BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM

"Yet, comes a time, when studying these intricate details that indicate there must have been something detailing it to perfection, that one gets led to the concept of a Creator of the world."

Why?

Your examples of "random" are hardly random at all. Ice floats as the configurational packing becomes less dense as water freezes because each O atom becomes the center of a tetrahedron and each H20 molecule becomes H-bonded to its 4 nearest neighbors, forming a solid and rigid open lattice structure. (If you think I remembered that from high school, you are nuts!)

To slap the determination that it is gods devine plan on everything that you see is a neat and easy way to deal with it - but it could just as easily have been Bill Hahn's plan or Rabbi Sol's plan or the guy I saw standing on the corner drinking coffee this morning. We simply don't know, and we never will.

I admire your faith Grose, and I also admire your debating skills - but wordplay does not make for fact.

It is a god given right to question, perhaps that is in his or her plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:59 AM

bill h: However, the more you will study science, the more you will be amazed that what at first glance seems "random" actually has very controlled aspects to it that "happen" to have been set in motion just right. What am I talking about. That water, when it freezes, floats upwards, not becoming heavier. Other susbtances freeze and become heavier, sinking. Something so perfectly "random", but which provide the conditions for the fish to survive winter. The "random" placing of our earth on its axis at the right tilt is so exact that one tiny tilt more forward or back would ensure that no life could be supported on earth. Underneath all the "chaos" and "randomness" is a symmetry that is breathtaking and awe-inspiring. There is actually a whole study in physics in this. Now, I don't know why, folks find it easier when they discover things like that to say "mother nature" rather than G-d. Yet, comes a time, when studying these intricate details that indicate there must have been something detailing it to perfection, that one gets led to the concept of a Creator of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 11:04 PM

Good post Bill, but I think it takes one more step...faith. And that is where people like myself differ from Grose or Rabbi Sol or religions in general from antiquity through modern times. Grose provided no proof just the faith that "it must be so." To believe, you must have faith.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:42 PM

Rabbi Sol is quite correct---you meant me. Bill Hahn.   My opinion is that there are logical thought processes that we have. These processes can even involve things like "chaos theory". We look for logic and sometimes that logic involves random acts of unprovoked mayhem. Sometimes it involves physical phenomina as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc; that take lives. Or---you may win the lottery. Random events.   Physical proof of art work, films, cave paintings, exist by the mere discovery of them and seeing that they were formed by a human being. In recent times we get to meet the person. In earlier times we have their diaries---and in times earlier than that we have the testimony of trained archeologists. Even in Israel the unearthing of memorabilia of earlier civilizations is a cause for celebration.

I suppose what I am saying is that there is more proof of a logical and free thinking universe than one that can embrace dieties of various faiths and all say "..oh, this is be all and end all of life". I think the Greeks and Romans also believed it in their way and then there were even earlier civilizations---going back to Ur that had their beliefs. And, that is the whole thing---belief.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:02 PM

Grose,
       I think that you are referring to Bill Hahn, not Bill D.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 10:15 AM

richard bridge: I volunteered at a hospital for unwanted babies. There were babies who were born to drug-addicted mothers. The babies were surely "innocent" not having made the choice to do drugs. However, there is cause and consequence in the world. Hence, wrong things done set in to motion sometimes horrible reprecussions. That is why this concept works spiritually too.
Bill D. You still did not explain how there can be any ethics that end up universal. If you and I were to discuss whether or not that woman in Florida should have been disconnected from life support with our fellow Americans, you would get a very divided set of opinions on what is "ethical". Now as for composers, did you interview the dead ones too. However, I hear your argument, so my question is this - those cave paintings - you didn't interview their artists, we don't know their artists exist, etc. Yet, you think it was done by folks. Why? Because it makes logical sense. Even more. If you had a secret admirer who left things at your door and did things for you, paid your tab at the bar - but remained invisible (because that is the nature of a "secret" admirer) would you logically assume no one was behind it. No. Because through the actions you would have figured out there was someone behind it. Same thing with the world -through G-d's actions, we can understand the concept of G-d. Now what I think everyone has a problem with is that everyone has a cartoon concept of G-d (is he a man, or a woman...etc). Infinite means beyond our comprehension, with no bodily attributes. The limit of our understanding of G-d is limited to actions and rules of the world and thereby understanding the nature of the "giver" by what is "given"

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 11:39 PM

Thank You Susan & Dianavan for your good wishes.

