Animal bordellos draw Norwegians

Aftenposten--News from Norway ^ | Sept 18, 2006 | Morten Andersen

[SunkenCiv]

:'D

Anything that moves. Anything.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ya but the old testament also says you should kill your kid if he talks back and does not honor his parents. And the last I heard we had sorta abandoned that custom.

The OT is used as a moral guide. If God wanted people stoined for an act, that still means it's a pretty serious act, even if the stoning went away.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...prohibitionists who are titillated by the prospect of jailing deviants."

Interesting adjective, "titillated." Did you have anybody in particular in mind, or is that just a hypothetical?

[Mr. Silverback]

Interesting adjective, "titillated." Did you have anybody in particular in mind, or is that just a hypothetical?

It's especially interesting when you consider that the primary definition is to be tickled or lightly touched, but I didn't know that before I looked it up, so I'll cut him some big slack on that one. It does give one the mental image of a criminal in an orange jumpsuit tickling the judge before the bailiffs drag him away.

See post 56, and if I do say so myself, don't be drinking anything. We'll see if he brings any facts.

[najida]

Zelda, the bordello's Madam, was unavailable for comment.

[cartan]

How romantic—perhaps one of them will fall in love and we can look forward to seeing the first cow marriage!

[Neoliberalnot]

Nice, looks like a close relative of Rosie O'Donnel's.

[Bernard Marx]

[Sex with ponies]...an hour of unbridled pleasure.

Intentional or not, that's very funny. Reminds me of "Bareback Mountain" action, lol

[Dead Corpse]

Ok... first off...

Ewww...

Now that that's out of the way, animals are neither sentient nor sapient. How can they be said to be giving their informed consent to such acts? This is wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind almost as much as it turns the stomach.

[najida]

I think she's kinda cute....

Here's another working girl....

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, we had the first human-dolphin marriage a few months back, and it was a same-sex marriage. Cows can't be far off.

[MeanWestTexan]

1. "I think your interpretation is ONE possible interpretation."

It is the only interpretation utilized by Jews for 3,000+ years of Talmudic study, and the interpretation I was taught while studying in Yeshiva.

Here it is expanded out from the NIV; it's pretty clear:

"18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

It is also the only interpretation consistent with the principal of interpretation of mitzvot (commands) that, if you are reading mitzvah so that it is inconsistent with another mitzvah, you are reading one or both wrong.

Here, there are several very clear mitzvot concerning punishment of disobedient children (spare the rod, for example), which would be superfluous, if death was really the appropriate punishment for young child.

There are also numerous recorded (written) debates of specific cases between Rabbis regarding whether capital punishment should be implemented, and, with rare, rare exception always the lesser punishments described have been implemented (sort of the "common law" of Jews).

2. Regarding the Leviticus quote, look for the PASSIVE verb:

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

I say look for the PASSIVE verb, because this is a WARNING, not a command. (Also, in Hebrew, this "curse" is not merely cuss-word; it's "being a curse.")

We can dishonor our parents through stubbornness, mocking, scorning, angrily talking back to them, thievery, and violence, among others.

God's point here is that those who are a curse upon their parents will eventually be punished by death, shame, disgrace, darkness of understanding (ignorance), and destruction.

It is a warning that such behavior will be punished BY GOD. NOT A MITZVAH that you should punish such people. That is God's job.

3. "At least you are willing to interpret the words."

I am a genetically-proven Kohanim. So it's my job.

[tpaine]

Could you provide any evidence that laws against bestiality and such are motivated by people who are aroused or "agreeably exited" by locking people up?

Only the judgment of history provides the evidence, - as Arthur Koestler once commented :

"-- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. --"

[Marysecretary]

How sick is that? Good grief. It may end up here as well.

[MeanWestTexan]

In follow up, here is a generally-accepted list of the actual commands under the Law:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

And before you ask about the bull sacrifice, please note that there is currently a pagan shrine on top of the Temple Mount, making such impossible at this time.

(And for Christians, such a sacrifice would be innappropriate, as they believe the perfect paschal sacrifice was made by Jesus, the Christ, making all of the commands listed under "temple" innapplicable.)

[Mr. Silverback]

First, you take the name of Paine, the guy who wrote in The Crisis of the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot," yet you say that our problems spring from excessive identification "with a tribe, nation, church or cause." Gee, no contradiction there...

Second, you're going on record that prohibiting sex with animals is "contrary to reason?"

Third, and most importantly, you didn't provide any evidence of anything. I asked you to show that people X did action Y for the reason you said they did, and you responded with "People do all sorts of stuff because they're fanatical." That's like a judge saying to a prosecuter, "Can you show that the defendant shot the victim for his money instead of self defense" and the prosecuter says, "Well, violence on TV is bad for kids."

Can you back your accusation up or not?

[mollynme]

Good grief. It may end up here as well.

They don't call it the Chicken Ranch for nothing! LOL! Just kidding.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I can't say that I find bestiality more offensive then two guys going at it, and yet we have laws both protecting and encouraging anal intercourse between men (through mandated education) in this country."

I do think guys doing anal intercourse would be worse.

First because it's two humans becoming corrupt from their perverted acts, whereas with bestiality it's one corrupt human and one abused and innocent animal.

Second, because two humans are more likely to spread grave diseases to each othe and thence to other human sufferers (assuming that the anally-penetrating men in question are not strictly monogamous, if that's the word), whereas IIRC with bestiality there's less danger of spreading communicable diseases.

Sexual depravity has the potential to destroy persons, marriages, families, nations, and civilizations. If you hadn't noticed, beinst our civilization is in the midst of a fight to the death just now.

Besides, this is not what our generative organs were made for. Any sane and sensible simian knows that.

[US admirer]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

If not too personal, may I ask what brought you to the realization/decision that you were not on the "right" or perhaps "true" team? Most of your former brethren look unfavorably (to put it mildly) on someone who becomes a Christian. Was your family understanding of your decision?.

[MeanWestTexan]

Sure, my pleasure.

The OT is not nearly as weird or unreasonable as it appears at first read.

The reason for my coversion is personal, so I will freepmail you. It will take a while to compose, but I need to, as I am asked that a lot.

Basically, though, I came to it logically because if one takes the Book of Matthew as true, the fulfillment of very old prophesies is clear, albeit not in the anticipated way. Which leads to: is the BOM a true recording of events?

I concluded it was -- there are only two alternatives: Jesus and friends were deluded nuts or crooks. They were far too logical, consistent, and purpose-driven to be cazy. They stuck with it --- to the point of death for all or most --- to be crooks. (Crooks would have broken or confessed; none did.)

Then I prayed and was sure.

And I have improved personally and seen many small miracles in my life.

To answer your other question, yes, my family has been pretty well teed-off. They are largely Orthodox, though, and hold the once-a-Jew-always-a-Jew belief, and I remain reasonably observant, so they hold out hope.

That and I agree not to talk about it, so they tolerate me as a Jew with crazy ideas. :)