Gee, somehow I knew the Masai weren't Jewish ;-)
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:31 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Circumcision article link > > > At 12:19 PM 4/12/02, you wrote: > >thanks, not eating pork is always something i've wondered about. > > > >whats the exact religious reason? > Laws of ritual purity when dealing with what you eat. Land > animals have to have split hooves and chew their cud. Sea > animals have to have fins and scales. Birds of prey > (depending on claw configuration) are not allowed. Those are > the basics. Also, blood is not allowed. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 12 April 2002 16:52 > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: RE: Circumcision article link > > > > > >Pig is one of the animals specifically mentioned as being > not allowed. Even > >when I wasn't religious I didn't eat it (and I was just a > kid). Closest I've > >come is soy bacon. salty, but I love it. :) > > > >At 11:39 AM 4/12/02, you wrote: > >>so as far as your concerned it's a commandment not to eat pork? > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: 12 April 2002 16:40 > >>To: CF-Community > >>Subject: Re: Circumcision article link > >> > >> > >>Actually, a religious person (at least this one) looks at > it and says that > >>its a commandment and I'm doing it because its a > commandment. If science > >>says that the commandment has a physical effect, then fine > and good. The > >>physical effect is totally secondary to the spiritual effect. > >>To say that the commandment or every commandment was done > for a physical > >>reason such as health opens the door to denial of the root of the > >>commandment. Hey, not eating pork was because of > trichinosis. If we cook it > >>right then we wouldn't get the disease and we can now eat > it. Same for all > >>the other commandments. This is the rational of the reform > movement and a > >>rational rejected by religious Jews. > >> > >>At 03:51 AM 4/12/02, you wrote: > >>>It seems that much of the old testament law, such as > circumcision, what to > >>eat and not to eat, etc., has a good basis in what is > healthy, especailly > >>given the lack of sanitary conditions of the times. > >>> > >>>A religious person might argue that this is God making up > the lack of > >>science of the time to protect people. A non-believer might > argue that this > >>is wise people coming up religious law to mirror their own > observations > >>about what makes a person sick. Either way, it > demonstrates a good deal of > >>wisdom in the old books. > >>> > >>>H. > >>> > >>> > >>>---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > >>>from: "Braver, Ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:56:23 -0700 > >>> > >>>>Found a link to the original article on circumcision & > risk of cervical > >>>>cancer - it's in the New England Journal of Medicine: > >>>>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105 > >>>> > >>>>Apparently, the foreskin is particularly susceptible to > infection from > >HPV > >>- > >>>>human papilloma virus - which is linked to cervical cancer. > >>>> > >>>>-Ben > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
