That's it. When shall we get together to shoot my upcoming all wool/linen blend collection?
I love me some linsey-woolsey. But I'm a pervert.
Only one of those comments, (there are three negative comments now) even makes sense.
June 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Leviticus 19:19
Cotton-poly blends are on the people who didn’t get the word of the Lord!
June 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Leviticus 11:9-12
God Hates Shrimp!
have to do with the book?
I'm sure those are people making a joke at the expense of the original poster.
Not that I agree with the original poster, but at least it made sense.
2012-06-15 06:01 pm (UTC)
It's a riff on cherry-picking the Bible to condemn things you disapprove of. Any reference to Leviticus by non-Jews is a great example. According to long-established Christian dogma, Leviticus is Rules for Jews™ and is not applicable to non-Jewish (Greek, at the outset) adopters of Christianity.
I suppose I shouldn't be amazed at people not getting my comment there, but I still am.
Didn't I _tell_ you? "Don't forget the Bible, dude." Those were my exact words.
And look what's happened. No one to blame but yourself on this one.
I wash my hands. Are they so blind as will not see, or something like that?
that's *it* ?
pfft. you're not even an abomination. pls try a little harder.
i don't even have a tattoo!
I was kind of hoping there would be something interesting like glorifying soldiers/war, ignoring the cost of same, etc. But no. Just some silliness indicative of no relationship to the actual content. boring and expected.
Well, I don't think the interviews--especially not as a whole--necessarily ignore the costs of war, but yeaaah, personally I'm not much into veterans, not as some kind of venerated class. On a case by case basis, some people who've been to war are brave and noble and to be admired. And some are assholes, or were broken down by the military into assholes, or took the opportunity to be assholes while in a foreign and dangerous environment. But overall, I do not feel that soldiers are even remotely automatically representing my interests or "keeping [anyone] safe." Not with the way the military is structured right now, and really not for all that much percentage of time throughout history, either. Occasionally, sure, but not as a default.
I'm not sure that spouted rhetoric from religious wing-nuts can be counted in the negative column. Maybe more along the "light entertainment" side.
Only the first comment lambasting tattoos on Levitical authority was a wing-nut -- the two that followed re: blended fibers and shrimp were mocking the first. :)
Heh..well aware of that, sugar. My comment was directed at that wing-nut, and that wing-nut only.
If THIS is the only negative comment you get then that's a hell of a success, especially from an internet point of view :) Because the internet, as a whole, is a messed up place... Congrats on the book and the press coverage!!
I'm a churchgoing (but liberal) Catholic, so I don't blame those folks for making those comments. Those stances are outdated. Otherwise, I wouldn't see some of the same people going to the church I attend on most Sundays who happen to have tattoos.
Many Christians the world over have tattoos.
Not to mention... the comment on cotton/poly blends is also ridiculous. LOL