If you think the catholics are deluded...check this out!!

whitebriar

Forgive me for using roman terms here but...jebus mariah and josophene!!
This photo of a news article was sent to me and I thought I'd share..it should be attached to this post.

Nonsense sometimes know's no bounds! :eek::eek:

Kiwi in IE

Haha! Brilliant!

Dades

You might want to enter our caption competition!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84109984#post84109984

The winner gets a soul.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

You might want to enter our caption competition!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84109984#post84109984

The winner gets a soul.

What if the winner is a ginger?

MrPudding

Jernal wrote: »

What if the winner is a ginger?

Stupid question. Everyone knows gingers can't have a soul. They will get a twix and a can of coke.

MrP

Lapin

How did the feckin eejit not suffocate ?

Pherekydes

Lapin wrote: »

How did the feckin eejit not suffocate ?

He held his breath. With God all things are possible.

whitebriar

Dades wrote: »

You might want to enter our caption competition!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84109984#post84109984

The winner gets a soul.

jazis,you're ungodly quick around here
The clipping is from today's mail,I'm told.
Some people are damn Quare.

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

Stupid question. Everyone knows gingers can't have a soul. They will get a twix and a can of coke.

MrP

That sounds like reverse discrimination. Non Gingers get a poxy soul, whereas gingers get a twix AND a can of coke. Do you've any idea of the market value of a soul these days compared to twix and coke?

Sarky

My beard has a bit of ginger in it, could I choose what I get? I mean I like a good Twix but a can of coke is a can of coke...

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

My beard has a bit of ginger in it, could I choose what I get? I mean I like a good Twix but a can of coke is a can of coke...

Scientifically speaking the reason for ginger beard is totally different to ginger head hair. So, no. We atheists are people of science!

jd83

Was the barrier of the giant plane that surrounds him not enough that he needed the security of a plastic bag Does he count as his own carry on

Sarky

No fair, the gingers get all the perks in this brave new world

Kidchameleon

Its an article in a rag, I done a bit of research and can find no evidence to suggest its true. Their could be a million reasons why that guy is wraped in plastic. Could be a joke, could be a dummy, could be Photoshopped. Sorry to rain on your parade guys.

Dades

Not a problem. I've a load of brollies on my float.

Rain ain't gonna dampen this party.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its an article in a rag, I done a bit of research and can find no evidence to suggest its true. Their could be a million reasons why that guy is wraped in plastic. Could be a joke, could be a dummy, could be Photoshopped. Sorry to rain on your parade guys.

Really? A million reasons for sitting on a plane in a bag?

MrP

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? A million reasons for sitting on a plane in a bag?

MrP

Well there could.

Cavehill Red

Jernal wrote: »

Scientifically speaking the reason for ginger beard is totally different to ginger head hair. So, no. We atheists are people of science!

Linky please.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its an article in a rag, I done a bit of research and can find no evidence to suggest its true. Their could be a million reasons why that guy is wraped in plastic. Could be a joke, could be a dummy, could be Photoshopped. Sorry to rain on your parade guys.

I googled for almost 30 seconds and got this from a Huffington Post article:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/el-al-decides-against-body-bags-for-kohanim-1.73451

Should you wish to try researching again, I know it is tough, trying using the search terms:

Man plastic bag aeroplane.

MrP

pH

jd83 wrote: »

Was the barrier of the giant plane that surrounds him not enough that he needed the security of a plastic bag Does he count as his own carry on

Yea, I couldn't figure out what sort of impurities he thought could get through a pressurised metal cylinder yet could be stopped by a (presumably unsealed) plastic bag.

Turtwig

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Linky please.

Jesus! You're such a demanding bunch of users. Linky this, source that, fallacy there, bias here. Pfft. In my day, we should accepted things at face value and never question them.

Rant aside, finding a link for this stuff has been hard. I keep landing in speculative discussions or blog posts. I'd always just understood it to be a case of genetics. You either carry a red head hair gene or you don't; if you have one you're a potential red beard. If you've got more then you're probably going to be a red head.

However, I need a citation for this, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Cavehill Red

Well, I'm disinclined to take that at face (or even chin) value.
My understanding is that the receptor one gene for red hair is recessive, and hence you can have it and not be red haired at all, or have it and have red facial and body hair but not head hair, or be ginge all over.
In other words, it's the interactions with more dominant genes which decides whether it manifests as red hair on head, face or elsewhere, not 'how much' of it you have, which is sort of meaningless in a binary context.

Kidchameleon

MrPudding wrote: »

I googled for almost 30 seconds and got this from a Huffington Post article:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/el-al-decides-against-body-bags-for-kohanim-1.73451

Should you wish to try researching again, I know it is tough, trying using the search terms:

Man plastic bag aeroplane.

