Infant and child mutilation in abrahamic systems
- Thread starter Pookarian
- Start date
Pook,
For Jews, religiously, no. I think you're being given the historical answer, which may very well be true. In Judaism, it's traditionally understood as a sign of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.
In our times some people have suggested that it be regarded more as a chok, which is a category of mitzvah that doesn't really have a meaning we can readily understand, although experiencing them can be powerful. To help explain this, the two other categories are mitzvahs related to ethics and mitzvahs that recall a certain event. For example, Shabbos recalls both the Exodus from Egypt and God's resting/ceasing from creating on the 7th day of the Creation Myth. Dwelling in the sukkah on Sukkot recalls how our ancestors dwelled in temporary dwellings in the dessert.
Dauer
For Jews, religiously, no. I think you're being given the historical answer, which may very well be true. In Judaism, it's traditionally understood as a sign of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.
In our times some people have suggested that it be regarded more as a chok, which is a category of mitzvah that doesn't really have a meaning we can readily understand, although experiencing them can be powerful. To help explain this, the two other categories are mitzvahs related to ethics and mitzvahs that recall a certain event. For example, Shabbos recalls both the Exodus from Egypt and God's resting/ceasing from creating on the 7th day of the Creation Myth. Dwelling in the sukkah on Sukkot recalls how our ancestors dwelled in temporary dwellings in the dessert.
Dauer
Pookarian said:
From a survival in a particular environment perspective, yes. Though laws were given from a faith/religous perspective, does not mean there were not practicle reasons for adhering to the same as well (following the law reaped certain benefits and health enhancing results). Take the ritual washing before certain actions or events. We know now the importance of personal hygene. More importantly, we know why besides, it being a law to do so.
I don't think we were given instructions out of arbatrariness. We understand today the practical benefits of carrying out those instructions.
v/r
Q
Karimarie
Live without fear
Quahom1 said:
Not boiling a kid in its mother's milk (beyond the action being inhumane) is pretty arbitary. I can't find any practical or rational reason for it at all.
I'm not advocating doing it per se, just acknowledging that there are commandments that, near as anyone can tell, are just God saying do this or don't do this and there is no practical application of them.
Karimarie said:
milk, boiled poisons the drinker. What makes you think milk boiled calf wouldn't do the same? Never mind the heineousness of killing a calf with the own mother's milk, which was to nurture it?
Oh, I wouldn't test the theory, unless you wish to suffer a sour stomach for the rest of the night...
v/r
Q
edit: that is you must boil it for as long as it took to 'cook' a calf (about 4 hours). Of course if one is lactose intollarant...that just might be more than an upset stomach...
As an aside, boiling a calf in milk, brought the flesh to just this side of putrice (tenderized or aged), and was considered "soft meat" and a delicacy. Using a calf's own mother's milk did other things (consider dna), that undermined the health of one eating the flesh...sort of like eating food off of lead plates...
Karimarie
Live without fear
Quahom1 said:
Did not know this... Point taken.
dauer said:
Easy enough. Wool, traps heat, regardless of wet or dry. Linen wicks heat away, and is for summer use only. To mix the two, is a contradition in terms. Wool and Linen is an oxymoron. Sort of like wearing cotton underwear, and a wool uniform, then wondering why one has jock itch...
I'm not joking.
v/r
Q
Quahom1 said:Easy enough. Wool, traps heat, regardless of wet or dry. Linen wicks heat away, and is for summer use only. To mix the two, is a contradition in terms. Wool and Linen is an oxymoron. Sort of like wearing cotton underwear, and a wool uniform, then wondering why one has jock itch...
I'm not joking.
v/r
Q
Might I add that Linen and Wool get washed at different temperatures... so says my washer-dryer
.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Are you saying that it all comes out in the wash?Quahom1 said:it's the shrink rate thing...
lunamoth
Episcopalian
OK, experiencing major deja vu now. What a strange day.
lunamoth said:
Ever try putting on a sweater from Ireland made of wool, after it accidently gets put in with the linen?
It may have started with XL made in Ireland...but ends up with XSM made in Ireland, while the "linens" are relatively still the same size...
v/r
Q
flowperson
Oannes
Not to disrupt the fabric discussions, but there is a lot of anthropological evidence that circumcision has been practiced among tribes in West Africa for at least as long as it has been among the desert peoples. Any thoughts?
flow....
flow....
flowperson said:Not to disrupt the fabric discussions, but there is a lot of anthropological evidence that circumcision has been practiced among tribes in West Africa for at least as long as it has been among the desert peoples. Any thoughts?
flow....
At the risk of repeating...seems they understood the hygene benefits, in a hot environment...
v/r
Q
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
(karimarie,
i guess the thing i thought might make a good discussion would be about egalitarianism in judaism in general, in particular as it relates to rabbanut, public prayer and the like. i kind of think it's something everyone gets their knickers in a twist about which i feel strongly is unnecessary. if it is OK to have "women's groups" and the like, then it ought to be OK to have an all-male minyan. that sort of thing. i understand you're considering converting, so i'd like you to have accurate information about the bits of judaism you're not comfortable with so you can make an informed choice. i agree with so-called "orthodoxy" about a lot of stuff and i disagree with it about a hell of a lot of stuff too. i haven't had a good chat about it for a while.)
