Cannabolics philosophy on bud and the bible

has this thread helped in anyway


  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
Mac, you're really Jewish, aren't you? I can tell.
I didn't realize it was a secret!

I am really (as in in fact) a Jew. However, I'm not really Jewish, in the sense that I'm not really observant.

Theoretically, I belong to a Reform temple, but in fact I'm what we like to call a 'cultural Jew' here in the American Diaspora. I see my Rabbi at funerals, thats about it. Usually these things only comes up during screaming arguments with the orthodox or with visiting Israelis, dirty laundry being better aired indoors and whatnot.

In fact, if I actually had religion it would probably be some kind of fusion of Jewish identity/history with Rastafarian social philosophy and language (but not much of the theology) and a strong infusion of Buddhist concepts regarding the metaphysics of causation and the problem of the soul.

But the closest I really ever come is holding an occasional Rasta Passover.

But, anyway, yes I'm Jewish. Didn't the handle and the avatar kinda give that one away?
Maccabees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me like Jewish boys. :-) :joint: :hump: :hump:
I'm guessing they like you too, eh? Long live Portnoy's Complaint!
 

porchmonkey4life

Well-Known Member
I have no idea what portnoy was complaining about, but o.k.

And no, I have never had the pleasure of fucking a Jewish boy. I think I want to because they're not supposed to.
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
I have no idea what portnoy was complaining about, but o.k.
Partially, about his uncomfortable but overwhelming desire for dirty sex with immaculate Christian girls-next-door.

From Wikipedia:

Portnoy's Complaint (1969) is American writer Philip Roth's most popular novel, with many of its characteristics (comedic prose; themes of sexual desire and sexual frustration; a self-conscious literariness) having gone on to become Roth trademarks.

Structurally, Portnoy's Complaint is a continuous monolgoue as narrated by its eponymous speaker, Alexander Portnoy, to his psychologist, Dr. Spielvogel.

This narration weaves through time and describes scenes from each stage in Portnoy's life, with every recollection in some way touching upon Portnoy's central dilemma: his inability to enjoy the fruits of his sexual adventures even as his extreme libidinal urges force him to seek release in ever more creative (and, in his mind, degrading and shameful) acts of eroticism. Roth is not subtle about defining this as the main theme of his book. On the first page of the novel one finds this clinical definition of "Portnoy's Complaint", as if ripped from the pages of a manual on sexual dysfunction:

Portnoy's Complaint: A disorder in which strongly-felt ethical and altruistic impulses are perpetually warring with extreme sexual longings, often of a perverse nature...

Other topics touched on in the book include the assimilation experiences of American Jews, their relationship to the Jews of Israel and the pleasures and perils the narrator sees as inherent in being the son of a Jewish family.

Portnoy's Complaint is also emblematic of the times during which it was published. Most obviously, the book's sexual frankness was both a product of and an inspiration for the sexual revolution that was in full swing during the late 60s. And the book's narrative style, a huge departure from the stately, semi-Jamesian prose of Roth's earlier novels, has often been likened to the stand-up performances of 1960s comedian Lenny Bruce.
You're not exactly the intended audience, but with your background in soc, psych and sexuality you might really enjoy it.

And no, I have never had the pleasure of fucking a Jewish boy. I think I want to because they're not supposed to.
We're not supposed to marry you, silly.....
 

porchmonkey4life

Well-Known Member
oh, i see...reading up a bit on the Maccabees...guess your rasta-jewish ideas bring a whol other meaning to the term "high priest" lol
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
You've got that right.

Speaking of which, I've got an errand to run. My chalice has run dry!

Happily, I can walk to the dispensary from here.
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
Baby, your chalice shall runneth over when I'm done with you.