MrP

12 year old article from another rag that states nobody was ever allowed to travel like that. Excellent research skills there :rolleyes:

Dades

By all means explain (with citations) the Jewish chap in the bag if you have the real story... otherwise the parade goes on.

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

By all means explain (with citations) the Jewish chap in the bag if you have the real story... otherwise the parade goes on.

Why are you having fun at someone who has religious beliefs? That's his business (assuming the article is true).

Your a bully.

Kivaro

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your a bully.

You're a bully for saying that.

Sulla Felix

Ok. So... If the story is true that he isn't allowed touch the dead... Has no one ever told him the likely source of the plastic?

Turtwig

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why are you having fun at someone who has religious beliefs? That's his business (assuming the article is true).

Your a bully.

Kivaro wrote: »

You're a bully for saying that.

Folks,

No bully accusations please.

Ta,

Sarky

Bully for you, Journal.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Bully for you, Journal.

Linky?

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Linky?

(personal correspondence, 2008)

Kidchameleon

Jernal wrote: »

Folks,

No bully accusations please.

Ta,

Apologies Jernal. Probably should have worded that differently.

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

kylith

Is it a form of bullying to slag someone off because they believe in fairies?

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

Why?

Quite apart from:

MagicMarker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Apologies Jernal. Probably should have worded that differently.

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

Obliq

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, I'm disinclined to take that at face (or even chin) value.
My understanding is that the receptor one gene for red hair is recessive, and hence you can have it and not be red haired at all, or have it and have red facial and body hair but not head hair, or be ginge all over.
In other words, it's the interactions with more dominant genes which decides whether it manifests as red hair on head, face or elsewhere, not 'how much' of it you have, which is sort of meaningless in a binary context.

Don't know about all that Red, but I'm proud to be one......."Pale skin allows those living at higher latitudes and exposed to less frequent and weaker sunlight to more efficiently synthesize vitamin D." Made for this country we are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=were-neandertals-the-orig

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

(personal correspondence, 2008)

Was this before or after the love letters I sent ya that you never replied you ? I'm afraid I never really organised my correspondences chronologically. All I see is different shades of paper.
I'll find it though, have no fear.:D

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

By all means explain (with citations) the Jewish chap in the bag if you have the real story... otherwise the parade goes on.

The "real story", we're told in post #8, is sourced from the Daily Mail.

I know atheists can be as credulous as anyone else but, really, there have to be some standards applied.

Nobody should ever be called upon to refute a story that's take from the Daily Mail. Rather, those who cite the Daily Mail as a source for anything should be made to go and do a remedial course in critical thinking before being readmitted to polite society.

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

Linky?

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

In certain real life scenarios, of course. But to suggest this thread is bullying is borderline hysteria.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "real story", we're told in post #8, is sourced from the Daily Mail.

I know atheists can be as credulous as anyone else but, really, there have to be some standards applied.

Nobody should ever be called upon to refute a story that's take from the Daily Mail. Rather, those who cite the Daily Mail as a source for anything should be made to go and do a remedial course in critical thinking before being readmitted to polite society.

There's any number of news sites echoing the Daily mail story, including JewishPress.com and Harratz.com. There's also an article about it here with some interesting supporting links.

It took me all of half-a-minute to find them.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

12 year old article from another rag that states nobody was ever allowed to travel like that. Excellent research skills there :rolleyes:

And another 40 seconds of research...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ultra-orthodox-passengers-riot-aboard-el-al-plane-over-screening-of-film-1.243447

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/el-al-decides-against-body-bags-for-kohanim-1.73451

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ultra-orthodox-passengers-riot-aboard-el-al-plane-over-screening-of-film-1.243447

And so what if the articles are 12 years old? They are referring to activity which is the subject of the thread. Whilst they may not confirm the validity of of the picture we are discussing they do provide background and some degree of confirmation that this particular behaviour has apparanelt happened in the past and there are, in fact, some nut bars out there that think this is an actual solution to an imaginary problem. Please feel free to report by post if you feel that calling people that believe being in a sealed metal tube if not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out, nut bars.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

. . . Please feel free to report by post if you feel that calling people that believe being in a sealed metal tube if not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out, nut bars.

Who's talking about reporting posts, Mr P? Persecution complex, much?

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

If you want to know what belief motivates this man’s behaviour, Mr P, you’re going to have to ask him, or at least ask someone who knows a bit about halachic law and practices. But, obviously, if your only object is to deride him, it’s perfectly easy to do that from a position of ignorance, so why bother with tiresome facts? Just make stuff up that confirms your existing preconceptions, and away you go!

