-
Within an eruv, you can carry outside your home in the same way as you can in your own house and garden. All other shabbat restrictions are unaffected.
**You may: **Carry house keys, food or drink for use on shabbat, tallit, books (e.g. chumash or siddur), required medication, clothes, (e.g. coat, gloves or handkerchief), reading glasses, push a baby buggy, pram or wheelchair.
**You may not: **Carry a mobile phone or other items which are muktseh (forbidden to be moved on shabbat), carry anything which is to be used only after shabbat. Carry or open an umbrella. Engage in weekday activities which are not in the spirit of shabbat such as riding a bike, or going shopping (even on credit or where payment is not involved).
If you are unsure whether a particular activity is permitted, please consult your rabbi.
My favourite circumnavigation of religious canon is sex outside of marriage in Islam - obviously prostitution is going to be a bit of 'no-no' - so . . . . you arrive at the 'brothel' (I don't know the term, but guess 'brothel' is frowned upon) you pick your bride, you are married on the spot and granted a marriage certificate, you then do the 'act'* and on the way out . . . . get your divorce.
Intellectual dishonesty as art, super genius, religion oh sweet mistress you never let me down.
- actual sex fucking using your 'crackers'.
- actual sex fucking using your 'crackers'.
-
**You may not: **Carry a mobile phone or other items which are muktseh (forbidden to be moved on shabbat), carry anything which is to be used only after shabbat. Carry or open an umbrella. Engage in weekday activities which are not in the spirit of shabbat such as riding a bike, or going shopping (even on credit or where payment is not involved).
If you are unsure whether a particular activity is permitted, please consult your rabbi.
This rabbi?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6924293.ece -
actual sex fucking using your 'crackers'.
You are like poetry. Nice festive undertones.
-
This rabbi?
Nah, that's Bob Hoskins.
-
My favourite circumnavigation of religious canon is sex outside of marriage in Islam - obviously prostitution is going to be a bit of 'no-no' - so . . . . you arrive at the 'brothel' (I don't know the term, but guess 'brothel' is frowned upon) you pick your bride, you are married on the spot and granted a marriage certificate, you then do the 'act'* and on the way out . . . . get your divorce.
Intellectual dishonesty as art, super genius, religion oh sweet mistress you never let me down.
- actual sex fucking using your 'crackers'.
Long time ago I used to date an au-pair girl who had to tear off strips off toilet paper for her 'family' (slave masters) every Friday as this was not allowed and they were too lazy to do it themselves.
- actual sex fucking using your 'crackers'.
-
I don't see how there can be cycle lanes in this situation. It's Yahweh or the highway, frankly.
-
which brings me back to "religions which are mostly full of good stuff about bringing people together" - which religions are these !? Perhaps Buddhism (at a push)
A bit late, but from what I recall, buddhist scripture (specifically the Dialogues with King Wen), prohibits homosexuality, and, I think, suggests a nasty punishment for the gays if they are in the gay way with another guy.
-
I want to believe this - I do !
But . . . once you have read the Hadiths, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, you realise that these people have it right.
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of my comment. I was not trying to promote religions & stuff.
My comment was purely directed at people trying to reason with religious fundamentalists like the Hasidics who got the hipster bike lane removed.
I know that most/all religions have somewhat savage tribal undercurrents but they are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony which can be used to great effect in debates.
I hadnt even read any of your posts in this thread, I kinda skipped this whole 'portion'. Internet theological debates make me nauseas, I can barely get through a couple sentences. So I apologise, but I havent read most of what you wrote.
-
The correlation between religiosity and poor societal health goes even deeper, within the US itself - those states with a higher religious adherence (the 'red' states) are where we find the highest incidence of violent crime, murder, theft, burglary - as well as somewhat vague category of "most dangerous cities" - the 5 most dangerous cities topping that list being in the 'capital' of American religiosity, Texas.
tynan - out of curiosity, where do you get the capital of "religiosity" thing from? How are you defining "religiosity"? Fundamentalist Christianity?
Also - not a single city from Texas on this list.
-
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of my comment. I was not trying to promote religions & stuff.
No, of course, I didn't think you were trying to promote religions. I was making a broader point based on the idea that religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - my point was that the true religious follower, the most dedicated the most devout, the most studied and learned might appear to be a total monster to you and I - and I suspect all that is happening in your 'review' of his religion is cherry picking the good parts, rejecting the malevolence and misthathropy and telling yourself that this new version is the correct version - when in fact all you are doing is viewing this religion through the lens of your own liberal values.
Here is a question, to perhaps make my point clearer . . . . take these four scenarios, all informed by religion, all actual events.
Christians protesters condemning homosexuality at a funeral . . . . they have it all wrong, this is not Christianity.
Christians helping the homeless at Christmas with shelter and food . . . . they have it right, this is Christianity.
The killing of a woman for leaving the house without her husband's permission . . . they have it all wrong this is not Islam.
The distribution of health care and food to those who cannot afford it . . . they have right, this is Islam.
Would you broadly agree with the conclusions ? That the killing of a woman for leaving the house without her husband's permission or Christians protesters condemning homosexuality at a funeral is wrong and 'against' their religion ?
And that the other nicer scenarios are 'right' and in line with what their religion teaches ?
If you do agree with the conclusion about what is Christian and what is not, what is Islamic and what is not - and presuming you - like me - do not have the level of religious knowledge that any of these most devout adherents will have - then how are we making these judgements ?
That is kind of my point - although perhaps a little too effete - all we are doing is looking at someone else's world and telling them they have it wrong when it does not broadly match our own liberal values - even when they are a towering expert on their religion - compared to our limited knowledge.
So when I hear a politician condemn - for instance - Islamic fundamentalists as practising a distorted and erroneous version of Islam - it sticks out to me that the person who might have never turned a page of Hadith is telling the person who has dedicated his life to the study of that very thing that they have got it all wrong.
. . . . . . . rambling now (yet again) . . . must stop . . . . must stop . . .
I know that most/all religions have somewhat savage tribal undercurrents but they are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony which can be used to great effect in debates.
I can only guess you have never debated with a dedicated follower of any religion ?
It is simply nonsense to say that most (or all!) religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - and the part played by tribal law is no more than an 'undercurrent' !
Have you even read any of these books ?
Assuming you have not read the Hadith and the Koran (tell me if I am wrong here) - and taking on board your idea that most (if not all) religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - then could you think of any reason why - for instance - Iran chooses to put homosexuals to the noose based on theological teachings ?
Have the scholars and students got their religion wrong in your opinion ?
-
tynan - out of curiosity, where do you get the capital of "religiosity" thing from? How are you defining "religiosity"? Fundamentalist Christianity?
Sorry the phrase 'capital of religiosity' was a little throw away, I was making the point that 'even in the very religious state of Texas we find . . . .'
Although saying that . . Texas is amongst the states with the most conservative evangelical Protestants - all the bible belt states have a very high religious observance rate - I think Carolina or Mississippi might have the very highest rates.
I also singled Texas out as it's the battleground for the creationist movement.
Also - not a single city from Texas on this list.
Cheers I will have a look at the link and dig out my list (most dangerous cities) to check sources.
tynan
serk
Platini
miro_o
barber
StandardPractice
TheCamdenStrangler
nickvonfiction
scoober
DFP
Aroogah
andy_p
deleted-
Post a reply
About
Hipsters repaint bike lanes in brush off to Hasids - Brooklyn, NY
Posted by
@ReekBlefs
That's all week...
Do you mean 'sundown Friday'?