# A little bit of humour for you all



## Aquaman (Apr 21, 2010)

So I Have seen this before but just got it forwarded from another member....A good laugh indeed. 
Musta been tough living under the Old Testament !!



In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.



1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.


James M. Kauffman,


Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Smite them! Smite them ALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!


----------



## Karen (Apr 22, 2010)

Love it! Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## eternity302 (Apr 22, 2010)

Lol!! Go professor!!!


----------



## negafen (Apr 27, 2010)

The old testament also contains brief instructions on how to purchase a donkey.

Also, a woman raped in a town must be stoned to death for being a slut.

If however it occurred in the countryside maybe she screamed and nobody heard. If you then catch the rapist the rapist and the victim have to get married, and he has to pay her dad an arbitrary sum.


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

I understand this post was meant to be humorous but there is also an underlying intent to offend an identifiable group. I know that there are some members who will at first blush that this kind of comment is posted on our forum and that it clearly forms the intent of a politically correct form hate/bigotry that should not belong here. Therefore I post the following TEN answers to belay the TEN Question put forward and put to rest the misconceptions of those who find this humorous.

Punkys Dad
Just-an-ordinary-New-Testament-Jew-Layperson

Question 1.	Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Answer:
A poor brother who became the slave of a Jew (vv. 39-46) could be expected to be treated like a hired worker and not a slave. His master was to treat him and his family with kindness; for the Jews were once slaves in Egypt, and the Lord graciously delivered them. How could a Jew enslave a brother whom the Lord had set free? A Jewish slave was to serve only six years and go free at the Sabbath Year (Ex 21:2); but if the Year of Jubilee came first, he was a free man.
The Jews were allowed to own slaves from the Gentile nations around them or the aliens living in their land (Lev 25:44-46), but a Jew could never enslave a fellow Jew. Slaves were considered the property of the owner and could be made a part of the family inheritance. In other words, Gentile slaves had no hope of being set free, unless they could secure the purchase price, or the master decided to set them free.
During the Civil War era, some Americans used passages like these to prove that it was biblical and right for people to own and sell slaves. But it must be noted that God's laws didn't establish slavery; they regulated it and actually made it more humane. Slavery was an institution that had existed for centuries before Moses gave the law, and the Law of Moses forbade the Jews to enslave one another. God had to eliminate slavery in Israel before He could deal with it in the Gentile nations. Had the Jews treated one another as the law required, Israel would have been a testimony to the Gentile nations of the grace and kindness of the Lord. Instead, Israel failed to obey and eventually became slaves themselves, as recorded in the Book of Judges.
Even in the New Testament, you find neither Jesus nor Paul openly attacking slavery, although historians tell us there were probably 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire in that day. But Jesus and Paul brought the message of salvation to individuals, and it would be through saved individuals that the institution of slavery would finally be abolished. Christians are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt 5:13-16), and they make their influence felt through example and persuasion. As Alexander Maclaren wrote, "[The Gospel message] meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind." 
If the early church had launched a militant crusade against slavery, it would have identified Christianity as a political movement, and this would have hindered the spreading of the Gospel in the Roman world. Since there were no democracies or popular elections in those days, the church had no vehicle for overthrowing slavery. When you consider how difficult it's been for the contemporary civil rights movement even to influence the Christian church, how much more difficult it would have been to wage such a war in the days of Caesar!
For reasons that are known only to Him, the Lord chooses to change people and society gradually, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the truth of the Word of God. While the principles of God's will are the same from age to age, we have no authority to apply to society today the laws that regulated Israel during the dispensation of the Mosaic Law

Next Question 2.


