JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: RationalThought110 on July 15, 2007, 09:03:10 AM
-
ADMINS AND MODERATORS: This is a topic that needs to be refreshed and added each week as per the Ask JTF program. If you don't see it here, please feel free to add it and remove last week's from being a sticky. -jeffguy
There could be a thread each week that discusses Chaim's responses to the questions.
As usual, there are some interesting questions.
Chaimfan's question was asked a couple of weeks ago. More recently, it was almost time for a soldier whose vacation time was almost up, to go back to Iraq. He didn't want to go back but the contract he signed isn't up yet and I don't think he could discharge himself from the army until his current contract is up. So he ended up shooting himself in the foot so he would be disabled and thus, unable to go back to Iraq.
Trumpeldor asks a great question and I agree with him. I hope Chaim does also.
DannieCookie's question is also very interesting. This is also something that I've previously thought about. One possibility I've contemplated is that the concept of time is different from different perspectives and relative to how it's measured.
I discussed this briefly with someone and had been told the following:
"[You should read Gerald Schroeder's books. "Genesis and the Bib Bang",
"The Science of G-d", and "The Hidden Face of G-d". He is an MIT trained physicist who can show how from the center of the universe where the Big Bang occurred (which most scientists agree with, and which proves there really was a beginning to our universe which we can measure) that it was 6 days from G-d's perspective in the center of the universe. Time is relative to where it's measured from. On earth it may have seemed like millions of years but from the center of the universe only 6 days. He can prove the existence of G-d with science.]"
I agree with what this person told me. I haven't read the book.
The above explanation doesn't mean that people descended directly from specific animal species--I'm not sure the specifics of what the pro-evolutionary theory people claim. They want you to believe that science endorses their evolutionary theory; I think it could actually be the opposite.
It will be interesting to see what Chaim says.
-
Regarding Gerald Schroeder:
Here is a streaming audio link to a symposium Dr. Schroeder gave in Jerusalem, discussing the apparent contradictions of the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe as revealed in Genesis, with what modern science has to say on the matter.
Dr. Schroeder makes an extremely lucid and powerful argument showing why the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe, are actually supported by the latest scientific findings.
This is truly an amazing tape and must listening for those interested in this subject matter.
http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3 (http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3)
-
RationalThought110, this is a great idea!
-
Regarding Gerald Schroeder:
Here is a streaming audio link to a symposium Dr. Schroeder gave in Jerusalem, discussing the apparent contradictions of the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe as revealed in Genesis, with what modern science has to say on the matter.
Dr. Schroeder makes an extremely lucid and powerful argument showing why the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe, are actually supported by the latest scientific findings.
This is truly an amazing tape and must listening for those interested in this subject matter.
http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3 (http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3)
I have listened to this AMAZING lecture (TWICE)!
Dr. Schroeder is absolutely amazing. I would recommend everyone listen to this amazing audio. I have a couple of his books, too ("The Hidden Face of God" and "The Science Of God").
-
I liked chaim's answer to my question.
-
I was blown away by one answer this week, because it was something I've been thinking myself for some years but never met anyone who agreed with me. Namely, that the illegal immigration is a conspiracy to make the populace stupid and prevent them from competing with the elites. I've thought about the same thing about the appalling state of public education, the dumbing down of the next generation. In the US, the elite universities are prohibitively expensive, so regular people cannot send their children there. I also know of a case in England when an extremely talanted daughter of a friend of mine got an interview at Oxford University as a prospective student. They asked her questions that she couldn't possibly know, because they were way outside the school program, even at a "good" school she went to with higher level classes in science. But the kids in exclusive private schools in Britain (I guess they are called "public" schools there) study these subjects and can get into these elite university programs. The elites guard places for their offspring. We don't live in a truly democratic system.
In general, I found that Chaim's answers tend to be "spot on," as far as I am concerned. His views are morally principled, and I respect that. There was only one answer that bothered me. It was either from last week or from wek before last. He told someone that the Sanhedrin might make polygamy legal again. To me, this is unthinkable. It's like making slavery legal again. If this happens, I will know that this is not the true Sanhedrin that G-d wants.
-
"
There was only one answer that bothered me. It was either from last week or from wek before last. He told someone that the Sanhedrin might make polygamy legal again. To me, this is unthinkable. It's like making slavery legal again. If this happens, I will know that this is not the true Sanhedrin that G-d wants.
