How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[Buster's Uncle]

Cohens are temple attendants, traditionally speaking.  I think you're confusing them with the priestly Levites.  Both have roles in ceremonies at synagogue, and when you enter one, a guy at the door asks "Levi or Cohen?"  -Most answer "Israel", meaning they're from neither tribe.

Yitzi, which tribe are the Cohens from, anyway?

[Yitzi]

There is a restriction that cohanim (members of the priestly caste) are not permitted to marry converts or people with no non-convert ancestry, but that's more a restriction on cohanim (who have other restrictions also) than on converts.

Well, while we're at it, you can set me straight on this point.
Cohanim- Are these people descendants of Levites on the paternal side, or are they descendants of Judah or Benjamin who have assumed that role?

They are descendants of not only Levi, but in particular of Aaron (brother of Moses) on the paternal side.  (Levites are another group, but with much less restrictions).

The family surnames of Cohen and Cohn would have originated with this group?

As well as some others, such as Katz.  However, those surnames have occasionally descended matrilineally, which is how you get people with those surnames who are not cohanim.

I was told the people working in Kosher poultry plants, dairies and slaughterhouses saying the blessings/prayers and condemning the food when anyone swore or spit, etc.  were Rabbis

They're actually close to a complete fiction.  You need a rabbi (either on-site or just available for questions, depending on the trustworthiness of the owner(s)) to verify that it is kosher, but the only blessing/prayer used is the blessing before slaughter which is not part of the process, but rather thanking God for giving us the commandment to slaughter in a particular way.  Swearing or spitting does not cause problems at all (unless someone spits into the food or onto something used in the process, of course), and while the slaughtering itself is usually done by a rabbi, this is not necessary; it's simply that you need someone who knows what they're doing, and usually that's someone who's learned enough to become a rabbi.

but it now occurs to me that they could have been Cohanim ...or should have been.

No; other than offerings in the Temple, there is no concept at all of Cohanim being involved in food preparation.  (Even there, the steps that need cohanim are those that are not found in normal food preparation.)

Cohen's are temple attendants, traditionally speaking.  I think you're confusing them with the priestly Levites.  Both have roles in ceremonies at synagogue

Not many; the only major one is that if there's a cohen present on days that they read from the torah, the honor for the first reading is given to a cohen, and the second to a Levite.  (Which is why the question you mentioned will usually not be asked on a weekday other than Monday or Thursday, as there is usually no reading then.)

Yitzi, which tribe are the Cohens from, anyway?

They are from Levi; Aaron was the grandson, and great-grandson, of Levi.  (His father married his own aunt, which had not yet been prohibited.)

[Rusty Edge]

Anecdotal evidence-

Well, one story I heard involved a 1,000 cow dairy. Basically, the young, single Rabbi was on payroll and spent practically all of his time in the house trailer provided as residence, studdying scriptures.

As for the kosher poultry plant, there was an old rabbi on the killing floor, and if anybody spit or swore he would hit the stop button on the line and would disqualify the birds.

I was in a winery that produced kosher wine a couple of times. I never saw a Rabbi, but there was a strict prohibition against chewing gum in that part of the plant.

[JarlWolf]

To answer your questions Yitzi:

I do not like violent religious extremists or  religious extremists who try to impose their will on others against their own will, or do it to those who are impressionable like children.
I am not so worried over extremists who have chosen to live a certain way and live extremely, such as if there was a religious community/commune where you lived by extreme rules and guidelines, but joining it was optional and entirely voluntary.

Basically, I don't care if you are a flagellant who believes in punishing yourself, if you are a mature adult you made that decision. I do care if you decide to go out and whip others, or if your a child or you make a child become a flagellant, then I have a problem. Just as example to give you an idea..

As for this question:

So in that case, I take it that your objections are:
A: That you don't think they are right about the importance of their religion, and
B: That you don't think their methods give the best net benefit even for a worthwhile cause (benefit of doing it quickly minus cost of doing it violently).

Is that an accurate assessment?

