Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni
Titolo: R: Lev e la prostituta mestruata


A se stessi,senz'altro......agli altri non credo
saluti
luciano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%VDg6.19441$GM6.8...@news.infostrada.it...

Il Targum Onqelos chi lo ha scritto? Ciao.

 che il bambino era bastardo e figlio di mestruata.
Mi si pone un problema di natura "sanitaria"
A - durante le mestruazioni le donne restano incinta ? ( mi pare di no?)
ed uno d'ordine logico
B - Per quanto tempo è  stato lontano il marito ( passano le mestruazioni,
aspetta grosso modo 12-15 per arrivare al periodo fecondo..colgi l'attimo
giusto..)
Un elogio all'accompagnatore, alla signora, e tanti saluti al signor
marito...
--
Ciao Leonardo

 A - durante le mestruazioni le donne restano incinta ? ( mi pare di no?)
E' un evento molto raro, ma puo' accadere.
Ciao,
Marina

 Ciao Leonardo
Chiamiamolo Inseminator....doveva avere gli spermatozoi con lo scafandro, il
tizio.....
saluti
luciano

> A - durante le mestruazioni le donne restano incinta ? ( mi pare di no?)
 
Scusate la pedanteria, ma per quale motivo e' cosi' difficile
declinare correttamente un femminile plurale regolare?
INCINTA al plurale fa INCINTE.
Come BELLA fa BELLE, e GATTA fa GATTE.
C'e' un motivo per cui continuano a sbagliarlo quasi tutti?...
:)))
Lisa

 A - durante le mestruazioni le donne restano incinta ? ( mi pare di no?)
Si, rimane incinta.
Il problema e' che: quale rabbino ebreo dell'epoca 
sposa una donna mentre e' mestruata?
Poteva essere una cosa credibile per il romano medio, e per liviathan,
ma dubito che all'epoca una donna mestruata potesse essere toccata
da un rabbino, dal marito, celebrare una cerimonia, partecipare al
pranzo di nozze, e che in generale si sarebbe scelto un giorno del
genere
per il matrimonio.
Per gli ebrei dell'epoca una donna mestruata non doveva nemmeno toccare
qualcosa
che poi fosse toccato da altri.
Forse un romano ha detto questo, perche' loro non condividevano questo
taboo,
e neanche liviathan e' cresciuto in una famiglia che lo condivide,
essendosi
convertito da poco, ma credo non sia verosimile che una donna ebrea
dell'epoca
si sposasse mestruata.
E anche per un romano sarebbe stata una cosa abbastanza insolita.
Per quanto riguarda "prostututa", credo che la traduzione sia impropria:
noi usiamo la stessa parola per la donna che si vende e per la donna che
tradisce il marito (puttana) , mentre per un romano erano due parole
differenti,
o perlomeno due -espressioni- differenti.
Non riesco a vedere l'intelligenza di un attacco alla figura di maria
sostenuto usando questo genere di affermazioni.
Lev
-- 
#########################################################################
          fiducia: condizione necessaria per il tradimento
 Lev HP 
http://utenti.tripod.it/lev2
 Lev's Coven 
http://www.streghe.com
                        Lev's' ICQ #50817865

genere per il matrimonio.
 
Be', esistono anche donne con il ciclo irregolare, alle quali magari
la mestruazione arriva di sorpresa proprio quel giorno, quando la data
e' gia' fissata... :)
saluti
Lisa

 E' un evento molto raro, ma puo' accadere.
e io che credevo che fosse un metodo
anticoncezionale approvato dalla Chiesa ...
ciao,
Mauro

 wrote in message
3a85402c...@diesel.cu.mi.it...

