Talmud, OT and morality of god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(20-10-2015 11:16 AM)Ruby Wrote:  l am new to this subject and learned that Talmud book also has many atrocities and being pro child abuse. why isnt it in the old testament? have christians evolved and distanced themselves from this book? is it the same god, the christian god.
would it be relevant when debating the morality of christian god? wha/t are the strongest points to bring up when debating morality or lack of, of the christian god?
You don't know why God gave those laws to ancient house of Israel, do you?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
20-10-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(20-10-2015 06:41 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 12:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is. Many places. Among them :
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
God is love, dontcha know. Facepalm

You forgot to add "and justice". God is love and justice.

I question your definition of justice if you think murdering a boy with rocks is a just course of action to correct disobedience...

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
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
20-10-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(20-10-2015 06:43 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 11:16 AM)Ruby Wrote:  l am new to this subject and learned that Talmud book also has many atrocities and being pro child abuse. why isnt it in the old testament? have christians evolved and distanced themselves from this book? is it the same god, the christian god.
would it be relevant when debating the morality of christian god? wha/t are the strongest points to bring up when debating morality or lack of, of the christian god?
You don't know why God gave those laws to ancient house of Israel, do you?

Actually all the laws in the babble already existed in society. Since you know nothing about History you wouldn't have a clue ... but the writers of the Babble imported already extant customs and said they were god's law. Quite the scam. Just like the one ole Joe Smith pulled.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-10-2015, 01:44 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(20-10-2015 04:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  stealing the blood of Christian children to bake into their holiday bread and cookies.


[Image: 2qu0mk2.jpg]

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Slowminded's post
21-10-2015, 02:06 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(20-10-2015 04:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Easier just to declare it blasphemous and accuse the Jews of stealing the blood of Christian children to bake into their holiday bread and cookies.

So they aren't doing that? And the next thing you tell me is that Jews aren't responsible for communism Wink

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Szuchow's post
21-10-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 02:06 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Easier just to declare it blasphemous and accuse the Jews of stealing the blood of Christian children to bake into their holiday bread and cookies.

So they aren't doing that? And the next thing you tell me is that Jews aren't responsible for communism Wink

In some Islamic countries, the rumor circulates to this day that Jews kidnap Muslim children and use their blood in our Purim cookies. Snopes addressed it here.

Oy, communism. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
21-10-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 06:30 AM)Aliza Wrote:  In some Islamic countries, the rumor circulates to this day that Jews kidnap Muslim children and use their blood in our Purim cookies. Snopes addressed it here.

It seems that myth is persistent.

On much less serious note - wouldn't adding blood to food made it non kosher?

(21-10-2015 06:30 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Oy, communism. Facepalm

Surely you heard about judeo-communism. It's quite popular myth among lets call them less educated in Poland and I think in Eastern Europe in general.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
21-10-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 07:00 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 06:30 AM)Aliza Wrote:  In some Islamic countries, the rumor circulates to this day that Jews kidnap Muslim children and use their blood in our Purim cookies. Snopes addressed it here.

It seems that myth is persistent.

On much less serious note - wouldn't adding blood to food made it non kosher?

Correct. The food would be rendered non-kosher. The bakeware that was used would probably have to be disposed of and the oven would have to be kashered (a pain in the neck cleaning process). Adding *any* blood of any animal is forbidden, let alone human blood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
21-10-2015, 07:16 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 07:13 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 07:00 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  It seems that myth is persistent.

On much less serious note - wouldn't adding blood to food made it non kosher?

Correct. The food would be rendered non-kosher. The bakeware that was used would probably have to be disposed of and the oven would have to be kashered (a pain in the neck cleaning process). Adding *any* blood of any animal is forbidden, let alone human blood.

So those who perpetuate such myth have abysmal knowledge of Jewish customs. Somehow it don't surprise me.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
21-10-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: