|
Why Can't I Own a Canadian? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| darouge11 |
| thats was a great read |
|
|
| andielips |
| Thats was great Jamie, Thank you :haha: |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| It isn't "great" without a response. Otherwise it's just unfounded banter. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| Highly entertaining banter nonetheless! :) |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| Like anybody actually read the quoted verses.... |
|
|
| yankeeBaby |
| Which one of you f*ckers is for sale?? |
|
|
| magikb |
| quote: | Originally posted by yankeeBaby
Which one of you f*ckers is for sale?? |
cuz that would mean back to NYC I go :p |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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:thepirate |
|
|
| DigiNut |
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. |
|
|
| slingshot |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
...[/COLOR][/FONT] |
Leviticus 2:15 - "DigiNut is a pooface" :D
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. |
|
|
|
|
