is completely Ad Hoc.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I would eat a locust. No question.

It is pretty telling though that the reasoning for micro-shrimp being kosher is completely Ad Hoc.

Actually, no. Like any situation, when something new presents itself, it must be handled. The Bible was written before the New World was even known about. It is stupid in the extreme to assume that G-d would have told Moses how to deal with New York City's water supply when New York City did not exist. Can you imagine just how big the Bible would have had to have been to deal with literally EVERY SINGLE decision that would EVER arise in the history of the human race? That is utterly stupid, and implies extreme idiocy in the person suggesting it.

RAMA SET, I realise atheists are perhaps not Mensa candidates, but come on man! I know you better than this! You are not a stupid person, even though I disagree with you on virtually everything we talk about. I mean, look, the Bible is a formidable enough book, and I am not even including the so-called "New Testament", which has no bearing on my life. The whole point of the Written Torah is to give us general information. The Oral Torah gives us more specific stuff. For example, the Written Torah says, thou shalt not go more than a Sabbath's Day Journey on the Sabbath. The Oral Torah tells how long a Sabbath's Day Journey is.

That is why the Rabbis continue to formulate concepts and Responsa. Now, there are doctrines in Orthodoxy that state that Moses was given ALL of this on Mt. Sinai, even though it would not be revealed to US until it was needed. That is an argument that you and I can have. Of course, you could ultimately give a shit.

But those who don't believe in Oral Torah per se consider the oral tradition to be of value but not of divine inspiration, and therefore, not traceable back to Moses. Fine, I can live with either option myself. But, even taking just the Written Torah, you start getting into questions of how G-d created the world. Was the Torah eternal? If so, did G-d create the world according to the Torah's plan, or did G-d create the world and then the Torah? And if you DO believe in the Divine inspiration of the Oral Torah, then the same question applies.

But ultimately, can the Rabbis create Responsa for dealing with modern day problems? Of course they can and should. Now, were those problems known to Moses on Sinai? Your answer to that will largely depend on whether you are Orthodox or not, and if so, how Frum you are. But in either case, you certainly can't expect the Bible to contain every single thing that would ever happen in the entire history of the human race. That is just straight up stupid beyond the reaches of the human imagination.

[Lord Dave]

God could have, at least, told you about diseases.  You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)


Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."

I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

God could have, at least, told you about diseases.  You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)


Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."

I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.

That's an abysmally stupid response, not that I have come to expect better. First point. If the Bible had contained information about medical solutions, that would have given the Mensa candidates like you ammunition when those medical solutions invariably became out of date.  And remember, disease did not come into the world until man fell. The world that G-d originally made did not have disease and death in it to worry about.

The same issue exists with the food. The world came into existence without issues like that. It was when man fell, and the world became imperfect that questions about food became a concern in the first place. Initially, humans could eat all plants, and then all meat, and then the Hebrews were given the Torah and and the Kosher Laws. Non-Jews can still eat pretty much anything they like.

Remember that even after man fell, the world, though not perfect, was a far better place than it is now. Men were living up to 969 years. It wasn't until later that G-d restricted them to 120 years. Now, you very rarely find people living that long, although if you do, its usually in Japan. They tend to have a better diet than we do.

If you would actually take the time to READ the text, you would probably learn something. I know that's extremely hard for many of you to do (reading being such a difficult skill to master and all) but it would probably help you at least LOOK a bit less foolish.

[Ghost of V]

God could have, at least, told you about diseases.  You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)


Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."

I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.

That's an abysmally stupid response, not that I have come to expect better. First point. If the Bible had contained information about medical solutions, that would have given the Mensa candidates like you ammunition when those medical solutions invariably became out of date.  And remember, disease did not come into the world until man fell. The world that G-d originally made did not have disease and death in it to worry about.

The same issue exists with the food. The world came into existence without issues like that. It was when man fell, and the world became imperfect that questions about food became a concern in the first place. Initially, humans could eat all plants, and then all meat, and then the Hebrews were given the Torah and and the Kosher Laws. Non-Jews can still eat pretty much anything they like.

Remember that even after man fell, the world, though not perfect, was a far better place than it is now. Men were living up to 969 years. It wasn't until later that G-d restricted them to 120 years. Now, you very rarely find people living that long, although if you do, its usually in Japan. They tend to have a better diet than we do.

If you would actually take the time to READ the text, you would probably learn something. I know that's extremely hard for many of you to do (reading being such a difficult skill to master and all) but it would probably help you at least LOOK a bit less foolish.

Proof pending. On everything you just typed.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Proof pending. On everything you just typed.

Ah, whatever.

[Ghost of V]

Proof pending. On everything you just typed.

Ah, whatever.

Regardless, DNA telomeres prove that the "humans lived to 900 years" claim is shit.  At a certain point, human cells stop dividing. It's pretty much hardwired into our DNA. If the limit was different in the past then I guess it's possible. But there is no evidence that that was ever the case.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Proof pending. On everything you just typed.

Ah, whatever.

Regardless, DNA telomeres prove that the "humans lived to 900 years" claim is shit.  At a certain point, human cells stop dividing. It's pretty much hardwired into our DNA.

I made no scientific argument. I merely said that according to Scripture, humans lived to be as old as 969 years. if you choose not to accept that, then it sounds like a personal problem. Who are you to say that human cells stopped dividing back then as early as they do now? Sounds like  you're a rather arrogant person, but then, you are an atheist, so, what should I expect?