now, as to this whole discussion about sand-in-the-foreskin, lactose intolerance and fabric shrinkage. to speculate about anthropological reason for all of these laws or customs is rather missing the point, or indeed rather pointing out exactly what the problem is, namely: if we do something because it's hygienic, or it's dietarily beneficial, or it avoids making our clothes baggy, that may be very interesting, but a commandment it isn't. that's the point. if something happened for historical or cultural reasons, it's not a religious obligation. that is the difference between the reasons i do things and the reasons you're all talking about, which brings me back to the main point of the discussion, which is this: save for a minority of medical cases, only on direct instruction from G!D would "i cut a bit off my baby", even such a relatively unimportant and superfluous bit.
the difference is this - if we do these things for medical, hygienic, dietary, or whatever reasons and those reasons no longer obtain (in other words, i don't live in the desert, so the chances of my getting sand under my hood is minimal) then there is no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't ditch the "custom". and, with that way of thinking, judaism would no longer exist, instead of being the sole surviving culture of antiquity.
b'shalom
bananabrain
i guess the thing i thought might make a good discussion would be about egalitarianism in judaism in general, in particular as it relates to rabbanut, public prayer and the like. i kind of think it's something everyone gets their knickers in a twist about which i feel strongly is unnecessary. if it is OK to have "women's groups" and the like, then it ought to be OK to have an all-male minyan. that sort of thing. i understand you're considering converting, so i'd like you to have accurate information about the bits of judaism you're not comfortable with so you can make an informed choice. i agree with so-called "orthodoxy" about a lot of stuff and i disagree with it about a hell of a lot of stuff too. i haven't had a good chat about it for a while.)
now, as to this whole discussion about sand-in-the-foreskin, lactose intolerance and fabric shrinkage. to speculate about anthropological reason for all of these laws or customs is rather missing the point, or indeed rather pointing out exactly what the problem is, namely: if we do something because it's hygienic, or it's dietarily beneficial, or it avoids making our clothes baggy, that may be very interesting, but a commandment it isn't. that's the point. if something happened for historical or cultural reasons, it's not a religious obligation. that is the difference between the reasons i do things and the reasons you're all talking about, which brings me back to the main point of the discussion, which is this: save for a minority of medical cases, only on direct instruction from G!D would "i cut a bit off my baby", even such a relatively unimportant and superfluous bit.
the difference is this - if we do these things for medical, hygienic, dietary, or whatever reasons and those reasons no longer obtain (in other words, i don't live in the desert, so the chances of my getting sand under my hood is minimal) then there is no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't ditch the "custom". and, with that way of thinking, judaism would no longer exist, instead of being the sole surviving culture of antiquity.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Karimarie
Live without fear
bananabrain said:
Ah... Perhpaps I'll start up a thread later today.
bananabrain said:
There's nothing wrong with any individual minyan being all-male... I do think that the Mishnaic law that women should not be counted for a minyan is absurd though. If you have ten Jewish adults, you have ten Jewish adults.
bananabrain said:
I am of the belief that I have accurate information. I know what the reasons for the non-egalitarian practices are (the woman being spiritually perfect and not needing to study, fears of men becoming sexually aroused by women, etc.), but I do not think they can justifiably be used as limiting factors for women. If a woman wants to pursue study and s'micha, she should be able to.
bananabrain said:
Right. Yes, there may be anthropological reasons for some of the laws. Yes, they may be good for people to follow. We can speculate that if God told someone to do something, it's probably to one's benefit to do it. But one should not follow God's commands because it's good for him or her. Rather, he or she should follow God's commands because they're God's commands.
If absolute power, creator, sovereign of the universe, etc. dude tells you do do something, you do it. Period.
flowperson
Oannes
BB;
I agree with your slant on this. The cleanliness reason was pretty much a modern medical rationalization for the custom. Again, why would this pop up in West African and Middle Eastern tribes only in ancient times? It was plenty hot in other regions of the tropics in Africa, and there was trade across the continent going way back. If the custom existed and spread simply because of "health" reason, why didn't it become a predominant custom elsewhere over time ? The anthropological evidence is that it never did. It only was consistently a custom among the Hebrews and certain West African tribes. Hmmmm....?
flow....
I agree with your slant on this. The cleanliness reason was pretty much a modern medical rationalization for the custom. Again, why would this pop up in West African and Middle Eastern tribes only in ancient times? It was plenty hot in other regions of the tropics in Africa, and there was trade across the continent going way back. If the custom existed and spread simply because of "health" reason, why didn't it become a predominant custom elsewhere over time ? The anthropological evidence is that it never did. It only was consistently a custom among the Hebrews and certain West African tribes. Hmmmm....?
flow....
flowperson said:BB;
I agree with your slant on this. The cleanliness reason was pretty much a modern medical rationalization for the custom. Again, why would this pop up in West African and Middle Eastern tribes only in ancient times? It was plenty hot in other regions of the tropics in Africa, and there was trade across the continent going way back. If the custom existed and spread simply because of "health" reason, why didn't it become a predominant custom elsewhere over time ? The anthropological evidence is that it never did. It only was consistently a custom among the Hebrews and certain West African tribes. Hmmmm....?
flow....
That is not what I said. I said that the commandmants were to be followed because God said so. That was it. He did not explain Himself, nor did He have to. However, we are now understanding some of the reasons why God wanted us to live in certain ways. It's an "a hah, could have had a V-8" revelation. Besides obedience to His word because it was His word, there were actual benefits for adhering to the laws of God.
v/r
Q