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Answer:
Laws about servants (21:1-11; see also Lev 25:39-43; Deut 15:12-18). Though the Jews were permitted to own slaves from other nations, usually prisoners of war, they were not allowed to enslave their own people. Two scenarios are presented here: a man who voluntarily becomes a servant (Ex 21:1-7), and a woman who is sold to be a servant (vv. 8-11).
If because of poverty, a Jew had to become an indentured servant, his master had to treat him humanely and release him after six years of service. If because of family affection the man wanted to remain in service, and the judges approved it, then he would be marked in the earlobe and remain a servant the rest of his life. However, he was never to be treated like a slave.
A female servant wasn't automatically set free after six years. If a poor man sold his daughter to be a servant or a concubine, then the girl's father would receive the sale price, the girl would get a better home, and her husband wouldn't have to pay a costly dowry. If after becoming the man's concubine she didn't please him, somebody in her birth family could redeem her and she would be set free.
If the man had chosen her for his son, and the son came to dislike her and married another woman, then the son's father had to be sure she was treated like a married daughter. That meant making sure she had clothing, food, and her conjugal rights (1 Cor 7:1-6). If the father failed to do this, the woman was free to return to her family home and was not considered a slave.
Don’t expect this kind of treatment from other cultures. Even by many of today's cultures.


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Answer:
God wasn't condemning or punishing the woman for experiencing her normal monthly period, because He made her that way so she could bear children. This regulation declares only that the woman's discharge made her unclean and therefore she could make others unclean. Rachel used this ploy when she deceived her father about his household gods (Gen 31:26-35).
During the time of her period and for a week afterward, a woman was unclean and had to be careful where she sat and slept and what she touched. But this confinement was a blessing in disguise since it allowed her to enjoy rest and quiet when she needed it most. So she is relieved of her chores and responsibilities. If her husband was too aggressive sexually, this law kept him from taking advantage of her at a time when intercourse wouldn't be especially pleas-ant to her. If he forced himself on her, both he and the marriage bed would be unclean for a week, and this would separate him from every-body in the family and the camp! It wasn't worth it. 
Certainly God created sex for pleasure as well as for procreation, but pleasure that isn't disciplined soon becomes bondage and then torture. Unmarried people must exercise self-control lest they commit fornication and invite the judgment of God (Heb 13:4), but married people also need self-control lest they take advantage of one another and leave God out of their most intimate relationship. God created sex, and wise is the person who permits the Creator to make the rules. Remember that women at this time were treated by and large as mere chattel for most of history by many cultures. The spirit of the law rather than by the letter of the law gave them dignity not allowed by other cultures.

Next Question 4....


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

Question 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

This corrected to Lev 1:7, there is no Lev 1:9.
I take it that you are Jewish. The neighbors were Jews at that time. Ask your Jewish neighbor. 



Question 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Answer:
Unless he is a practicing Orthodox Jew...
Keep in mind that there were no weekends off especially for the slave and impoverished Jews among them let alone with their Non-Jewish masters. And a day off for worship is a welcome relief to those that toiled. The Son of God (Jesus) said in Mark 2:27-28
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." 
For those who wish to work seven days a week with no holidays they are already doing that to themselves. He has become a worshiper of Money and a slave to greed.

Next Question 6...


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

Question 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

Answer:
Eating, Dietary Law (Lev 11:1-23)
Since Noah knew about clean and unclean animals (Gen 7:1-10), this distinction was part of an ancient tradition that antedated the Mosaic Law. Whether a creature was "clean" or "unclean" had nothing to do with the quality of the beast; it all depended on what God said about the animal. When He gave these laws, no doubt the Lord had the health of His people in mind (Ex 15:26; Deut 7:15), but the main purpose of the dietary code was to remind the Israelites that they belonged to God and were obligated to keep themselves separated from everything that would defile them. "Be holy, for I am holy" (Lev 11:44; see Deut 14:3-20 for a parallel list of clean and unclean foods).
Nevertheless, the spiritual principle of separation from defilement applies to the people of God today. The fact that we know God must make a difference in every aspect of our lives. "For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor 6:20, NKJV). "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (10:31, NKJV). God hasn't given His church a list of things that are clean and unclean, but He's revealed enough to us in His Word to help us know what pleases Him and what grieves Him.
Three facts should be noted about the dietary laws:
(1) God gave these laws only to the Jewish nation;
(2) obeying them guaranteed ceremonial purity but didn't automatically make the person holy in character; and
(3) the laws were temporary and were ended on the cross of Christ (Col 2:14).
Jesus made it clear to His disciples that all foods were clean (Mark 7:1 ff), and God taught this lesson again to Peter before He sent him to minister to the "unclean" Gentiles (Acts 10:9-16). Paul affirmed that special days and diets must not be considered either the means or the measure of a person's spirituality (Rom 14:1-15:13). "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (1 Cor 8:8, NIV). It's wrong to judge other Christians on the basis of what they eat (Col 2:16-23). As long as they believe God's Word that all foods are clean, and ask God to bless their food, they have the right to eat it (1 Tim 4:1-6). 
It isn't necessary to identify every creature named in this chapter. (Legalism) In fact, some of them are mysteries to us. Keep in mind that the law named representative creatures and didn't attempt to give a complete list. Moses gave the general characteristics of the creatures that were approved and disapproved, and the people had to exercise discernment in applying the law. If a creature was doubtful, it was rejected; there was no sense taking a chance of becoming defiled. 

