- This topic has 106 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DaasYochid,
So as long as one promulgates the story of leaving Mitzrayim it is praiseworthy? (not actually recognizing it as fact)
From Tufts Journal:
And, a headline from Chemical and Engineering News:
So, it wasn’t a bad example. 🙂
DaasYochid,
What if one’s striving for answers borders upon apikorsus?
I myself have been accused of such.
About acetaminophen, that is completely false. I don’t know from where you are referencing the Tuft’s Journal, but a clear understanding of how this drug works in our body can be found in any medical/pharmacology textbook.
I just explained it.
Get with it guys, we’re almost there:
Because acetaminophen is a weak inhibitor in vitro of both cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2, the possibility exists that it inhibits a so far unidentified form of COX, perhaps COX-3. In animal studies, COX enzymes in homogenates of different tissues vary in sensitivity to the inhibitory action of acetaminophen. This may be evidence that there are >2 isoforms of the enzyme. Recently, a variant of COX-2 induced with high concentrations of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was shown to be highly sensitive to inhibition by acetaminophen. Therefore COX-3 may be a product of the same gene that encodes COX-2, but have different molecular characteristics.
So as long as one promulgates the story of leaving Mitzrayim it is praiseworthy? (not actually recognizing it as fact)
No, that’s a mistranslation.
What if one’s striving for answers borders upon apikorsus?
Same answer as earlier. That depends on the motivation.
feivel,
Anyone can plagiarized from the Oxfordjournal.
Seriously, you only prove your ignorance when trying to pass others’ work as your own.
At least what I wrote was my own understanding of how the drug works.
About acetaminophen, that is completely false.
It’s certainly not false for me, I can read twenty journals, and I still won’t understand. That doesn’t change whether or not it works, does it?
Got it through Google. The two results I opened, I posted, but that’s irrelevant to my point.
I will happily admit that I was fishing for you to explain the Tylenol thing. I will also readily admit that I have no idea what you said.
In any case, I made my point.
DaasYochid,
Please provide the proper translation.
catch yourself,
Luckily I have been educated in a field in which I am capable of giving such explanations.
DaasYochid,
All because you yourself can not understand it, does not mean the understand is out of our reach. Some things in Torah seem to be outside the understanding of everyone.
I’m sorry for my last post. I was just joking around. I thought you were joking too. I didn’t know you really knew about these things (medications)
I just found the most obtuse technical discussion on google I could find and pasted it here. I hope you didn’t think I was serious. If you did, I apologize
feivel,
Nope, not joking, all me. Education is a great thing.
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Some things in Torah seem to be outside the understanding of everyone.
Well, yes, it’s Divine wisdom, from the Infinite, being understood by mortal, finite, flesh and blood.
But what a zechus that we can get some of it.
goofus, are you as bothered by your and all of ours inability to fully understand the need for a para adumah?
Zechus for the people that are complacent in not understanding.
Huge burden for those that wish to understand.
Also, please provide the proper translation of the line that you said I messed up on the teich.
It means whoever increases the amount of relating the story of yetzias Mitzraim is praised. My point was that there’s a lot to talk about and discuss, as there is in all areas in Torah.
If you want to understand more, learn more.
Joseph,
Yes, and all the chokim as well, but that is a different story.
But more simply, how can the Torah condone give advice on “avdus?” (the word slavery has already been discredited as being to reminiscent of the antebellum South). It was never considered a chok, and therefore should be able to be comprehended by man (and woman).
Daasyochid,
And even though you do not understand how the drug works does not mean there is not empirical evidence as to how it does work.
goofus –
1: I fully expect in the not so distant future that people will look back at us and wonder how we could have enslaved our computers and I-phones, and how we could have eaten meat, etc. Morality evolves.
2: Eved Cannanni is much more similar to Serfdom (and perhaps more rights are given to Jewish owned slaves in many aspects over Serfs) than to antebellum slavery in the USA.
3: As I pointed out earlier, Eved Cannanni was usually a step up for the person themselves (as opposed to a POW (for which forced labor is allowed by convention, why don’t you ask about that!!) or actual slave).
4: In an alternative line of questioning, do you understand why some people are Kohanim and therefore have more “rights” than other people? Or do you disagree with that as well?
How is that translation any more valid than the one I gave?
I’m not sure what you mean.
Gavra,
You say morality evolves.
Do we not get our morals from the Torah? Isn’t the Torah true and perfect for all times?
About point 3, How do you know this was the case? Let’s say it was a step down?
About point 4, I believe that Kohanim have different responsibilities, not “more rights.”
DaasYochid,
You said what I wrote as my translation was wrong. Seems like you and I translate that line the same way.
You said “as long as”. I took that to mean, “on the condition that”.
Kol Hamarbeh means whoever increases, in other words, the more one relates about yetzias Mitzrayim, the better.
Perhaps you meant that as well, and I misunderstood your usage of “as long as”?
Do we not get our morals from the Torah? Isn’t the Torah true and perfect for all times?
ROTFLOL!!! This is a different question that we have gone over ad nauseum many times here in the CR. My short answer to you is no, the Torah is not “Moral”. “Morality” is a human concept.
Point 3 is Halachic. One could not simply kidnap someone and keep him/her as a slave.
Point 4: if you recognize that there are different levels of responsibility, you may (if you are honest) recognize that responsibility comes with power (on each level). Those with a lower level of responsibility for themselves have their own responsibilities towards those with greater responsibility (such as the requirement to redeem a first-born son).
goofus: The Torah says about the kohein that “You shall sanctify him… he shall remain holy to you” and instructs us to give them honor and preferential treatment.
gavra,
So if our morality is not in line with what to Torah says, how would we resolve such a conflict?
Today, if it was not illegal in the country in which one lives, you would say that it’s perfectly okay to buy and sell humans(Vayikra 25:44-45)?
So if our morality is not in line with what to Torah says, how would we resolve such a conflict?
He should change his morality to be in line with that of the Torah.
You just asked the same question in different words. I don’t see why our answers would change.
gavra,
So if our morality is not in line with what to Torah says, how would we resolve such a conflict?
Ah, the age old question.
We have a responsibility dwelling in any country to follow the law. Therefore, if there is any commandment that is not a requirement (ex. there is no mitzva to own an Eved), then one should follow the law.
Today, if it was not illegal in the country in which one lives, you would say that it’s perfectly okay to buy and sell humans(Vayikra 25:44-45)?
What do you mean by “perfectly okay”? To turn the question over, do you believe it is “perfectly okay” to slaughter a living cow and consume its flesh? And isn’t the difference only in magnitude?
gavra,
I believe that ethical behavior, simply put, is to reduce the suffering of conscious beings.
And I do, in fact, refrain from eating meat.
I believe that ethical behavior, simply put, is to reduce the suffering of conscious beings.
So you believe that. Who said your belief is correct?
I believe what the Torah says is correct. Because G-d said it is correct. If you believe something that either a) the Torah doesn’t say is correct or b) the Torah says is incorrect, then the question for you is who said your belief is correct.
Goofus, was that going to be your next question: How can the Torah condone the killing of animals for human consumption?
There is no such thing as “bordering on Apikorsos”. Anyone who uses that lashon in regard to someone asking a question is ignorant. It’s a mefureshe diuk in the rambam (hilchos teshuva). Asking questions can never be considered apikorsos. One is not a kofer until he completely denies god or the torah. Asking questions is actually being mekayim the mitzvah of emunah.
Daasyochid,
One can argue that animals that humans typically kill for food are not consciously aware beings. If someday we have empirical data to the contrary, that question would be quite appropriate.
Zev7,
Well I have, unfortunately, been accused of such.
After a while even the more innocent questions of mine were deemed unworthy to answer.
So Joseph, why do you believe G-d said it is correct?
If it is in the Torah then I know G-d said it is correct since He wrote the Torah. I might not know why G-d said it is correct, but I know that G-d said it is correct.
And that is good enough to know that it is correct, whether I know why it is correct or whether I don’t know why it is correct.
It is good to know why it is correct. But my knowledge of that (or lack thereof) doesn’t affect its correctness. And I hope to know why it is correct.
goofus, I take it that you believe it is unethical to cause a Sabbath desecrator or an idol-worshiper or someone who committed aroyos to, as a conscious being, be caused to suffer.
Not only can there be truth outside logic, everyone knows that there can be falsehood in logic too.
Exhibit A: Dogs are pets. Cats are pets. Dogs are cats.
But it’s usually less obvious.
Zev is right. It’s not that the questions themselves are not apikorsus.
However, the assumptions they’re based on might be.
Torah13Torah: No there can not be truth outside of logic. And there is no falsehood in logic. Your exhibit is not logical.
There are logical truths, and emotional truths, and spiritual truths.
Wrong. Every “truth” needs logic to confirm it. When you feel an emotion that something is true, your brain takes note of the feeling and decides logically that it’s true.
- The topic ‘Teens ostracized for asking questions’ is closed to new replies.