Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Another Gift from Gays


[a man infected with MRSA]

In addition to HIV and a new strain of gonorrhea, the New York Times recently reported another new disease being bestowed upon us by the male homosexual community.

Interestingly, in related news, the United Nations is promoting male circumcision as being one method of preventing HIV.

If God did not write the Torah, then apparently someone with a remarkable knowledge of personal hygiene wrote it.

And thanks again, gay rights activists everywhere. You're the best.

50 comments:

natschuster said...

I recall reading in a number of sources that cervical caqncer is extemely rare among Jewish women, only a fraction that if the general population. Maybe that is a side benefit of observing the laws of family purity.

Henry said...

MRSA is only Staph Aureus when all is said and done. It has become resistant because the medical profession has been dishing out antibiotics too freely for the past sixty years.

Prevention is the best cure. Good old tasty

British Marmite is an excellent source of the B vitamins which are needed for immunity. Drink a teaspoonful or spread it on your toast.

It is your over-refined US diet that is more likely to blame.

Which reminds me, I fancy some myself before I go to bed.

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

The Torah and the Bible say lots of interesting things. Then, like common atheists, religious people pick and choose the elements they like to form their own morality.

Personally, I like the passages about misbehaving kids and dashing the heads of children against rocks.But, I'm partial to violence.

jewish philosopher said...

Personally, I follow the Talmudic interpretation of the Torah. Where does the Talmud advocate head bashing?

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

First off Jewish Philosopher, thank you for proving that religious folks, just like the common atheist, practice pick and chose morality. Atheists are merely more honest about it.

This is not surprising because Hayden White's view that people select their preferred historical interpretation, not on facts, but moral and aesthetic reasons is true of many religious interpretations as well.

After all, there is no correct way to interpret a text and opting to follow teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s is utterly arbitrary. I doubt you have an objective basis to prove they are correct. Of course, not otherwise all debate would cease.

No, the reason you follow the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s instead of say, the teachings of Baltimore rabbinical seminaries and rabbis of the 1850s and 1860s(and Baltimore produced some bad ass rabbis, like Einhorn and Szold) is that you like them more. You probably found thee teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries easier to understand, or, they are postmodernesque hard to learn, thus by mastering them, you gained a source of distinction and status.

Perhaps they justify and support your bigotry towards gays, your snarky know-it-allism or gluttonous appearance and lifestyle. I don't know, why don't you tell us.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

jewish philosopher said...

The Lithuanian yeshivas just happen to have been the finest to have existed within living memory.

Since based on your insightful Biblical research, Judaism commands infanticide, how many Jews have been convicted of this crime so far?

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

"Lithuanian yeshivas just happen to have been the finest to have existed within living memory."

Do you have any objective evidence to prove that? I noticed you dodged that part of my post. Or, are you, like the common atheist, merely picking and choosing your morality?

According to the Bible, genocidal measures were taken during the invasion of Canaan, so lots of Jews have done it. Well that assumes the Torah and such aren't believe. Of course, since your God okayed child murder, they were never charged.

Thanks to secularization, the dark impulses of God, Jesus, and their followers have been restrained. In today's modern age, Jesus would have gotten the mental health treatment he so desperately needed and your god's cronies in the OT would be hunted down and caged like the animals they were.

jewish philosopher said...

"Do you have any objective evidence to prove that?"

Consumer Reports gives them a Very Good rating.

"your god's cronies in the OT would be hunted down and caged like the animals they were"

Along with atheists like Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and Lenin and...

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

See, was it so hard to admit your morality, like that of the common atheist, is utterly arbitrary?

Now, Jewish philosopher, the next step is to accept responsibility for your morality instead of shucking off on an unaccountable imaginary friend.

What this means is, rather than blaming god for your anti-gay bigotry, you need to state the reasons for them. An example below,

"I, Jewish Philosopher" hate gays because they're icky, smell better than me, aren't fat, ... whatever your reasons for being a bigot are.

Then, you need to accept the consequences of your actions: that means not whining when people dislike you for chosen morality.

As for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, yes atheists have done bad things. Now, the questions are A) did they kill or do bad things in the name of atheism or motivated by atheism (shockingly for many religious folks, atheists do things that are not linked to atheism, much as you do things without linkage your aelfism

Plus, one must ask, have atheists do more evil acts than say religious folks.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't think Leviticus 20:13 has changed much recently.

And by the way, just so you can eat your heart out, check this:
I'm 6"1, my waist is 32" and I'm wearing Attitude by Armani.

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

True, Leviticus 20:13 has not changed much, nor has the rest of the Bible and Talmud. Yet, after centuries, nobody can come to a objectively correct interpretation. Instead, people like yourself, like the common atheist, are forced to pick and chose their morality in an utterly arbitrary way.

You opt for interpretations that justifies your flaunting of your finery like a common trollop.

Henry said...

What I find curious about this whole affair is why JP has picked upon a very particular stream of Judaism, which by all objective standards is a minority discourse, though not of course an unimportant one.

JP might with equal justfication have followed the teachings of Aquinas, the Dalai Lamas, Shankara, Zarathustra, Brigham Young or, for that matter, Pope Benedict XIV. He seems to have picked on this particular school of Judaism, which in any case was diverse, as though its was the last word on the subject. And then parading your vital statistics as though they had anything to do with the argument.

jewish philosopher said...

This entire blog is all about why I'm an Orthodox Jew. And Leviticus in my opinion could not be more explicit.

What's wrong with my finery?

Henry said...

Nobody has to defend their faith until they get on a soapbox and start preaching, which is what you have done. And while you undoubtedly have cogent reasons for your beliefs, you have not articulated them. Rather, you have just put out mostly anti-gay, anti-atheist and anti-evolution polemic, based on selected scripture texts. And as for picking on a particular school of Judaism, one has to ask, why that one? Which in any case would undoubtedly have encompassed a range of views. And how can the reader be sure that your interpretation is an accurate reflection of what was said at that time and not another selective reading with emphasis on the bits that fit your prejudices?

It's OK, we all do it, me too, but I try not to pretend it is an objective presentation.

jewish philosopher said...

In my title I state "The purpose of this blog is to promote Orthodox Judaism and to critique other ideologies, in particular atheism."

I try to pretty much evenly cover those two goals.

I suppose anyone wishing to verify the accuracy of my views could research the basic texts - the Bible, the Talmud, etc. which are available in English translation. In my posts, I try to give extensive and precise sources.

Henry said...

OK, why are you not, let us say, a follower of the Dalai Lama? Or the Pope?

jewish philosopher said...

Does this post help explain?

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

Not really JP. They fail to porve the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s are any better than the teachings of Baltimore rabbis in the 1850s. Why not listen to them?

JP, the honest thing to do is to admit that you follow the the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s because they benefit you personally. You probably gain prestige for mastering them or they justify your gluttonous lifestyle.

However, you realize that would put you on the level of the common atheist. Thus, you dodge the truth.

jewish philosopher said...

Should I dignify this comment with a polite response?

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

JP, how about you just answer the question? What objective basis is there that the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s you follow are not just ham reformers and prophets trying to justify their positions and lifestyles and by extenstion your lifestyle?

Eolutionary theory has an answer, but I think we all like to see yours.

RaspK said...

From one of the links you mentioned :

The UN agencies emphasize that male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV infection. It should never replace other known effective prevention methods and should always be considered as part of a comprehensive prevention package, which includes correct and consistent use of male or female condoms, reduction in the number of sexual partners, delaying the onset of sexual relations, and HIV testing and counselling.


Ironically, said problem did not exist once upon a time, you see, when people had not yet used methicillin against bacteria, let alone Staphylococci of any kind.

Furthermore, the bacterium is only marginally associated with homosexuality, since they only have an increased risk of infection compared to some people. Kind of reminds me how people referred to AIDS as a homosexual disease; boy, so many homosexual cats and apes out there in the wild!

david said...

JP, you claim in defending why you follow the the interpretation of the torah that you do that

"The Lithuanian yeshivas just happen to have been the finest to have existed within living memory."

However on June 29 2007 you published a new post in which you consider the holocaust to be a result of slack observance by European Jews. You also claim that the more observant Jewish communities in Europe were largely spared. A quick search in wikipedia on the history of the Lithuanian Jews returns the result that a massive 91% of their population was wiped out in the holocaust, one of the highest death rates there was. By your own reasoning doesn't it seem as if the Lithuanian Jews, who you would assume were following the rules of their own Yeshivas from only 20 or 30 years prior, were also among the least observant. This suggests that rather than being the finest interpretation of the Torah in living memory, what your following is in fact amongst the worst?

natschuster said...

David:

While there where great yeshivas in Lithuania, there was also a great deal of slack observance. the Haskala made significnayt inroads into many Lithuanian communities.

natschuster said...

Raspk:

It seems that homomsexual behavior puts one at greater risk for a number of diseases. That would seem to indicate that homosexuality is not a good idea.

natschuster said...

Unmoloested Altar Boy:

I think the fact that the two worst people in the world, the people who killed more people than any other, where atheists is telling.

The Bible says that the reason the Israelites conquered the Canaanites, (according to the book of Joshua, they didn't exterminate them) was because the Canaanites where really bad people. They burned babies alive to their idols.

jewish philosopher said...

David, apparently the majority of the yeshiva students escaped.

Henry said...

What a fascinating story. Thanks for that.

david said...

JP, even if they did escape what makes you believe that this particular school of Torah taught in a way that was overall the best in recent times. What objective reason do you have for saying that these yeshivas had a better insight into the true meaning behind the Torah.
I also note that in the letter you wrote as a 16 year old to your parents you seemed to have a different view on certain aspects of you morality. Was your choice to embrace the teachings that you have anyway connected them being more suited to how you now live. Especially the career that you have or the fact that you did return to America, both things that you at on point believed you would not be able to do?

jewish philosopher said...

How do you know that Harvard is the best law school or MIT is the best engineering school? Schools develop a reputation.

david said...

Likewise there are billions of Christian and Muslims, and millions of Hindus and Budists. Yet despite the fact that there are more people in this world who proclaim that these are true than those who claim Judaism is true you ignore the greater reputations and proclaim Judaism as the truth. Surely you have some deeper reasoning to point to. Popularity never proved truth.

For example in my own experience in the Church, I would ask you to look up the teaching of a man by the name of Bishop Spong. Many people are keen to follow the teachings of men such as him for personal reasons. However if you were to read the New Testament you would see that his teaching on a topic such as the resurrection clearly contradicts what the Bible is claiming.

My main point is that people can often make whatever they want of the texts we are talking about. Surely your reasons for following the particular interpretation you have is based on more than reputation.

jewish philosopher said...

Not really.

Captain Loveless said...

Wait, you mean ... actually, I'm having a hard time following your argument. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are creating diseases? Or just spreading them to everyone? Or that homosexuals are both spreading AND creating disease?

So ... not adaptation, but homosexuality is the main cause of virulent mutation?

jewish philosopher said...

homosexuals are both spreading AND creating disease

Henry said...

So are people who travel on crowded buses trains and planes, breathing and exchanging each others' respiratory infections. To say nothing of cinemas, theatres and offices, especially if they are air-conditioned.

jewish philosopher said...

To expect people to live in total isolation or wear space suits is not practical and the cost would outweigh the benefits.

To demand that men stop having anal sex with each other is quite practical. Saudi Arabia has no problem doing that.

Henry said...

Personally I think anal sex is a bad idea and shows a lack of imagination. But how would you enforce a ban and what would the penalty be?

But there are lots of other forms of non-penetrative sex. Would you ban those too?

Captain Loveless said...

Um ... people can spontaneously create diseases now? When did that happen? Or are you referring to a special homosexual laboratory?

jewish philosopher said...

Henry, an earlier post went into detail regarding anal sex.

Captain, a filthy lifestyle may breed new illnesses as well as spread old ones. Speak to a doctor.

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

Nat, you need the learn the concepts of frequency and rate. A basic understanding of comparative history would help.

Religious leaders and groups are equally capable of putting up Stalin like numbers.

Look at Ante Pavelic and Ustashi. They murdered more people per capita and murdered them far more brutally than the SS or Soviets. The only reason he did not was that he lacked the requisite number of victims and the Partisans (Atheist communists) rose up and stood firm against the darkness.

Funny, in Croatia, the Communist Jews, (the laxest Jews of them all) Jews who stood their ground and fought evil, while JP's god took a nap, did better than the religious ones.

david said...

JP, if all you are basing you beliefe on is reputaion then that is poor. The fact that you have studied the Torah in depth, and cannot go beyond the fact that alot of people speek well of this school of teaching as a reason for accepting it seems odd.
Surely the reputation is a good reason to explore something, however you then should be able to give reason why you want to adopt that thing.
The best explination I can see so far is that it suited the way you choose to live and not much else.

natschuster said...

For all that, the facts are that the two worst people who Stalin and Mao, wher athiests. Number three Hitler, was a Darwinist. There are a lot of other Atheists up there in the top ten, such as Pol Pot. I'm sorry, but the numbers make the atheists look bad.

Henry said...

Atheists don't look good but the slaughter by the Moslem Turks in 1453 doesn't look good either. Hagia Sophia was piled high with bodies of the slaughtered who had taken refuge there. Vienna would have suffered the same fate in 1683 if the Polish king Jan Sobieki had not arrived with his army in the nick of time.

The non-theist Buddhists seem to have the best record when it comes to body counts.

Unmolested Altar Boy said...

natschuster,

Like I said before, learn the concepts of rate and frequency and comparative history.

Here's a tidbit for you. If you look at the top ten list of killers guess what you find? most of them worked in the 20th century!!1 Why is that? Is the 20th century immoral? No, the 20th century featured the best killing technology and the most people.

Since atheist leaders arose in the 20th century, they had highest body counts. Now, if you had learned the concepts of frequency and rate in the 6th grade like most Baltimore City school children, you'd know that.

As for Hitler and Darwin, while Hitler and the Nazis employed some of the verbiage of evolution, the Nazis were also highly religious, as shown by their beliefs, their actions, and their numerous alliances with religious groups.

natschuster said...

It is hard to get a grip on Hitlers religious beliefs. He did believe in God, but he also was intruiged by Nordic paganism and mysticism. However, his core belief was Darwinism. Just take some passages from "The Descent of Man" insert "Aryan" for "highly evolved race" and you've got yourself a holocaust.

I don't know how significant Hiter's allainces with religious groups was. He also was allied with Stalin, whom he hated mortally, and wound up attacking.

natschuster said...

According to some accounts, 100,000 Persian soldiers were killed in one day at the battle of Guagamela. Similarly, 40,000 Romans were killed in one day at Cannae. Evne if these numbers are inflated, this still means that the ancients were perfectly capable of killing lots of people. More people were killed in on day at these battle than any single day during tha Nazi Holocausts. Pre-industrial people were capable of mass killing, but it wasn't until atheist and Darwinists started running governments that the figures reached eight digits.

jewish philosopher said...

I have post on Chancellor Hitler.

Lost Soul said...

>>teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s is utterly arbitrary.

Those teachings are mainstream in the Torah/Orthodox(including Chassidic) world. Lithuanian seminaries didn't have unique beliefs. What made them unique is that they were founded upon the teachings of the Mussar (character development) Movement. But their legal and theological teachings and beliefs do not differ from thos of 13th or 17th century Europe or Asia. I also learned in yeshivos that came from the Lithuanian school. They learned Talmud just as all generations and cultures have.

LS

Lost Soul said...

>>And as for picking on a particular school of Judaism, one has to ask, why that one

Because, for whatever reasons 99% of today's seminaries are products of the Lithuanian model. Which means that so are the rabbis that they produce. Which means that people who come to Judaism later in life come in through the Lithuanian system by default because the rabbis that teach them are from there.

LS

Lost Soul said...

>>By your own reasoning doesn't it seem as if the Lithuanian Jews, who you would assume were following the rules of their own Yeshivas from only 20 or 30 years prior, were also among the least observant.

Why is that people on this blog make the most inane conclusions from statements or statistics that show nothing of the kind that they conclude. The yeshiva world of Europe which was largely Lithuanian was less than 5% of Judaism at that time. So your conclusion is ridiculous. It was large in comparison to other yeshiva systems such as the Chassidic one, which really was no different in its main theological teachings as that of the Lithuanian world. So the fact that Lithuanian Jewry, which was MOSTLY non-religious, died in the holocaust does not coincide with your conclusion.

Lost Soul said...

>>It seems that homomsexual behavior puts one at greater risk for a number of diseases. That would seem to indicate that homosexuality is not a good idea.

The reason homosexuality is not a good idea is because we were commanded to refrain from it by God. Had that not been the case it would be as arbitrary and non-morally binding as any other act such as murder and stealing... Many behaviors result in diseases and are not moral or immoral. It's just a sexual preference. And despite the fact that I personally can't fathom the attraction, other humans like it. In fact, according to the teachings of the Arizal, a soul can be born into the body of the opposite sex as punishment for certain sexual sins in past lives. So the idea that one can feel like a man in a woman's body or vice versa is not unreasonable.

LS