> On Jan 6, 5:52 pm, cactus nonespam.com> wrote:

>> Terry Cross wrote:

>>> On Jan 6, 10:58 am, cactus nonespam.com> wrote:

>>>> Terry Cross wrote:

>>>>> On Jan 6, 2:06 am, cactus nonespam.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Terry Cross wrote:

>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 11:49 pm, cactus nonespam.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> B'injamin Cr'amer wrote:

>>>>>>>>> "Terry Cross" hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> It is impossible to object to Judaism for rational reasons. Stoning
>>>>>>>>>> people, obsession with pornography, racism, arrogance, hatred of
>>>>>>>>>> "heathen" religions, hatred of Christianity, "poor me"-ism, "the world
>>>>>>>>>> hates me"-ism, obsession with money, sexual mutilation of babies, ...
>>>>>>>>>> what's not to like? Obviously, Judaists are the most lovable people
>>>>>>>>>> in the world and anyone who has a problem with their ubermensch
>>>>>>>>>> mentality must be sick, sick, sick I tell you.

>>>>>>>>> But of course. Their disgustingly racist and hate-filled talmud is
>>>>>>>>> brilliant evidence of that.

>>>>>>>> Just because you are incapable of understanding it is no reason to say
>>>>>>>> these things.

>>>>> Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not
>>>>> understand,
>>>>> but the passages that bother me are those I do understand. -- Mark
>>>>> Twain
>>>>> Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) was the first Ashkenazi chief
>>>>> rabbi of the British Mandate for Palestine, the founder of the
>>>>> Religious Zionist Yeshiva Merkaz HaRav, Jewish thinker, Halachist,
>>>>> Kabbalist and a renowned Torah scholar. He is known in Hebrew as הרב
>>>>> אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק HaRav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook, and by the
>>>>> acronym HaRaAYaH or simply as "HaRav." He was one of the most
>>>>> celebrated and influential Rabbis of the 20th century.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook
>>>>> Rather an authority on the subject of Judaism, wouldn't you say? So
>>>>> let us consider his official view of Gentiles, filtered through his
>>>>> decades of training and study in Halacha:
>>>>> "The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence,
>>>>> inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all
>>>>> the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the
>>>>> difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for
>>>>> the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the
>>>>> difference in the first case is one of essential quality." -- Rabbi
>>>>> Kook in the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156)
>>>>> That does not leave much room for ambiguous interpretation - but maybe
>>>>> you can find something.

>>>> I've read Kook. I don't agree with him on some matters, that being one
>>>> of them. I deal with people as they are and let the spiritual realm
>>>> take care of itself. Many fundamentalists don't consider me to be
>>>> Jewish, any more than some fundamentalists do. I disagree with both.

>>> What has your personal status to do with anything under discussion?
>>> Once again, you change the question to fit the answer. The topic
>>> under discussion is Judaism. So far we have established that in fact
>>> there are a number of repugnant statements by authoritative Jewish
>>> sources (like Rabbi Kook) who confirm the view that Judaism is brutal
>>> and racist.
>>> That you disagree with the sources is both irrelevant and revealing.
>>> It seems you disagree with the racist and hateful elements of
>>> Judaism. And with the announcement of such disagreement, you confirm
>>> those racist elements exist.

>>>>>>>> Maybe you should get some education and try to make
>>>>>>>> something of yourself. Maybe you could get a job better than cleaning up
>>>>>>>> after the animals at the zoo.

>>>>>>> The Talmud has been held secret from the world for a reason.

>>>>>> Bloody lie. It's out for everyone to read, including in English.

>>>>> The context of my statement was explicitly 600 years, as I wrote in
>>>>> the following sentence. You have slyly and dishonestly shifted the
>>>>> context to the last few decades. Does your face burn when you say
>>>>> your prayers, or does your God approve of this kind of dishonesty?

>>>> See below.

>>>>>>> While the printing press roared through 600 years, cranking out literature
>>>>>>> high and low, no complete translation of the Talmud was attempted
>>>>>>> until the Jewws' College of London undertook the task in 1935?

>>>>>> Because it would not have sold.

>>>>> Silly answer. Many people were interested in the Talmud, as shown by
>>>>> the centuries of accusations leveled against it. Think of the pain
>>>>> and persecution Jews could have saved themselves by publishing their
>>>>> Talmud for all the world to see. They could have said, "No secrets,
>>>>> no problems, no hate, read for yourselves."

>>>> Horseshit. Utter nonsense. Almost as stupid as anything you've come up
>>>> with so far. It's based on ignorance.

>>> But what do you really think about that?

