Terry Cross wrote:
> On Jan 12, 5:14 pm, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 11:45 pm, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:>>>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 10, 10:05 am, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:>>>>>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 8:36 am, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 12:00 am, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> That's top secret, pal.
>>>>>>>>>> The only top secret around here is what your belief system might be.
>>>>>>>>> None of the above. I have no intention of going into extensive detail
>>>>>>>>> on my personal life with you,
>>>>>>>> I don't have the slightest interest in your personal life or your etiology.
>>>>>>>>> but I can tell you that it is nothing
>>>>>>>>> off the rack, nor is it a "something," as you so elegantly put it. I
>>>>>>>>> am a follower of Jesus.
>>>>>>>> OK, you are a Christian.
>>>>>>> Definitely not.
>>>>>>>> Thank you for sharing.
>>>>>>> It doesn't count, since you have missed the point.
>>>>>> So help me out here.
>>>>> There is no reason I should. Your demonstrated purpose is to tell
>>>>> lies about me and twist my words to impugn my character.
>>>> I call 'em as I see 'em. I'm not going to malign your faith. I don't
>>>> like it when you do it to me, so why should I do it to you?
>>>>>> You are a follower of Jesus, but not a Christian.
>>>>>> What does that mean? I don't want to miss the point here.
>>>>> I will tell you the same thing I have written a half-dozen other times
>>>>> for this group.
>>>>> Jesus spent more than three years walking the earth, teaching and
>>>>> preaching. Then he was killed, and a great weight of literature was
>>>>> created about him.
>>>>> All extant doctrines that Jesus spoke are to be found in the Gospels.
>>>>> The rest of the material to which I refer is in the rest of the New
>>>>> Testament.
>>>> OK
>>>>> Because Christians seems to put greater emphasis on the literature and
>>>>> doctrines written after the Jesus was killed, I call that portion
>>>>> "Christian."
>>>> OK
>>>>> The teachings spoken by Jesus are, to me, electrifying and inspiring.
>>>>> Awesome. To me, as to the Muslims concerning Muhammet and the Koran,
>>>>> the living miracle of Jesus is the doctrines he left us.
>>>> OK. It is good to have a teacher that inspires you this way.
>>>>> In contrast, the doctrines spoken about Jesus are quite simply - not
>>>>> inspiring. I have no interest in his parentage, the circumstances of
>>>>> his birth, nor even his miracles. The Trinity, Salvation,
>>>>> preexistence, divinity, etc. - those things might be more interesting
>>>>> to a person of a culture I do not share.
>>>> Purity. I like it.
>>>>> I do not doubt all those other parts, but they do not interest me.
>>>>> And If
>>>>> they were more important to Jesus, he would have spent more time in
>>>>> discussing them during his ministry.
>>>>> Of particular interest to this discussion is the "Father" of Jesus,
>>>>> who makes a startling contrast to the Jehovah of Moses and Abraham.
>>>>> The "Christian" doctrines relate more strongly to Jehovah. The
>>>>> doctrines of Jesus are so different as to be unreconcilable.
>>>>> The Old and New Testaments should not eve be bound together in the
>>>>> same book.
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>> To both Jews and Christians, Judaism is presumed to be a parent
>>>>> culture to Christianity. And to many Christians, the nation of Israel
>>>>> is important to the destiny of Christians.
>>>>> To me, Judaism is simply a foreign culture: It is foreign in ideals,
>>>>> principles, laws, justice, ethics, esthetics, religion, and everything
>>>>> else that matters. I do not begrudge the Jews their choice of
>>>>> culture. I simply do not want it imposed on my culture and that of my
>>>>> children and my people.
>>>> I think that we agree on this one.
>>>> Thank you. I appreciate your sharing. It's a beautiful belief.
>>>> So why do you say about Judaism what you do?
>>> We have had several discussions in which you discovered I have
>>> supporting reasons and data to support my statements. The definition
>>> of "Torah" is the most recent example. The quotes from the Talmud
>>> that condemn Gentiles for studying Torah is another. You read Daat
>>> Emet, you said. You know there is at least some support for the view
>>> that Judaism is rabidly anti-Gentile - or at least some parts at some
>>> times.
>>> Give me an example of a statement from me about Judaism that offends
>>> you, and I will examine it.
>> Here you go, you just posted this one today, in Re: What Has Atheism
>> Ever Done For Us? at 1045 Pacific Time on Saturday 12 January 2008.
>
> That hardly counts, given that it was not posted at the time or your
> reference or at the time of my request. Can you try again?
>
>> __________________________________________________________________________________________
>> It occurs to me and to everyone else that the voice of the Jewish
>> "God" and the collective powers and opinions of the Judaic political
>> party is one and the same.
>> __________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> We all know that you are not an atheist, so using quotes as you did is
>> clearly intended to be offensive.
>
> Not at all. You have missed the point entirely. Shockingly.
I will rephrase: Using quotes as you did is clearly intended to be
offensive.
Better?
>
> My statement is that the people of Judah who refer to "God" and
> express the will of "God" most often refer to the political will of
> their group, not to a deity.
Do you mean the ancient country that split in First Temple times?
>
> If you like, we can say the same about Christians": "God is on our
> side." It is the cheer-leader chant for atrocity, no matter who uses
> it. And that includes the Jews who use it.
Right. It would include everybody. But you said it, not I. And I can't
speak for the people of Judah because that kingdom was obliterated 2200+
years ago.
>
>> Your use of the term "Judaic" in this
>> context is nonstandard, offensive, and only used this way by
>> antisemites.
>
> Let us get something straight: You cannot prove that I am an anti-
> semite by asserting that I do something that anti-semites do. That is
> dreadful logic. Bears like honey, you like honey, therefore you are a
> bear.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is
reasonable to infer that it is a duck. Given what you say and the
manner that you say it, reasonable people can infer that you are
antisemitic.
>
> I understand that traditional Jewish logic is contemptuous of Greek
> philosophy, but you have a good enough grasp of syllogisms to know
> that does not serve.
? This is more antisemitic behavior.
>
>> And while we're at it, what is a "Judaic political party?"
>
> Read the book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by John
> Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
No.
The term is peculiar. It is a term that is not used by people of good
will. You clearly are not.
>
>> But specifics aside, there are so many that it is a matter of tone and
>> motif as well. Your comments combine into a pattern.
>>
>> Let's start with the big picture. We've been corresponding off and on
>> for a while, probably a couple of years. When we started you were
>> quoting fakes and forgeries of Talmud pages
>
> Never. Every quote I give is really in the Talmud. You must provide
> examples to make that charge stick.
I've done it in the past.
>
>> obtained from hate sites.
>
> Second, you must get over this childish notion that everyone who
> disagrees with you or offers criticism is automatically disqualified
> to offer an opinion because they "hate" you. that is another fatal
> logical flaw you should avoid.
I don't. You have not offered any criticism, nor have you disagreed with
me. All you have done is spout antisemitic drivel. You keep trying to
dodge it, but you do it almost as naturally as breathing. I'm not sure
whether you are even aware of it.
>
>> I recall pointing this out on several different occasions. I have not
>> noticed doing that lately, but it certainly affected the way you are
>> perceived by the Jews, and no doubt others, in these NGs.
>
> And you can abandon that approach, too. The person who guides her
> behavior by others' perceptions is prisoner of the world's cruelest
> gaoler.
Keep trying. All these approaches work, and they influence others'
perceptions. And the reason you don't like them is that they all,
independently, show that you are an antisemite.
>
>> So anything that you cite as being from Talmud is subject to major
>> skepticism and verification.
>
> Of course you should verify. You don't know me from a bar of soap,
> and I'll thank you to keep it that way.
Except your soul is not nearly as clean.
>
>> I have neither the time nor the
>> inclination to run down every single alleged citation, so I have simply
>> stopped doing so.
>
> Since you allege they were "fake" quotes, we have good reason to
> believe you haven't started yet.
Ah, you acknowledge that you fake them!