No, I couldn't resist. But we should stop derailing the religion thread before Benedict the Inquisitor sends his minions after me.
 

porchmonkey4life

Well-Known Member
oh wait, that's just a white collar, my bad, but still...I think there's something inherently evil about super religious people. Why the Hell else would they need to be so Goddamned pious?
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
oh wait, that's just a white collar, my bad, but still...I think there's something inherently evil about super religious people. Why the Hell else would they need to be so Goddamned pious?
I wasn't fucking around, that guy's old job (When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. was heading up the modern Inquisition. At which he did his best to set the clock back a few hundred years. That means he was also the ultimate authority in the handling of the priest-child sex scandals here, moving 'bad' priests around and hiding them instead of defrocking them, etc:

(from Wikipedia)
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005)

On November 25, 1981, Pope John Paul II named Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office, the historical Inquisition. Consequently, he resigned his post at Munich in early 1982. He was promoted within the College of Cardinals to become Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni in 1993, was made the College's vice-dean in 1998 and dean in 2002.
In office, Ratzinger fulfilled his institutional role, defending and reaffirming Catholic doctrine, including teaching on topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and inter-religious dialogue. During his period in office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took disciplinary measures against some outspoken liberation theologians in Latin America, condemning liberation theology twice (in 1984 and 1986), accusing it of Marxist tendencies and of inciting hate and violence. Leonardo Boff, for example, was suspended, while others were reputedly reduced to silence. Other issues also prompted condemnations or revocations of rights to teach: for instance, eleven years after his death, the writings of Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello were the subject of a "notification" - the notice did not condemn all of De Mello's works as heretical, but noted that many of them, particularly the later works, had what Ratzinger and the CDF interpreted as an element of religious indifferentism (as they saw it, De Mello held that Christ was "one master alongside others"). Some theologians dispute the CDF's interpretations of both liberation theology and the works of thinkers like De Mello.
The CDF is best known for its authority over the teaching of Church doctrine, but it also has jurisdiction over other matters, including cases involving the seal of the confessional, clerical sexual misconduct and other matters, in its function as what amounts to a court. In his capacity as Prefect, Ratzinger also penned a controversial letter to all Catholic bishops, declaring that confidential details of Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain serious ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, were subject to the pontifical secret and could not, on pain of excommunication, be revealed.[12][13]
On March 12, 1983 Joseph Ratzinger as prefect and cardinal notified the lay faithful and the clergy that archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc had incurred the excommunication latae sententiae for episcopal consecrations without the apostolic mandate
Also, he was a member of the Hitler Youth as a young man. Seriously. That doesn't exactly give me the warm-and-fuzzies. Although, in all fairness, membership was 'unofficially compulsory' if you were eligible to join and his participation is reported to have been unenthusiastic.
 

porchmonkey4life

Well-Known Member
Pontifical secret - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow. That's unbelievable. The power of denial is incredible. I think child-molesting priests, if not excommunicated, should be required to put a sign up on their confession boxes, or in front of the church, or around their damned necks that reads:

"A sex offender lives here."

What makes them any different from Chester the Molester down the street?
 

Cheese x Kush

Active Member
There is no difference at all they are all just normal people doing there job
In every Working place there is some 1 taking advantage of there trust ,
80% of things that gets stolen from Shops are did my workers ,
People that work in gyms , Life guards , ect .

Yes of course they show have there diks cut off for doing it , But by classing all them from the action of some is wrong too

That like them feminists saying all men are ? .......... all men are what ?

I thought the answer was always all men are different ....
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
There is no difference at all they are all just normal people doing there job...
Are you talking about priests? I think you are, but I'm not sure.

In every Working place there is some 1 taking advantage of there trust ,
80% of things that gets stolen from Shops are did my workers ,
People that work in gyms , Life guards , ect .
At this point I'm starting to loose track.....

Yes of course they show have there diks cut off for doing it , But by classing all them from the action of some is wrong too

That like them feminists saying all men are ? .......... all men are what ?

I thought the answer was always all men are different ....
Yes, overgeneralizations are a reliable way to be wrong--but I have no idea what point you're trying to get across here.

I may be too stoned, Meet the Press is on and it's better that way. Some Navy four-star with fruit salad on his chest is trying to tell me the war is going just swimmingly.
 

Cheese x Kush

Active Member
QUOTE]Are you talking about priests? I think you are, but I'm not sure.

