Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 846
    MEMBERS
  • 48807
    MESSAGES
  • 69
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Anti-Semitism   Religion

Started 11/8/19 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 9970 views.
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

11/9/19

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Is this offensive? HuffPost Australia Scholar Believes He's Found Loophole That Allows Jews To Eat Bacon It's a controversial take.

Not sure why you suggest its offensive - other than to religious maniacs (who mostly have nothing to do with the impending Holocaust II of most of the Muslims of the world).

Professor Robert Gnuse, who teaches at Loyola University’s religious studies department, believes that the dietary rules presented in Leviticus weren’t meant for all followers of Judaism. The verse, found in chapter 11 of Leviticus, states: 

“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.”

Many Jews have followed this dietary law for thousands of years, believing they were forbidden from eating pork.

But in a recent article in Haaretz, an Israeli media outlet, Gnuse speculated that the rules specific to food and clothing in Leviticus were meant for priests, not followers. He believes that sometime during the Babylonian exile, someone told the Jewish people to follow all of the rules in Leviticus to bring them closer together as a community. 

Gnuse’s theory differs from many traditional scholars. Professor James Watt, who teaches religion at Syracuse University, told Haaretz that the rules found in Leviticus were meant for everyone. 

But its nonsense. 

For reasons I've already posted you.

adwil

From: adwil

11/9/19

BerrySteph said:

"recently found another of these complete inventions deceitfully sold as genuine by Amazon:"

Ozick's short story was clearly labeled as FICTION when the New Yorker published it in 1980.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1980/05/26/the-shawl

Amazon lists it under fiction

So your complaint isn't justified.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

11/9/19

adwil said:

Ozick's short story was clearly labeled as FICTION when the New Yorker published it in 1980. 

I don't believe you and I'm not having you waste my time checking your facts as so often prove to be false.

adwil said:

Amazon lists it under fiction. 

I don't believe you and I'm not having you waste my time checking your facts as so often prove to be false.

adwil

From: adwil

11/9/19

You have a link to the New Yorker issue.

You can look up the short story on Amazon and check the category easily. 

Both New Yorker and Amazon label the story as fiction.  

I suggest anyone tempted for a brief moment to believe you, can just check those links.

I'm afraid covering your eyes and simultaneously sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't alter the facts of the case. 

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

11/9/19

adwil said:

Amazon lists it under fiction.  So your complaint isn't justified.

This is typical of Adwil, time-wasting trickery and deception. About the sacred Holocaust that only the worst kind of human scum tells lies about, f'chrissake! Other profitable (sometimes highly profitable) "memoirs" are totally fictitious and several are pornographic.

Check at Amazon and you'll see "A short story and a novella intertwine to offer a study of the Holocaust and its aftermath as Rosa Lublin witnesses the brutal death of her baby daughter in a concentration camp and, thirty years later, must struggle to cope with her emotional devastation. Book available." (small labels "fiction" elswhere on the page) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shawl-Cynthia-Ozick/dp/1598876848

Goodreads has reviews like this: "One of the most powerful shorts I have read. The horrendous reach of the Nazis. A shawl that provides shelter, concealment, love and comfort until the day it couldn't be found, setting in motion a horrifying deed and decision.. A mothers love and the horrible choice she has to make. The setting, the scene, the emotion are all visceral, one can see, feel and picture what is happening. So sad, but so well done." (sort of labelled fiction) https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/76523

And the Wacky doesn't mention its fiction atall, the article ends "Rosa hears the screaming, but does not run to Magda because the guards will kill them both. Instead, she runs to get the shawl and begins waving it in the hope that Magda will see it and calm down. She is too late and watches as the Nazi guards pick Magda up and throw her into the electric fence, killing her. Rosa stuffs the shawl into her mouth to stop herself from screaming. In the novel version, the story continues in the United States, after the war is over." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawl_(short_story)

In reply toRe: msg 5
bml00

From: bml00

11/9/19

BerrySteph said:

The Shawl

Please don't forget Berry thinks Fiddler on the Roof and Exodus are real , so lets have some laughs at this current utter stupidity

BM

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

11/9/19

bml00 said:

Please don't forget Berry thinks Fiddler on the Roof and Exodus are real , so lets have some laughs at this current utter stupidity

You're pathetic - Fiddler on the Roof depicts middle-class people backed by the local police supposedly attacked by peasants. "Economic migrants" anyone?

While the film "Exodus" depicts the Zionists boasting of using their own children (or maybe someone else's?) as human shields.

adwil

From: adwil

11/9/19

bml00 said:

Please don't forget Berry thinks Fiddler on the Roof and Exodus are real

Oh dear!!!  Explains a lot. 

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

11/9/19

adwil said:

bml00 said: Please don't forget Berry thinks Fiddler on the Roof and Exodus are real Oh dear!!!  Explains a lot. 

Fiddler on the Roof and the Exodus are propaganda.

The first of them is simply amusing - the second appears to be the glorification of using human shields.

But then, you mthfka know this stuff perfectly well, don't you?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

11/10/19

You haven't told me if the article is anti-Semitic, as the one about dogs was (apparently) Islamophobic.

I am neither religion, so I honestly don't know.

TOP