Masha, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Both slavery and polygamy are PERMITTED but not REQUIRED by the Torah.
Therefore while Jews are in galuth, under the rule of foreign nations who illegalized things that the Torah PERMITS, we follow their laws. However, if they demand that we do something that the Torah FORBIDS, then we listen to the Torah and disregard the law of the land. That is a situation of being ruled by other nations.
But in a situation where we have autonomy, how can you expect a true Sanhedrin to rule according to the dictates of Western Culture instead of the Torah?
I grew up in a Western Culture just as much as you did, Masha. But in order to be a Jew, you must turn your thoughts to the Torah and not to Western ""Morality"".
If you think polygamy is wrong, you are calling Avraham, Yaakov, Gideon and David, evil.
On what basis do you condemn our most noble of ancestors?
On Western Culture, which is not exactly a shining example of moral behavior.
Slavery is Wrong?!?!?!?!
All of the Patriarchs had slaves. All of the Kings of Israel had slaves. Many of the Rabbis from the Mishna and Talmud had slaves. Maimonides had slaves.
The Torah explicitly condones both Slavery and Polygamy.
Therefore I would say the opposite of what you said.
Any Sanhedrin that would issue a ruling that contradicts The Torah, Tanakh, Mishna, Talmud, Maimonides and many others, is not a Sanhedrin from G-d.
I don't care about it personally, because I have no desire for a 2nd wife or a slave. But I do care about the Torah being perverted and cut and pasted in order to fit preconceived notions. The Torah is meant to have us change our lives to fit the Torah, not change the Torah to fit our lives.
-
I was blown away by one answer this week, because it was something I've been thinking myself for some years but never met anyone who agreed with me. Namely, that the illegal immigration is a conspiracy to make the populace stupid and prevent them from competing with the elites. I've thought about the same thing about the appalling state of public education, the dumbing down of the next generation. In the US, the elite universities are prohibitively expensive, so regular people cannot send their children there. I also know of a case in England when an extremely talanted daughter of a friend of mine got an interview at Oxford University as a prospective student. They asked her questions that she couldn't possibly know, because they were way outside the school program, even at a "good" school she went to with higher level classes in science. But the kids in exclusive private schools in Britain (I guess they are called "public" schools there) study these subjects and can get into these elite university programs. The elites guard places for their offspring. We don't live in a truly democratic system.
In general, I found that Chaim's answers tend to be "spot on," as far as I am concerned. His views are morally principled, and I respect that. There was only one answer that bothered me. It was either from last week or from wek before last. He told someone that the Sanhedrin might make polygamy legal again. To me, this is unthinkable. It's like making slavery legal again. If this happens, I will know that this is not the true Sanhedrin that G-d wants.
About education, I read that some elite colleges and prep boarding high schools give full scholarships to some students and that these schools are good with financial aid. But didn't you just say only rich people are supposed to go to those schools?
What do you mean by Sanhedrin?
-
I think that there should be a topic on this fourm discussing Chaim's answers to the questions on the "Ask JTF" show that he does. It will be a great debate thread. What do you think?
-
I think that there should be a topic on this fourm discussing Chaim's answers to the questions on the "Ask JTF" show that he does. It will be a great debate thread. What do you think?
Yes, this was why I started the thread.
When it was started, it was before one of the "Ask JTF's", so I felt like discussing our hypothesis' for some of the questions and then compare to what Chaim would say.
-
I'd like to make a correction. When Chaim was talking about he Kashrut of eating fruits and vegetables, he said that even if its Kosher there's a problem of "Derech Eretz" which he said "in this case it means 'the appearance of things".
I am quite certain that the phrase Chaim meant to use was "Ma'rat Ayin" which means "the appearance of the eye"-that is the rule that would make it problematic to eat a kosher food in a non-Kosher restaurant.
He also didn't mention that lettuce needs to be checked for bugs-and if it's not checked and you eat a bug there is more sins involved in that than eating pork (5 sins to be exact-for Jews). That's the bigger potential problem with eating salad in a non-Kosher restaurant.
-
I know you have to soak veggies in vinegar for a bit but I never knew "officially" how long it was supposed to be. Do you know, lubab? I use this stuff called Veggie Wash that works pretty well.
-
How is lettuce supposed to be checked for bugs? I'm confused.
-
In the upcoming ask JTF, Raiseyourfist gives the impression of being against Yigal Amir. However, does Raiseyourfist know that it was the Israeli government that planned the assassination?
