LeighA
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • LeighA

      Wikipedia: Scripturally, the Song of Songs is unique in that it makes no reference to “Law” or “Covenant”. Nor does it refer to Yahweh, the God of Israel. And it does not explore “wisdom” in the manner of Proverbs or Ecclesiastes (although it does have some affinities to Wisdom literature, as the ascription to Solomon suggests). Instead, it celebrates sexual love. It gives “the voices of two lovers, praising each other, yearning for each other, proffering invitations to enjoy”. The two voices are in harmony, each desiring the other and rejoicing in sexual intimacy; the women (or “daughters”) of Jerusalem form a chorus to the lovers, functioning as an audience whose participation in the lovers’ erotic encounters facilitates the participation of the reader. The Song was accepted into the Jewish canon of scripture in the 2nd century CE, after a period of controversy in the 1st century. It was accepted as canonical because of its supposed authorship by Solomon and based on an allegorical reading where the subject-matter was taken to be not sexual desire but God’s love for Israel. Christians admitted the canonicity of the Song of Songs from the beginning, but after Jewish exegetes began to read the Song allegorically, as having to do with God’s love for his people, Christian exegetes followed suit, treating the love that it celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and the Christian Church. Over the centuries the emphasis of interpretation shifted, first reading the Song as a depiction of the love between Christ and Church, the 11th century adding a moral element, and the 12th century understanding of the Bride as the Virgin Mary, with each new reading absorbing rather than simply replacing earlier ones, so that the commentary became ever more complex.

    • LeighA

      I never understood why people though Furbies were creepy. It’s just a toy, and it’s far from the creepiest looking toy ever. It’s kinda like a cross between a rabbit and a bird. I thought they were neat. I mean, they talked, and they “learned” English as you played with them (I remember them using that as a selling point, even though of course they were just programmed to gradually use more English and less Furbish). And apparently Chrome has “Furbish” in its spell check dictionary, even though it still doesn’t know the word “Zealand.” That’s weird.

    • LeighA

      Leaving things on random store shelves isn’t just lazy, it’s inconsiderate. The one about walking vs driving a block depends a great deal on where you’re at. If you’re in a small town, walking makes sense because a block isn’t very far. In a major city, it makes sense to walk because it’d take longer to drive anyway. In some areas (like where I live, just outside of a city), it’s feasible to walk a block as long as it’s on the same side of the road, but I’m not crossing a six lane road on foot, so anything on the other side, I’d drive, even if it’s only a block away. I’m sure there are probably areas where you wouldn’t want to walk a block even if it was on the same side, for whatever reason.

    • LeighA

      “The child inside the womb is a living, human, being.” Citation needed. It’s human, in that it has human DNA (though so do cancer cells and the majority of what makes up dirt), and it’s living in the sense that it’s eating and growing (though it’s incapable of living independently for much of duration of pregnancy, so how living it is is debatable), but it doesn’t make much sense to argue that something with no brain, no spine, and no heart is truly a human being. You can make arguments for calling it a living human being at several points after the development of those things, but an organless ball is not a human being, it’s a potential future human.

    • LeighA

      Did you seriously reply to “I don’t understand how someone can live with the burden of being forced to carry…a product of rape or a child they don’t want” by saying “there is adoption”? How in the world does that have any bearing on having to carry the baby to term? It has to be born before it can be adopted. It’d really suck if you were raped, got pregnant, were forced to watch your body change before your eyes as a constant reminder of the traumatic experience, and then suffered a not uncommon lifelong complication of pregnancy or childbirth as a result. But hey, it’s worth it for rape victims to have to physically suffer for the rest of their lives if it means there’s more unwanted babies that may grow up being passed from one potentially abusive foster home to another before being tossed out on the street at 18, right?

    • LeighA

      If you’re married and don’t want children (or already have children and don’t want more), you and your spouse should simply never have sex again until you’re no longer physically capable of having children, right? I’m sure that won’t negatively affect the marriage at all. What’s 20 years without sex, anyway? Even getting a vasectomy isn’t a guaranteed method of preventing pregnancy, so I guess the cliche of married people never having sex will just have to become a lot more accurate.

    • LeighA

      “It’s your mother’s choice if you continue to grow as a baby and eventually be brought into this world, or be killed in your mother’s womb. It sounds horrible, doesn’t it? ” I think it’s the exact opposite of horrible. I, for one, am glad that my mother chose to have me, rather than being forced to have a baby she didn’t want simply because there was no other option. Imagine how awful it would be to know that your mother wished you’d never been born and that you only exist because she had no choice in the matter.

Show More Activity