Non l'ho scritto io......lo ha fatto la persona a cui msg io ho
risposto....:-)))
Se tu avessi seguito il 3d avresti risposto a Leonardo e non a me :-)))
Tanto per la precisione
saluti
luciano

> Si, rimane incinta.
e dove attecchisce l'ovulo?
--
Ciao Leonardo

 > C'e' un motivo per cui continuano a sbagliarlo quasi tutti?...
Si....mi piace farmi correggere..
--
Ciao Leonardo

 e dove attecchisce l'ovulo?
nel primo utero che incontra ;-)
scherzi a parte rinnovo il mio consiglio alle "cattoliche"
di buona volonta',  suore comprese, affinche' ospitino
in loro i tanti embrioni che sono tuttora congelati.
Embrioni congelati, "anime" che chissa' dove sono ...
sto ironizzando ovviamente.
ciao,
Mauro

 e dove attecchisce l'ovulo?
Senti, fai una prova: dopo lo chiedi al bimbo quando nasce.
Io non devo convincerti di qualcosa la cui conoscenza e' a TUO
vantaggio.
Se ti fidi bene, se no, scegli il nome.


 vantaggio.
non voglio entrare in polemica....per carita'....
--
Ciao Leonardo

 da un rabbino
It has quite a lot to do with buearucracy, even if it doesn't seem so first.
An interesting aspect of the contemporary and previous leftist culture is a
return to Sophism.
This is an old system, by which you're looking for coherence between
suppositions and verbal arguments but it is never confronted with facts.
Lay down a supposition or a statement, false or true-usually false but
represented as an obvious fact- and then go on elaborating on the same, with
the help of insignificant data-to prove what otherwise has nothing to do
with reality.
This is in essence what revisionist "historians" do-taking an insignificant
argument-and deducting from it on the whole, making hypothesis as to the
real intentions and a priori policy of a purely imaginary primary mind.
In itself, if one revises according to newfound facts-there's nothing wrong.
Taking a few insignificant occurrences and deducting on the whole-when the
whole does not support those details-and in direct contrast with the rest of
the relevant facts-is nothing short of outright deceit; at best it is
irresponsible, theological type deduction, based on a guided finality.
Thus it easy to get to any sought conclusion as long as one keeps his verbal
coherence intact. Socialist-leftist and other totalitarian systems do not
heed facts-those are discarded as either unimportant or sheer propaganda.
The real base of leftist argumentation is the word coherence-and here they
do it well.
They only have to follow the 2500 years old system of Sophism.
That system was adopted by politicians since the Sophistic school was
founded and formed an indispensable part of their education-knowingly or
not.
Why is this kind of a system accepted by otherwise seemingly quite
intelligent persons? It seems that the acceptance of such reasoning is
again, 2500 years old. When confronted with the western civilization
acceptance of the great Greek philosophers-we accept what's hidden
underneath- a consensus to power as a virtue or a value for itself-and the
consequence of submitting all to the service of a state that is above
reality, above facts, above morals and above nature itself. As an
interesting side fact-Chinese religions-philosophies follow the same path-
supremacy of aristocracy and in power authority over the lower casts just as
willingly. It is a convenient way of convincing the unprepared, after all,
and maintaining power over the masses.
This kind of Philosophy was greatly appreciated by the powerful throughout
history-there could be nothing more convenient for the tyrant of the moment
than relying on the great three-and justifying all. As told, Socrates
already accepted that aberration-and died for it. I have my doubts about the
story and the whole circumventing evidence-but my guess is as good as
anybody else's.
In essence, sophism is based usually on an apparent elusive, moral
truth-than when confronted with the fact doesn't hold water- and then
elaborated upon to conclusion.
It was F. Nietzsche to bring up openly the first doubts about the famous
thinker of the old Greek-Roman school.
Not surprisingly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, even if all but neglected
by their own contemporaries, are still dominating today's western thought
and the Jewish-Arabic schools as well.
A recall and a historyographically critical study may be in place,
considering the theories of the three famous philosophers as stand alone
theories but also as to their relative success or failure with the
potentates.
It may be that Socrates merits a space of his own; the lack of writings
prevents us from actually evaluating him except than by a long chain of
suppositions.
