TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »


Posted by Jem_hadar on Jun-21-2007 21:41:

Party Hat Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

From the C0Re, yesterday. Result.


Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim



That just felt good to read on a Thursday late afternoon. I'm smiling, LOLing at the comments and the 'tude in it! ha


Posted by Cro_Addict on Jun-21-2007 21:47:

Hahah that bitch got told!


Posted by Irishaddict on Jun-21-2007 21:47:

lol i love stuff like that. good for him.


Posted by slingshot on Jun-21-2007 21:58:

It's awesome to see people get put in their place in an intelligent and humorous manner. Good for the guy who wrote it. Well done.


Posted by CAKE on Jun-21-2007 21:58:

hahahahahaha i LoL


Posted by Cosmic Fur on Jun-21-2007 22:15:

sooo fucking old. And this is from the COR? I thought people were supposed to be on top of things in there.


Posted by Silky Johnson on Jun-21-2007 22:16:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
sooo fucking old. And this is from the COR? I thought people were supposed to be on top of things in there.





Yeah well you're ugly.


Posted by monishb on Jun-21-2007 22:31:

quote:
Originally posted by jennypie
Yeah well you're ugly.


lol


Posted by rabbitjoker on Jun-21-2007 22:42:

Did she (Dr. Laura) respond?


Posted by Cribby on Jun-21-2007 22:47:

That was good. I too, am curious as to whether she replied or not.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Jun-21-2007 22:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
sooo fucking old. And this is from the COR? I thought people were supposed to be on top of things in there.


2002 old? Or just like 2003 old?


Posted by CAKE on Jun-21-2007 22:52:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Did she (Dr. Laura) respond?


i'm curious to see what she would write back


Posted by darouge11 on Jun-21-2007 23:31:

thats was a great read


Posted by Cosmic Fur on Jun-22-2007 00:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Jem_hadar
2002 old? Or just like 2003 old?


More like 2000 old: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp


Posted by andielips on Jun-22-2007 00:23:

Thats was great Jamie, Thank you


Posted by rabbitjoker on Jun-22-2007 00:41:

It isn't "great" without a response. Otherwise it's just unfounded banter.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Jun-22-2007 00:47:

Highly entertaining banter nonetheless!


Posted by rabbitjoker on Jun-22-2007 00:49:

Like anybody actually read the quoted verses....


Posted by yankeeBaby on Jun-22-2007 01:00:

Which one of you f*ckers is for sale??


Posted by magikb on Jun-22-2007 01:09:

quote:
Originally posted by yankeeBaby
Which one of you f*ckers is for sale??




cuz that would mean back to NYC I go


Posted by Yohan on Jun-22-2007 01:10:

quote:
Originally posted by yankeeBaby
Which one of you f*ckers is for sale??

For sale?

Do it Viking style. Go raid someone's house, slave some people, and burn down their homes while you're at it


Posted by DigiNut on Jun-22-2007 03:31:

It's really very funny to watch people who are completely ignorant of religion try to debate religious scholars or the orthodox on their own terms. They love to circulate them around the internet, too, because they get to say their piece without having to air the opposing viewpoints. They ought to stick with the constitutional arguments and whatever else they know, because whenever they venture outside that territory they look like fools.

Make no mistake, I'm very much in the secular camp and don't subscribe to any religious beliefs, but those people guffawing and/or saying she "got told" and/or referring to this piece as "intelligent and humorous" perhaps might take a minute to consider the fact that they (a) aren't Jewish, (b) don't know anything about Jewish law, and (c) have likely never read any of these passages, at least not in recent history. You're merely reading cynical and sarcastic nugacity from someone who says what you want to hear, and assuming they've made a brilliant and forceful point because you agree with it.

Here's a short review for the uninformed. All mainstream Jews - even the Orthodox and even the Ultra-Orthodox you see wearing fur hats and awkward suits - do not subscribe to the literal text of the Bible. There are thousands of years and many volumes of text worth of commentary, long-winded expositions on how several of the more incomprehensible, contradictory, or just downright silly parts of the original text are supposed to be interpreted and applied to modern life ("modern" as of a few hundred years ago, at least). This is all compiled in what's called the Talmud, which is the actual basis for Rabbinic law; the Bible is not the basis and has never been so in living memory.

They don't directly contradict what's in the Bible, but they take great liberties in the wording and use many quirky analogies to try to make some sense out of all of it. Different denominations of Judaism attribute varying degrees of importance to different parts of the Talmud, but none of them place any emphasis on the literal text of the Bible, except for one fringe group called Karites, who you'll never hear from and who are shunned by the rest of the community.

So to summarize: the entire letter is a straw-man argument, clearly written by someone totally unfamiliar with the basic concepts of Jewish law (and I would imagine Christian religious law as well). Just as Leviticus in Christianity is merely ceremonial law considered to be abrogated by Christ's death and Peter's vision, Leviticus in Jewish law has long since been abrogated by the Talmud and the destruction of the second temple.

Let me reiterate that this is coming from someone who has completely and unconditionally rejected the tenets of religion. I have no axe to grind here, I'm not particularly interested in what Dr. Laura has to say about homosexuality or anything else. Those of you who were around for the gay marriage debates on this forum will recall that I never wasted any time on religious arguments. I'm simply pointing out the sheer absurdity of this "humorous and intelligent" vacuous claptrap.

Also, it's old. Really old. Get some new material, dude.


Posted by slingshot on Jun-22-2007 04:31:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut


Do you take the same exhaustive analytical approach to everything that you encounter in life or do you ever just sit back and chuckle at something that is whitty and relatively stupid? I find it quite funny that you go to such lengths breaking this down and attacking those who laugh at it and say it's intelligent on the assumption that the person who wrote it was completely serious about it. For all we know it could be some jackoff who is bored and looking for some mild entertainment. In that sense it is very much an intelligent way of creating humour for oneself. This is definately something that I would do to pass the time and make myself laugh and I can say that for others that I know as well. To say that you went overboard here would be putting it lightly.


Posted by MarkT on Jun-22-2007 19:01:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
...[/COLOR][/FONT]


Leviticus 2:15 - "DigiNut is a pooface"


all of this Jew stuff aside (uh oh!), the guy's letter is humourous from the standpoint that it seeks to expose those who choose to quote the bible when rationalizing their beliefs as "selective readers". These folks extrapolate moral principles from whatever passages support their own agenda and conveniently ignore anything that either contradicts it or otherwise makes them look foolish for using a biblical verse to justify their position.

i.e. this guy's reply is valid from the standpoint of demonstrating how silly it is to selectively pluck lines from the bible and deem them morally relevant, yet conveniently throw away the rest of it.

"biblical moral relativism", perhaps?

That Dr. Laura prefaces her standpoint by noting her religious 'status' only makes her look silly, as DigiNut points out that quoting the bible is hardly the basis of Jewish moral and religious principles.


Posted by DigitalMP on Jun-22-2007 19:14:

quote:
Originally posted by yankeeBaby
Which one of you f*ckers is for sale??


I'm not only for sale, but I'm also on sale. Really cheap, at that.


Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.