Thursday, March 31, 2011

ROFL Shmarya Ignorant of Halacha

Ketubot 34a-b "Tosafot in Hullin argue that not every violation of Shabbat will give a person the status of a meshumad. In fact, only someone who willfully violates the Sabbath in a public manner would be put into that category." Willfully violates the sabbath in a public manner, that's like the vast majority of American jews who are non-ritual following. Does Shmarya have the nuts to be honest about what the halacha actually is? Of course not. Instead, Shmarya told me that as a former jewish atheist I could have been a "kofer" instead of the "meshumad" I am now. Clearly, Shmarya misstated the halacha. Anyways, it was soooooooo strange to see someone upset at me over a religious difference. I don't get upset at people over religious differences, such a notion seems to me to be rather insane.


Garnel Ironheart said...

You're missing an important point in your exegesis. Being publicly mechalel Shabbos only counts if you know what Shabbos is, accept that you are obliged to observe it and then publicly drive to the mall shouting "Ha ha, God! You can't make me keep Shabbos!" for to count. The average Jew, who doesn't realize the authoritative nature of Torah and halacha in their lives is not in this class.

Anonymous said...

If You're truly secular, why are you even interested in this crap?

Dave the Devious said...

Garnel Ironheart, for all his flaws (smugness bordering on narcissism, extreme intellectual dishonesty at times, an often sardonic tone...) is at least a relatively reasonable human being who knows what the hell he is talking about.

SJ on the other hand, is a spiritually and psychologically confused individual who calls himself a "secular Jew" when in fact he is an ultra-conservative Protestant type Christian. (Though he seems to change his religion like his socks, at one point becoming atheist-for-a-day, then flipping back into a creationist, homophobic, Bible-banging Christian caricature.) Perhaps he should call himself "Yiddish Christian" because it better describes his ethnic and religious background (ethnic Jew, professing Christian) than "Secular Jew."

But to answer Anonymous' question, I have NO idea what his obsession is with halachic minutiae considering that he is no longer a Jew in any meaningful religious sense. He just has a creepy habit of "cyber-stalking" Shmarya Rosenberg, I would guess due to the fact that SJ has a subconscious homoerotic interest in Shmarya, but who knows?

Garnel Ironheart said...

Yeesh, where did this guy come from?

> smugness bordering on narcissism,


> extreme intellectual dishonesty at times,


> an often sardonic tone...

Only on a slow day.

SJ said...

lol Garnel idk.

Wow lots of stuff to respond to.

- Garnel I appreciate you attempting to be modern and inclusive but the fact of the matter is I'm sure most jews in NYC are aware of orthodox mores and I'm sure liberally affiliated jews are aware to one extent or another.

- Anonymous, I used to be an agnostic/atheist for a couple of years.

For the record, atheist youtubers talk about religion as much as any other religioso.

As for you Dave, first of all, Shmarya sets himself up as a journalist and public figure (although in New York Times style, he pimps his liberal viewpoint as journalism) second of all, discussing issues on a blog set up for religion and politics is not stalking.

Dis me again and I'll delete your comment.

Dave the Devious said...

All righty Garnel, that was a bit harsh, but is it not true? [Ironically when you answered "Never!" to my allegation of occasional intellectual dishonesty, that only bolstered my initial allegation.] Hey, I concede that you are a "reasonable human being" who at least knows what the hell you are talking about.

SJ, I'm not quite sure where I "dissed" you (I did say some rather unflattering things, but nothing defamatory per se), but in all frankness you can be very thin-shelled. Garnel Ironheart can take criticism like a MAN, and good for him. As for your "cyber stalking" of Shmarya Rosenberg (you DO know the functions of quotation marks, right?) maybe you do not stalk him per se, but you have this annoying habit of endlessly dedicating blog posts to bloggers you have a conflict with, even when they have no wish to debate you. And to be perfectly honest, it makes you look worse than your online adversaries. So your endless strings against Shmarya (Larry Tanner, Mellock, Shalmo, Anonymous Blogger 1, Anonymous Blogger 2...) make you look desperate and obsessive before they make your rivals look bad.

SJ said...

>> but nothing defamatory per se

Hmm let's test that.

You say " He just has a creepy habit of "cyber-stalking" Shmarya Rosenberg" (cut the shit about the quotation marks you put it out there)

and I say " Shmarya sets himself up as a journalist and public figure "

and you say "maybe you do not stalk him per se"

and in a previous thread you say "a "libtard" is anyone whom SJ does not like"

and I say "Not true."

>> but you have this annoying habit of endlessly dedicating blog posts to bloggers you have a conflict with, even when they have no wish to debate you.

As for your list of other bloggers-

- Shmarya is a public figure. We engaged in debate and I can comment about what happened all I want. I don't consider him an adversary just an idiot.

- Larry Tanner and I did debate and I don't consider him an adversary. We left on OK terms.

- Mellock came here to debate. I responded how I saw fit and it was one post for one post. I don't consider him an adversary I consider him persona non grata.

- Shalmo came here loooooots of times to debate. I also don't consider him an adversary but rather persona non grata.

- I have the right to turn a comment into its own string. It's -my- blog.

This conversation is over. Dave, my advice to you is to just stick to the political or religious issues of a thread and your comment will be accepted. Future posts on this conversation will be DELETED without notice so don't bother complaining about it.