Chaim on Fruit of thy Loins

[Sarah]

Dissenter, where do you come from? Are you Jewish?
Theres something about you thats extremely fascinating and you have a very charismatic personality, that of a leader.

The reason Fruit had quite a following Dissenter is due to his addressing forth on many issues that we all touch upon but are too embarrassed to fully discuss or solve. Another reason was due to his mysterious personality, that seemed to add character to his posts.

If i turned your question directed to Yacov, to yourself if you were in an admin position, you would contradict yourself. Like you said,

crazy - Fruit - whose words don't mean anything.

Would that mean that you wouldn't ban him because his words are meaningless and unaffectable?

I laughed when i read your comment

" By the way Fruit, if you're reading this-as you probably are. Didn't i tell you that you're not as clever as you think you are?"

.........because it applies to you also -not to mention myself and all of us on the Forum. We all think we can catch somebody out, solve the problem but while we are caught up in the spur of the moment don't realise that we're actually being caught and ridiculed ourselves.

I'm trying to be clever now and ironically looking back at what i've just written it reads like nonsense but has relevance to some things that you can relate to. We're all stupid.

[Allen-T]

What does that stand for?

Quid erat demonstratum. "Thus it has been proven."

You picked up on what I said about the Biblical Sarah, but you completely ignored what I said - what Fruit said - about white women sneaking off to the slave shacks.

I repeat my question:

Would you have defended Fruit - and un-banned him - if he had said that no Jewish women of Judea and Samaria have ever been raped by Arabs - that Jewish women go for an Arab stud because they're sick of their cruel, stupid, wimpy Jewish husbands?

Dissenter, me personally, I didn't like when Fruit said what he said about white women and black men.  Therefore, if anyone were to say anything about Jewish women and Arabs along the same line, it be equally distasteful to me.

However, I know what you are trying to get at.  There are some on this forum who desire to be too extreme.  Nothing in the extreme is healthy. That goes with diets, eating certain foods, and living in certain ways or believing in certain things.  What I like about this forum is that there are people here who take the middle ground and challenge the very views that jtf sometimes takes..and even challenge certain people on this forum who take an extreme stance on certain things.  Kahanism will never be considered legitimate by the mainstream if anyone uses terrible extreme hateful language.  Nor will prostylization of this movement do any good either.

G-d is extreme. There is no sitting on the fence with G-d. Just like you can't be partially pregnant, you are either with G-d or against him. Those who are for G-d make a mistake and say, I made a mistake. Those who are against G-d make a mistake and make excuses.

Allen, that doesn't mean that Gd is extreme.  Two people can look at the color purple and one will say, "yeh, it's purple."  An extremist will simply say it's black because it's a dark color.  IMagine if all people called dark colors black and all lightly shaded colors white...what a boring world it would be!  I don't think Gd intended on a world like that.

I have no idea what you mean. What does a colourful and complex world have to do with whether you serve G-d or not? Gods ways are extreme in relation to what our evil nature likes to do. That's what I meant. You don't stop trying to get closer to G-d because you notice that on the way your becoming "extreme". That's just the perspective of the weak that are jealous of you.   

First, after I read what Dissenter articulated about Gd being extreme, I understood what both of you meant.. Yes I agree. I thought you meant something else.

Secondly, I'm not jealous of you 

C'mon, I meant people in general.

[Allen-T]

Dissenter, where do you come from? Are you Jewish?
Theres something about you thats extremely fascinating and you have a very charismatic personality, that of a leader.

The reason Fruit had quite a following Dissenter is due to his addressing forth on many issues that we all touch upon but are too embarrassed to fully discuss or solve. Another reason was due to his mysterious personality, that seemed to add character to his posts.

If i turned your question directed to Yacov, to yourself if you were in an admin position, you would contradict yourself. Like you said,

crazy - Fruit - whose words don't mean anything.

Would that mean that you wouldn't ban him because his words are meaningless and unaffectable?

I laughed when i read your comment

" By the way Fruit, if you're reading this-as you probably are. Didn't i tell you that you're not as clever as you think you are?"

.........because it applies to you also -not to mention myself and all of us on the Forum. We all think we can catch somebody out, solve the problem but while we are caught up in the spur of the moment don't realise that we're actually being caught and ridiculed ourselves.

I'm trying to be clever now and ironically looking back at what i've just written it reads like nonsense but has relevance to some things that you can relate to. We're all stupid.

Speak for yourself. 

[Sarah]

Lol, yeah i should.

[Dissenter]

Dissenter, where do you come from? Are you Jewish?

Thanks for all of the compliments, Sarah, but I think that you're giving me too much credit.

No, I'm not Jewish, and I don't consider myself a leader. I'm just a boring workaday guy who lives in Manhattan and watches politics on television and reads a lot - including the JTF.ORG web site, which I recommend to many of our posters who still don't fully understand JTF's many positions. (Rational Thought, are you reading this?)

As I said in one of my other posts, I've been a fan of JTF since it first went on TV in the early 1990s. I don't agree with all of JTF's positions, but I've never gotten over my fascination with Chaim's take on the issues, and with his uncanny knack to be right about so many of them.

Making decisions about who to ban and who not to ban is difficult. We all have our own views on it. There was even a discussion recently about banning people who dared to dispute the contention that Torah scholars are (collectively, at least) infallible beings worthy almost of apotheosis.