Water creatures (vv. 9-12). These had to have both fins and scales to be edible; and so all shellfish, catfish, and eels were prohibited. Aquatic creatures that are scavengers and bur-row in the bottom of a body of water could pick up parasites that would be dangerous to the eater's health. Since fish swim freely in the water, they generally escape such infections. 
There is no mention of homosexuality in the immediate context but if I quote certain passages I would violate Canadian Criminal Law based on Bill C150 regarding hate literature. Where’s the separation of church and state here? Constitutional Hypocrisy.

Next Question 7...


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

Question 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Answer:
My question to you is this, are you planning to be a Jewish Priest anytime from 1530 BC to 70 AD? If not then this does not apply to you.
Physical characteristics (21:16-24)
In the nation of Israel, however, God required that every priest be free from defects and blemishes. There were two reasons for this requirement.

First of all, the sacrifices that the people brought to the Lord had to be perfect; it was only right that those who offered the sacrifices at the altar also be without defect.
Second, the priests exemplified that great High Priest who was to come, and there is no defect in Him.

We have no reason to believe any disqualified priest was treated like a second-class citizen in the camp of Israel. While priests with physical defects couldn't serve at the altar or in the holy place, they were still considered priests and were allowed to share with their families in the sacrificial meals (Lev 2:3,10; 6:14-18) and the other material benefits that the tribe of Levi enjoyed.
We're not sure of the meanings of all the Hebrew words for the defects named in this paragraph, but "blind or lame, disfigured or deformed" seems to summarize them (21:18, NIV). Some of these would be birth defects; others might be the sad consequences of sickness or accidents. The ancients weren't as skillful in setting broken bones or dealing with diseases as physicians are today. The "broken stones" in verse 20 refers to damaged testicles. Eunuchs weren't permitted in the worshiping community of Israel (Deut 23:1) and certainly wouldn't be allowed to minister at the altar. The begetting of children was important to the Jews, and it was especially important that the priestly line be perpetuated.
Once again, this biblical passage must not be used today to humiliate or intimidate anybody with a physical disability. It was never written for that purpose. The priests were special people with an important job to do, and God wanted them to be the very best physically. A beautiful soul often lives in a crippled body, and people like that can be greatly used of the Lord.

Next Question 8...


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

Question 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?


Answer:

Usually by stoning, however male Jews express themselves to identify themselves as God’s people as to physically distinguish themselves from other Non-Jewish who do cut their hair in such a manner. Thus cutting the hair paramount to rejecting God and turning to false gods of the Non-Jews.
Many of the penalties listed here prescribe a "cutting off," in contrast to a judicial execution as in Lev 20:2-5. Could this signify something different from capital punishment? Some have rather convincingly argued that the expression to "cut off" in many of these lists of penalties meant to excommunicate that person from the community of God. The case, however, is not altogether clear, for in some of these situations, the threat of punishment from God in some form of premature death appears to fit the meaning best.


Question 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Again unless you are a practicing Orthodox Jew, where it does not apply to Christians (Hebrews 8:13). 
See answer for Question 6

And finally Question Ten...