>
>> Many of your more recent quotes may be valid. A
>> cursory check indicates that some might actually be.
>>
>> The main pattern in your posts is to take a single quote from Talmud,
>> and then attempt to make it appear as though it currently applies to all
>> Jews. Doing so constitutes an outright antisemitic lie.
>
> The Talmud quotes apply to Judaism. Just as so many here and
> elsewhere, Jews included, take quotes from the Koran and pretend to
> represent those quotes as the essence of the Koran - or others take
> quotes from the Gospels and pretend they typify Christianity, so might
> we take quotes form the Talmud and do the same for Judaism. The rules
> hold - or break - for everyone.
It should not be done in any sacred scripture because it presents a
distorted picture. You clearly intended to do that. Your crude
sophistry doesn't work. Your words betray you Terry - you are an
antisemitic bigot.
>
>> Talmud contains much Halachic legal discussion, legends, midrashic
>> explanations of Torah, and general rabbinic banter from the times. As
>> such, a significant portion is irrelevant today. They may be studied,
>> but carry no Halachic weight. In fact, significant portions of Talmud
>> are irrelevant to the Orthodox who rely on it, and its subtleties are
>> largely lost on the other movements. So your quotes from Talmud are of
>> very little concern to most modern Jews.
>
> As your people may quote Koran and Gospel, I may quote Talmud.
Only if you do it properly and in context, and apply it appropriately.
Which you haven't done yet.
>
>> Your generalizations from portions of Talmud (if valid) to all Jews are
>> simply wrong.
>
> I have never done that. I have quoted Jewish writers who do so. Let
> me give you an example:
>
> The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the
> Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe --
> whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic
> sentimentalists -- we follow the Talmud. It is our common law. --
> Herman Wouk, in This is My God; the Jewish Way of Life
>
So? Does he use any of the quotes you do? No, he doesn't, and the
reason is that most of those quotes do not underlie Halacha. You pay no
attention to the meat of Talmud - you focus on irrelevancies. It's just
like trying to imply that all Christians are crybabies because "Jesus
wept" appears occasionally in the Greek Testament.
>> No Jew that I have ever encountered, in writing or in
>> person, cares who studies Talmud, whether Jew or Gentile. No Jew that I
>> have ever encountered, in writing or in person, would consider Gentiles
>> like animals.
>
> Do you profess not to know anyone who uses the word Shiksa? According
> to the Wikipedia, it is a common word in the Jewish culture.
>
> Shiksa (Yiddish: שיקסע) or shikse, is a Yiddish word that has moved
> into English usage, mostly in North American Jewish culture, that is
> used as a pejorative or mock-pejorative term for a non-Jewish woman.
> Traditionally, the word shiksa is an ethnic slur used to refer to a
> non-Jewish woman to whom a Jewish man is attracted, or an attractive
> non-Jewish woman who is dating or married to a Jewish man. The word
> shiksa is derived from the Hebrew term sheketz, which means
> "loathsome", "abomination", "unclean", "dirty", "rodent", or "lizard",
> depending on the translator. --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiksa
>
> Compare that to the word "nigger," which derives from the ordinary -
> and much preferred - word "black."
And compare with all the prejudicial terms for Jews, for Italians, for
the Irish, for Germans, and for any group. Jews are just like everybody
else, Terry. But you cannot accept that because of your bigotry.
In any case, you are one to talk given the way that you gratuitously
slander Jews.
>
>> The Rav distinguishes the spirituality of Gentiles from
>> Jews, which is different from distinguishing Gentiles from Jews.
>
> Not in my book, cousin. The spirituality of a person IS the person.
>
That is your issue, not mine. I do not measure people by their
spirituality, I measure them by their behavior. Your spirituality may be
beautiful, but your behavior is abominable, at least towards Jews.
>> In any
>> case, I personally disagree with him, along with most modern Jews.
>
> A number of very famous rabbis hold the same opinion. Consider the
> Jewish Encyclopedia, for example:
>
> Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah.
>
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G&search=gentile#538
>
> Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would
> have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such
> knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents'
> courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the
> Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii.
> 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves
> death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an
> obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). And yet if a Gentile
> study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R.
> Meïr says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall
> therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he
> shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an
> Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"—even a Gentile
> ('Ab. Zarah 26a).
>
> Resh Laḳish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves
> death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven
> laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God
> and Israel alone," and it was probably directed against the Christian
> Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the
> observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Rabbina, who lived about 150 years
> after the Christians had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not
> quite understand the principle underlying Resh Laḳish's law, and,
> commenting upon it, added: "not even on Mondays [is the Gentile
> allowed to rest]"; intimating that the mandate given to the Noachidæ
> that "day and night shall not cease" (="have no rest ") should be
> taken in a literal sense (Gen. viii. 22)—probably to discourage
> general idleness (ib. Rashi), or for the more plausible reason
> advanced by Maimonides, who says: "The principle is, one is not
> permitted to make innovations in religion or to create new
> commandments. He has the privilege to become a true proselyte by
> accepting the whole Law" ("Yad," Melakim, x. 9). R. Emden (), in a
> remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to
> "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion
> that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to
> convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let
> the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent
> contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and
> the Sabbath.
>
> Can you quote Rabbi Schneerson denying the same? If so, provide
> cites.
He's not my rabbi. I am not subject to his rulings because I am not, and
never have been, a Lubavitcher Hassid.
>
>> Besides, Jews are commanded to deal fairly with Gentiles. The
>> commandments appear both in Torah and in Talmud. But you don't quote
>> those do you? That shows your malicious bias.
>
> Please quote. Any such generous passages are heavily contradicted
> throughout the Talmud and TaNaKh. Consider the Jewish Encyclopedia:
>
> The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law
> and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to
> regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The
> passage in Moses' farewell address: "The Lord came from Sinai, and
> rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut.
> xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the
> Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it. He
> withdrew His "shining" legal protection from them, and transferred
> their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of
> Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: "God came from Teman, and
> the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth;
> he beheld, and drove asunder [ = "let loose," "outlawed"] the
> nations" (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the
> Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian
> precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. Ḳ. 38a). [from
>
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G&search=gentile#538]
>
>> And I doubt the spirituality of anyone who exhibits such prejudice. It's
>> fine to disagree and follow different religions, or even no religion.
>
> Please clarify: Whose spirituality do you doubt?
Figure it out for yourself.
The Tamud rabbis
> who uttered those hateful doctrines? The modern Orthodox Jews who
> echo and amplify them?
The Talmudic rabbis said them (if they did) 1500 years ago. Attitudes
and situations were different then. We do not always do things they way
they were done back then. You try to generalize a few quotes, uttered
over a millenium ago, taken out of context to all Jews. It's wrong,
Terry and shows massive prejudice on your part.
Or the Gentiles who have the courage and
> outrage to quote them?
You mean like you? You aren't brave, you are a coward. You hide in NGs
under pseudonyms and claim to be courageous? Your "outrage" is mere
bigotry and distress with Jews and Judaism continuing to live and
flourish. We're not going to disappear for your convenience Terry.
Choke on it.
>
>> But genuine spirituality, whatever it is, respects other spiritual
>> paths. Your spirituality, beautiful as it sounds, is flawed by your
>> irrational hatred of the people from whom Jesus arose.
>
> I have told you many times: My objection is to Judaism, not to Jews.
> The people have been and are my friends. The religion is not.
You can't have one without the other.
I can't believe that you have any Jewish friends. I think that you lie
yet again. I can't imagine a Jew being friends with you if they knew of
your antisemitic bigotry.
>
>> Your generalization of irrelevant portions of Talmud
>
> I do not generalize. My quotes are specific.
You are acting confused, probably deliberately. You take specific quotes
(if valid) and then try to apply them to all Jews. That's the
generalization I was referring to.
>
>> to all Jews is
>> offensive.
>
> I do not apply it to the Jews who renounce those doctrines. Do you
> renounce them?
>
No need. When will you renounce your bigotry against Judaism?
