I disagree. It’s the same notion, simply phrased differently.
At base, all phrasings of the Golden Rule are about one thing and one thing only: empathy for others and reciprocity. How that empathy is described or explained is, of course, as various as there are people doing the explaining. I also like “treat other people as subjects, not objects”.
Personally, I find that this is proof that there exists a common ground for an objective morality - that if you lined up Jesus, Hillel, Confucius, Kant, and the Buddha (assuming of course all these folks literally existed), and allowed them all to argue stuff over to their heart’s content, they would disagree about much - but if pressed they would all agree on some version of the Golden Rule, some form of empathy and reciprocity, despite the fact that their philosophies (and religious beliefs) are various.
I was taught, by my Lubavitcher rabbi of all things, that one reason for keeping kosher was to separate us from animals. We can be thoughtful about what we eat, exhibit self control and follow rules and not just feed in a base, animalistic way. The actual rules don’t mean much in and of themselves, it’s the act of being mindful of them that has value. This of course is different from the rules of humane slaughter of animals- that is for the humanity of treating even animals with care.
It’s also one reason why rules of kosher (and just about everything else) go out the window when life and death are on the line. Philosophical self control means nothing if you’re starving to death.
I think the chicken/milk prohibition is a “mar’it ayin” principle-based humra - that is, since it looks like meat, your neighbors seeing you eat a chicken-and-cheese sandwich may think it’s beef-and-cheese. Here’s a discussion of the “Mar’it ayin” principle: http://e.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=6425
Yes, I remember learning that that’s the reason for the kosher laws in general. Something like - the generations before The Flood were vegetarian, but after the flood, God gave humanity the right to eat meat as a concession to their weakness. The kosher laws were given to rein in humanity’s predilection for inhumanity … to remind us that we can’t do with animals whatever we wish. As for the actual rules - I dunno, maybe they don’t mean much, but that didn’t stop the rabbis from attempting to extract meaning from them.
This reminds me of when I was doing research for an ethnography for my Anthropology 101 class back in the day. I chose to study the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and went to one of their services at a Kingdom Hall. At the end, I asked the minister a few questions about some of their laws, including the blood transfusions issue. He told me that they didn’t allow transfusions because of the Biblical prohibition against consuming blood. When I argued that transfusing and eating are not the same things, he said that if you pumped alcohol into your veins, you’d get drunk just like if you drank it. So, I broke out the Jewish “Piku’ach Nefesh” principle (preservation of human life trumps other laws), but he wasn’t having it! Didn’t impress him one bit, haha. I guess this is a good example of why it’s dangerous to be too literal when it comes to interpreting (and applying) the words of the Bible.
One patient I had in the hospital once could not use the push button on the bed or the phone to call the nurse, but could use a battery operated candle. I guess the battery made all the difference.
Whether battery operated or not, turning electrical things on/off on Shabbat is forbidden. Could it be by “use” you mean that it was turned on before Shabbat and stayed turned on?
Ah, but the chick was nursed by the egg-white, while still in the egg. So chicken with egg sauce would be analogous to lamb in milk…
No, I’m not arguing this seriously, just, well, playing with the ideas. Isn’t that a part of all of this: taking ideas, kicking them around, and seeing where it leads?
William Tenn wrote a cute SF story, “On Venus, Have We Got a Rabbi,” which deals, imaginatively, with Jewish Law as it would apply to people living on Venus. Do you measure days by local days, or are you bound by Earth-days? If there are Venerian animals and plants, how do we know which are clean and which are unclean? It can be approached as a kind of game; the very playfulness of it is a good thing. Much better than throwing stones.
I’m almost positive that there’s a modest real-life analogue of this in interpretations of Rabbinic law for observant astronauts. I know for a fact that Islam has addressed the question of the kiblah in space.
Harlan Ellison wrote another cute sci fi story, “I’m Looking For Kadak”, about trying to find a 10th man to complete the minyan for a shiva on another planet.
Speaking of applying Jewish law in outer space, when Ilan Ramon was on the space shuttle, he asked whether he sould keep Shabbat every 10 hours, since the day/night cycle occurred every 90 minutes while orbiting Earth. It was ruled that he should follow the sunrise/sunset cycle according to Earth - specifically Cape Canaveral, the point of lift-off.
Do you remember what the consensus was? I would guess that “toward Mecca,” “Toward Arabia,” “Toward the Middle East” and “Toward Earth” would suffice as one drew farther and farther away. Once settled on a planet orbiting another star, simply “Toward Earth” might require so attention. (Quick, right now, which direction is, say, Vega?)
Wikipedia has either “figure it out as best you can” or “towards earth.” Those are just for orbit, though; I don’t know as anyone has yet considered the question as applied to other solar or extra-solar bodies.
I think a lot of (American, at least) Christians tend to downplay that the two are different religions. A rabbi doesn’t really analogize to a priest or minister (except in certain forms of Protestantism), a synagogue doesn’t really analogize to a church, etc. – but people tend to think in the terms familiar to them.
An omniscient God is aware of the loopholes. An omnipotent God who is the one making the rules in the first place has the power to close them. If we weren’t supposed to eat bacon-flavored soy, it would say so.
Somewhere in the Talmud, IIRC, a Rabbi asks “We are commanded not to eat pork. Should we assume that pork is noxious and tastes terrible?” and the answer after a while is no, pork probably tastes fine, exceedingly good, just yummy.
I often think of this passage. Plus it can be mentioned after the related I’ve-got-good-one joke telling finally come to an end.
News to me. I was raised a Christian, and have known hundreds, in many different regions of the US, and other than fringe sects like the Amish (with whom I do not have personal experience, so I’m just guessing they are an exception), none of them had a problem with household chores like washing their car or mowing their lawn on Sunday.
Or even their regular work — there are pro athletes (and being a golf fan, I actually thought of Zach Johnson before I thought of Tim Tebow) who play their games on Sunday and then thank Jesus for the win. When I was a firefighter, one of the guys was a member of an extreme fundamentalist church, and he worked Sundays the same as all of us.