----------



## Punkys Dad (Apr 25, 2010)

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev. 20:14)

Answer:
Is a precepts relating to things.
The strange regulation in Lev 19:19 seems to prohibit imitating practices related to heathen worship, or, it may simply be a reminder that Israel is a separated people. Hebrew scholar R. Laird Harris translates the first clause, "Do not make your animals fall down with an unequal yoke." This would parallel Deut 22:10. It would be cruel to yoke to the same heavy load two animals of unequal stature and strength.
That God is concerned about ecology is seen in Lev 19:23-25, and note also Deut 20:19-20. Fruit, of course, can't be "circumcised"; the word simply means "forbidden." By the fourth year, the fruit would be more mature, since it would be the third crop since planting; this belonged to God. The first-fruits should always be His (Prov 3:9-10).

Regarding Lev 24:10 It may seem strange to us that the Book of Leviticus is interrupted at this point to tell about a blasphemer who was judged, but the narrative is an illustration, not an interruption. The basis for obedience to the law is the fear of the Lord, and people who blaspheme His holy name have no fear of God in their hearts. 

Dishonoring God's name (vv. 10-11). Every Jew knew the third commandment: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Ex 20:7, NKJV). So fearful were the Jews of breaking this commandment that they substituted the name "Adonai" for "Jehovah" when they read the Scriptures, thus never speaking God's name at all. To respect a name is to respect the person who bears that name, and our highest respect belongs to the Lord.

The blasphemer was the product of a mixed marriage between an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother from the tribe of Dan. Since the father isn't named as being present, we wonder if he had stayed in Egypt when the mother took her son and fled, or perhaps he was dead. This much is sure: The boy didn't grow up learning a proper respect for the Lord or His name. Even in Moses' day, marriages between believers and unbelievers created problems for God's people. Moses had to contend with the bad influence of a "mixed multitude" who left Egypt at the Exodus but who really didn't have a heart for the things of the Lord (Ex 12:38; Num 11:4; see Neh 13:23-31).

This Egyptian Jew got into a fight with a Jew in the camp (see Ex 2:11-15), and during the fight he blasphemed the name of God. He may have cursed his adversary in the name of Jehovah or in his anger simply cursed the name of the Lord. Whatever is in our hearts will eventually come out of our lips (Matt 12:34-35).

Of course, it's possible to blaspheme God's name in other ways beside swearing. Perjury dishonors God's name (Lev 19:12), and so does stealing (Prov 30:8-9). Jesus taught that our lives should be so pure that we won't need to use oaths or vows in order to make people believe us (Matt 5:33-37). A multitude of words could be evidence that sin is present somewhere (Prov 10:19).

Determining God's will (vv. 12-16). If a Jew had committed the awful sin of blasphemy, Moses would have known what to do, but this man was part Jewish and part Egyptian, and the law had nothing to say about this. Taking the wise approach, Moses put the man in custody and waited for the Lord to tell him what to do.

This is the first of four recorded occasions when Moses had to seek the mind of the Lord about special problems. The second occasion had to do with some men who had been defiled by a corpse and couldn't celebrate Passover. The Lord permitted them to celebrate the next month (Num 9:6-14). The third occasion involved a man who had violated the Sabbath (15:32-36), and he was stoned to death. The fourth concerned the inheritance of the five daughters of Zelophehad whose question made it possible for Jewish women to inherit their father's land (27:1-11; 36:1 ff). Note that in this last instance, one decision led to another, which is often the case when you are seeking the will of God.

Moses was humble enough to admit that he didn't know everything and had to ask the Lord what to do. That's a good example for leaders to follow in the church today. "The humble He guides in justice, and the humble He teaches His way" (Ps 25:9, NKJV). God had given Israel all the laws they needed to govern their religious and civil life successfully, but Moses and the tribal leaders had to interpret these laws and apply them as new situations arose. When the leaders had no clear precept or precedent to follow, they had to seek the Lord's direction before they could give a correct opinion.
And Finally 

The sanctity of judgment 
This chapter states the penalties imposed on those who broke God's law. The same Lord who declared the precepts also declared the penalties.