                                           SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:27 PM

I hope your Shabbat was peaceful and full of warmth and light, Rabbi Sol, and Kesiva Vachasima Tova!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:03 PM

The holiday has just ended and I am back on line. New information has come out about this matter. In addition to the treifa chickens, investigators have also discovered non-kosher calf carcases hanging in Finkel's freezer. According to Jewish law only the forequarters of the animal are allowed to be used as kosher. The hindquarters contain certain fats that are prohibited and are never used. Accordingly we only use the meat up to the 12th rib. The calves in Finkel's freezer had 13 ribs which was a dead giveaway that they were not kosher. Also, the code on the USDA stamp indicated the the origin of the meat was Puerto Rico. There are no kosher meat slaughterhouses or processing facilities in Puerto Rico. Some of the meat was traced to non-kosher merchants at Manhattan's Washington Street market. According to investigators Finkel ordered meat from several of them under different trade names. However when shown Finkel's picture all of them identified him as the purchaser. Yet to be determined is the location at which Finkel processed the meat and re-labled it as kosher. It was not done in his butcher shop but somewhere off premises.
                                                 SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:28 PM

Kesiva Vachasima Tova

I totally enjoyed the apples and honey on my break today.

The best for you and yours in the New Year, Rabbi Sol.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM

I would like to than R'Shmiel for his long and thoughtful post above.

I still do not see a reasonable (rather than simply faith-based) basis for saying that the innocent may rightly be punished for the sins of the guilty, or that those who do not have the necessary "mens rea" may be punished or obliged to atone as if guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:50 PM

If any of you are looking for me to comment on contents relative to this thread or any other, please be advised that I will be absent from this forum beginning at 5 PM tonight until 8 PM on Sunday evening in observance of Rosh Hashana holiday (the Jewish New Year). In that spirit I want to with all my fellow mudcatters a "Kesiva Vachasima Tova", a Healthy, Happy, & Prosperous, New Year and a year that will bring peace to all mankind on this planet.

                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:41 PM

Dianavan,
          God is allowed to see the woman's uncovered hair because he is not subject to "temptations of the flesh". It is men other than the woman's husband who are not allowed to see it lest they be tempted to commit adultery which is a cardinal sin. A wig, no matter how well designed, can never be as attractive as a woman's natural hair. Judaism is a religion that is all about community and yes, peer pressure is a very important part of that community. It makes it more difficult for the faithful to stray from the fold. That is why it was so important for us to fast AS A COMMUNITY for the unfortunate chicken crisis.

                                          SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM

I have to agree with Bill Hahn when he says, "thanks to this thread--the more I feel that devout religiousity is the easy way out and skepticism and/or self formed ethics the harder way."

Here's a good example, cited by Rabbi Sol.

The woman has to cover her hair (as a sign of humble obedience to God's law, I suppose) but she wears a wig (which is presumably O.K. because its not her own hair). Huh? What makes a wig more exceptable to God than the head of hair he gave you?

Not only that, she's not worried about what God will think of her uncovered head but what the neighbors will think!

Like all organized religion, these rules (whether from the Rabbis, or the Pope or the Mullahs) are used to control people through peer pressure. The example of the story shows very clearly that it is more important to maintain her image in the community than to please God.

But then God rewards her by saving her husband from the twin towers!

Gimme a break!

Are religious people allowed to think?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:11 PM

Barney?...the dinosaur?..I got stoned and I missed it...

