Right. Because it was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the Torah (written law without the oral law taken into account at all), it lacked a certain context. To respond properly, I would need to look at what you said, read it in context, and see what the commentaries say to shed more light on each case. However, because I believe the Torah and its law are just, I feel the need to rebut. I certainly feel the need to defend - what you're calling tongue-in-cheek, Maureen, is (in my eyes) an attack on my belief system, though I know you didn't intend it that way.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time for it now. I have a house to clean for Shabbos, kids to pick up from school, writing work to do, and Michael's having his operation on Monday... Things are a bit hectic. *sigh* So I'll just say -- maybe in a few days, when Michael's done with his operation, I might even be able to respond. Peace, Maureen. Just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. Judith On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What you are claiming was an attack on religion was actually a somewhat > tongue-in-cheek commentary on several passages of the Old Testament. It > has nothing to do with the gospels. Perhaps I simply feel if you are going > to attack what is posted, you should at least have some comprehension of > what is being discussed. And I guess my second question would be why you > feel the need to defend something if you aren't even invested in it enough > to find out what it really is. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359519 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
