It really falls on a bad time for tax professionals

Bad timing.

Why repeat the past every year?

That said, from a Jew who has to say the Kaddish for the next year (sigh)

Lost my dad on April 1st to leukemia. It's been a very hard loss for me.

You are in my thoughts and prayers.

that sucks and I can imagine it is difficult for you.

...with.

As for Pesach, I like to think of it as an annual internal "spring cleaning:" -- what's our own "stick chametz" keeping us "enslaved" (to a bad habit, addiction, relationship, etc.), and what prevents us from becoming free(r)?

I try to look at it as an 8-day "walking meditation" (especially with the different "food reminders&quot , however imperfect I am at the personal "redemption" each time....

...which means I'll probably need to try to get even "freer" next year!

for the first few days of Passover, then head to PA for a quick fun for the kids, and then head back to New York and go home to Denver on Sunday.

Tell it I love it and miss it especially takeout. Kiss Zabar's, Fairway, and Tea and Sympathy (I emigrated to California with their Cornish pasties in my carry on.)

BECAUSE IT'S AN EXCUSE FOR A PARTY!

But Passover, Pesach, is more related to the indoeuropean root Peisk (fish) than that Passover thing, although when ancient man could make a pun, he made it and was happy. There is always fish at Passover. Ever ask why? Read any old thing by Robert Eisler.

Or is the Passover just another myth? Another matter of "faith"?

Also, the story of Passover is brutal, it really makes you realize what a cruel and terrible god people celebrate and worship.

After all, according to the story, God hardened Pharoh's heart to keep him from giving in to the Israelis demands and then killed all of Egypt's firstborn.

Gotta wonder what there is to celebrate about that.

Reminds me of something somewhere, something about making someone do something and then punishing their ancestors for it...

But, tradition.

to worship such a terrible god. This is the religion forum after all.

Personally, I think that if people are going to believe in and worship supernatural, all powerful deities who are also assholes, that should be pointed out, cause there can be some bad consequences from that.

just some passive aggressive one liners. I'm guessing it's because you know I'm right. That god does sound like an asshole. And who wants to defend the slaughter of first borns? Certainly not you. So, settle for passive aggressive snark.

with inane comments like "then don't worship". Ooooo. What are you going to say next, if I don't love it, leave it? I think you're insulting the intelligence of me and of all people.

I can criticize a nasty, terrible belief system and it's not an insult. If people are offended, then that's on them. If they can give a good reason for being offended, I'll listen. I never hear a good reason for being offended, much less a reason. I won't hear one from you.

I'm offended by people that worship a tyrannical, genocidal god as a perfect being. I think I have good reason to be.

I think it is a proud tradition and should continue. May they have a good holiday.

Backed up with no reasoning. If you want your opinion to have some substance, say why you have that opinion, and put some thought into it.

" You said, " If people are offended, then that's on them."
But then you said..
"I'm offended by people that worship a tyrannical, genocidal god as a perfect being. I think I have good reason to be."

???

I'll listen. But they don't. And they rarely even say why they're offended in the first place, because they don't have any good reason to be. It's like Republicans being offended that I criticize their tax policy as immoral and hurting the poor.

Being offended isn't an argument. People who are offended don't always have good reasons to be offended. I have reasons for being offended here, and that's what I'm laying, while the responses are mostly insulting me personally or just inane and passive aggressive, not addressing anything substantive.

Like your reply "Who's that MellowDem feller". That's the usual response from criticism of religion. It's still given a very privileged status, when it's an idea like any other.

that's on.... her.

Except, of course, if you are religious in any way. Then he takes on his alter ego: HarshYourMellowDem.

Support the rulers? Support the slaves?

And he liked to kill first born babies, because, you know, he's an asshole.

Passover is not an anti-slavery tract, not in its intent. The Israelis owned slaves. All cultures in the region owned slaves. Mr. Lincoln was a modern person re-interpreting an ancient myth to accommodate current circumstances.

I'm very thankful that he did that.

except for the religion you are or were a follower of.

announce that you never have opinions on religions you are not a believer in, and then accuse me of moving the goalposts?

here's some work, have a piece of it.