If you can produce any evidence that this man’s motivation is as you claim, Mr P, I’ll have a go at refuting it. As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Now you know how us atheists feel most of the time.:pac:

Lorcan_D

That is absolutely mad. Also lol at him actually thinking a plastic bag Is a shield haha

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who's talking about reporting posts, Mr P? Persecution complex, much?

That particular comment was in response to that particular poster’s accusation that mocking someone’s belief was bullying.

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

First of all, and most importantly, I don’t believe I posted a link to the Daily Mail, and if I did I beg forgiveness.

Second, whilst we don’t have any specific primary sources for the particular man in the picture, we do have reports that a particular flavour of religious person believed that the addition of a plastic bag was required to ensure safe flight over cemeteries.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to know what belief motivates this man’s behaviour, Mr P, you’re going to have to ask him, or at least ask someone who knows a bit about halachic law and practices.

I am not particularly bother what this particular man believes. I have no way of knowing why he is in a plastic bag, nor, I believe, do we even have any idea when the picture was taken.

As often happens, the thread and the conversation has moved on. The motivations of this particular individual are now secondary to the thread. Whatever his motivations are the thread has revealed that, apparently, there is a sect that believes a sealed metal tube is not sufficient protection from the spirits of the dead, but a plastic bag does. Perhaps it is the dead organisms in the plastic that repel the spirits.

In the absence of a primary source I am reasonably happy with the stories from the Jewish website reporting this type of behaviour. From those stories I think it is reasonable to believe that this type of behaviour has occurred before.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, obviously, if your only object is to deride him, it’s perfectly easy to do that from a position of ignorance, so why bother with tiresome facts? Just make stuff up that confirms your existing preconceptions, and away you go!

I am not deriding him, specifically. I am deriding people that think they will become ritually unclean if they travel over a cemetery in a seal metal tube but believe the additional shielding of a plastic bag somehow, magically I presume, protects them from these spirits touching them.

Now, if he is a person that is wearing the plastic bag for that reason, then I am deriding him. Without knowing his reason for wearing the bag I cannot deride him specifically, that would be silly. He may have a perfectly good reason for being in a bag, perhaps he suffers from some kind of chronic allergic illness and contact with the outside world makes him ill. If that was the case them it would be silly to deride him.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you can produce any evidence that this man’s motivation is as you claim, Mr P, I’ll have a go at refuting it. As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Like I said, I don’t need to know the man’s motivation. The conversation is now wider than this specific person. His motivation is irrelevant. If people do what he has done for the reason detailed above then that act is worthy of derision and ridicule. If he have a perfectly reasonable reason for dressing up in a plastic bag, severe allergic reactions for example, then he does not deserve derision and ridicule, but that does not validate the act for other that do it to stop them being polluted by spirits.

In the interests of increasing knowledge, if you would like to refute the practice of wearing a plastic bag on a flight as protection against the spirits of the dead, in general, I would be more than happy for you to do that. I have not had the chance to carry out as much research as I would like to, so if you have any knowledge of the alleged practice I would be genuinely interested to see it.

MrP

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

Okay let's have a look.

“being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead"

The fact that they need to further protect themselves from the "column of tumah", suggests that the experts don't feel the fuselage of a modern airliner is sufficient.

“but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”

Experts in such matters have stated that a plastic covering (a bag, it you will) fitted and sealed correctly could in fact operate as a barrier system. So the only discrepancy in MrPs description seems to be the "spirit of the dead" part which could be seen as a liberal description of what believers consider the tumah to be.

RustyNut

Obliq wrote: »

Don't know about all that Red, but I'm proud to be one......."Pale skin allows those living at higher latitudes and exposed to less frequent and weaker sunlight to more efficiently synthesize vitamin D." Made for this country we are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=were-neandertals-the-orig

And we get coke and a twix. Win win.....:D

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Okay let's have a look.

“being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead"

The fact that they need to further protect themselves from the "column of tumah", suggests that the experts don't feel the fuselage of a modern airliner is sufficient.

“but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”

Experts in such matters have stated that a plastic covering (a bag, it you will) fitted and sealed correctly could in fact operate as a barrier system. So the only discrepancy in MrPs description seems to be the "spirit of the dead" part which could be seen as a liberal description of what believers consider the tumah to be.

Be honest, Dades. Are you seriously suggesting that there is any sense, however liberal, in which tumah means anything remotely like "the spirits of the dead"? Or are you merely suggesting that Mr P thinks that? If the latter, that isn't a very nice thing to say about Mr P, is it?

