prism10 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 What's that bit in the Old T. about Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the lusty lads of Sodom because he didn't want to dob Yahweh's visiting angels in and expose them to their bigus dickus?Then after he legged it out of the city he had a fun packed incest fueled evening with the daughters anyway!!! Religion, I tell ye, it's a joke. The Life of Brian is the only good thing to come out of any of it (lightning strike) That is the Bible version of the story. Maybe you should look at the original Talmud version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhoulishDoolish Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 What's that bit in the Old T. about Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the lusty lads of Sodom because he didn't want to dob Yahweh's visiting angels in and expose them to their bigus dickus?Then after he legged it out of the city he had a fun packed incest fueled evening with the daughters anyway!!! Religion, I tell ye, it's a joke. The Life of Brian is the only good thing to come out of any of it (lightning strike) That is the Bible version of the story. Maybe you should look at the original Talmud version. oooh a bible scholar, how exciting Please tell us and save me the bother of reading my Talmud. I had a go at summarising Genesis Ch 6 but Sentience did not like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 What's that bit in the Old T. about Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the lusty lads of Sodom because he didn't want to dob Yahweh's visiting angels in and expose them to their bigus dickus?Then after he legged it out of the city he had a fun packed incest fueled evening with the daughters anyway!!! Religion, I tell ye, it's a joke. The Life of Brian is the only good thing to come out of any of it (lightning strike) That is the Bible version of the story. Maybe you should look at the original Talmud version. The Talmud was written centuries after the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 What's that bit in the Old T. about Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the lusty lads of Sodom because he didn't want to dob Yahweh's visiting angels in and expose them to their bigus dickus?Then after he legged it out of the city he had a fun packed incest fueled evening with the daughters anyway!!! Religion, I tell ye, it's a joke. The Life of Brian is the only good thing to come out of any of it (lightning strike) That is the Bible version of the story. Maybe you should look at the original Talmud version. Aaaaaah, the lovely Talmud. Such a welcoming, nice, warm, fuzzy piece of literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Aaaaaah, the lovely Talmud. Such a welcoming, nice, warm, fuzzy piece of literature. There's a lot of disinfo out there against the Talmud. A lot of people don't like Jews very much, and some of them like to make shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 The first 'complete' Bible was produced by St Jerome between 390 - 405 AD; the Talmud Yerushalmi by Rav Muna and Rav Yossi around 350. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 The first 'complete' Bible was produced by St Jerome between 390 - 405 AD; the Talmud Yerushalmi by Rav Muna and Rav Yossi around 350. The Talmud is based on traditions which pre-date the Christian Bible (the New Testament), yes, but they don't pre-date the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Aaaaaah, the lovely Talmud. Such a welcoming, nice, warm, fuzzy piece of literature. There's a lot of disinfo out there against the Talmud. A lot of people don't like Jews very much, and some of them like to make shit up. That would be the Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbert Hickmann Posted May 18, 2013 Author Share Posted May 18, 2013 The Bible we know today was only 'written' 400 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 The Bible we know today was only 'written' 400 years ago The oldest surviving complete Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 The Bible we know today was only 'written' 400 years ago The oldest surviving complete Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century. Yeh, and the oldest extant (i.e. surviving) complete Jewish Bible is Hebrew, and sections have been carbon dated to the 3rd century BC. There are MILLIONS of people who can read that out in Israel, and plenty of Christians can read the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I know the priests at St Mary's know their Latin, so they can read the Vulgate, which was written long before the King James Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Never mind bibles and stuff, I'm not sure how race can be kept out of this seeing that the perpetrators appeared to pick their victims because of their (the victims') race. I detest racism (and picking on minority groups for other reasons) of any sort but perhaps we should remember it can work in the opposite way to it's now accepted meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Never mind bibles and stuff, I'm not sure how race can be kept out of this seeing that the perpetrators appeared to pick their victims because of their (the victims') race. I detest racism (and picking on minority groups for other reasons) of any sort but perhaps we should remember it can work in the opposite way to it's now accepted meaning. Very true. Let's stop pussy-footing around the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 There's an ideology behind this, the commonality of the race of the perpertrators comes in a close second. It just so happens that as well as these men having common origins (although some of them are British born), they were also, and more importantly followers of islam. Child marriage, child sex and subjugation of women is all scripturallly-inspired and sanctioned in the 'holy' Koran. No more so in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In Britain, and elsewhere, the children of the 'un-believers' (Kuffar) were justifiable targets because they're products of a culture that these sort of men despise. Their perception is that these girls deserved to be used and abused because of that 'permissive' culture. So for me, it's not so much a racial issue but a cultural one. The main-stream media are reluctant to address this for fear of a backlash and offending 'moderate' muslims. An article yesterday in the Telegraph saw Damian Green saying that the Pakistani/Asian community needed to get its house in order and deal with this problem. Very brave of him but where would they start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 It was a real eye (and mind) opener working in Oldham in the mid 80s. A big percentage of the immigrant community (and their UK born descendants) were an absolute delight to deal with but a disturbing large number of this same community appear to really resent the english culture they earlier wanted to be part of. White lower socio-economic group girls are seen as white trash and treated accordingly. I have a suspicion that this might have played a part in this crime if what has been reported is true. It's about time that we should be able to talk about such issues without the knee-jerk reaction of being labelled a racist. However I am always very suspicious of someone who starts with the phrase "I'm not a racist but....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.