"Why does the world hate the Jews?" Article

[equazcion]

Show me something that says we're not allowed to touch the skin of a pig (we are), and show me something that says footballs are made of pig skin (they're not).

So something punishable by death is not a sin? Ok... I suppose that could be one possible interpretation...

Be well.

Originally Posted by equazcion

Show me something that says we're not allowed to touch the skin of a pig (we are), and show me something that says footballs are made of pig skin (they're not).

So something punishable by death is not a sin? Ok... I suppose that could be one possible interpretation...

Be well.

Lev 11:6-8

Why is a football called a pigskin? --Ben Schwalb, Laurel, Maryland

Dear Ben:

Because calling it a pig's bladder, which is what it actually is (or was), is a bit too real even for football players. In the days before vulcanized rubber, animal bladders were easily obtained, more or less round, readily sealed and inflated, and reasonably durable--just the thing if you wanted to play the medieval equivalent of soccer. In later years the bladder might be covered with leather (not necessarily pigskin) for added protection.

The main drawback of a pig's bladder was that inflating it by way of the obvious nozzle was too grotty for words. Still, it was an improvement over what the English traditionally regard as the original football, namely the noggin of an unsuccessful Danish invader. If you were offended by the aesthetics of this you could always stuff a leather casing with hay or cork shavings or the like, but such balls lacked zip.

Happily for the sensibilities of modern youth, pig's bladders faded from the scene not long after intercollegiate football began in 1869. One account indicates rubber bladders were being used in 1871 and they were probably around long before that, Charles Goodyear having patented vulcanization in 1844. Couldn't have been too soon for me.

The real question here, if you don't mind my saying so, is how footballs got to be prolate spheroids ("round but pointy," for you rustics) rather than perfectly spherical. As usual with these pivotal episodes in history, it was an accident. Henry Duffield, who witnessed the second Princeton-Rutgers game in 1869, tells why:

"The ball was not an oval but was supposed to be completely round. It never was, though--it was too hard to blow up right. The game was stopped several times that day while the teams called for a little key from the sidelines. They used it to unlock the small nozzle which was tucked into the ball, and then took turns blowing it up. The last man generally got tired and they put it back in play somewhat lopsided."

The odd shape of the ball, eventually enshrined in the rules, was turned to advantage with the introduction of the forward pass in 1906, which was made possible by the fact that you could grip the ball (barely) around the narrow part. Passing got a lot easier in the 1930s when the rules committee ordered the watermelon of previous decades slimmed down by an inch and a half, opening the door for the modern aerial game. How fortunate for the future shape of the game that the Ivy Leaguers of yesteryear didn't have any more lung power than today's.

--CECIL ADAMS

[equazcion]

Aww, don't be a poor sport... you know, admitting you were wrong about things can garner more respect than anything.

[equazcion]

Right, they used to be made out of a pig's bladder, and now they're not. Furthermore, players only actually touched the bladder for a short time before it was encased in leather, which wasn't necessarily pig skin, which now isn't even leather at all, it's rubber or vinyl.

[equazcion]

I myself would still like to know about priestly doctrine, if anyone out there cares to be constructive regarding the real point here...

What's wrong... didn't like my answers?

Originally Posted by equazcion

Aww, don't be a poor sport... you know, admitting you were wrong about things can garner more respect than anything.

How was the above wrong?

[equazcion]

Footballs aren't made of pig skin. It said so in your article. But I was actually referring to... well, almost everything else you've claimed. That desert hygiene thing really took the cake. Homosexuality isn't a sin, only an abomination, when the bible says it's punishable by death? What IS a sin then? The Torah being only Jewish and not Christian, that was classic... there's more, I'd have to go back and look, but you get the idea.

And it was really easy to get you to stop saying "believe whatever you want" and "chill" and pull you right back into the argument. Not so easy to be the bigger person, is it...

[equazcion]

Hey not that I'm trying to argue more, by the way, only pointing it out. I'm done with you if that's what you want. I still want to know what priests are taught regarding other religions and such, but from someone who actually knows, not more non-answers.

Peace brother.

I was in seminary prep for several years... I have told you. Have fun fishing for something to fit your pre-conceived notion though.

[equazcion]

All you told me is that you didn't want to speak for everyone else. That's why they were non-answers.

I'd really like to hear from a priest, although a good reference would do.

[Griff]

You are going to get a lot of variation across Christian sects so any one answer won't hold. Lots of Christians believe I'm going to hell because I'm a Catholic. The Catholic Church has always tap danced around the issue of "righteous heathens" being saved. Room was made for it in Catholic teaching because nobody wanted Aristotle to fry.

To the question of conversions: You have to remember that you come from an exclusive tradition, while a major part of Christian teaching is that God's love isn't exclusive. So while you view Christianity as a black hole sucking everything in they see it as a supernova freeing the "truth" from being the exclusive property of a chosen people.There is a very good chapter on prosteletyzing in The Gods Drink Whiskeycalled My God can Beat Up Your God. The philosophy prof that wrote the thing does a good job of explaining why folks who think they're saved and that salvation is exclusive really do think they're in the right when they treat other religious traditions with such contempt. He actually makes their view understandable even though he (and I) hold it in contempt. It is like anything else that people come to believe in democracy, communism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, they really think they have all the answers even though you can drive a bus undetected through their blind spot.


edit: I also forgot to mention that there is variation on the amount of weight given to the Old Testament. Catholics hold that the new covenant supercedes much of the earlier stuff but wisdom can be found found there. Some other sects read the bible literally and get themselves in deep do do. YMMV especially in religion.

[equazcion]

Thanks for the added view, Griff.

Originally Posted by Griff

You have to remember that you come from an exclusive tradition, while a major part of Christian teaching is that God's love isn't exclusive.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Yes, I do come from an exclusive tradition, but that exclusivity hardly entitles me to exclusive love from God. As was mentioned in the original post's quoted article, Judaism believes that everyone is loved by God, but the Jews have a special responsibility to him.

I understand completely about conversion, and I never thought of Christianity as a "black hole". My aim here wasn't to point a finger at Christianity and say "EVIL!! EEEEVIIIIIIILLLLL!!!," you know, like grandpa Simpson said about the talking Krusty doll in the third Halloween special. I know they truly feel like they are doing a justice by showing people the "light". Hey I would feel that way too. But the point of bringing up the conversion thing was to be able to say whether or not the belief is that everyone else is "going to hell," since conversion is usually referred to as being "saved." Now I understand what you say about there being variation, but still, my only issue with that is that I've ALWAYS heard this as being the viewpoint for priests. Christianity is unlike Judaism in that it's portrayed much more publicly in the media, like movies, TV shows, cartoons, etc., and anywhere I've ever seen the issue arise (as I mentioned, even just talking to random Christian individuals I happened to get into such conversations with), the stance on others is always the same.

I may be making unfounded assumptions based only on what I can observe. That is definitely a possibility. But still, I think the message is very overwhelming. If this isn't a commonly-held belief among Christians, then they should probably be doing a better job of making their real message public, getting offended when they see their religion being represented by extremists, and speaking out more.