Revenge of Ask T Questions

This forum is founded on discussions about T Campbell's work (alone and with artist partners).

Moderators: TCampbell, Gisele

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Zanosuke Kurosaki » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:38 pm

Captain LeBubbles wrote:
Zanosuke Kurosaki wrote:dctionary.reference.com might come to your rescue.


Will it tell you how to spell 'dictionary'? /smartass


Probably not, since whenever I type it in it asks "Did you mean 'person who's not had enough sleep and had a long day'?"
Stand tall and shake the heavens.

Beep beep, I'm a jeep.
User avatar
Zanosuke Kurosaki
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Trefle » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:39 pm

aww. *pats Zano*
Trefle
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:16 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Lia S » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:00 am

thebitterfig wrote:(H/T Anthea Butler for the argument - google her, she's awesome).


That’s a name I see in my RSS feeds every once in a while. I keep everything not-awesome out of those, so although I don’t immediately remember who exactly she is, I can confirm that she is awesome :) .
Artemisia: if we cannot sympathize or understand then all we claim to be as human beings is just marsh gas
Valerie: Lia knows how to turn that frown upside-down. :D
User avatar
Lia S
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Mr. Brightside » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:49 am

Freemage wrote:However, Paul was very much himself a prude, possibly asexual as well (he claimed to live without any sex at all, and basically created the meme so common among the fundies, that sex within marriage is still somewhat sinful, but it's okay so long as you don't enjoy it too much). So his writings re-iterated the condemnations of homosexuality, and many of the anti-women rules as well. He also had some lovely teachings about how slaves should remain loyal to their masters (unless they were willing to be full-time evangelists, in which case a Christian slave-owner should release the slave as a 'brother in Christ' and then send him to work for Paul).


I thought it was simpler than that - isn't there a Rabbinical tradition that non-Jews are bound only by seven simple prohibitions given unto Noah, among them "arayot," a blanket term for the prohibitions later enumerated in Leviticus 18? I'm not totally sure of this, but I do know that in Acts 15 Paul cautions specifically against idolatry, meat with blood in it or from strangled animals, and "porneia," and if this is what "porneia" is taken to mean, these are the three of the seven that Greek converts would have had to be told (the other four being murder, theft, anarchy, and blasphemy).

(And it's not really fair to blame Paul for the prudishness of his writings, either - after all, Jesus did according to the author of Matthew recommend his followers "become eunuchs," however one's to interpret that, and that they abjure everyone and everything on Earth in comparison to God.)

(And while we're nitpicking Freemage's spelling, might be a worth pointing out it's "mohel.")
(There has never been a signature.)
Mr. Brightside
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:44 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Freemage » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:49 pm

Mr. Brightside wrote:
Freemage wrote:However, Paul was very much himself a prude, possibly asexual as well (he claimed to live without any sex at all, and basically created the meme so common among the fundies, that sex within marriage is still somewhat sinful, but it's okay so long as you don't enjoy it too much). So his writings re-iterated the condemnations of homosexuality, and many of the anti-women rules as well. He also had some lovely teachings about how slaves should remain loyal to their masters (unless they were willing to be full-time evangelists, in which case a Christian slave-owner should release the slave as a 'brother in Christ' and then send him to work for Paul).


I thought it was simpler than that - isn't there a Rabbinical tradition that non-Jews are bound only by seven simple prohibitions given unto Noah, among them "arayot," a blanket term for the prohibitions later enumerated in Leviticus 18? I'm not totally sure of this, but I do know that in Acts 15 Paul cautions specifically against idolatry, meat with blood in it or from strangled animals, and "porneia," and if this is what "porneia" is taken to mean, these are the three of the seven that Greek converts would have had to be told (the other four being murder, theft, anarchy, and blasphemy).

(And it's not really fair to blame Paul for the prudishness of his writings, either - after all, Jesus did according to the author of Matthew recommend his followers "become eunuchs," however one's to interpret that, and that they abjure everyone and everything on Earth in comparison to God.)

(And while we're nitpicking Freemage's spelling, might be a worth pointing out it's "mohel.")


Yes, but the issue under debate was whether or not, to become a Christian, you first had to full-on convert from "Gentile" to "Jew" (which would've included circumcision, kosher diet and so forth). The affirmative position would've led to Gentiles having to give up many things that they regarded as perfectly acceptable. Paul's route made things a lot more palatable.