>> Actually I was restraining myself.
>>
>>
>>

>>>> The Catholic Church had people
>>>> who read Talmud and even attempted to censor it. It was available to
>>>> those who could read, which, if you recall, was a small minority of the
>>>> population.

>>> Of all the hundreds of years under discussion, what is the context of
>>> your remarks? They could read what language?
>>> Reading Hebrew cannot be compared with reading Talmud:
>>> "If you put in the hard work required to read the Talmud, your mind
>>> will get a world-class workout. The process of studying the Talmud has
>>> been compared with the practice of Zen Buddhist Koan meditation, and
>>> for good reason."
>>> http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

>> Very true. No wonder you can't get it.
>>
>>
>>

>>>> Translations into the vernacular would have been useless
>>>> because no one could have read them anyway.

>>> A "vernacular" language that no could read! This "vernacular"
>>> language of yours is quite a paradox - kind of like popular songs that
>>> nobody likes, and best-seller books that nobody buys.

>> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is this your natural state?
>> Literacy was not common at all except among the upper classes and clergy
>> until well past the Renaissance. And do you think that the clergy and
>> upper class would have been interested in reading a huge document that
>> would take them away from their own religious studies to encourage
>> tolerance of a group that they were taught to hate? Stupider and
>> stupider. And even if the peasantry and such middle classes as
>> eventually arose could read, do you think that they would have taken
>> time away from making a living to read the difficult text of a religion
>> that their clergy trained them to despise? Dumb and dumber.
>>
>>
>>

>>>> Not to mention the fact
>>>> that there was so much antisemitism at the time that no one would have
>>>> wanted to.

>>> You silly goose! Of course secret literature is suspect! The Talmud
>>> was one of the sources of suspicion of the Jews! That is why I
>>> suggest the Jews made a big mistake by not translating it.

>> Do you really think that a non-Jew would read the challenging text of a
>> legal system with which they were unfamiliar? Come on, they had Tanach
>> already and look what they did with that.
>>
>>
>>

>>>> The Bible wasn't even translated until the Renaissance,

>>> Your knowledge and view of history is pretty elastic.

>> I meant English.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> John Wycliffe (pronounced /ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wycliff, or
>>> Wickliffe) (mid-1320s – 31 December 1384) was an English theologian
>>> and an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th
>>> century. He founded the Lollard movement, a precursor to the
>>> Protestant Reformation (thus he became known as "The Morning Star of
>>> the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest antagonists of the papal
>>> encroachments on secular power.[1] Wycliffe felt that all Christians
>>> should have access to the Bible in the vernacular. He is credited as
>>> the force behind the first complete translation of the Bible into
>>> English (called Wycliff's Bible). It is believed that he translated at
>>> least the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is
>>> possible he could have translated the entire New Testament, while his
>>> associates translated the Old Testament.[2] Wycliff's Bible first
>>> appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1384,[3] with
>>> additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John
>>> Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe

>>>> and then not
>>>> many people could have read it anyway.

>>> Got any more reasons? You are batting zero so far.

>> Sarcasm is one of your defense mechanisms against the facts.
>>
>> Your alleged bit of history there is irrelevant. Where do the Jews
>> figure in any of this? This is all Christian stuff. Their issues were
>> different. Most of the Jews of the time could read Talmud in the
>> original

>
> Cite?
>
> Most Jews today cannot read Talmud. They have to be taught the
> special meanings.

> quote the Talmud are called anti-semitic - the Talmud never means what
> it says or says what it means, and anyone who says otherwise must have
> a hidden agenda.

> thousands of rabbis.

>

>> or had ready access to someone who could, so no translations
>> were necessary. No one had the time, and there was minimal interest in
>> Jewish texts, certainly not enough for the major undertaking that is
>> translating all the tractates. You don't like the answer

>
> It is not a truthful answer. Any survey of the history of Jews in
> Europe shows there was much interest in the Talmud. It was not
> favorable interest, but there was interest.

>

>> because it
>> doesn't fit your prejudices.

>
> Simple fact of the real world: If lies are told of a book or person,
> lies will wither in the sunlight. If the Talmud is harmless and
> benign, trot it out and dispel the lies

>

>> Nothing I can do about that. You don't
>> want to be confused with facts because your small mind is made up and
>> ready to go out on the town.

>
> The facts are quite otherwise. The Talmud contains many passages that
> are thoroughly objectionable to the European people.

>
> * sanctions pederasty,
>
> * quotes lies about Jesus from Toledoth Yshu as though it were
> Scriptural truth, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html
>
> * exalts Jews and slanders/condemns non-Jews,
>
> * and endorses magic, astrology, and demonology,
>
> THAT is why the Talmud was not published in the vernacular languages.
> It did not dare show its face to the sunlight.