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM

BillD--you've got to learn that you can't have a reasonable discussion with folks like Grose--he quoted Barney in a discussion about God--doesn't that tell you something about where he's coming from? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:30 PM

(I have read up to here...just not sure I have more to say that would be helpful, as there are just some real differences in how various of us understand some of the words & concepts being used. We can't debate if we are not talking the same language)

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:18 PM

Grose: I guess with all the back and forth above you are all agreeing to disagree. I just w ant to address your comment about my post above--Ethical Culture Camp. The reason for capital letters is because that is the name of the Society. As to its ethics let me give an example---and they did not need god to have them practice it---an ethical self formed human nature was all it took. Time--1940s and here is a place that makes sure that the student/camper body is integrated in all ways---ethnic, economic, religious.   Free choice for activities and rotation of bunk mates on a weekly basis for diversity. Pretty advanced and educational to me. Non prosyletizing and non judgmental---seems like that student body grew more ethicaly than the narrow confines of the devout religious orders.

As to ethics--right you are different ethics for different folks and cultures. I think, though, we can agree that some practices are anathema to societies that do not practice them---or are more enlightened, if you will. The example you give above (Funeral Pyres and widows) is a case in point---slaughter in Africa, Holocaust in Europe, etc;

You mention above that, in answer to another writer, that you feel that non-belief ( I paraphrase) divides and the writer felt that religion divides. My feeling is that neither comment is totally correct---divisiveness is only possible when any of these parties are dogmatic and insist their way is the way. Ethically we should just believe in doing the right thing---as we see it.

I sure did like another comment about St Pauls during the Blitz (I was there at the time---very young). That would have been a miracle---leave London intact and have the cathedral attract all the bombs.

Bill D is right about the music--that surely was a bad analogy.   I have been fortunate to be able to interview some of the musicians/composers--so I know they exist. God still has not accepted my invitation for an interview. Not sure, therefore, he is there.

On a serious note; I said it above--if you have such unwaivering faith it is surely a comfort in times of stress---and a crutch. A way to say--"not my doing". The more I think of it--thanks to this thread--the more I feel that devout religiousity is the easy way out and skepticism and/or self formed ethics the harder way.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM

ah well, and now YOU know what I know or do not know, or so you claim. That can't be true. You believe that I don't know there is a G-d, ah, my friend, but I do. As once said, "how do we know so & so has a brain, I haven't seen it and seen no evidence that it exists." How do your prove if I know or don't know and what does it mean to know. Hey, we're heading into some deep philosophical waters here. As for the country being controlled by religious folks, that is a complete set of hogwash, evidence being that creationism is not taught and is illegal to be taught here in this open country.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM

Since when is agnosticism and atheism embraced? Seems to me those of us who are openly catch a lot of flak because of it, never mind that we're having it stuffed down our throats by a government that claims to know better but continues to embarrass us with its mindless and harmful actions overseas?

Or were you referring to those who acknowledge their disbelief and those who proclaim to believe but fudge the details (such as said government)? In which case I know a lot of agnostics and atheists who act in a decidedly more "Christian" manner than a lot of horn-tooting Christians.

And, by the way, you don't know. You believe, but you don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:54 PM

" I can turn the tables on you and claim your disbelief in G-d is pushing us apart."

I never said I don't believe in god. Please do not put words in my mouth. Questioning is not the same as not believing.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:33 PM

G-d, if we are all talking about infinite beginning and instigator of world, would have to be one and same, since infinite cannot have more than one. Diviseness being the fault of religion. I can turn the tables on you and claim your disbelief in G-d is pushing us apart. Who is to say what being "together" means? Does it mean that I should throw out my proofs and join you in that "i don't know the truth" lala land? Will that make the world a happier place? I doubt it. Here in the time and place where agnostic thought and atheism is embraced, we are a discontented, dependent on anti-depressants nations, aptly monikered by one author "Prozac nation". Why? Could it be discontent goes deeper than religion, that plenty of wars and arguments can be had without G-d being the topic? I think so, actually, for history has shown that to be true. "Imagine all people living..." those were song lyrics, just as grounded in reality as the "if all the raindrops were lemondrops" one.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:09 PM

"which is when you say live a life of ethics, who is the judge of ethics."

And when someone says that "god" is their judge, whose god would that happen to be?

"why should my feelings be hurt if you choose to live a life of "not knowing"? That has reprecussions for you, not me. "

It is statements like that that prove to me how religion tends to divide people instead of bringing them together. That brings things back to my original point.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:05 PM

Well grose, I'm truly glad your feelings aren't hurt and I'll keep a sharp eye out for those repercussions.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

spaw - where did happiness come into the equation? happy or unhappy is a whole 'nother can of worms. But, wait up, you didn't explain one thing, which is when you say live a life of ethics, who is the judge of ethics. I suppose we don't need to "know" that either is we are truly agnostic for we choose how we live and we don't need to know why and how to live. You can take that route - that is the beauty of free choice. And hurt feelings - why should my feelings be hurt if you choose to live a life of "not knowing"? That has reprecussions for you, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:51 PM

Actually Bill I was thinking the same of you, I mean, you'd been really covering it.(;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:49 PM

yep, Spaw....that about covers it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:46 PM

At the beginning of this thread I was where we are now and although I meant nothing by it, questioning one's god got me in a bit of trouble(:<))

There is a gulf of difference between the athesit and the agnostic as large as the one between theist and agnostic. Proof is key here. An agnostic is not a fence straddler or hedging bets about gods. As opposed to the example above of coming to the end of a chain and saying, "It must be God," an agnostic says, "I don't know." Eventually, one learns the real trick to being agnostic.......Gordon Liddy used to hold a candle flame to his hand until the flesh burned to prove his machismo. When asked what the trick was, he replied, "The trick is not minding." In all the questions to the reasons for human creation, existence, and the "meaning of it all," I have to answer "I don't know and I don't mind the not knowing." But that doesn't mean I don't like the exploration!

There are other ways to live a good life and a moral life, ie., ethics as religion. Although at times these discussions are fun they aren't critical or important to how I live. Sometimes they'er a pain in the ass, creating unnecessary hurt or hard feelings. Your beliefs are your own and I hope you are feeling good and happy with your life. I have seen some people ranging across the entire spectrum of belief who are less than happy and indeed are intent upon being unhappy and bringing others into their fold. Perhaps being unhappy is what makes them happy..........

I don't know.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:45 PM

grose..I cannot argue with "take mathematics to its logical end and you will get to G-d. "....it is just a statement of how you react to things. I STARTED with religion, and the more I studied, the more religious answers didn't satisfy. I simply do NOT see that infinite=God....it means infinity ∞

but I CAN argue with ""either the story of Adam and Eve is true OR all the other couples didn't have children that survived."

there are simply other possibilities...it is not either-or. The front page of the paper today had a story of finding an almost complete skeleton on a child that lived 3.3 million years ago...it is still unclear exactly where that fits on out family tree, but it shows that the story of Adam & Eve, as it is presented in the Bible, does not explain all the facts we have.

Whoever wrote the words that we read about Adam & Eve did the best they could with what THEY knew, but in the last 200 or so years, we have found more stuff to investigate...why cling to the details of stories based on incomplete data?

Subject: RE: To Rabbi Sol
From: GUEST,Jrotblat
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:45 PM

Roabbi Sol, where did you learn tht you can't get "hanaah" from trief dishes. That only applies to milk and meat. Neveilah can be sold, its a clear posuk in chumash ("lacalev tashlichu")