A: Entirely accurate. I simply do not acknowledge their religion and believe in it, and while I do not have a problem with people who choose to believe in it, if they think they have the right to kill someone else in the name of it I see them as psychotic.

B: Yes, and to go on further I believe most of causes of these religious extremists isn't beneficial to begin with, so their entire point is moot to me.

Arrogant in some eyes, but I think its psychotic to kill someone for something that does not exist. You'll keep stating your god does exist, and say that other gods don't or versions don't, but the point remains the same: there is no god in my eyes and as far as factual evidence is concerned, there is also no god as there is nothing to prove his or her existence. And while you could argue there is no evidence against it... there actually is, at least for the Abrahamic and other civilization's versions of god. Most of the written holy books on how the Earth formed and all the stories stating how it formed, as well as the date of the Earth has been THOROUGHLY debunked at this rate centuries ago. Geology alone and fossils helps with this as does carbon dating and other scientific progresses. So there is evidence against the credibility of the texts on that front which places doubt in the existence of said god/gods. If there is a god or higher being, he, she or it is NOT what we have perceived them as and their true intentions, form, or even state of existence is unknown.



As for them killing the adults, adopting the children on the Israelites subject- maybe not in terms of their perspective. But it still didn't mean it wasn't possible. It was only their perspective based decision that denied that option, nothing physical. Given they had the resources to conquer an entire region and support their own people (who were fairly large nomadic groups) I don't think a single town's population of children is going to hamper them much in terms of resource...

[Yitzi]

Anecdotal evidence-

Well, one story I heard involved a 1,000 cow dairy. Basically, the young, single Rabbi was on payroll and spent practically all of his time in the house trailer provided as residence, studdying scriptures.

It's possible that he was not the slaughterer, but rather the on-call-for-questions kosher certifier; depending on who owned the place, him not being there very often might not be a problem.  (Worst case, I think the ability to come at any moment, and coming in fairly regularly is usually considered sufficient even without actually being there all the time.)  In which case, he could very well have been studying Talmudic and later sources (not scriptures) in order to keep up on and advance the technical knowledge he was being paid for.

Or he might not have been doing his job properly; such does happen in every profession.

As for the kosher poultry plant, there was an old rabbi on the killing floor, and if anybody spit or swore he would hit the stop button on the line and would disqualify the birds.

I can only think of two possible explanations:
1. He was using his authority as a bludgeon to promote decorum...which, while a noble goal, was an abuse of authority.
2. He was concerned that they might have spit in the meat (which I suspect has issues in terms of kashrut, and almost certainly has issues in terms of hygiene as well), and the swearing was religious in nature by non-Jewish workers and he was concerned that they might have intended to consecrate the meat for their religion (which, depending on the religion, very well could pose Jewish-legal issues.)

I was in a winery that produced kosher wine a couple of times. I never saw a Rabbi, but there was a strict prohibition against chewing gum in that part of the plant.

That sounds to me more like a decorum or hygiene/cleanliness rule; as long as the gum doesn't get into the wine or on anything used in the production, I can't see any way it could be an issue.

To answer your questions Yitzi:

I do not like violent religious extremists or  religious extremists who try to impose their will on others against their own will, or do it to those who are impressionable like children.

How extreme would something have to be that you would oppose parents raising their children in that manner?

A: Entirely accurate. I simply do not acknowledge their religion and believe in it, and while I do not have a problem with people who choose to believe in it, if they think they have the right to kill someone else in the name of it I see them as psychotic.

If you did acknowledge their religion and believe in it, would you still consider them psychotic for thinking they have a right to kill in the name of it?

You'll keep stating your god does exist, and say that other gods don't or versions don't, but the point remains the same: there is no god in my eyes and as far as factual evidence is concerned, there is also no god as there is nothing to prove his or her existence.

Actually, the truth of things is more important than your opinion, or mine, or even evidence; it's just that evidence is generally the most reliable way to determine the truth of things.

And while you could argue there is no evidence against it... there actually is, at least for the Abrahamic and other civilization's versions of god. Most of the written holy books on how the Earth formed and all the stories stating how it formed, as well as the date of the Earth has been THOROUGHLY debunked at this rate centuries ago.