Fifteen offenses in Israel were capital crimes: striking or cursing a parent (Ex 21:15,17); breaking the Sabbath (31:14); blaspheming God (Lev 24:10-16); engaging in occult practices (Ex 22:18); prophesying falsely (Deut 13:1-5); adultery (Lev 20:10); rape (Deut 22:25); unchastity before marriage (vv. 13 ff); incest (Lev 20:11-12); homosexuality; bestiality (vv. 15-16); kidnapping (Ex 21:16); idolatry (Lev 20:1-5); false witness in a case involving a capital crime (Deut 19:16-21); killing a human intentionally (Ex 21:12).

The people of Israel were the covenant people of God. Therefore, the law of God was the law of the land. Except perhaps in some Muslim societies, there isn't a crime in the above list that would merit capital punishment in most nations today, including murder. But the biblical view of law is different from the modern view. God gave His law to restrain sin, not to reform sinners; the penalties He imposed were for the purpose of upholding His law, not improving the offenders. However, this doesn't mean that Christians today should lobby for the death penalty for all these offenses. While Christians want to do what they can to see just laws enforced justly, Christians also practice grace, mercy and forgiveness as God granted them the same.

The Jews usually stoned capital offenders to death (Lev 20:2; Deut 13:10; 17:5; 22:21,24), but Lev 20:14 and 21:9 speak of offenders being burned with fire. We're not sure what the phrase "cut off" means (20:3,5-6,17-18); in some places, it seems to be equivalent to being killed. It may also have meant expulsion from the camp and the loss of all covenant privileges. Some offenders God inflicted with childlessness (vv. 20-21), and of others He said, 'They shall bear their iniquity" (v. 19).

My apologies to the MODs for using up so much 'bandwidth'.
Punkys Dad
Just-an-ordinary-New-Testament-'Jew'-Layperson


----------



## Bripie (Apr 25, 2010)

on a fish forum


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Sorry if the "joke" or posted comments offended anybody. I'm sure Bill never intended that at all.

Thank you for such well written, well thought out posts in reply to the Prof's 10 questions. 

Your answers are very thorough.

Myself, I would have probably replied that these laws were Old Testament & applicable to the Jewish people of that day, but when Christ came, his New Testament laws are the ones many of us (Christians & even some non-Christians) now live by as a moral code (as well as these NT laws being the basis for most Western laws).


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Bripie said:


> on a fish forum


While we usually try to steer away from Religious & Poltical discussions (often these go downhill very quickly & turn ugly), Punky's Dad was simply responding to a joke posted in the AquaLounge. This is the sub-forum where jokes and discussions are supposed to be posted.


----------



## Morainy (Apr 21, 2010)

Hi Bill,

I've seen that joke before but my husband and I both enjoyed seeing it again.

Because it touched some sensitivities here, I want to mention that my husband and I are both Jewish and the joke is funny to us because it plays on a familiar and challenging theme (and shows up in books and movies by Jewish authors quite often). This particular joke (actually, a letter) was once read out in a synagogue service we attended by a rabbi who was using it very effectively as a discussion-starter about discrimination.

I appreciate the humour in the joke and its original intent, which was to take a stand against the homophobia that was being promoted by a talk show host. I also found it interesting to read the passionate response by Punky's Dad because his (Christian) perspective is so different from mine.

Maureen


----------



## CRS Fan (Apr 21, 2010)

Well put Punky's Dad and Morainy. I have to admit, that this joke made me laugh initially, but after reading Punky's Dad's response, I understood the intent behind the biblical quotations. Bill is a kind and giving person who LOVES the aquatic addiction component (he is one of a kind). Good job Anthony for analyzing the pros and cons and leaving it at that.

JMHO

Stuart


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2010)

i thought the letter by the professor was extremely funny ... i think it was written more about homophobia and not anti-Semitism ... but i acknowledge i did not read the long replies as either way i am neither of those things ... fish forum or not, it was an entertaining read


----------



## Aquaman (Apr 21, 2010)

....WOW !! 
Gee I didn't think I was going to offend anyone .I assure you that was not the intention. I realize that the old testament laws do not appy to today. But ya gotta admit, it would make ya smile if they were . 
I believe in the same God you do and I also believe he has a sense of humour as well. Right or wrong thats my thoughts on it.I assure you I meant no harm.