There are contrary tendencies inherent in man, and there are reflective contrary tendencies in both man's conceptions of god and the mythologies generated to embody conceptions of god. I think it is rather simplistic to dismiss the Torah, or any foundational religious historification, because it lacks an unalloyed "good" god. There is very little in life that would lead anyone to understand it as wholly good. Dr. Pangloss in any age is an object of derision. Witness to the joy and concurrent suffering that life imposes, and to the ongoing re-assessments of apparent fortune and misfortune that accompany any human life led reflectively, will almost by necessity, it seems, find their way into a mythos.

I dismiss it because it's claims are wrong.

The fact that it's claims also include requiring to worship a genocidal tyrant deity just makes it that much more harmful.

I think we have boxed ourselves in to a stiflingly parochial corner in much of our contemporary thinking. We are not as sophisticated today as we fancy ourselves, and our ancestors were not as stupid as we now portray them. Precisely the same global questions that our ancestors struggled with about the meaning of life and consciousness remain with us today, and those questions have not been remotely "answered" as yet by material explanations. Perhaps they will be. But I tend to think that our very approaches to understanding are wanting in many ways, and that we are guilty of "dismissing" now what we actually came closer to understanding previously.

It is a very interesting idea that we might be regressing in terms of understanding the past, because our minds are shaped by the present. As you get older, it is easy to see what a shallow sense of history people have (as I did, and still do).

I'd think that with how much things are recorded today, it will be easier for future peoples to understand our thinking. But even still, they probably won't understand it the way we do, but will only be able to imagine how we think.

the entire story is fictional. It is also horrendous. And unbelievable of course.

Your statement that I responded to, that it would scare slave owners. only made sense as an explanation of the meaning of Passover within its historical context, it certainly didn't make sense as an explanation of the meaning of Passover in a world where slavery is illegal.

Within its historical context the Passover myth was not a "story to scare slave owners" as slave owning was pervasive throughout the ancient Mediterranean world (and everywhere else too.)

Would you have refrained from this silly, nit picking argument, since you know exactly what he meant and was refering to ancient Israel.

Do you dispute that there were slaves in ancient Israel?

handed down in the Jewish tradition, do indicate that slavery was practiced in ancient Israel. Of course, whoever regards those texts as telling us nothing whatsoever, about the culture in which they were written, must also take the view that such indications have no value. But I can't see why anyone, who thought the texts told us nothing, would carefully preserve the texts and study them as if they were informative, so I rather suspect that slavery was practiced in ancient Israel.

Why the silly game about Israelis?

I don't know why I expected any kind of honest answer.
I'm out of here.

Though here 2) if anything? The Bible once again affirms that slavery is OK. It just suggests we do that humanely.

So are you here approving of a well-tempered, "moderate" slavery?

Based on a Babylonian myth from the time the Hebrews were captives there. Where they weren't freed by God. The Jewish people were never slaves in Egypt, who didn't even have the type of bondage portrayed in the OT.
So it's a bullshit tale to reinforce that the Jewish people are chosen by God and given Israel.

And the OCD that people go through to avoid any grain becomes laughable.

There is no historical evidence for the story. Worse, as noted, the story doesn't even fit within what we know about Egyptian society, which is quite a bit. Egypt is one of the most researched ancient civilizations around, and the story of Passover is highly improbable given what we know.

It is a myth with no basis in reality. Worse than that of course is the portrayal of a god who is a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac. I sit through Seders every year with people who just refuse to *think* about the ritual they are enacting. They do it out of habit, but even then they know it is an empty ritual, devoid of meaning, hollowed out like the rest of the old religions, a shell over an empty framework, the cracks showing, bits falling off, a dead god of our imagination worshipped out of habit.

"some people believe it" is just empty nonsense. Believing in utter bullshit is a stupid way to waste one's life. Believing in toxic bullshit is worse. Indoctrinating others in this sort of crap is immoral.

6000 years old, they ate wrong as well.

The story of Moses having any validity.

The story of the Exodus is a foundation epic, much along the lines of the Aenead. As such, it is less about what actually happened than about how ancient Israel viewed itself as a nation and established its place in the world. Establishing, a national and religious identity would be extraordinarily important for a captive or enslaved people. And captivity, enslavement and persecution became a repeating nightmare for Western Jews, culminating in the Holocaust.