-
When was i against Yigal... your putting words in my mouth irrational thought... i asked chaim if he thought people like him are descent people..
-
When was i against Yigal... your putting words in my mouth irrational thought... i asked chaim if he thought people like him are descent people..
You already know the answer to your question. If necessary, read the article on JTF's home page:
http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.rabin.assassination.htm
So maybe you should modify your question.
I incorrectly assumed that you were against Yigal because you gave the impression that Chaim would want you to leave the forum based on your question.
I think David Ben-Ariel said that it wasn't Yigal who who committed the assassination.
-
I know you have to soak veggies in vinegar for a bit but I never knew "officially" how long it was supposed to be. Do you know, lubab? I use this stuff called Veggie Wash that works pretty well.
It depends how frum you want to be. Half an hour is standard.
-
How is lettuce supposed to be checked for bugs? I'm confused.
If it's a leafy vegetable you should soak them in water with some vinegar. Some people also actually check the lettuce for little greenish whitish bugs. (ask your own local Rabbinic authority what standard you should adopt).
There's lots more to know about checking for bugs. If you have a specific question-visit me on the Torah and Jewish Idea section.
-
At least Chaim discussed what happened last week to the JTF website and the fourm on the ASK JTF show this week.
-
I viewed the video about "Talk Radio"--despite youtube taking a very long time with many pauses--it was a great video.
Do Chaim and David prefer a "fairness doctrine" or do they think that would be even worse than the current situation with Rush Limbaugh?
-
Here is something that might be surprising, although it, perhaps, shouldn't be. On some political issues, Chaim's positions coincide with those on the left - such as his opposition to the war in Iraq and his being anti-globalizm and against large multinational corporations. I agree with him on both issues. I think that his opinion that arab regimes should just be fought from the air with carpet bombings are right on target. Why should we send our soldiers to be killed? But I was surprised that he is anti the Iraq war. I think that it does credit to him, showing that he is not a doctrinaire. He holds views that are honest and consistent with his religion, and he doesn't care who else agrees or disagrees with him. This is what young, idealistic people are looking for.
Here is my pet peeve. People tend to become extremely partisan. If you are anti-democrates, then you automatically become pro-Bush and must defend all his policies. Bush has betrayed his voters. He sold out Israel, he sold out on illegal immigration, on gay marriages, etc.. (And I knew he was going to do so).
So I commend Chaim for going against the stream and standing firmly for the things he believes in. Actually, his position is extremely self-consistent, it is the political parties who are not being consistent. The politicians follow their petty interests and don't defend big ideas or their country. We live in very strange times. The left cultural elites and the multinational corporations have colluded on their evil multicultural, anti-Israel, support of muslim nazi states potitical agenda. And we, the people, are the losers.
-
The topic about beaches. I don't think it's necessary to close down the beaches. When it's hot, people want to wear light clothing and go bathing in the sea. I think it's enough to start with the propaganda of modesty. Not to show sex and nudity obsessed TV shows. Not to sell magazines that make people obsessed with sex and nudity. The whole atmosphere of licentiousness, the worship of the body, etc., should be made to go away. The virtues of modesty and true respect of the opposite sex should be taught at school. I think that if these values are taught, if overly revealing clothes meet with societal disapproval, then people will automatically dress more modestly when they go to the beach. There are situations when it's important that people are lightly dressed - such as when they do sports or go to the beach. We should not follow the path of muslim countries and make these activities gender-separate. I think that if the moral atmosphere in the society is healthy, then these few instances of minimal clothing will not cause problems.
I disagree with Chaim in the way he presents this issue, namely that men get too excited looking at women. The truth is that women get just as excited looking at men. They are equally sexual beings. If you just present this from the male point of view, you objectify women, and I don't like it. This is a mutual issue. Men and women should be dressed with equal degree of modesty. As to what is modest - I guess it could be argued. I personally think that during a hot weather, it is acceptible for men and women to wear sleavless tops, and shorts and skirts could be knee-length. The tops should not be too low-necked to show cleavage. As for swimming suits, the type of one-piece swimming suits (for men and women) they wore at the turn of the 20th century would be appropriate, in my opinion. Men wore these one piece suits also, and I think it would be appropriate to bring them back for beach wear.