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:07 PM

bill d. - your philosophy professor sure did a great job of making you objective ;) giving you his rules of discussion ;). But sticking to that. You say mathematics. fine take mathematics to its logical end and you will get to G-d. Say science and take it to the furthest end of where it cannot be explained anymore (like where did the particles that banged come from) and you will have to get to infinity - infinite being G-d. Etc. Any true quest to the complete end of the discipline will actually lead to G-d. I have friends from all these education backgrounds who took the long route "home" by starting out atheists, exploring their own expertise until its very starting point and getting to G-d. Its like finding a long rope and begin tugging it and walking along, until you find its frayed end. However, most folks would rather wrap themselves round and round in that rope and tangle themselves, instead of explore it to its source. Yah, 1+1=2, what makes it so...etc. Its like that scientific study that traced all origins of man and found that we all come from one couple. shocking, ain't it? What fascinated me about that science story is the way "intellectual" people who did not want to come to religion ended up saying, "either the story of Adam and Eve is true OR all the other couples didn't have children that survived." ah, yes, logic warped to fit our lifestyles.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:06 PM

"... does that mean the more complex a piece of music, the less likely it had a composer? etc. etc. etc."

of course not! But the issues are not comparable. We KNOW (as well as we can know anything) that music HAS composers. We SEE composers...we have pictures of them...we interview them...etc...

Your example breaks one of the rules (called 'informal fallacies')..You have equated two things that do not really share the same attributes....a piece of music and the universe.

It is...literally...impossible to stand outside the universe and examine its creation. We can sit in a room and watch a composer scribble and play notes.

That's why I say that is is just as easy for me to NOT imagine an 'author' of the universe as it is for you to imagine one.

Basically, I am staying neutral...I simply do not know. I wasn't there...no one was. I am not making a claim.....I am saying I do not accept YOURS! It is interesting to STUDY the universe and see what we can find out, and I am happy with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:03 PM

Once again Grose, you are making assumptions.   I am not calling you "illogical", nor do I say you have to prove things. You have reached an answer that you are comfortable with and one that brings you solace. I admire that.

However, maybe I am making assumptions now, but based on your responses you seem to be having a problem with people who are still questioning or have reached a conclusion that you disagree with.

An easy route? Is it easy to draw that conclusion? I could easily say the obverse - accepting religion and a set of rules that define your choices and path would make life much simpler to accept and understand.   In my view, a religous lifestyle only become "hard" if the individual is questioning their own acceptance. For instance, if you accept god and his or her rules, you keep a kosher table. Why is that hard? If you are called to prayer, is that an imposition? I think not, because if you truly accept then the path should be clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:56 AM

ron - no, i don't start with a conclusion - many folks come to faith without first having the conclusion you think they try to fit in. However, it is weird how folks with faith are the ones with the onus of proving things. We're the "illogical" ones, etc. However, as you say, you don't have to prove anything. you just have to live how you please. ah, what an easy route. yet, you are starting with a conclusion and voiding all questions that might change that conclusion. Question, ron, question -search, and learn - for those who are interested in "truth" usually find it at the end of their quest. Those who aren't usually stick to their foregone conclusion of "religion is faith only and superstitious at that."

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:54 AM

*sigh*..ah, Susan...yes, the 'rules' refer to certain well-defined constructs...not exactly of 'debate', as that usually refers to a contest where 'winning' is decided by how clever you are....like politics.

I am referring to rules defining the very structure of arguments and logic.....and these are NOT subjective.

It may be that "Not everyone has that as their frame of reference,", but that doesn't exclude them from the implications. (The law of gravity applied before Newton described it, and whether we understand it or not!) It is like mathematics...you can't choose to have 2+2=5, even if you are 3 years old and haven't learned it yet.

Thus, the rules of construction a 'valid' argument are NOT subjective, even if you can't understand the 'technical' reasons why.

It is easier if I give silly examples........My philosophy professor used to say "I can claim that elves built Fiske Hall, but if I did, you'd lokk at me funny...and if I insisted, you'd ask for more than my word on it.....and if I wrote a long book on the history of the elves and got a bunch of people to agree with me, you might still want to know where I GOT my original information, and why you should agree and accept."

...and if I claimed that the elves didn't like people banging the doors, and they hide and trip door bangers, and that's why Joe fell down the steps and broke his leg after he banged the doors, you would probably worry seriously about me.