As for Leviticus, the question becomes "Why 18 and not 19?" (a strict reading of which would forbid, amongst other things, bi-weekly paychecks: "Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.")
T. Campbell (yeah, HIM) wrote:If Freemage did not exist, it might have been necessary to invent him.

dianekikiula wrote:My sig is jealous of your sig now. :P
Valerie wrote:
I'm leaving Paps for you.
Freemage, do you have a fanclub yet, and can I please join?
User avatar
Freemage
 
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby thebitterfig » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:42 pm

Once early Christians claimed some degree of ownership over Tanach (aka TNK - Torah Neviim Ketuvim - Laws Prophets Writings... Doesn't that make it LePew?) and made it their "Old Testament," that basically ruled out following only the Noadic commandments. I don't remember the chapter and verse, but Jesus says something to the extent "Let not a single letter be stricken from the law" and that's mostly kept to, but also there are a bunch of exemptions which show up, drawn from examples in the Gospels and Acts and Letters (at least, the ones most or at least the most authoritative early Christians decided were worthwhile - they actually got together and made decisions).

The thing about Paul, or at least theology surrounding him, is that he says that this is just his personal opinion, that it isn't God's plan, and that he's not making rules for people. He prefers that people don't have sex, but if you've got the lusts, get married and do it, but pray too. Not a rule, just a suggestion, from one. And yet, it is taken as though a commandment by some. Still, the Pauline argument - better to get married rather than have sex outside of marriage - would easily be one that marriage-equality-Christians could adapt. Marry off the gays to other gays, rather than having them screw outside of marriage.
The notes of this paradoxalist do not end here, however. He could not refrain from going on with them, but it seems to us that we may stop here. - Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground (trans. C. Garnett)
User avatar
thebitterfig
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:25 pm
Location: Maine, where it's probably snowing.

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Mr. Brightside » Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:21 am

Freemage wrote:As for Leviticus, the question becomes "Why 18 and not 19?" (a strict reading of which would forbid, amongst other things, bi-weekly paychecks: "Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.")


...pretty sure I just answered that.

(That is, traditionally, prohibitions similar to 18 were given to Adam and Noah and apply to all humanity; the rest is only for the Jews.)
(There has never been a signature.)
Mr. Brightside
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:44 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby sun tzu » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:44 am

thebitterfig wrote:The thing about Paul, or at least theology surrounding him, is that he says that this is just his personal opinion, that it isn't God's plan, and that he's not making rules for people.

You know, I remember there being a passage in there where Paul basically says "this is my opinion here, not necessarily God's", but I can't remember where exactly. Anyone recalls that one?
User avatar
sun tzu
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby thebitterfig » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:52 am

I Corinthians, Ch.7, a few verses. I'd looked it up last night, but hadn't bothered to cite verse then.
The notes of this paradoxalist do not end here, however. He could not refrain from going on with them, but it seems to us that we may stop here. - Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground (trans. C. Garnett)
User avatar
thebitterfig
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:25 pm
Location: Maine, where it's probably snowing.

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Mr. Brightside » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:04 am

Here's 10-15 and 25-28.

USCCB wrote:To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband - and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband - and a husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her; and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy. If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.


USCCB wrote:Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.


So... yeah. But still, Jesus is credited with the infamous Matthew 19:12.
(There has never been a signature.)
Mr. Brightside
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:44 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Rowan Hawthorn » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:00 pm

T, is there any timeline yet on releasing the remainder of P&A in book form?
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange..." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky, US

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby TCampbell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:11 pm

Rowan Hawthorn wrote:T, is there any timeline yet on releasing the remainder of P&A in book form?


Before "U" wraps up, I'll have some announcements along those lines.
User avatar
TCampbell
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Rowan Hawthorn » Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:10 pm

Cool, thanks.
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange..." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky, US

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby Alice Macher » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 pm

We've seen that Meighan has no problem using her reality shows to make people suffer and ruin their reputations, if it'll bring the ratings and the sponsor money. But let's say someone committed suicide, or even murder, as a result of their suffering and humiliation on a show of hers (regardless of whether the courts would find her liable or not). Which of the following would most closely match her reaction when she's all alone and not being filmed or recorded?

( a ) "Hee."

( b ) "Bummer. But hey, that's show biz, and besides, neither I nor anyone with the show made that person do anything."

( c ) "Oh shit oh shit OH SHIT. Got to handle this the right way, weep just convincingly enough on camera, settle out of court, whatever, or my career is toast."

( d ) "My God, what have I done?" (But ultimately not leading her to become a better human being, at least not long-term.)

( e ) "My God, what have I done?" (And yes, leading her to become a better human being, long-term.)
"Life doesn't wait forever." --Lisa Winklemeyer
User avatar
Alice Macher
 
Posts: 4718
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:57 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Revenge of Ask T Questions

Postby TCampbell » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:08 pm

Definitely not (a) or (e). Probably some waffling between the other three before settling down to (b). It's not impossible for Meighan to have an Ebenezer Scrooge conversion, but that would have to be in response to the suffering of someone relatively close to her, and her "stars" aren't people to her, they're little blobs of neuroses and ratings. Sara got a revealing conversation with Meighan because she earned Meighan's respect as an adversary (and, in her way, a fellow manipulator). None of the others got an "exit interview" one-half so honest.
User avatar
TCampbell
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron