OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Denis Koroskin]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:56:04 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>> <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gn9qp7$apa$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while  
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?),
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil
>>>>>>> "barbarians", now
>>>>>>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is
>>>>>>> in its
>>>>>>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic
>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the
>>>>>>> west.
>>>>>>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic
>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle,
>>>>>> not an
>>>>>> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own
>>>>>> religion
>>>>>> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into
>>>>>> allegedly
>>>>>> being pro-"white power".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4
>>>>> sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
>>>>> here's a quote for example from
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and
>>>>> Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend
>>>>> good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah
>>>>> (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O
>>>>> Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites”
>>>>> (Qur'an [Qur'an 9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have
>>>>> expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by
>>>>> sword and against the hypocrites by tongue
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly
>>>>>>> Jesus was
>>>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
>>>>>> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they  
>>>>>> equally
>>>>>> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish
>>>>>> Bible. As
>>>>>> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments,
>>>>>> Moses,
>>>>>> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and
>>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you
>>>>>> get the
>>>>>> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the
>>>>> Jewish concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the
>>>>> old testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one
>>>>> defines different, and contradicting new concepts.
>>>>> Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the
>>>>> christian faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a
>>>>> software concept) with Judaism.
>>>> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
>>>> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
>>>> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
>>>> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity,
>>>> of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was
>>>> written down later than the New Testament.
>>>> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and
>>>> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
>>>> possible divergence.
>>>
>>> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I
>>> know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is
>>> completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether
>>> there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or
>>> anything like that.)
>>>
>>> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is
>>> clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being
>>> unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do
>>> better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In
>>> case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call
>>> someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow
>>> the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I
>>> haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating
>>> shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>>>
>>
>> I know one - Jesus.
>>
>> There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
>> And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't eat
>> pork and shellfish.
>>
>>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who
>>> would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
>>
>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs
>> them their life.
>
> Where did you hear that?
> I doubt that since the preservation of life is a holy jewish principle  
> and which cancels all other commandments in the bible.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. These are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.

> for example, driving on the Shabat is a a sin but if we're talking about  
> an ambulance driving to save someone's life than it's becomes completely  
> "Kosher". As the saying goes: "if you saved one soul of  Israel as if  
> you saved the entire world".
>
> Kinda the exact opposite of the Jihad concept that other people believe  
> in.

>From Qur'an:

"...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32] 

[1] i.e. in legal retribution for murder, through the requisite channels of justice.
[2] i.e. that requiring the death penalty, again through the requisite legal channels.

This verse establishes the sanctity of life.

(Taken from http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Wanton.Destruction.html)