And if I had a LOT of stories like that, YOU would probably use the very rules I refer to, (maybe in non-technical terms) to try to explain to me that I 'might' be wrong, and I should be careful where I told this story.
The rules are just 'sense' stated in a very formal way....and refining the rules of sense has gone on almost as long as the development of the stories.....it's just that the rules are dull and boring and don't tell us anything about life, while the stories capture our concerns about life.

Even skeptics such as I see the 'importance' of the stories to the development of our culture, and can easily see the values and lessons involved in them....but this is a long way from taking them literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:36 AM

yes, bill, it is open for discussion, hence this continuing thread. however, you open yourself to more questions from me...you said you tried very hard not to have preconceived notions. yes, we get our religion from "old" books, but all of us are exposed to the "newfangled" ideas too. Anyone who goes through the school system in America or interacts with the greater public is innundated with info - therefore, my views just might, and you might have to agree, be a bit more open-minded than yours, for I've studied both. Most folks who debunk religion and the "old" "unproven" books rely on the scientists to bolster their belief or disbeliefs, and completely never delve into the other side to get an informed and balanced view. Hence, though many claim no preconceived notions, just having lived in our society, being educated in the modern methods and being "out there in the world" already is giving you preconceived notions - not to mention the fact that it is infinitely more comfortable to not live by the rules of religion so there is a bend, a sorta urge, to find reason not to believe.
complexity means less of likely of a Creator? That is quite hard to reason with logic - does that mean the more complex a piece of music, the less likely it had a composer? etc. etc. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:34 AM

"There is a tangible, beautiful, amazingly intricate world - and you ask me how I prove there is a Creator of it? C'mon, you have to do better than that to cop out of acknowledging that just as a song had a composer, this beautiful world has a Creator. "

Now Grose, you will have to do better than that yourself! All that you have said simply boils down to "because I said so". You assign an answer to a question that cannot yet be answered simply because you need some sort of closure.    "It is a beautiful world - must be gods doing."   Philosophically that answer works, but that does not make it true.    As Bill D pointed out, you started with a conclusion and you are trying to justify your conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:24 AM

and...regarding the last few posts....You say that you can't imagine things being like they are WITHOUT an intelligent designer?....when *I* look at this huge, complex, seemingly infinite universe, I simply cannot imagine it BEING created and managed by any intelligence!

You see how easy it is to have another viewpoint? You started with a belief that led you to your conclusion....I tried VERY hard NOT to have any pre-conceptions before I made my decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM

Bill, you're referring to the accepted rules of debate, correct? Not everyone has that as their frame of reference, you know; nor does everyone think of a Mudcat thread as a place for debate in that classical sense. People discuss sometimes for other reasons.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:22 AM

Bumper sticker:

"Militant agnostic--I don't know and you don't, either."

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM

grose, Sol, and others...no one is telling you that you can't believe anything you wish! But the 'proof' routine doesn't go like that...

First, almost NO one here has made a definitive claim that there is no supreme being or creator...Yet some of you have made the claim that there is!. The rules say (yes, there ARE rules!) that the burden of proof lies with the assertor. In matters of this sort, neither side can possibly provide true "proof" in the strict sense; we can only give our subjective reasons.
   I and others have indicated why we are skeptical...why we have real doubts, about religious assertions. You and others simply assert, or make statements that imply assertions. When you offer stories about King Solomon, you have already made some assumption that the stories are TRUE! *I* do not accept that stories of this nature are absolutely true...or that if they are true stories, that they were reported accurately...or even if they were, that they show anything more than coincidence.
   Look at the whole series of things you must accept in order to believe that some 'power' capriciously saves specific individuals or condemns others!