And are you further seriously suggesting that tumah is avoided through something akin to a barrier method of contraception, where the material qualities of the barrier are in some way the source of the protection? Or, again, are you just accusing Mr P of thinking this?

pH

Ahh Pery - you storm in here lambasting us about how we could be so "credulous" and believe what was written in the Daily Mail, and when shown you're wrong, decide to save some face and proceed with a spirited attack about how one poster, in a throwaway comment might have got one piece of extremely obscure Jewish ritual law slightly wrong - therefore you were right all along?

And are you further seriously suggesting that tumah is avoided through something akin to a barrier method of contraception, where the material qualities of the barrier are in some way the source of the protection? Or, again, are you just accusing Mr P of thinking this?

Well if he isn't - I AM.

Anyway - all of this is too funny:
http://www.yated.com/kohanim-concerns-while-flying-to-and-from-eretz-yisroel.0-576-0.html

Peregrinus

pH wrote: »

Ahh Pery - you storm in here lambasting us about how we could be so "credulous" and believe what was written in the Daily Mail, and when shown you're wrong, decide to save some face and proceed with a spirited attack about how one poster, in a throwaway comment might have got one piece of extremely obscure Jewish ritual law slightly wrong - therefore you were right all along?

I was right.

The Daily Mail article linked in the first post contains this:

“. . . . he wrapped himself in plastic in the belief that it would act as a shield from the spirits far below.”

A number of posters took this at face value - jd83 in post #12, pH in post #20, Mr Pudding in post #41 - thereby displaying a touching faith in the authority and reliability of the Daily Maiil. (A faith which, if we are honest, flies in the face of both reason and experience.)

When challenged, several posters found other links about this phenomenon, but not a single one of those links confirmed the Daily Mail’s claim about this man’s belief. Yet even though these cites were dug up for the purpose of confirming the Daily Mail\ story, nobody seems to have noticed this. Which suggest that their critical thinking skills might not be what they ought to be.

Even basic critical thinking would help people to avoid this error. The halachic purity codes, as is well known, are the product of a society and culture which denied that the dead had any spirits. The likelihood, therefore, that this behaviour is motivated by a belief in “spirits” associated with cemeteries is slim. So that alone should make you sceptical of the Daily Mail’s claim. But, if you want to dig a bit deeper, the purity codes are laid out in some detail in the Hebrew scriptures, which are readily available online in a variety of translations. The passages which discuss this particular issue, surprise surprise, make no mention of the spirits of the dead, or of spirits of any kind. (Lev 21:1 is the key text; you could have found that out in Wikipedia, so it’s not exactly a closely guarded secret.) These things aren’t difficult to look into, for anyone who wants to inform themselves.

Anyone who wants to criticise this man’s beliefs has to take the basic first step of finding out what his beliefs are. Finding out what his beliefs are and then criticising them is scepticism; that’s fine, and it’s the kind of thing this board should promote. Criticising his beliefs when you have no idea what they are is ignorant bigotry, basically. Thinking you know what his beliefs are because you read something in the Daily Mail is credulousness. Ignorance, bigotry and credulousness are not the kind of thing this board generally aims to promote.

And it’s very difficult to be taken seriously when you criticise religious believers for credulousness once you've established a track record of defending it in unbelievers. Just sayin’.

Turtwig

Just a slight little note there Pere.

If it's a belief of any nature, then it doesn't necessarily have to be logical and consistent with core Hebrew teaching. It might just be some insane interpretation or misconception that became commonplace with certain folk. Or it could be something else entirely. If there are several examples of a practice occurring then the validity of the reasoning behind the practice is irrelevant.

The question is essentially : "Are there examples of the practice occurring?" From pH's link above it would appear that a group of people believe that flying over a cemetery is wrong. So much so that they managed to convince an airport to accommodate these beliefs into its take-off route. The link also discusses the plastic bag conundrum. So, I guess, the issue here is how credible is pH's link?

I do agree with your core point, too many media sites parroted the original story on face value without really checking the source. I'm delighted you encouraged folks to dig deeper. If anything, you served to further illustrate how bizarre this practice, if it occurs, actually is.:D

I don't however think it's fair to imply that people who mocked the practice without knowing the full extent of beliefs were being ignorant bigots. This is somebody wearing a plastic bag on a plane.(Unless the image is a fake.) That by virtue of itself is unique and frankly unbelievably stupid. Whatever his beliefs may be, the act he supposedly carried out was naive to say the least.

If anything this thread has served to illustrate 3 points.
- The image is most likely not a fake. (I had kind of hoped it was.)
- We don't know for certain the individual man's beliefs but we can speculate with some deal of confidence that he might be a Kohen.
- Some Kohen really do seem to believe that they can't fly over cemeteries and as a result they might just have come up with truly innovative solutions to their problem.