We first have to take a look at what was-or were - the Greek school(s) of
thought before Plato, without whom it is quite impossible to examine, even
synthetically, the three philosophers at hand.
No big differences or innovations can be discerned from the ethical point of
view as to the ideas already well represented in the Iliad, Odyssey or from
the Greek literature as a whole, so richly presented to whom is willing to
read, by Eskiles, Sofocles, Hesiod, Herodotes, the lyric poets etc.
This aspect of the Greek culture, even tough clearly evident from simple
lecture or text reading is usually undervalued or worse, misguided and
misinterpreted.
It should be therefore discussed on its own, apart from the present study.
Suffice it to underline the bases or axles of classic Greek ethic: the idea
of Justice, of democracy and of Liberty.
Coherent with all those principles and, if not written down, of religious
democracy and, as an expression of liberty, was the principle of respect for
all divinities; included were also the ones foreign to one's own
The essence of polytheism consists, in fact, in the possibility of freely
venerating any god one wishes to worship, from Pan in the woods to Santa
Rita, wherever.
This kind of Liberty virtually guarantees the absence of heretics and
eliminates stakes.
Even the idea of an extraterrestrial existence in the oldest Greek tradition
is an expression of free choice on the personal level.
Therefore, in addition and side by side with the elitist opinions of the
Pitagoras school of Orphean and oriental derivation- quite ready to
recognize the extraterrestrial existence by way of reincarnation- Oeskilo
raises in defense of the accepted concept that the ultramondane world
belongs to the gods (Prometheus)
We may add that it would also be inexact to attribute to the old Greek a
deterministic vision of things.
The moira is not a fatalistic term, the likes of English's destiny, but is
rather the paper or the part everyone has to recite, like in Shakespeare's
The merchant of Venezia or as a physical rule according to which the sun
rises and sets every day in a precise mode.
On the epistemological plane, science and conscience, Karl Popper has
already amply demonstrated that the pre-Socratians arrived way back to the
essential fundamentals of defining concepts such as matter, cosmos, the
relationship between the passage-passable or becoming-undergoing
conditions-situations and the fixed non-changeable reality.
They were already well aware of the fundamental principles of conscience and
of the relationship between our logical capacities and our sensory
sensibilities. From the 6th century BC on, the pre-Socratians confronted the
issue of scientific truth, resolving it by actual, contemporary terms of
hypothetical conscience-the net of guesses by Xenophanes-and also understood
and recognized the value of the inferential, inductive and deductive
reasoning.
In the 5th Century the philosophical and intellectual attention shifted to
the study of logic; it was however the deductive reasoning that took
priority position and became a true independent school -the sophism.
We may presume, as Aristophanes insinuates, (clouds), that the reason it
became so popular is to be found in the base interests of profit making of
the so-called super- scientists, Sophists.
The characteristic of Sophistic thought is the use of demonstrations or
logical linear consecutive procedure based solely on the internal verbal
coherence of an argument. That is the base of sophism, the correct sequence
of the logical procedure in the sense of the already old principle of
discourse, as opposed to the principle of scientific (and also of common
sense) coherence of propositions as compared or related to reality of
phenomena and facts.
Out of that kind of argumentation we can arrive at any wanted deduction,
however absurd or dubious it may be.
The issue of truth, scientific as well as ethical, was in effect shifted
from the plane of the coherence -among the phenomena and assumptions, as in
the Pre-Socratic era, to the one of coherence among the propositions alone.
The most noted consequence of the sophistic fashion was the spreading of the
skeptical branch among thinkers, already well observed by Aristophanes
(clouds).
Even Socrates was a sophist; we can however suppose that, put in front of
the ethical choice between his personal liberty of logos (opinion and word)
and his own civil obligation and duty as an Athenian citizen he chose to
obey the state's laws, as Antigones did.
The lack of documentation made the researchers judge him as well as
Antigones, in a host of un- imaginable different ways. Plato makes him a