Actually, the Bible is very vague regarding the formation of the Earth; while the understanding of Ken Ham and his sort has been thoroughly debunked, there are other readings that fit the evidence quite a bit better.  (Personally, I understand Genesis 1:3 as describing the Big Bang.)

As for them killing the adults, adopting the children on the Israelites subject- maybe not in terms of their perspective. But it still didn't mean it wasn't possible. It was only their perspective based decision that denied that option, nothing physical.

Largely true, though I would say "perspective-based limitation" rather than "perspective-based decision" (as it's the lack of an option that we're directly discussing, not what was done instead).  However, ignoring perspective-based limitations when setting policy is a good way to run into unintended consequences...

[Flux]

I can't say I know anyone who would flame someone like that. Though many Christians are "luke-warm" as in, they say they are saved but really are not as the Bible states.
I think the best way as a Christian to keep others from being jerks it is to set a good example. And not be hypocrites. Perhaps everyone who owns a piece of technology should wait 2 or 3 minutes, and read over what they're going to post at least one time before they hit "send". That goes for everyone
Anyways, thats my input. Felt like I should say something if I'm saved.

[Green1]

I can't say I know anyone who would flame someone like that. Though many Christians are "luke-warm" as in, they say they are saved but really are not as the Bible states.
I think the best way as a Christian to keep others from being jerks it is to set a good example. And not be hypocrites. Perhaps everyone who owns a piece of technology should wait 2 or 3 minutes, and read over what they're going to post at least one time before they hit "send". That goes for everyone
Anyways, thats my input. Felt like I should say something if I'm saved.

I agree Blue. But I think the deal with "luke warm" Christians is that they just say so because the family or social group is or they just regurgitate what they learned as kids.

But the problem of hypocrisy has deeper roots. Let's take the whole "sex before marriage" deal. Only the most hardcore zealots actually follow this. Oh, they "say" you should not. But, some church groups are virtual meat markets. The more fundamentalist, the freakier. Now, I could see this being good in ancient times because there was no birth control except coitus interruptus (which was Onan's sin - not masturbation) due  to the fact that while you wanted lots of kids, you wanted to raise them fairly stable too. But this is a moot point now. No one follows it. But the Christians still give it lip service?

Also, some denominations talk "love". But to anyone who goes against very strict teachings, the "love" is at best condescending and passive aggressive or outright shunning and even violent at the worst. For example, "We allow gays to come and we love them....BUT they are going to hell and have no other function in our community other than to pray, pray, pray till they are un-gay" to outright being kicked out.

Also, for people that want to "save the world", many get a gleam in their eye if something happens to "unbelievers" saying "God works in mysterious ways". Never mind bad and good things happen to everyone, regardless of belief. A true human should not want anything bad to happen to other humans. I was in Hurricane Katrina. I lost everything and barely escaped with my life. 80 percent of a large metropolis was destroyed. When I evacuated, I ended up taking a job in a small county hospital in Mississippi. I was a Nursing Assistant there. This hospital kept a Christian chaplain. We had a man who was airlifted to the hospital from New Orleans who was on his last days. The preacher told him, while I was IN THE ROOM that New Orleans was destroyed because they allowed people to drink, were accepting to gays, and worshiped Satan. I was livid! I told him to stop talking to my patient. I told him I was from New Orleans and if his retarded arse wanted to know, the French Quarter which was the place of "evil" was unscathed while New Orleans East and Chalmette where there is a church on every corner was leveled. Similarly, Biloxi MS which also had loads of churches was annihilated. I told him God had bad aim!!!

[Flux]

I can't say I know anyone who would flame someone like that. Though many Christians are "luke-warm" as in, they say they are saved but really are not as the Bible states.
I think the best way as a Christian to keep others from being jerks it is to set a good example. And not be hypocrites. Perhaps everyone who owns a piece of technology should wait 2 or 3 minutes, and read over what they're going to post at least one time before they hit "send". That goes for everyone
Anyways, thats my input. Felt like I should say something if I'm saved.