"She was supposed to be on the faulty step, not him"....The reality is, NO ONE was "supposed" to be on a faulty step....it was a flaw in the step, and 'maybe' in poor maintenance, not some arcane way a god, G-d, or evil spirit had of picking one woman out of a crowd to die that day!

   grose...you say a lot of valuable things in your 1st paragraph about subjectivity and how ethics & values have changed over the years, but you don't extract from that the most important conclusions...that it IS mostly subjective; that people simply LIKE clear answers, and they prefer answers that make them feel good, or safe, or that favor themselves over 'others'. And they usually GET those answers from 'interesting' sources...like 'holy' books and stories that are very old and detailed and that are fed to them as children.....(children that are orphaned and adopted learn to 'believe' stories that may be very different than what they would have learned from their natural parents!)

so....as I say, everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, for whatever reasons make them comfortable, but when they are offered openly in a forum such as this, they WILL be examined and picked at by some of us who have a greater need for reason & consistency, rather than absolute answers and subjective guesses based on unprovable premises.

When this thread was new, I tried to say supportive things about the sad and upsetting problem of the non-kosher meats, as that was a terrible thing for one member of a group to do to others within his religious group & belief system!........Now, as the thread progressed, we have moved to statements being made that imply that some people of various groups were 'allowed' to die in a tragedy, while certain others were 'chosen' to live....and THAT sort of statement is fair game for public discussion and criticism!

It is well to examine closely the broad implications of one's beliefs, and to choose carefully where they are shared.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM

ron -
if i hear a tune you played, what makes me think someone composed it and played it. Cuz it is quite obvious that I don't have to prove there was a composer and a player. Two notes did not bump into each other and create a chord. There are many jangling sounds in the world - there are crashes and clatters -why don't all those sounds come together in the spirit of evolution and play a harmony that sounds like music (I know alternative music tries to imitate some of the clangs, clashes and sounds and make it into music - but people have to tweak those sounds into a semblance of harmony). There is a tangible, beautiful, amazingly intricate world - and you ask me how I prove there is a Creator of it? C'mon, you have to do better than that to cop out of acknowledging that just as a song had a composer, this beautiful world has a Creator.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:28 AM

"prove to me that there is no G-d."

I readily admit that I cannot prove there is no god.


"I offered proof that there is "

I'm afraid you really have not. You gave stories but not one iota of proof. As you point out, your stories require a leap of faith in order to accept it as truth. Taking a leap of faith does not make it so. For many of us, truth requires more.

As a reporter, you always try to confirm facts. One persons story is not necessarily the truth. Often you will find several stories.   We may never actually know the "real" truth but we can always search and question.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grosen
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:08 AM

ron - prove to me that there is no G-d. I offered proof that there is - you still have not given one iota of proof to say the opposite, just that you can't take that leap of faith. However, it is a huger leap of faith to believe an intricate world created itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:06 AM

I'm sorry Grose, but your stories force us to make an assumption that there is a god whose hand is playing all the cards.   While that could very well be the truth, there is still very little to prove it to those who are still asking questions.   While it is comforting to have faith and put your trust in a god, the stories that you and Rabbi Sol make assumptions and could be construed as Monday morning quarterbacking. To assume that everything happens because of providence requires a leap of faith - not reason or truth.

Again, I admire those who fully accept that there is a god and guide their lives by a set of rules. I am not questioning anyones beliefs or lifestyle. I also don't fault anyone who questions the existence of a higher being or is looking for answers. The bottom line is - no one knows for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 09:28 AM

