Talmud, OT and morality of god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 10:58 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:09 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Lincoln was a Christian? Since when?
Definitely since 1841 when his son died. He turned to God for strength.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "definitely".

As Carl Sandburg recounts in Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, Lincoln attended one of Cartwright's revival meetings. At the conclusion of the service, the fiery pulpiteer called for all who intended to go to heaven to rise. Naturally, the response was heartening. Then he called for all those who wished to go to hell to stand, unsurprisingly there were not many takers. Lincoln had responded to neither option. Cartwright closed in. "Mr. Lincoln, you have not expressed an interest in going to either heaven or hell. May I enquire as to where you do plan to go?" Lincoln replied: "I did not come here with the idea of being singled out, but since you ask, I will reply with equal candor. I intend to go to Congress."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-10-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 07:56 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Perhaps if you could comprehend you would know that there is but one commandment of God. All other laws fall in place under this one commandment.
Slavery was never law. Sorry. If you love God unconditionally then you would never own a slave or break any subsequent law of God in the Torah.

Slavery was enshrined in the laws of the OT. It was never repealed. I'm sorry that you are too enamored of your own personal delusions to think clearly. You need help Pops. Get some.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
24-10-2015, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 03:11 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 09:11 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Well Ruby, since you didn’t respond, I’m going to take a wild guess about the kind of “child abuse” that you’ve heard that the Talmud endorses. If you have a different claim about child abuse in the Talmud, then please let me know and I'll try to address it. For now, I will address the accusation of pedophilia in the Talmud. This accusation has been going on for a very long time. It probably goes back several hundred years or more and is now prominently displayed on David Duke’s website and in other anti-Semitic literature.

For some reason, people love to comb through our texts to find little bits and pieces that they can find to use against the Jews. Christians sift through the Talmud in search of Jesus, and anti-Semites hunt for any scripture that they can rip out of context and use to defame the Jews.

This particular accusation says that the Talmud permits men to rape three-year-old girls, and “marry them by having sex with them,” but should hold restraint for girls who are over three. Boys nine years and younger may rape girls as much as they like.

Here is an excerpt from a page on davidduke.com

In my article “Pedophilia: the Talmud’s Dirty Secret” [6] I document that the greatest Talmudic sages repeatedly upheld the right of Jewish men to marry 3-year-old baby girls by having sex with them. The more Orthodox Judaism is, the more literally it follows every dictum of such rabbinic authorities. Shockingly, one of the most revered rabbis of the Talmud, Simeon ben Yohai, asserts “that a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married to a priest.” [7]
The Talmud says ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia is “halachah,” binding Jewish law (Yebamoth 60b).
<-- this is not even the correct section of the Talmud.

The section of the Talmud which is alleged to talk about raping 3-year-old children is not talking about the morality of pedophilia at all. It’s not granting anyone permission to have intercourse with children of any age, and it's not creating a rabbinic law requiring anyone to have intercourse with babies and toddlers as the article suggests. It’s not even a passage about having sex.

It’s a passage that defines virginity for the purpose of drawing up a marriage contract. Marriage contracts guarantee a woman a financial settlement in the event that she gets a divorce. At the time that this passage was written, a woman who had entered a marriage contract as a virgin was given a higher settlement in the event of a divorce (this is not longer the practice, as I address in the last paragraph of this post).

The Talmudic writers were only establishing the definition of a virgin. A girl three years and up who is raped is not a virgin. A girl three years and below who is raped is considered to be a virgin, and she can still marry a priest (who at the time, could only marry virgins). -If a girl of any age has voluntary intercourse with a boy who is nine years or younger then she is still a virgin. Nowhere does it say that men should rape children, or that it’s okay if they do. Whether you agree with the ages or the definition as a whole is not relevant. When the passage is read in context with the surrounding text, it clearly reads as a definition of virginity for legal purposes, and not a formula about how to successfully rape children and get away with it.

Just to draw a parallel in more familiar terms, suppose the concept of stealing was being defined for legal purposes. It may say that stealing is when someone takes something that doesn’t belong to them. Things that can be stolen are tangible objects, money, property, or people (kidnapping). Stealing may also include ideas or stories that have been written down. Things that cannot be stolen are emotions, thoughts, visions or religious experiences.

Nowhere in this definition is the morality of stealing addressed. Only the act of stealing is defined for legal purposes. Likewise, nowhere in the Talmud is pedophilia condoned.

Judaism recognizes that there are bad people in the world, and bad people within Judaism. We don’t pretend that people are perfect just because they’re Jews. We address the reality of man, and we acknowledge that things can and do go wrong.

And just for the record, at some point in time after this Talmudic passage was established, the law was further refined to conceal every woman’s sexual status in the marriage contract and give all women the higher financial settlement. Discussing a woman’s sexual status is simply an invasion of her privacy and Judaism evolved beyond the point where virginity was more prized than the woman herself.

You say: "-If a girl of any age has voluntary intercourse with a boy who is nine years or younger then she is still a virgin...Whether you agree with the ages or the definition as a whole is not relevant"

When did it become relevant in Judaism and where is it written that sex with children is no longer acceptable? One can accept that what we consider to be wrong now wasn't wrong then, but if there is continuity in the history of the Jewish people one would expect to find something which changes this position. Is this the case?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 02:43 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:56 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Perhaps if you could comprehend you would know that there is but one commandment of God. All other laws fall in place under this one commandment.
Slavery was never law. Sorry. If you love God unconditionally then you would never own a slave or break any subsequent law of God in the Torah.

Slavery was enshrined in the laws of the OT. It was never repealed. I'm sorry that you are too enamored of your own personal delusions to think clearly. You need help Pops. Get some.
No. Slavery was one of the things that wasn't set in stone. Uhm, are you sure you have read it? I'm starting to wonder if you have. Just because it wasn't abolished by the very men that benefited from it doesn't mean in any way that God condoned it.

Exodus20:2
Exodus20:5

Slavery was accepted by the servants. They weren't taken against their will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
Why was god so blabby back in the day? Seems he talked to people who relayed what he said or wrote it down.

Now he just tells crazy people to kill other people. Of course, he made them crazy in the first place so they would listen to him.

Consider

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
24-10-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 03:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Why was god so blabby back in the day? Seems he talked to people who relayed what he said or wrote it down.

Now he just tells crazy people to kill other people. Of course, he made them crazy in the first place so they would listen to him.

Consider

Or he tells people to run for public office Drinking Beverage


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-10-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 03:31 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 03:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Why was god so blabby back in the day? Seems he talked to people who relayed what he said or wrote it down.

Now he just tells crazy people to kill other people. Of course, he made them crazy in the first place so they would listen to him.

Consider

Or he tells people to run for public office Drinking Beverage

That reads like you have a problem with people who hear god's voice running for office.

What, you got something against schizophrenics?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
Just out of curiosity. What would it take for someone to convert an atheist to Christianity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 04:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Just out of curiosity. What would it take for someone to convert an atheist to Christianity?

Can't speak for all. But for me. Irrefutable proof that can be tested.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 04:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Just out of curiosity. What would it take for someone to convert an atheist to Christianity?

To realize that I AM my own personal Lord and Savior. My own personal Jesus. That is The Word. Drinking Beverage




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: