Talmud, OT and morality of god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 08:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:59 PM)Anjele Wrote:  [Image: 640?cb=20141015005232]

I ignored that word salad. It made no sense at all...maybe we need a gawdidit® secret decoder ring to figure it out?

I can usually read typos but was oddly fascinated by ratherded.

Even your phone doesn't duck stuff up that badly.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
24-10-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 03:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(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?

Sex with children has never been permitted within Judaism as such that law needed to be written to make it illegal. Anyone who says that Jews have condoned (or historically condoned) sexual contact with children is promoting an antisemitic agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
24-10-2015, 08:11 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 08:06 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 08:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I ignored that word salad. It made no sense at all...maybe we need a gawdidit® secret decoder ring to figure it out?

I can usually read typos but was oddly fascinated by ratherded.

Even your phone doesn't duck stuff up that badly.

Blush I know. But it usually picks real words. Often wrong ones, but they're words. Tongue


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, 08:50 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 07:59 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:43 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So you would have ratherded they just killed all indesciminatly? And yes, it is very easy to spot inconsistencies. All you have to do is read other scriptures. The points that are the same and equally beneficial to all are right. The things that single out people over others in any way are placed by the greed of men. Real easy.

[Image: 640?cb=20141015005232]

Is rat-herding an occupation?
Probably the best way to corral them I guess. Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
24-10-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 08:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The Bible is vile in many places. My daughter was starting to harbour fears about end times prophecy so we started reading Revelations together so she could decide what she thought about the actual source.

It's pretty bad but she was bored after not too long, so we switched to Leviticus. Well just opening up a random page we're reading accounts of blood sacrifices. She was horrified of course. That's the proper emotional reaction when you hear that's what a God likes and wants of his people. But then we read further and find the family of priests assigned by Moses is half wiped out because they dared to put incense in the fire. Well God didn't ask for that. So he did the only try divine perfect loving thing a father-God can do in that situation, which is to burn his children to death and have Moses yell at the morning earthly father not to step a foot out of line or the same will happen to him and his surviving sons.

God is love. The Bible is divinely inspired. Every word of this atrocity is in act of perfect love from a perfect God. Whoopee!

Oh, citation is Leviticus:9-10

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 11:15 PM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 03:13 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ...
Slavery was accepted by the servants. They weren't taken against their will.

I don't often neg rep but when I do ...

Angry

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-10-2015, 01:34 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Why is it so hard for atheist to give a simple answer to a simple question?

Why is it so hard for theists to see that answers were given?

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
25-10-2015, 03:46 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 11:15 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 03:13 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ...
Slavery was accepted by the servants. They weren't taken against their will.

I don't often neg rep but when I do ...

Angry
Oh no, not that. What will I do now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes popsthebuilder's post
25-10-2015, 03:48 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(25-10-2015 01:34 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 06:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Why is it so hard for atheist to give a simple answer to a simple question?

Why is it so hard for theists to see that answers were given?
Because most of you take little pieces and parts out of context and Nash us for them as opposed to answering or responding to an actual post. Let's not forget the excessive name calling and attempted belittling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2015, 04:08 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(25-10-2015 03:48 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Nash us

[Image: DsqutqF.png]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nash
What's really going on? Consider

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: