"Just going over to have a word with O'Reilly, dear."
Posted on 11/27/2014 9:37:10 AM PST by dennisw
John Cleese has argued that political correctness is 'condescending' as it only allows jokes to be made about certain groups while implying others need to be protected.
Speaking to Bill Maher on HBO, the legendary comedian said he used to make race jokes about nationalities such as the French and Australians - but if he mentioned Mexicans it was deemed unacceptable.
Make jokes about Swedes and Germans and French and English and Canadians and Americans, why can't we make jokes about Mexicans? Is it because they are so feeble that they can't look after themselves?
The British comedian then goes on to say suggest that the reason you can't make jokes about Muslims is because 'they'll kill you'.
'Who are the people you can't make jokes about?' he asks Maher who instantly responds: 'Muslims
'Try that,' he adds. 'See what your Twitter feed says.'
A laughing Cleese responds: 'That's not saying that you can't, it just means that they'll kill you. Theoretically you could.'
The comedian added: 'The problem is if you make jokes about people who are going to kill you, there is a sort of tendency to hold back a little isn't there?' Clease, 75, described writing his memoir 'So, Anyway' as 'the most fun I have had in 10 years' +4
Clease, 75, described writing his memoir 'So, Anyway' as 'the most fun I have had in 10 years'
Speaking on Real Time with Bill Maher, Cleese went on to say that he finds any type of fundamentalism 'terribly funny'.
He said: 'Because the thing about fundamentalism is that it's taking whatever the book is - the book Qur'an or the bible - absolutely literally.
'I've met some pretty smart people in life and you know not a single one of them was literal-minded.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
"Just going over to have a word with O'Reilly, dear."
Right, because they, like the left that cheers them on, have no sense of humor.
The oldest manuscripts are all “copies”, that doesn’t mean they are rewritten. Israelites would count every letter after the copy and if one letter was missing it was tossed out. The dead sea scrolls prove that other Jewish texts were correct. Also, the Lamsa bible from the middle east also shows the manuscripts were correct. They were not available to the trascribers of the King James and say the same thing except for very few words. You can see the Lamsa bible online.
Waldorf Salad!
“A gin and orange, a lemon squash and a scotch and water!”
Me. I have for years.
Sorry, but historians (to include Bible enthusiasts) have reviewed it and found at least two thousand changes....using a transcript that goes back to the Greek translation, which came after the Aramaic tribal editions were brought together for one single document. It is a document under constant revision....even in modern times.
Joke about the global warming fundamentalists and you’ll be denounced as a denier.
Joke about the homofascist fundamentalists and you’ll be denounced as intolerant.
Maybe he only met fuzzy ones.
Hogwash.
Consider Exodus 20:13...
King James (KJV) reads “Kill”.
The “New King James” (NKJV) reads “Murder”.
That’s just one passage for an example and it presents two *VERY* different meanings. Meanings that can make a world of difference to me!
But don’t take my word for it, you can check all the different versions on biblegateway.com to see where “Man” has meddled with the bible.
So? The ancient manuscripts haven’t changed.
The flaws, and the archaic words forms, and the changes in four hundred years in the meanings of “English” words, in the King James don’t make the argument.
Unlike the King James translators, scholars today have access to virtually ALL of the ancient copies of the Bible.
And the differences in those copies are extremely marginal.
So? The ancient manuscripts haven’t changed.Congratulations! That's the entire point! The original should not vary! Yet (the point you keep dismissing here) is that *MAN* has meddled with the bible over the various translations and versions ever since that original version.
Now, I can't read Aramaic and I will presume you can't either? So which *Man* edited version/translation do you trust? Personally, I like the NIV for readability, but I can't say with 100% certainty the translation/version is the truest, most accurate out there. It may be; I just have no way of telling for sure.
I would think that variations in words leading to significantly different meanings would be consistent in the core sections like the Gospel and the 10 Commandments (a rather short, brief section in comparison). Yet we see that huge discrepancy just in Exodus 20:13 alone. Kill and Murder are two drastically different things, yet there it is.
Is it meaningful to "Shop Around" for the Bible version which best lets us off the hook for potentially violating that commandment, or is there a guaranteed, trusted, benchmark, truest version in English that accurately lays down the law (so to speak)? And is it considered the truest version because some guy (whether Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, John Wesley or Martin Luther) says so?
Unless you are a historian, fluent in Aramaic, you are left relying on another "Man" to tell you. And you are betting they are correct. I struggle with that at times. Best of luck to you!
I was watching a rerun of Hee Haw on RFDTV and Minnie Pearl asked Grandpa Jones if he believed that every word of the Bible was true. He said yes, absolutely. She asked how he could be so sure. He said he knows the author. She said so do I.
That’s great! And it sounds exactly like I would expect Grandpa Jones and Minnie Pearl to answer it. The world could use a lot more folks just like them!
Now, if only we knew which version he was referring to, we could get Exodus 20:13 resolved...
Sounds like the made a casting error when they chose Eric Idle for the role of *brave* Sir Robin.
“Yet they will take offense if you do.”
Been my experience that the perpetually offended need no reason to be offended.
If they are not offended they are like the dead parrot up thread, best to beat them to find if they are living. If they are beat them some more, if they dead mock them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.