symbol for his own philosophy but in reality, behind Socrates there is to be
seen and found the point of view of another sophist-Plato.
Plato is operating out of the will -push, to reign-in and limit the implicit
skepticism of the sophistic philosophy and at the same time to satisfy the
ontological exigencies so as to put the brakes on a politically
destabilizing fashion.
To define synthetically his philosophy we may say that he's promoting a
dynamic, mobile thought, as the pre Socratic one was, aimed at a specific,
single direction, modeling it essentially in the authoritative forms of the
oriental despotism while using an essentially pure Sophistical methodology.
Plato does not seem to be overly interested in the coherence of facts and
hypothesis, but rather in the one between words and sentences; Through this
methodology he's able to build a an ideological fortress, formally perfect
but in contrast with the basic demands of common sense. To which we no doubt
may apply the principle of non- falsification of K.Popper.
Obviously, a concept thus constructed, on those bases, may go in any
direction; as it was, the direction, which Plato gave it, is conducive and
inspired by authoritative principles.
Contrary to the traditional Greek agnosticism, the theory of immortality of
the soul, that was the base ingredient of the old Egyptian political
theology becomes it's (Greek's) fundamental, ethical base.
Political results and ideal premise, hitherto foreign to the Greek, thus
become the theory of the Persian style cast hierarchies, taken in by the new
schools.
Plato is obviously not interested in physical sciences as were the
Pre-Socratic. Those for him are an inferior brand of knowledge (G.R.Lloyd)
unworthy of his time. The wise, he thought, should be only interested in the
knowledge of ideas, the only thing that merits consideration.
It is quite evident that Plato has in mind the Egyptian hierarchic mode,
where culture is the privilege and occupation of a sacred-intellectual
class, that is even transmitted through sacred writing (Hieroglyphs)
In the same way, the physical universe is closed and defined, because it's
the only thing that can have a center.
Plato's geometrical metaphors are worth a separate examination, however
Aristoteles inherits the Platonian thought adapting it to the new reality of
Alexander's the Great Empire and its imperial need for submissive people of
few demands.
Aristoteles is also using the sophistical method in order to make demands
that are contrary to common sense -seem acceptable.
He covers in banality the idea of excellence and enlightenment, adding here
and cutting here and there just like an unskilled tailor called upon to
alter an old fashioned tuxedo.
His success is not due to his talent but rather from his economic means,
from the Sovran's favor, but above all from his innate intuition, all
Aristotelian, almost contemporary, as to the importance of communication.
He may be the first one we know of that understood the value of the media
and communication, almost in a modern way, and so he has put all his
capacity as a snake oil vendor into it.
But in Aristoteles universe, the old Greek, open to any idea and issue of
philosophy and science is dead. This man now left only with the possibility
to ask himself if by nature he's free or maybe a slave;
but nothing else- every issue of importance was already decided for him by
the state's interests and directions.
In this vision, Aristoteles" banalizes" the perfect construction of the
enlightened and that of excellence, eliminating the most evident
absurdities, for instance the common women, the hierarchies. Even the
concept of a natural idea is replaced by a similar abstrusity, the idea of
power-action.
What in Plato was a pure utopia becomes in Aristoteles the crude reality,
which the Roman church would later make its own since it fitted its proper
grandiose political designs.
The incorporation comes as a realization of a fundamental common interest
with the consolidation of a great and authoritative cultural and political
empire where the individual was conceded only a limited space for his
liberty and especially no place for criticism.
This is the only way we may explain the Church's opposition to Galileo and
Copernicus; a scientific fact, on its own quite secondary, but that was
capable of putting a whole, established system in doubt and debate.
In reality, all the long-lived authoritative regimes were founded and held
together more by an ideological communication power than by power of
violence. *
* This is why they are verbal empires.
And so is Arafat's regime as well.

