Inspired by "Ask A Muslim," I am creating this thread to answer any questions about Judaism. I will only answer questions about the religion, not why I believe in it, or how I can prove that it exists.
its a short question but ive always wanted to know the answer of it soo here it comes what about having sex before you are married? (if you dont feel like answering this one dont do it ! ... I absolutely dont want to push you )
I think that you can, but the general opinion is that you shouldn't. Sex is supposed to be sacred in Judaism.
its a short question but ive always wanted to know the answer of it soo here it comes what about having sex before you are married? (if you dont feel like answering this one dont do it ! ... I absolutely dont want to push you )
Under Jewish law (no longer in practice) premarital sex is okay only if you marry the person you had sex with.
Just to clear things up about execution in Jewish law for some people, only the court of the Great Sanhendrin could order an execution. It was said that there was never a "bloody" Great Sanhendrin. A bloody Great Sanhendrin was defined as one which put someone to death every 70 years.
Inconsistent, most definitely. Barbaric? Well that is your opinion,
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a : marked by a lack of restraint : wild b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality
No it doesn't! The Israelites were very advanced for their time in technology and writing. For 2b, they were not bizarre, they were in no ways primitive, and they were most certainly not unsophisticated.
un·so·his·ti·cat·edAdjective/ËÉnsÉËfistÉËkÄtid/ 1. Lacking refined worldly knowledge or tastes. 2. Not complicated or highly developed; basic:
That does not define the Israelites.
For 3, they were not mercilessly harsh or cruel. In fact, Judaism is one of the most tolerant religions. The only ways that they could be considered harsh is by taking the women and children of captured cities to be slaves, but then again, the Greeks did the same and you wouldn't call THEM harsh. And they were not cruel. For example, and also to counteract my point about taking slaves, the Israelites were required to grant their slaves freedom after a period of years unless the slaves willingly chose to stay with their masters.
What constitutes advanced? The ability for the society to excell? The setup of the society? Prosperity? Because we arguably don't have any of those 3 today.
Either way, they can't be entirely sure if it's conscious pain, after all, the brain has no flow of oxygen. If it's conscious at all, it will only be for a few seconds. Also, this may not be true for all animals such as chickens and goats.
I'll quote it again for you:
Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning. Even if the slaughterman is a master of his craft and the cut to the neck is clean, blood is carried to the brain by vertebral arteries and it keeps cattle conscious of their pain."
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council said that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes "significant pain and distress" to animals and should be banned. [12]According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death.
According to this, after shechita, the animal loses consciousness after 2 seconds.
"Shechita is instantaneous, and due to the immediate drop in blood pressure and [oxygen starvation] of the brain, the animal loses consciousness within 2 seconds," he says. "It conforms to the statutory definition of stunning, in that it is a process which causes the immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death."
It's a spokesman for Shechita UK talking about it. But what do the scientists say who made a study? From your link:
The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision.
The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision.
Let's read the first paragraph of the "stunning result" section
In most western countries, animals must be stunned before they are slaughtered, but there is an exemption for religious practice, most prominently Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha.Animal welfare groups have long argued that on welfare grounds, the exemptions should be lifted, as they have been in Norway.
But either way, In the paragraph before the one you quoted it reads
Johnson developed a way of lightly anaesthetising animals so that although they experienced no pain, the same electrical pain signals could be reliably detected, showing they would have suffered pain if awake.
And in the very same paragraph
When their throats are cut, calves generally lose consciousness after 10 to 30 seconds, sometimes longer.
Since this book is being used in a modern context it most definitely is.
The Israelites were very advanced for their time in technology and writing.
Yes for a time it wouldn't apply. Compared to when these stories came about I don't know. Since these stories are being used in a modern context, hell no.
For 2b, they were not bizarre, they were in no ways primitive, and they were most certainly not unsophisticated.
Pretty sure monotheistic beliefs were considered bizarre back then. Though there is evidence of the Abrahamic God arising from a polytheistic system. By a modern context I don't think we can call it bizarre, however the rituals described by now do seem primitive.
For 3, they were not mercilessly harsh or cruel.
Are we still talking about the same holy texts? There have been numerous examples of harsh, cruel actions presented here directly taken from those texts.
Are we still talking about the same holy texts? There have been numerous examples of harsh, cruel actions presented here directly taken from those texts.
I not that you don't post the full of my post, where I concede that in some ways for which I provide examples they were harsh or cruel.
