[Vindictus]

I am inclined to agree, but your ideas about God are. And every uninformed, dipshit thing you have said about Judaism is. You brown nose Richard Dawkins so well its not surprising that you're an anti-Semitic little Nazi of a man.

Haven't mentioned Dawkins once, but ok.

[Lord Dave]

Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).

That's a pretty big misnomer. This isn't asking for peace, it is asking for surrender.

It is hardly asking for surrender to expect people to live by basic laws of civility. if you can't even manage to do that, then you don't deserve to exist, to be quite blunt.  Look up the Noahide Laws in Wikipedia. They don't ask for much.

I read them and... Basic morality means servitude to God?  Because the whole idol and blasphomy thing kinda turns me off.

[Rushy]

It is hardly asking for surrender to expect people to live by basic laws of civility. if you can't even manage to do that, then you don't deserve to exist, to be quite blunt.  Look up the Noahide Laws in Wikipedia. They don't ask for much.

Those seven laws are mostly good except 1, 4 and 5. All of which include acknowledgement of archaic cultural beliefs only held by Jews, which again, leads me to say this is a demand for surrender, not peace.

In addition, forcing the other side to accept something is asking for surrender regardless. It wouldn't matter if your requirements were "you must accept our fruit gift basket or die." One of those options is surrender, not peace. I think you might have a very warped idea of what the term "peace" represents.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

1.The prohibition of idolatry.

No worshipping your own gods, surrender or die.

2.The prohibition of murder.
 3.The prohibition of theft.

I find it difficult to imagine the civilisations they were subjugating didn't have these already.

4.The prohibition of sexual immorality.

Ah, the endless question about what this means. Does it just mean cheating? Sex ouside of marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Interracial/tribal/religion sex? Homosexuality? Female as the dominant partner?

Have sex how and when we tell you, surrender or die.

5.The prohibition of blasphemy.

See 1

6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
 7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
.

Fair enough.

[Rama Set]

No, I don't believe that cats can turn into anteaters, if that is your suggestion.

Specifically then, what sorts of changes are possible in your interpretation of micro-evolution?

No. But anyone who thinks the Earth got here by random chance strikes me as a bit stupid, and anyone who thinks the Earth got here by NON-randomness, and yet without a creator, strikes me as incredibly stupid.

I got that, I wanted to know why?

I think we get a little storm-tossed in all our names for people. Call me whatever you want to call me. Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No.

Old Earth Creationists do not believe that.

[beardo]

Are jews allowed to drink alcohol and get drunk?

[Shane]

Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?

[Vindictus]

Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?

No. Hitler did nothing wrong.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

1.The prohibition of idolatry.

No worshipping your own gods, surrender or die.

I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.

2.The prohibition of murder.
 3.The prohibition of theft.

I find it difficult to imagine the civilisations they were subjugating didn't have these already.

You may be right on that point.

4.The prohibition of sexual immorality.

Ah, the endless question about what this means. Does it just mean cheating? Sex ouside of marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Interracial/tribal/religion sex? Homosexuality? Female as the dominant partner?

Have sex how and when we tell you, surrender or die.

Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.

5.The prohibition of blasphemy.

See 1

6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
 7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
.

Fair enough.

No, I don't believe that cats can turn into anteaters, if that is your suggestion.

Specifically then, what sorts of changes are possible in your interpretation of micro-evolution?

I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.

No. But anyone who thinks the Earth got here by random chance strikes me as a bit stupid, and anyone who thinks the Earth got here by NON-randomness, and yet without a creator, strikes me as incredibly stupid.

I got that, I wanted to know why?

Because either is essentially impossible. As a former bookie I know that the chances of either occurring aren't something that any bookie would even consider laying odds on.

I think we get a little storm-tossed in all our names for people. Call me whatever you want to call me. Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No.

Old Earth Creationists do not believe that.

Are jews allowed to drink alcohol and get drunk?

Jews are permitted to drink in moderation, and twice a year, to get drunk, during the festivals of Purim and Simchas Torah. However, the drunk person is still responsible for his behaviour during his drunken state, and is not relieved of obedience to commandments. Any habitual drunkenness is regarded as extremely sinful, bad behaviour.

Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?

As stupid question.

Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?

No. Hitler did nothing wrong.

An even stupider response.

[Rama Set]

What about Leviticus 20:13?  Seems to be say pretty explicitly that sex with a man is punishable by death.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Yes, it DOES say that. BUT, and this is a VERY big "but". It specifically says, thou shalt not lie with a man as thou liest with a woman, for it is abomination."

The Hebrew word for Abomination was referring not the sex itself, but to the manner of the sex, and it was referring to the fact that males had ritual sex with other males in the temples of Canaanite Faith. NOTICE: It says NOTHING about women lying with other women! Why not? Isn't that homosexuality? why condemn the one and not the other?

Also notice that it demands a Jew to grow a beard. Why? Because in nations around Israel, eunuchs were used as feminine ends of homosexual pairings. And eunuchs were not allowed to grow beards! Also notice it forbids castration of any male creature, human or animal? But if the condemnation is against homosexuality on a blanket level, why not just say "no being gay". Why specify only the submissive MALE end, but not the dominant male end, and no reference to the females at all?

And we go back to the word "Abomination". The Hebrew word specifically refers to sex in the ritual sense that is impure in the temples, and can be hetero or homosexual. The Holiness Code was telling male Jews how to be male. It wasn't directly forbidding homosexuality, although I do expect it probably was discouraged. But it is NOT directly forbidden.

[Rama Set]

Yes but the Oral Law forbids consensual anal sex and if it is carried out in acknowledgement of a warning and in sight of two witnesses the punishment is death. Your interpretation seems to be very selective and quite fringe.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

My interpretation is becoming far less fringe every day. it is the official position of Reform and Conservative Judaism now, where non-celibate gay rabbis may be ordained.. Even Orthodoxy, although still maintaining the traditional line, are looking at the matter. I expect they won't change the official responsa for years, if ever. But they may become more tolerant of it informally. And there are a lot of things gay persons do that aren't butt sex. I mean, I'm not gay, but still, i'm not completely stupid. In studying human sexuality, I learned a bit about this kind of thing.

Personally, I find no issues with homosexuals, although I am not one. I don't do butt sex  for religious reasons, and I don't think any person should with women or with men, but that is a matter of one's personal conscience, and not of my personal business.

Views are changing. Judaism has always been a Faith that has changed to account for its time and place. It's not about to stop doing that now.

[Rama Set]

Not there yet and Israeli mainstream is still accommodating to homophobic orthodox.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

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.

[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.

[Rushy]

I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.

It doesn't call for monotheism, it says specifically "no idolatry" which means no worship of idols [that are not the jewish god]. It basically means only atheists are reasonably following this law. A Christian, for example, worships Christ before God (because in Christianity Christ is literally God) so that would actually be idolatry under Judaism.

Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.

Then what exactly does it define as "sexual immorality"? That's an awfully vague thing to make a law about.

[Blasphemy Law]
See 1

You're still demanding people not make fun of your religion or you'll kill them. That isn't even remotely what peace is.

I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.

This doesn't make any sense. You're saying you believe evolution and then following it up with saying you don't believe evolution. The mechanics aren't different between the evolution of a species and the overall change of one species to the next. You either accept the evidence that life can evolve or you don't. Stop trying to play mental gymnastics, it hurts more than it helps.

[Rama Set]

Stop trying to play mental gymnastics.

Well that was generous.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

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.

I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.

It doesn't call for monotheism, it says specifically "no idolatry" which means no worship of idols [that are not the jewish god]. It basically means only atheists are reasonably following this law. A Christian, for example, worships Christ before God (because in Christianity Christ is literally God) so that would actually be idolatry under Judaism.

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

Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.

Then what exactly does it define as "sexual immorality"? That's an awfully vague thing to make a law about.

Sexual immorality can be defined by a lot of things. If you want a full definition, I would try a good dictionary on Jewish halacha.  Of course, the best source is the Jewish Scripture, obviously.

[Blasphemy Law]
See 1

You're still demanding people not make fun of your religion or you'll kill them. That isn't even remotely what peace is.

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

I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.

This doesn't make any sense. You're saying you believe evolution and then following it up with saying you don't believe evolution. The mechanics aren't different between the evolution of a species and the overall change of one species to the next. You either accept the evidence that life can evolve or you don't. Stop trying to play mental gymnastics, it hurts more than it helps.

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.

Stop trying to play mental gymnastics.

Well that was generous.

Also indicative of a puerile nature in yourself.

[Rushy]

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.

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 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. I explained why you're wrong before I insulted you, perhaps you should try that approach.

You either agree that DNA can mutate or you don't. Stop trying to argue that DNA only mutates the way you want it to.