jewish philosopher #fundie

jewish philosopher #fundie torahphilosophy.com

I would say that extramarital sex is more like shooting heroin than driving. There is no practical need for it and the thrill such as it is is not worth the terrible consequences.

["there a millions of people who are "fine" and dont keep the torah."]

There probably were plenty of Nazis who were also fine. So?

51 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

["there a millions of people who are "fine" and dont keep the torah."]

"There probably were plenty of Nazis who were also fine. So?"

Presenter of TV's "Man Vs. Food" Adam Richman would like a word with you, jewish FAILosopher, you inferior subhuman non*-Jewish antagonistic troll. He's eaten pork - especially on camera - on occasions uncountable; professed his love of bacon too. He's even eaten Shellfish: Oysters, Lobster, Crab, Mussels, Crayfish, you name it.

He comes from a Jewish family.

So... annihilated argument much eh, (non)jewish FAILosopher?!

*- Non Indicative Name: Many quotes have come from a man calling himself jewish philosopher, [b]who in reality is neither Jewish*[/b] (he claims to be a convert but never went through any formal initiation into Judaism) [b]nor a philosopher.[/b]

This Western Wall-wailing wannabe wouldn't know a Torah from a Tefillin, if Lord Sacks - Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, and member of the House of Lords - smacked him upside the head with such. Oy!

old comment by Fawful has seen God has a vagina on top of his penis

@Daryl

No True Scotsman can be an actual argument if you have enough proof to sustain your argument. Example: no true Catholic would be a creationist.

1) Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope's orders.
2) The Pope is the highest rank in Catholic religion (second only to Gawd himself).
3) The Pope has established that evolution is real and valid (although theistic, the Catholic Church does not deny evolution).
4) Not abiding by the Pope's orders means you don't recognize him.
5) Failing to recognize evolution (edit thanks to John_in_Oz: or in the Trinity) as part of reality means you don't follow the Pope's (and by definition, also God's) orders.

:. If you call yourself a Catholic you can't say you're creationist because you deny God's word.

Edit: Anon-e-moose explained it better than me in his comment here: http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=90450&Page=1#1464890

old comment by John_in_Oz

@ Fawful

Almost exactly correct. Substitute 'disbelieves in the Trinity' for 'disbelieves in evolution' and your argument is perfect.
As it happens there are many Creationist Catholics, and the Church has no problem with them believing that. They view Creationist Catholics as being like people who disagree with relativity or quantum mechanics; mistaken but not morally wrong.
Their stance on evolution is that they judge it to be true, and see no conflict betwen it and their own teachings, but it has no moral significance. If it should later turn out to be as false as flat Earth they would not feel the least bit discomforted.
Though I've tediously pointed out that your example is incorrect, I acknowledge that your principle was quite right, your logic and reasoning impeccable and your conclusion absolutely correct.

old comment by ea

@ Doubting Thomas&fishtank

Okay, but isn't that a classic case of You Keep Using That Word?

I'm not married either, but I would never say I am having extramarital sex.

No dictionary I mentioned before gives a second meaning, and there are perfectly good words like pre-marital or non-marital (for people who don't intend to get married).

I don't know, maybe the word starts to gain a new meaning - that's what happens to languages after all, but isn't it sad? The distinction makes sense.
Non-marital - there is no marriage
Pre-marital - there is no marriage, but there is an intent to get married
extramarital - there is a marriage, and there is something outside of that marriage.

I wouldn't harp on about it, but - well, having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend and having sex with your *married* boyfriend/girlfriend are two extremely different things. Why desecrate the good one by dumping it together with something harmful and disgusting? Why would a happy couple want to be described by the same word as someone betraying the love and trust of their spouse?

Isn't that almost like subliminal agreement with the people who equate the two? Something like: those two things are similar - they can be described by the same word?

*I* don't think they are similar, so I am going to keep the distinction, thanks.

And remember, extramarital sex kills, or so Scientific American claims, so let's hope it means what I think it means;)

jewish philosopher #fundie torahphilosophy.com

51 comments

Confused?