This will work for church services as well…
In a large Florida city, the local rabbi developed quite a reputation for his sermons; so much so that everyone in the community came every Shabbos.
Unfortunately, one weekend a member had to visit Long Island for his nephew’s Bar Mitzvah. But he didn’t want to miss The Rabbi’s sermon. So he decided to hire a “Shabbos goy” to sit in the congregation and tape the sermon so he could listen to it when he returned.
Other congregants saw what was going on, and they also decided to hire “Shabbos goyim” to tape the sermon so they could play golf instead of going to shul.
Within a few weeks time there were 500 gentiles sitting in shul taping the Rabbi.
The Rabbi got wise to this. The following Shabbos he, too, hired a Shabbos goy who brought a tape recorder to play his prerecoded sermon to the 500 gentiles in the congregation who dutifully recorded his words on their machines. Witnesses said this marked the first incidence in history of “artificial insermonation.”
Via Elio Jucci on FB.
Further, according to Amir Oren,
Israel is not a passive and obedient partner to his madness.
Good to know. Really good to hear a voice of sanity.
In the run-up to the meeting expected in two weeks between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama should believe the reports out of Tel Aviv: Netanyahu is not Israel. Indeed, Netanyahu is only part of Israel, and Israel is not Netanyahu. Israel is not a passive and obedient partner to his madness. A meeting with a president up for reelection a month or so before the vote can only take place under conditions dictated by the American side. Obama won’t risk being humiliated in another photo with the cheeky Israeli lecturing him on security and trust. The joint statement will have to be phrased in advance in precise coordination between the sides.
And loads of intelligence more. It’s a shame that Netanyahu isn’t as wise as a columnist. But Israel, like America, never elects its best.
- Obama’s spineless deference to Netanyahu is now perceived by a wide range of Americans (mondoweiss.net)
- Israeli Official: Obama Will Make Netanyahu Pay After November Elections (thegatewaypundit.com)
- Congressman confirms report of heated argument between Netanyahu and US envoy (timesofisrael.com)
- Netanyahu exploded over US hesitancy towards Iran – Republican congressman (thetruthseeker.co.uk)
I noticed today that you have been supportive of Francesca but you were never that charitable towards John Loftus or Richard Dawkins. All of them are atheists. Why do you like one but not the others? I think it’s just because Francesca is a pretty woman.
I’ve tried to explain this before but since you ask I’ll explain it again. I draw a distinction between atheists and angry atheists. Atheists are disbelievers in God who have arrived at their (erroneous) conclusion because they find no evidence for God. Angry atheists are either former Christians who worshiped a God of their own making who, consequently and inevitably, didn’t live up to their expectations; or, like Dawkins, are just atheists for the novelty of it because they love to be controversialists (akin to the folk who are gay simply because it’s chic).
These angry atheists aren’t atheists by conviction, they’re atheists by convenience. And I find that simultaneously loathsome and childish.
As to your intimation that I only am friendly with the good looking: Francesca is, in fact, a very attractive young lady. But that’s hardly the reason I am willing to befriend her. I’ve also befriended James Crossley and Philip Davies- neither of whom are Christians and yet both are incredibly unattractive (no offense). A person’s physicality has nothing to do with whether or not I am willing to operate on friendly terms with them. My criteria are more cerebral. Atheists who have respect for Christians in spite of their differing opinions are excellent dialogue partners and in my experience, excellent friends.
Angry atheists, on the other hand, are mouth-breathing, dull witted, wretched little complainers and life is too short to engage with such things on anything but the level which they deserve: contempt.
I hope this clears things up, Tony.
I think it’s delightful. I sometimes roll my eyes so much when reading various ‘scholarly’ blogs that I nearly manage to give myself a blod clot. Some things, some ideas, some people really deserve just that and nothing more. Indeed, every time I see some new claim about how Christianity will be brought to an end by a discovery at Talpiot or a lead codex my eyes roll for days. You just can’t see it. But it happens.
“Correction is a medicine, which has always some bitterness, and consequently is disagreeable.” – John Calvin
She’s a SOTS-ian and scholar at Exeter and she’s very intelligent. And she’s regularly featured on the BBC’s Big Questions programme (spelled that way in British).
Samira Ahmed hosts. The debates include: Should we be allowed to use any force to protect our homes? Can science and religion both be right? Are Christians being persecuted in Britain?
In case you’re wondering, here are my own concise answers: People yes, stuff no. Apples and Oranges. Some are, some aren’t.
Clint Eastwood isn’t the originator of talking to an empty seat. Preachers do it every week.
It means I don’t have to vote, because only those votes in the key ‘battleground states’ matter. That’s what the media keep saying, so that’s a relief. This way I can’t feel responsible when whoever is elected turns out to be a servant of big business with no care for main street.