Yea it was priests that was being talked about , you are sure you just got the feeling to act a knobb :mrgreen:

QUOTE .At this point I'm starting to loose track.....

Smoke less .... :hump:

QUOTE Yes, overgeneralizations are a reliable way to be wrong--but I have no idea what point you're trying to get across here.

Then why bitch and act smart if you knew what a ass ?

quote I may be too stoned, Meet the Press is on and it's better that way. Some Navy four-star with fruit salad on his chest is trying to tell me the war is going just swimmingly.[/quote]

The message was clear you cant blame every one for some Evil people work
Are all muslims terrorists , ?

ps i dont want to get into some sort of school boy argument with you some please dont paist back any more your smart ass comments to me

cheesee :joint:
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
Schoolboy arguments? I suppose that's better than incoherent dropout babble. I was agreeing with you that overgeneralizations are wrong. Of course, that's somewhat irrelevant, as no one was generalizing about priests, or blaming any group of people for one person's actions. We were talking about one particularly scary dude, who happens to be Pope now, and his old job. And what he did to help conceal the crimes of those specific priests who did engage in abuse. No one said all priests do anything. You fail on reading comprehension.

Anyway, I'd have to be disagreeing with you for it to be an argument. But I can make that happen.

Maybe this is more your style:

qq moar failboy, lern2internet:hump::roll: :hump::roll::hump:
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
You can get it at mtp.msnbc.com . It turned out to be an Air Force uniform, and the guy turned out to be General Hayden--he's actually the director of CIA. Which I don't really get. An active Air Force General--who appears to be wearing a Joint Chiefs of Staff insignia--is the CIA director? I thought he had to retire when he accepted the position. Strange. I hadn't seen the guy on television before, he's a little odd. Anyway, that's kinda neither here nor there so far as this thread is concerned.
 

porchmonkey4life

Well-Known Member
That like them feminists saying all men are ? .......... all men are what ?

I thought the answer was always all men are different ....
Cheese, I really don't think you have a clue what a feminist is, and I'm sure you're using this term in lay-context rather than in a Sociological context. But let me clarify, to clear up any confusion you might have about feminism and about how feminists think:

Here's a European sociohistorical perspective:

feminism, feminist A social movement, having its origins in eighteenth-century England, which seeks to achieve equality between the sexes by extension of rights for women. In the 1890s the term referred specifically to the women and men who campaigned for votes for women and women's access to education and the professions. After the achievement of the vote (1920 in the United States and 1928 in Britain), an enduring tension within feminism became more evident, between the objective of equal rights with men in the public sphere and the recognition of women's difference from men with the objective of enhancing their position in the private sphere of the family. The ‘second wave’ of feminism from 1969 onwards has many different strands, but there appears to be some common core and there have been movements on behalf of women in almost every country and on a world scale through the United Nations decade for women, 1975–85

And an American:

Feminist sociology studies the current climate of feminism in relation to all other interactions of society. Feminism is in its third wave of thought, and this is reflected in feminist ideology by the current awareness of differences in women throughout the world. In the previous waves of feminism, only the needs of a specific type of women were addressed. In third wave feminism, feminists have attempted to stop making generalizations of all women, and instead, have focused on the needs of their gender with intersection of sexual orientation, race, economic status, and nationality differences among women. Third wave looks to give voices to the women who have gone unheard throughout the previous waves of the feminist movement. As a result, other issues have arisen within feminist sociology.


Also, I think you negate yourself when you get your balls in a knot when you think a dude is "classing" priests (I think you meant he was overgeneralizing them into a group of evil, child-molesting assholes), and then go on to overgeneralize (Definition: to make too sweeping statement about something: to draw too general a conclusion about something on the basis of limited or incomplete evidence) feminists, thereby assuming they are a bunch of parading, male-bashing, radical, militant butch-feminist-dikes.

But if I'm wrong, please let me know, and I do apologize for "classing" you
:joint:

amazing how smoking resin can get you high when you're dry
 
Top