Also, for people that want to "save the world", many get a gleam in their eye if something happens to "unbelievers" saying "God works in mysterious ways". Never mind bad and good things happen to everyone, regardless of belief. A true human should not want anything bad to happen to other humans. I was in Hurricane Katrina. I lost everything and barely escaped with my life. 80 percent of a large metropolis was destroyed. When I evacuated, I ended up taking a job in a small county hospital in Mississippi. I was a Nursing Assistant there. This hospital kept a Christian chaplain. We had a man who was airlifted to the hospital from New Orleans who was on his last days. The preacher told him, while I was IN THE ROOM that New Orleans was destroyed because they allowed people to drink, were accepting to gays, and worshiped Satan. I was livid! I told him to stop talking to my patient. I told him I was from New Orleans and if his retarded arse wanted to know, the French Quarter which was the place of "evil" was unscathed while New Orleans East and Chalmette where there is a church on every corner was leveled. Similarly, Biloxi MS which also had loads of churches was annihilated. I told him God had bad aim!!!

That chaplain was wrong. God's protection would not have been on New Orleans, but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy. Bad and good things do happen to believers as well, to be sure. But we have Jesus to comfort us when things go bad.
The Lord doesn't want destruction, but he won't defend you from it if you don't believe. You are fortunate to have escaped. The "mysterious ways" are more of a the-cup-is-half-full for the people who get out. We see that as learning the hard way that you should believe, and a second chance if you make it out.


Everyone knows somewhere that a God exists.

[Yitzi]

but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy.

I wouldn't go that far; God does sometimes aim to destroy as part of a larger plan/in order to remove evil.

Everyone knows somewhere that a God exists.

I'm not so sure.

[Flux]

but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy.

I wouldn't go that far; God does sometimes aim to destroy as part of a larger plan/in order to remove evil.

Everyone knows somewhere that a God exists.

I'm not so sure.

...I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?
Then your first sentence wouldn't make much sense, as how would you know about his plan if you weren't Christian?
But if you are, then I will say that he eventually, as the Bibble states end Earth. Of course, we have plenty 'o chances to  turn to him. So I suppose you are right that in some (very rare) circumstances, he will destroy. But that's about the only one.

[Buster's Uncle]

Man, you need to read the whole thread - he's Jewish, and hardcore.

God was pretty hardcore in the Old Testament...

[Yitzi]

...I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?

No; I'm sure that God exists, I'm just not so sure that everyone knows somewhere that a god exists.

But if you are, then I will say that he eventually, as the Bibble states end Earth. Of course, we have plenty 'o chances to  turn to him. So I suppose you are right that in some (very rare) circumstances, he will destroy. But that's about the only one.

God destroying does seem to be somewhat rare (it takes a long time for Him to "lose patience"), but not extremely rare.  To go through the various cases in the Bible where God intentionally caused destruction (with good reason every time, of course, but it's still destruction):

-The punishment of Adam, Eve, and the snake, if you count mortality as destruction.
-The Flood of Noah.
-The Tower of Babel, if you count dispersion as destruction.
-The punishment of Pharaoh when he kidnapped Sarai.  (Nonfatal, but seems to have been fairly unpleasant, so it still probably counts.)
-The destruction of Sodom and (most of) its suburbs.
-The punishment of Avimelech when he kidnapped Sarah, if that counts.  Certainly what He threatened to do if Avimelech did not return Sarah counts.
-The plagues put on Egypt via Moses (including drowning their army in the sea).
-Various punishments when the Israelites sinned, both in the wilderness and afterward.  Some of those, later on, were done by conquerors who weren't too nice to the rest of the world either.
-Commanding the conquest of Canaan due to their sins.
-Commanding the destruction of Amalek due to their barbaric attack in the wilderness.
-Destruction of the Assyrians and later Babylonians for what they did to Israel, as well as of Sannecherib's army.
-Destruction of the Russian-led alliance when it will attack Israel.  (Hasn't happened yet, but it is in the Bible.)

So while God is just, He is not exactly a pacifist by any stretch.

[Flux]

...I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?

No; I'm sure that God exists, I'm just not so sure that everyone knows somewhere that a god exists.

But if you are, then I will say that he eventually, as the Bibble states end Earth. Of course, we have plenty 'o chances to  turn to him. So I suppose you are right that in some (very rare) circumstances, he will destroy. But that's about the only one.

God destroying does seem to be somewhat rare (it takes a long time for Him to "lose patience"), but not extremely rare.  To go through the various cases in the Bible where God intentionally caused destruction (with good reason every time, of course, but it's still destruction):

-The punishment of Adam, Eve, and the snake, if you count mortality as destruction.
-The Flood of Noah.
-The Tower of Babel, if you count dispersion as destruction.
-The punishment of Pharaoh when he kidnapped Sarai.  (Nonfatal, but seems to have been fairly unpleasant, so it still probably counts.)
-The destruction of Sodom and (most of) its suburbs.
-The punishment of Avimelech when he kidnapped Sarah, if that counts.  Certainly what He threatened to do if Avimelech did not return Sarah counts.
-The plagues put on Egypt via Moses (including drowning their army in the sea).
-Various punishments when the Israelites sinned, both in the wilderness and afterward.  Some of those, later on, were done by conquerors who weren't too nice to the rest of the world either.
-Commanding the conquest of Canaan due to their sins.
-Commanding the destruction of Amalek due to their barbaric attack in the wilderness.
-Destruction of the Assyrians and later Babylonians for what they did to Israel, as well as of Sannecherib's army.
-Destruction of the Russian-led alliance when it will attack Israel.  (Hasn't happened yet, but it is in the Bible.)

So while God is just, He is not exactly a pacifist by any stretch.

Perhaps your right.

[JarlWolf]

30% of that isn't proven and might as well be fictional/overblown, the rest of it is purely historical, and the last one is just political bigotry.

Abrahamic religions just seem hateful to me, even their god seems hateful and retributive. If anything I seem to sympathize more to Buddhism if I ever took a faith, but even then that's more of a philosophy with spirituality..


As for if I acknowledged a religion and believed in it, yes I would still think them psychotic for acting like that because I would be believing in the morality and core themes of the faith over anything, not what some mad prophet or self proclaimed listener to a god would say. I wouldn't listen to others on that front and would refer to my own decision making, in the words of what religious people use, let heaven judge our actions...

Of course, I believe that's nonsense to begin with. But that's just me.

And as for the truth of things Yitzi- evidence is the only way to determine the truth. Gods, goddesses and your god have absolutely no viable evidence, and if anything there is evidence against the bible and how it states certain things. The Earth was not formed in 7 days, the Earth is older then 10,000 years.

[Green1]

Jarlwolf, you are correct.

More liberal revisions to the Abrahamic religions deemphasize the genocide, violence, and out right hatred of anyone not a follower. To gain followers, they try to only concern themselves with the small "peace and love and prosperity" aspects that are not even a main theme with the exception of portions of the New Testament.

But, there is no denying that YHWH/ Allah/ whatever is a vengeful, psychotic, jealous, and hateful character if you actually read the books. The "love" is only that he does not wipe out humanity. He constantly is needing validation through prayers. He seems to delight in misery and suffering and has no interest in the happiness of his creations unless it is feeding his ego. If such a being were real, I would say humanity is in serious trouble and would need to find some way to be rid of such a hostile and manipulative entity.

Fortunately, as you said, such a malevolent creature does not exist except in the hearts and minds of people and the organizations whose livelihood and survival depends on it staying there. And they will justify and actually commit atrocities, minor and large scale, because "they are right" and non believers are "evil" even if such differences are minor or not detrimental to human kind, only the existence of the religious organization or sense of being "correct".

Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, once said when describing the culture of his vision of the future once said, "You see, in the future, everyone is an atheist. And... they are damn better people for it".

I tend to agree. While humans will still find reason to kill others even without urging of a god, there will be a lot less killing and evil in general if we could relegate this nonsense into just a dark chapter in our history books.