Punkys Dad said:


> I understand this post was meant to be humorous but there is also an underlying intent to offend an identifiable group. I know that there are some members who will at first blush that this kind of comment is posted on our forum and that it clearly forms the intent of a politically correct form hate/bigotry that should not belong here. Therefore I post the following TEN answers to belay the TEN Question put forward and put to rest the misconceptions of those who find this humorous.
> 
> Punkys Dad
> Just-an-ordinary-New-Testament-Jew-Layperson
> ...


Wow sorry about that...glad you realize I was just sharing a joke not putting any one group down....not my style ...I assure you .


Bripie said:


> on a fish forum


umm yep ...its allowed ...called freedom of speach ...opinions are more than welcome here ! Welcome to BCAquaria btw ...great forum 


SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> Sorry if the "joke" or posted comments offended anybody. I'm sure Bill never intended that at all.
> 
> Thank you for such well written, well thought out posts in reply to the Prof's 10 questions.
> 
> ...


Thanks ...I knew that. Thats why it was intended to be funny 


Morainy said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I've seen that joke before but my husband and I both enjoyed seeing it again.
> 
> ...


 Thanks Maureen for that perspective....



CRS Fan said:


> Well put Punky's Dad and Morainy. I have to admit, that this joke made me laugh initially, but after reading Punky's Dad's response, I understood the intent behind the biblical quotations. Bill is a kind and giving person who LOVES the aquatic addiction component (he is one of a kind). Good job Anthony for analyzing the pros and cons and leaving it at that.
> 
> JMHO
> 
> Stuart


Thanks Stuart....were all one of a kind 


hoolagal said:


> i thought the letter by the professor was extremely funny ... i think it was written more about homophobia and not anti-Semitism ... but i acknowledge i did not read the long replies as either way i am neither of those things ... fish forum or not, it was an entertaining read


 BINGO!!....

If the Mods want to delete or lock this by all means do so but personally I think punkys dad 's post are very informative and all the work he put in to them ...well worth keeping 
bill


----------



## davefrombc (Apr 21, 2010)

I must thank the mods for leaving the post in, and not pulling it in a knee jerk reaction because it may have bothered the sensitivities of some members. I saw many posts pulled in the old forum because someone might take it the "wrong " way. 
I must also thank Punky's Dad for his well written response.
The Lounge is a place on the forum to let your hair down a little . A posted joke that may be slightly off colour, seemingly anti-religious or a bit racist, shouldn't be pulled because one or two people may take offense to it; but at the same time, everyone should consider others sensibilities when posting. 
I tend to be a lot more liberal than some , but there are those that are far too sensitive at times in the forum. I remember one flap because someone mentioned a persons ethnic origins in describing a fellow in a store when talking about a less than pleasant dealing. Someone complained about it being racist , when in fact, he was describing one of 3 different people there who fit the same description, except for racial origin. How else can you differentiate between those three people when the same description fits all three in all other respects ? Using derogatory slang terms to describe anyone's race or religion is a definite nono.
Now, I've had my long winded addition to the thread , I must say I enjoyed the thought provoking post and equally enjoyed the very well written and informative reply.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Whenever possible, we try to allow members to express themselves, as long as it is done without malice or offensive to others. However, when complaints are registered, we try to discuss among the BCA staff to determine if the complaints are warranted and what we should do (or not do) about it.

In this case, clearly the intent was humour and not anti-Semitism. The replies by Punky's dad were extremely informative and well-thought out. It would be a shame to lock or close a thread with such good info. Since everyone seems to be taking this thread in the right spirit, there is absolutely no reason to "mod" it. 

Personally, it has been a good learning experience to read the different perspectives from our Jewish members. As a multi-cultural country and a multi-cultural fish forum, diversity is something to be celebrated and tolerance is a virtue when no offence is intended.


----------