> Lisa
giorgio
il paradiso è quell'attimo di luce fra la vita e la morte di un Uomo

 return to Sophism.
Liviathan, lascia perdere: vedi, le persone fortemente critiche verso lo
stato
delle cose , si dividono in due grosse categorie:
1)Quelli che provano a creare un mondo migliore dove tutti possano
vincere.
2)Quelli che vogliono dimostrare che se hanno perso e'
perche' il vincitore li perseguita.
Tu non vuoi creare un mondo migliore: e se domani gli ebrei non fossero
piu' perseguitati, cambieresti religione, al solo scopo di dimostrare
(forse piu' a te stesso che agli altri) che se la gente non ti sopporta
e' perche' loro hanno dei pregiudizi verso di te e non perche' sei
insopportabile.
Rassegnati, liviathan, c'e' anche gente che non piace agli altri.
E sai perche'  gli altri li detestano?
Perche' loro detestano gli altri.
Non puoi pensare di ricevere amore da un mondo che tu detesti, e
vestirti di una bandiera perseguitata non cambia di una virgola il fatto
che l'effetto sarebbe identico  senza bandiera.
Passegnati, il fatto che le persone ti contraddicono non dipende
dal fatto che sei (o dici di essere), Ebreo.
Dipende dal fatto che sei come sei: definisci la madonna dei cattolici
"prostituta mestruata" e poi ti lamenti se la gente non rispetta il TUO 
essere ebraico (peraltro molto opinabile).
Per quanto riguarda quello che hai scritto, e' uno scritto di buono
spessore, ma e' uno strumento.
E uno strumento simile in mano a te, diventa assolutamente inutile.
E ti spiego il motivo: il mio modello di pensiero, con una certo
consenso di chiunque abbia studiato un minimo, puo' essere definito
come "atomismo realista", altri preferiranno identificarlo con "monismo
neutrale",
ma nessuno con un minimo di cultura definira' mai il mio modo di pensare
come
"sofismo".
E quando si dice "non usare strumenti che non sai usare", si intende
anche
quegli strumenti che tu vorresti fossero armi.


"monismo neutrale",
^^^^^^^^^
Occhio, che se ti ascolta qualche veneto capisce male...  :))))
saluti
Lisa
 

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3a886124...@diesel.cu.mi.it...

Infatti noi votiamo Bossi perche' siamo dei mona-rchici!
Ciao.

 della nostra cultura, del nostro tempo.
Quante "pippe" cerebrali ti fai, caro Giorgio.
--
Ciao Leonardo

> Infatti noi votiamo Bossi perche' siamo dei mona-rchici!
Propongo una settimana in un mona-stero
--
Ciao Leonardo

 consenso di chiunque abbia studiato un minimo,
Chi e' piu' importante: chi studia la Tora o chi coltiva le patate?
Io spero in un buon raccolto di patate.
Grazie per il tuo post, e' sempre un piacere leggerti
-- 
Reply to:
User-Agent Vet for the Insane
liviatan(cut_these)@
libero.it

Ciao Leonardo
giorgio :-)
L'etica laica è l'unica possibile.
Come l'unico vero amore
è quello disinteressato degli atei,
mentre i credenti
si nutrono di un amore ipocrita.
The Dentist

 Io spero in un buon raccolto di patate.
E pensi che le patate cresceranno solo piangendo perche' non crescono?


 Infatti noi votiamo Bossi perche' siamo dei mona-rchici!
Oddio... vuoi dire che ana-rchici significa... :-)
Ciao R.

 Chi e' piu' importante: chi studia la Tora o chi coltiva le patate?
Chi coltiva le patate... cosa ho vinto?
Ciao R.


Ed infatti la psico-ana-lisi val meno di un clistere.
Ciao.

 per me renderebbe addirittura meglio l'idea
vediamo ..pippe mentali ( passami la battuta ) , per teste di cxxxo
Ci sono donne che dicono,"  che palle, non mi rompere i coxxxxni"  pur non
avendole.
Adesso se dico a Giorgio "...quante pippe ti fai,"  mi sembra di ben
attribuire una mansione "propria" :-)
--
Ciao Leonardo



cos è questo ??? un mon-ologo ?
-- 
 
www.lonegunman.f2s.com
 ovvero come farsi un pinguino da passeggio
          tutti i trucchi che ho usato per configurare linux sul mio
             piccolino con winmodem, scheda audio via, PCMCIA, usb.


be', c'e' anche qualcuno che ha detto che la masturbazione femminile
e' piu' tecnologicamente avanzata di quella maschile, perche'
quest'ultima e' manuale, mentre l'altra e' digitale...
bah  :)
Lisa

Ciao Leonardo
giorgio
"Si cambia piu` facilmente religione che caffe`".Georges Courteline, "La filosofia"

mono-gamo
sempre fedele alla stessa
mono-tono
sempre fedele alla stessa  - ma si rompe le scatole
mono-polista
domina il campo specifico
--
Ciao Leonardo