(http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/images/stories/swimsuits/image024.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg/225px-BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg)
-
Just to add one more thing about modesty. I think a good criterion of modesty is to separate the functional from something specifically designed to titillate. I think that a one-piece sleeveless suit is functional for swimming and gymnastics, as something that is not too hot and doesn't constrict the movements of the body. A bikini or something that overly emphasizes the lines of the body is designed to titillate.
Here is another example of something that is functional in my eyes.
(http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/images/stories/swimsuits/image044.jpg)
-
The topic about beaches. I don't think it's necessary to close down the beaches. When it's hot, people want to wear light clothing and go bathing in the sea. I think it's enough to start with the propaganda of modesty. Not to show sex and nudity obsessed TV shows. Not to sell magazines that make people obsessed with sex and nudity. The whole atmosphere of licentiousness, the worship of the body, etc., should be made to go away. The virtues of modesty and true respect of the opposite sex should be taught at school. I think that if these values are taught, if overly revealing clothes meet with societal disapproval, then people will automatically dress more modestly when they go to the beach. There are situations when it's important that people are lightly dressed - such as when they do sports or go to the beach. We should not follow the path of muslim countries and make these activities gender-separate. I think that if the moral atmosphere in the society is healthy, then these few instances of minimal clothing will not cause problems.
I disagree with Chaim in the way he presents this issue, namely that men get too excited looking at women. The truth is that women get just as excited looking at men. They are equally sexual beings. If you just present this from the male point of view, you objectify women, and I don't like it. This is a mutual issue. Men and women should be dressed with equal degree of modesty. As to what is modest - I guess it could be argued. I personally think that during a hot weather, it is acceptible for men and women to wear sleavless tops, and shorts and skirts could be knee-length. The tops should not be too low-necked to show cleavage. As for swimming suits, the type of one-piece swimming suits (for men and women) they wore at the turn of the 20th century would be appropriate, in my opinion. Men wore these one piece suits also, and I think it would be appropriate to bring them back for beach wear.
(http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/images/stories/swimsuits/image024.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg/225px-BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg)
I wouldn't say that Chaim agrees with the moveon.org or DailyKos crowds about the war in Iraq. There are clear differences between the positions and I think I understand some of them to briefly explain them. Chaim believed that Iran was/is a bigger threat. In contrast, the progressive liberals were thrilled when Pelosi went to have a photo-op with Syria's president and they think Iran's government is innocent.
-
I wouldn't say that Chaim agrees with the moveon.org or DailyKos crowds about the war in Iraq. There are clear differences between the positions and I think I understand some of them to briefly explain them. Chaim believed that Iran was/is a bigger threat. In contrast, the progressive liberals were thrilled when Pelosi went to have a photo-op with Syria's president and they think Iran's government is innocent.
I totally agree with you that there are fundamental differences as to why and from what direction they approached their respective positions and to what directions they take them. This is why I said it is ironic that they actually agree on some issues. It's like two people agree in being very critical of Israel. But one person thinks this because is an antisemite scum and another - because he thinks that Israeli government has betrayed the Jewish people.
-
The topic about beaches. I don't think it's necessary to close down the beaches. When it's hot, people want to wear light clothing and go bathing in the sea. I think it's enough to start with the propaganda of modesty. Not to show sex and nudity obsessed TV shows. Not to sell magazines that make people obsessed with sex and nudity. The whole atmosphere of licentiousness, the worship of the body, etc., should be made to go away. The virtues of modesty and true respect of the opposite sex should be taught at school. I think that if these values are taught, if overly revealing clothes meet with societal disapproval, then people will automatically dress more modestly when they go to the beach. There are situations when it's important that people are lightly dressed - such as when they do sports or go to the beach. We should not follow the path of muslim countries and make these activities gender-separate. I think that if the moral atmosphere in the society is healthy, then these few instances of minimal clothing will not cause problems.
I disagree with Chaim in the way he presents this issue, namely that men get too excited looking at women. The truth is that women get just as excited looking at men. They are equally sexual beings. If you just present this from the male point of view, you objectify women, and I don't like it. This is a mutual issue. Men and women should be dressed with equal degree of modesty. As to what is modest - I guess it could be argued. I personally think that during a hot weather, it is acceptible for men and women to wear sleavless tops, and shorts and skirts could be knee-length. The tops should not be too low-necked to show cleavage. As for swimming suits, the type of one-piece swimming suits (for men and women) they wore at the turn of the 20th century would be appropriate, in my opinion. Men wore these one piece suits also, and I think it would be appropriate to bring them back for beach wear.