I think modern celebration of Passover must be seen in this light. Pharaoh has his counterpart in Hitler; Moses, Aaron and Joshua have theirs in the founders of the modern state of Israel. The Exodus from Egypt takes place not in history but in "sacred time," which means that it is eternally contemporary.

is not a bad thing if accepted as such, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or Paul Bunyan.
But when they are celebrated as true and a sign that their religion makes them the chosen people of God, it is detrimental.
Most of the Jewish people I know (I was raised Jewish, so i speak from experience) believe Moses existed and at least part of the exodus story was real.
If they did not exist, then the feeling that Israel is an ordained country, (a belief held by many Jews and Fundamentalist Christians) should not be accepted.
The story is as relevant as Pecos Bill creating the Rio Grande.

and a mature culture/civilization that they are able to put their myths into proper perspective. Not abandon them, but see them for what they truly are.

Though they might represent a cultural touchstone.
As opposed to religious belivers who think the myths are true.

not literally true.

"Fiction" and "myth" (rather freighted terms) play a curious role in human thinking. I don't think there's a great deal of functional distance between myth and hypothesis. Both are products of the seemingly desperate human need for explanation, and after all, every hypothesis is essentially myth until supported.

"Meaningful", despite not being literally, factually true is how I would describe it. Those who think that denying the literal truth of myths (such as the creation or flood myths of Genesis) robs them of any meaning or significance are the ones making an error of perspective.

I suppose by "figuratively" I was conjuring the essentially metaphorical process by which we approach explanation, but you are correct that it is a mushy term.

And in any 'real' sense, meaningless.

In Egypt. Combine that with the similarities between Moses and the Babylonian myths and we have a holiday passed on fiction.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191.

If archaeologists find no evidence of a mass emigration from Egypt during or somewhat after the time of Ramesses, then of course one probably has no reason to believe thus such a mass emigration occurred

But the ancient Egyptians did, at one time, have a large empire that stretched at least to what is now Israel, and like other ancient peoples they did use war to obtain slaves. So there is nothing implausible in the idea that various people from that area were held as slaves in Egypt

There is also the testimony of Josephus in Against Apion, written perhaps at the end of the first century CE. Josephus purports to quote the work of an Egyptian historian Manetho:

... he says ... The king, although he had been informed of these things, and terrified with the fear of what was to come, yet did not he even then eject these maimed people out of his country, when it had been foretold him that he was to clear Egypt of them; but, as Manetho says, "he then, upon their request, gave them that city to inhabit, which had formerly belonged to the shepherds, and was called Avaris; whither when they were gone in crowds," he says, "they chose one that had formerly been priest of Hellopolis; and that this priest first ordained that they should neither worship the gods, nor abstain from those animals that were worshipped by the Egyptians, but should kill and eat them all, and should associate with nobody but those that had conspired with them; and that he bound the multitude by oaths to be sure to continue in those laws; and that when he had built a wall about Avaris, he made war against the king." Manetho adds also, that "this priest sent to Jerusalem to invite that people to come to his assistance, and promised to give them Avaris; for that it had belonged to the forefathers of those that were coming from Jerusalem, and that when they were come, they made a war immediately against the king, and got possession of all Egypt." He says also that "the Egyptians came with an army of two hundred thousand men, and that Amenophis, the king of Egypt, not thinking that he ought to fight against the gods, ran away presently into Ethiopia, and committed Apis and certain other of their sacred animals to the priests, and commanded them to take care of preserving them." He says further, that" the people of Jerusalem came accordingly upon the Egyptians, and overthrew their cities, and burnt their temples, and slew their horsemen, and, in short, abstained from no sort of wickedness nor barbarity; and for that priest who settled their polity and their laws," he says, "he was by birth of Hellopolis, and his name was Osarsiph, from Osyris the god of Hellopolis, but that he changed his name, and called himself Moses" ...

Now one might suspect that this story of an uprising against the Egyptians is simply convenient polemic from Josephus. But according to Josephus, the king's name is Amenophis -- apparently a Greek version of Amenhotep. And despite the somewhat garbled story (Manetho seems to regard Ramesses as the son of Amenhotep), there was a period of chaos following the reign of the odd monotheist Amenhotep IV: Smenkhkare ruled a year; Neferneferuaten perhaps two; Tutankhamun eight or nine; the vizier Ay three or four; then the general Horemheb became Pharoah a while, but upon his death his tomb was sealed unfinished, after which Ramesses I ruled a year or two. Meanwhile, the capitol relocated from Amarna back to Thebes, and Amenhotep IV was blotted from the official dynastic histories

The Biblical authors were at least accurately aware of an Egyptian change in attitude towards monotheism in the era before Ramesses II consolidated his power

was editorializing. The rest is based on the most accurate knowledge we have of the history and cultures of the Region.