Bill - the problem with your suggestion is manifold. The most obvious: Who is to arbitrate and decide what is ethical and cultural. Even in my lifespan (and yah, i'm not a youngster, but i ain't an old 'un yet either) ethics and culture have changed vastly. From culture to culture values are different. Therefore, you might say that your ethical camp had the right ethics, but Hitler believed he had the best one. The example used often when discussing this is if you were a British officer in India way back when and watched a widow get burned on the funeral pyre of her dead husband, would it be right to step in and stop it or not? Ethically there, at that time, it was considered unethical not to burn her. Is there one universal truth? Who decides it - your ethical camp? That woman who was disconnected from life support would be our generation's example - everyone's opinion on whether or not it was ethical was different. Therefore, ethics are extremely subjective. Life is too much of a serious matter to try to meander our way figuring out what the objective ethical rights are - when we can just seek out the answers that were given to us. I'd rather go by G-d given rules, than ones made up in chatrooms and web threads.
As for those out there having trouble with "G-d didn't save everyone" with miracles, there is a famous story of King Solomon. He had a dream that two of his employees would die. He sent them away, hoping they would escape their fate - yet they died where he sent them. The next night he had a dream and was told that they were supposed to die in exactly that spot, and he had facilitated their death by sending them there. In other words, yah, we hate death with a passion. Guess what, folks, hate to break it to you - "we are all of us, in the midst of our lives, dying." Death is part of the world. Where we die, how we die...all that is part of Providence, not just those who were spared. Therefore, if you look closely, you will see how exactly coordinated life is, even when folks die. The man who stepped aside and let a lady on an escalator before him watched her fall and die. She was supposed to be on the faulty step, not him. Sometimes, when it comes to miracles that relate to folk's lives being saved, they got an additional extension of their time, postpone the inevitable just a bit more to accomplish a bit more in this world.    In fact, many sages advocate "linkeages" to be able to merit more life extensions. What does that mean? Every person who dies leaves a void in many lives. Therefore, when a person is decreed to die, all the emotions and feelings of those around him/her will be taken into account before his death to see if it will cause too much pain and void in the world at that point. There was a rabbi on the lower east side of manhattan who prescribed to this - to the extent that he would go every week to some lonely widow and scrub her floor on hands and knees saying "who needs who - maybe the fact that she needs me is keeping me alive." He knew whereof he spoke, because when she died, he followed.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:23 AM

That "miracle" reminds me of the bombing of London in World War II. Although bombs fell all round St. Paul's, the church itself was almost completely unscathed. Some saw this as a miracle. Others suggested that a far more impressive, and useful, miracle would have been to let ALL the bombs fall on St. Paul's, and leave unscathed the thousands of homes and people destroyed by the Blitz.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,LJ
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:30 AM

Belief cannot be proven. There's always wiggle room or a way out. If a lightning bolt hit a non-believer as they did something bad and was followed by a heavenly voice of chastisement, he can explained it away as UFO-caused, mother-in-law caused etc.

I once pointed out to an atheist that statisticians have estimated the likelihood of our enormously complex world's existence as 1 chance in 10 billion(?)

His response was "yeah but there's still a chance"

It is BECAUSE G-d's existence cannot be proven that believers will receive reward.

When everyone finally becomes aware of HIS existence, its too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:22 PM

.....too bad divine providence didn't have a solution for 2900 other poor souls, some of whom might have been nice, worthy believers..of various faiths..... I'm sorry Sol, but that kind of rationalization after the fact to.....to.....I can't think of the words. I just think that believing something like that is very close to an insult to those who had no 'phone calls of salvation'...some of whom died while talking on the phone to loved ones.

I'm glad the man was spared....I'm sorry G-d didn't tell him to warn others as he left.......

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM

Some events that took place on 9/11 made believers out of people. One orthodox Jewish man who lived in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn went to work early that morning. His office wast in the World Trade Center on the 95th floor. His wife went out into the back yard to do some chores and accidentaly locked herself out of the house. She called her husband on her cell phone and asked him to come home. He replied that if she went around to the front of the house, he had a key concealed under a flower pot. However, she was not wearing her sheitel (wig) and did not have a kerchief with her. She refused to go around to the front of the house because she was afraid that someone would see her with her hair uncovered (a no no for a married Orthodox woman). She absolutely insisted that her husband close his office and come home immediately to rescue her from her predicament. He reluctantly complied and 20 minutes after he left his office the first plane hit the WTC right near his office. He would have been killed if not for the merit of his wife observing the Jewish laws of modesty. This was definitely the work of divine providence and not a mere coincidence.
                                                 SOL ZELLER