As for me, I'm not even sure if it's right to ban people who come across as Nazis or Muslims or black or Hispanic racists, as long as they're honest about who they are, stick to the issues, back up their statements with facts (or what they believe are facts), and don't use obscenity, insults or threats.

On the other hand - and this is also a valid point of view - there are those admins who believe that we shouldn't waste our time and energy engaging in banter with people who will always hate us. Instead, we should get our rear in gear and start doing more to promote JTF of YouTube.

I wouldn't have banned Fruit, at least not at first. When I first came on here, I simply engaged him. In fact, I registered for that express purpose. I couldn't stand watching him throw insults around and wearing masks and not getting called for it.

But the admins can't tolerate overt threats of violence, or any of the other crazy things which Fruit, in the last stages of his meltdown, was apparently saying.

Don't worry about thinking yourself stupid. Remember what Socrates said - that the more he learned, the more he realized that he didn't know anything.

And speaking of Socrates - whom the Torah sages also admired, if only for his logical thinking - he was the one who invented the method, now called by his name, of letting people talk until they tripped themselves up, as they inevitably did. In the end, it earned him so much hatred that it proved the death of him. So maybe you've got something there, too.

[Lubab]

[
I don't gamble, but I have known several black men who can write like that and are educated. 
[/quote]

I don't gamble either. It was just a hypothetical.

[Lubab]

As an aside, in Judaism sexuality and horniness are not intrinsically bad things. They are truly holy things that just must be channeled in the right direction or otherwise can be abused.

[Allen-T]

As an aside, in Judaism sexuality and horniness are not intrinsically bad things. They are truly holy things that just must be channeled in the right direction or otherwise can be abused.

Yes, Song Of Solomon is wonderful!!

[Allen-T]

As an aside, in Judaism sexuality and horniness are not intrinsically bad things. They are truly holy things that just must be channeled in the right direction or otherwise can be abused.

Yes, Song Of Solomon is wonderful!!

But it is allegorical. It is a story between G-d and His people Israel.

On one level.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Yacov, I differ with you and Chaim on the meaning of Song of Songs. I do believe it is meant as a biblical celebration of marital sexuality--and everything that transpires within. It's meant to show mankind that sex is holy and wonderful and awesome, and not dirty or intrinsically about procreation--that is, in the confines of a G-dly marriage.

[Allen-T]

Alot of things in the Bible can be interpreted on more than one level.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Some of the things Fruit said are so completely outrageous I have a very, very hard time accepting that he believed them or meant them literally. I think he intentionally said preposterous things for us to laugh at, like, for instance, the comment about white women in the South lying about rape after being caught in the slaves' hogans (which I did not know about, and which I must confess is hilarious   ).

It is insane if we are at each others' throats over comments made by an individual that were so obviously intended to be as shocking and bizarre as possible for effect. If indeed he was a troll with the intention of dividing JTF, then we are completely playing into his hands.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Alot of things in the Bible can be interpreted on more than one level.

What I meant is that I think the literal exegesis is probably the main meaning of SOS.

[Allen-T]

Alot of things in the Bible can be interpreted on more than one level.

What I meant is that I think the literal exegesis is probably the main meaning of SOS.

I'd say that it equally represents both.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

That probably sounded really bad. Allen, remove the above post if you find it offensive.

[Allen-T]

That probably sounded really bad. Allen, remove the above post if you find it offensive.

I didn't find it offensive per se but others might. I know what you are saying,though but not every literal passage has a multiple meaning, but overall is what I meant.   

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Okay. I just really think a lot of Scripture is literal. I get sick of too many arguments of "figurative" exegesis. A lot of people claim that the story of creation is "allegorical" also and that evolution is still real. What a joke. 

I know of course that Chaim and Yacov aren't coming from that position whatsoever. I'm just having a different opinion than them. 

[Allen-T]

Okay. I just really think a lot of Scripture is literal. I get sick of too many arguments of "figurative" exegesis. A lot of people claim that the story of creation is "allegorical" also and that evolution is still real. What a joke. 

I know of course that Chaim and Yacov aren't coming from that position whatsoever. I'm just having a different opinion than them. 

You are right, people do try to read many things in the Bible that aren't there. But, I think there are some pretty legitimate, profound multi-level meanings in scripture. The 7 letters in Revelation are, in my opinion an example of this.   

[Daniel]

Clearly, FOTL shouldn't be taken seriously when he asks such questions of Chaim like, "Tell me the best way to commit suicide!" I mean, c'mon! Chaim should have just completely ignored the question and shouldn't have even dignified it.

My dispute isn't on whether FOTL should or shouldn't be banned. All I'm saying is that these types of decisions should be left to the administrators and not to Chaim.

[Allen-T]

Do people think comparing Fruit's poetry of violence against white women to an allegory is just as bad as saying The Koran is allegorical?

Yes, except I don't think Fruit as followers. Can you imagine some Lewisham [censored] running after a white female Londoner screaming Fruity u Akbar??

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Creation and evolution are real. They don't contradict each other.

I don't believe in theistic evolution. I think Genesis is pretty clear about outright creation in six days.

Anyhow, I don't know how to answer your question as to whether or not Fruit's comments should be viewed as allegory or as a Koran-like incitement to violence. I think I offered a third explanation to thosel two (that he literally meant them and that they are allegorical). I proposed that he was going out of his way to be as shocking and offensive as possible. Could be wrong...