Matzo is bread, and grain-based.

yet they Jews bend over backwards to not eat anything with grain. To the extent that Coke must have sugar instead of corn syrup, since corn is considered a grain. The tradition is not to eat leavened bread, but it is extended to all foods with grain and flour, except authorized Kosher for Passover items like Matzoh. Like a lot of religious rules and specifically the more orthodox Jewish laws, there is an absence of logic.

Sephartic Jews eat corn, rice etc on Passover, but Ashkenazic Jews don't and the reasons are complicated:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Passover/At_Home/Food_and_the_Kitchen/Kitniyot.shtml

Tradition, Tradition!

Some would say complicated, some would say silly.
And since the whole celebration is over events that never occurred, it gets more inane.

Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Every year I am inspired to wonder how anyone can take this nonsense seriously.

Oh wait, that was Lincoln and the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers.

because that relationship is too often disputed

Who miss the "glorious South" and think things were better in Dixie.

but I find it amusing the obsession a lot of Jews go through to not eat any grain or brain. I mean the very thought that unbeknown to them that a crumb of bread might have accidentally fallen to a vat of something they are eating would be an affront to God is laughable. It's not that they just refrain from eating leavened baked goods, it's that everything was overseen by a Rabbi to make sure no bread has a chance to be anywhere near them.
So I made the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder joke.

Well, he keeps kosher to a degree. I am sure you know what I mean.

The food rules he does have are pretty strict, though, and I try to respect them. I can't always do that and when he joins in a larger group, I tell him what is and is not ok in his diet.

It's turned into a good thing. I don't question his beliefs and he understands that I can't always accommodate him.

Besides that, he is a Lebanese Jew raised in Italy and one of the best cooks I have ever known. So I've learned a lot from him.

I let them enjoy their holiday. If it comes up, I do asking some probing questions, like why remove flour and grain from everything then eat matzoh, which is flour?

following a tradition based on an event that didn't occur to the extent that they obsess that God will be unhappy if any grain gets near any of the food they eat for a week?
I'm not talking about removing chamitz from the house and not eating it, I'm talking about worrying about every thing they eat needing to be Kosher for Passover, even things like a can of broth or a package of sugar.
I find it a bit ridiculous, sorry if my opinion is not to your liking.

I would say that if someones eating ritual is based on pseudo-science woo I would be similarly judgmental.

clarify.

about the Four Questions. After seeing a Seder plate, I'll take Easter dinner over Passover any time.

The meal is usually quit good with food like brisket and simis (a mix of yams and prunes).

I read somewhere that the items on the seder plate aren't actually et. It's a cool ceremony though.

matzoh, bitter herbs, charoset (fruits, nuts and honey) but you only eat a taste with the prayers.

The meal is a big holiday meal, just without bread.

Some were very traditional while others had been markedly updated.

Will not get to one this year, but I wish everyone who embraces Passover a peaceful and loving season.

God they say killed the first born sons of all those who did not leave blood, a mark of their faith, on their doors. The very name of Passover refers to this: those who proclaimed loyalty to this religion were "passed over" in the genocide, and were not killed.

It was said that God or his angels did this. But this particular person, not believing in divine agency, just suggested that Jewish zealots did this work of killing the first sons of nonbelievers. In a notable act of genocidal nature.

If the Israelis (or if one prefers, the quaint Israelites, so s4p does not have a confusion) were slaves they would either be living in the same homes as their masters, or in their own separate slave quarters. They would not be living in their own homes intermingled with the Egyptians.

and Edward G. Robinson.

Of course speculating on an event that necer happened, about a people who were never slaves in Egypt is pointless.

But it does portray a God who is mean spirited, since he hardened Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from freeing the Jews, and then slaughtered the firstborn for something he caused.
It is a myth about a God only concerned with one group of people and horrible to the rest of humanity.
Not something we should celebrate really.

Only strongly-believing Jews would put the blood on the door. So not only Egyptians, but also moderate Jews would be killed. Leaving only a hard cadre of zealots.

Killing the liberal and moderate believers is a common method that fundamentalists use to "purify" their religion.