And although I am not even familiar with the claim that you are calling "shit", my question is this: how do you know it is shit? Are you a qualified scientist? Do you have degrees in biology? Chemistry? Zoology? Even if you do, you do understand that people in the sciences disagree regularly, right?

Then again, I forget. You are an atheist. In your brain, there is only one acceptable way of thinking. And any other way, well, Robespierre, I hear you. The guillotines are calling. Atheism is good for one thing. It does control the population.

Back then, things were A LOT different than they are now. If you choose not to accept that, then that is your business. I am fine with that. But don't expect the rest of the world to cooperate with your failure to think.

[Ghost of V]

I made no scientific argument. I merely said that according to Scripture, humans lived to be as old as 969 years.

Ohhhh, I'm sorry. I forgot that the "argumentum from old desert scribblings" makes your claims completely immune to scrutiny. My bad. Next time I will try to remember. 

And although I am not even familiar with the claim that you are calling "shit", my question is this: how do you know it is shit? Are you a qualified scientist? Do you have degrees in biology? Chemistry? Zoology? Even if you do, you do understand that people in the sciences disagree regularly, right?

I have 6 PhDs. I don't know what you're implying here.

Then again, I forget. You are an atheist.

What makes you think that?

Back then, things were A LOT different than they are now. If you choose not to accept that, then that is your business. I am fine with that. But don't expect the rest of the world to cooperate with your failure to think.

Proof? Please do not cite the Book.

[Blanko]

Considering how close-mindedly Yackoff is approaching this whole discussion, you'd almost think he was an atheist :^)

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I made no scientific argument. I merely said that according to Scripture, humans lived to be as old as 969 years.

Ohhhh, I'm sorry. I forgot that the "argumentum from old desert scribblings" makes your claims completely immune to scrutiny. My bad. Next time I will try to remember. 

That is a rather juvenile response. Given that believer and non-believer alike have classified the Bible as among the most exalted literature of all time, I'll just assume that it reflects stupidity on your part to say that.

And although I am not even familiar with the claim that you are calling "shit", my question is this: how do you know it is shit? Are you a qualified scientist? Do you have degrees in biology? Chemistry? Zoology? Even if you do, you do understand that people in the sciences disagree regularly, right?

I have 6 Ph.Ds. I don't know what you're implying here.

Anyone can claim anything. since a Ph.D takes 4 years of undergrad, and four more years of graduate school, then that implies that you have been nothing more than a professional student your entire life. If you have that many PhD's, which I doubt, then I respect you even less, because you obviously don't work. You are probably writing from your mother's basement.

Then again, I forget. You are an atheist.

What makes you think that?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like one it usually is one.

[Ghost of V]

Now that you're relying solely on ad hominem attacks to carry you through this discussion... is it safe for me to assume that you've got nothing substantial to add to this and that all your Biblical claims are BS?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I'm not using ad hominems at all. I am simply stating facts.

1. If you have degrees in Biology or Zoology, you clearly do not realise that scientists disagree often.

2. You are obviously not familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue its contents logically.

3. You can only insult it because you are NOT familiar with it. Since it has been praised by believer and non-believer alike, your inability   to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.

Shall I go on?

[Rama Set]

God could have, at least, told you about diseases.  You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)


Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."

I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.

That's an abysmally stupid response, not that I have come to expect better. First point. If the Bible had contained information about medical solutions, that would have given the Mensa candidates like you ammunition when those medical solutions invariably became out of date.  And remember, disease did not come into the world until man fell. The world that G-d originally made did not have disease and death in it to worry about.

The same issue exists with the food. The world came into existence without issues like that. It was when man fell, and the world became imperfect that questions about food became a concern in the first place. Initially, humans could eat all plants, and then all meat, and then the Hebrews were given the Torah and and the Kosher Laws. Non-Jews can still eat pretty much anything they like.

Remember that even after man fell, the world, though not perfect, was a far better place than it is now. Men were living up to 969 years. It wasn't until later that G-d restricted them to 120 years. Now, you very rarely find people living that long, although if you do, its usually in Japan. They tend to have a better diet than we do.

If you would actually take the time to READ the text, you would probably learn something. I know that's extremely hard for many of you to do (reading being such a difficult skill to master and all) but it would probably help you at least LOOK a bit less foolish.

The fall of man happens in the first 20 chapters of genesis no?  Like 99% of the Torak follows. If the Torah was given to man well after the fall of man, it would make sense that it might cover information relevant to that. It makes sense that there would at least be a section on pasteurization or that spit will not cleanse an open wound. But no, you get dumb kosher laws instead. God gives terrible advice.

[Blanko]

your inability   to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.

ayy fucking lmao

[Rama Set]

I'm not using ad hominems at all. I am simply stating facts.

Ad Hominems can be true, but it still lends no credence to any argumentation.

1. If you have degrees in Biology or Zoology, you clearly do not realise that scientists disagree often.

2. You are obviously not familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue its contents logically.

3. You can only insult it because you are NOT familiar with it. Since it has been praised by believer and non-believer alike, your inability   to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.

People's praise for it says nothing of its veracity. Also, you just added an ad hominem on to the end of your third point. Spiraling down the troll hole...