(http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/images/stories/swimsuits/image024.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg/225px-BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg)
I've posted previously on this forum that one-piece bathing suits are more healthy for women than two-piece because the latter exposes more skin to the sun.
You mention shorts. Why wouldn't they be allowed? They're not considered sexually revealing.
"Just to add one more thing about modesty. I think a good criterion of modesty is to separate the functional from something specifically designed to titillate. I think that a one-piece sleeveless suit is functional for swimming and gymnastics, as something that is not too hot and doesn't constrict the movements of the body. A bikini or something that overly emphasizes the lines of the body is designed to titillate.
Here is another example of something that is functional in my eyes. "
I agree. Isn't the reason that some people wear a bikini because they intentionally want people to pay a lot of attention to their bodies?
-
Does anyone know if Chaim answered my question for this week's show(8/13)?
-
Yes Joe, I remember your name being mentioned, it was either right before or after mine.
-
It was a thrill to hear not only my name and question but to hear Chaim pronounce my last name correctly. A lot of people mis-prounce my last name and put the "i" in there.
-
Someone asked about Saudia Arabia a couple weeks ago. What did Chaim say?
-
The topic about beaches. I don't think it's necessary to close down the beaches. When it's hot, people want to wear light clothing and go bathing in the sea. I think it's enough to start with the propaganda of modesty. Not to show sex and nudity obsessed TV shows. Not to sell magazines that make people obsessed with sex and nudity. The whole atmosphere of licentiousness, the worship of the body, etc., should be made to go away. The virtues of modesty and true respect of the opposite sex should be taught at school. I think that if these values are taught, if overly revealing clothes meet with societal disapproval, then people will automatically dress more modestly when they go to the beach. There are situations when it's important that people are lightly dressed - such as when they do sports or go to the beach. We should not follow the path of muslim countries and make these activities gender-separate. I think that if the moral atmosphere in the society is healthy, then these few instances of minimal clothing will not cause problems.
I disagree with Chaim in the way he presents this issue, namely that men get too excited looking at women. The truth is that women get just as excited looking at men. They are equally sexual beings. If you just present this from the male point of view, you objectify women, and I don't like it. This is a mutual issue. Men and women should be dressed with equal degree of modesty. As to what is modest - I guess it could be argued. I personally think that during a hot weather, it is acceptible for men and women to wear sleavless tops, and shorts and skirts could be knee-length. The tops should not be too low-necked to show cleavage. As for swimming suits, the type of one-piece swimming suits (for men and women) they wore at the turn of the 20th century would be appropriate, in my opinion. Men wore these one piece suits also, and I think it would be appropriate to bring them back for beach wear.
(http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/images/stories/swimsuits/image024.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg/225px-BathingMachineDontBeAfraid.jpg)
I agree with a lot of what you say, Masha. I think that women have the same type and amount of sexual feelings as men do. It's just that they don't show evidence for these feelings as much as men. The inverse is true when it comes to showing emotion. Women have more of a tendency to wear their hearts on their sleeves while men appear to hide their emotions more. But men still experience the same type and amount of emotions as women do.
-
I was blown away by one answer this week, because it was something I've been thinking myself for some years but never met anyone who agreed with me. Namely, that the illegal immigration is a conspiracy to make the populace stupid and prevent them from competing with the elites. I've thought about the same thing about the appalling state of public education, the dumbing down of the next generation. In the US, the elite universities are prohibitively expensive, so regular people cannot send their children there. I also know of a case in England when an extremely talanted daughter of a friend of mine got an interview at Oxford University as a prospective student. They asked her questions that she couldn't possibly know, because they were way outside the school program, even at a "good" school she went to with higher level classes in science. But the kids in exclusive private schools in Britain (I guess they are called "public" schools there) study these subjects and can get into these elite university programs. The elites guard places for their offspring. We don't live in a truly democratic system.
In general, I found that Chaim's answers tend to be "spot on," as far as I am concerned. His views are morally principled, and I respect that. There was only one answer that bothered me. It was either from last week or from wek before last. He told someone that the Sanhedrin might make polygamy legal again. To me, this is unthinkable. It's like making slavery legal again. If this happens, I will know that this is not the true Sanhedrin that G-d wants.
Hey, according to the bible, the abolitionists were on the wrong side of the slavery issue.