Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Little Dot · 08-16-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's more on your idol Michael Hoffman, from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

He's not my idol :brood:

Toto · 08-16-2011, 03:17 PM

Daat Emet promotes freedom from religion and "the study of classical Jewish culture and the dissemination of its scientific, humanistic interpretation." I don't see anything on that site supporting your point about child rape.

Toto · 08-16-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's more on your idol Michael Hoffman, from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

He's not my idol :brood:

So you disavow him and his mistaken points? How about the Jesus-is-Savior website?

semiopen · 08-16-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Daat Emet promotes freedom from religion and "the study of classical Jewish culture and the dissemination of its scientific, humanistic interpretation." I don't see anything on that site supporting your point about child rape.

You are misinterpreting my post Toto.

You said

Quote:

The Talmud does not say that it's okay to rape children. You can read a rational discussion here.

I replied

Quote:

I agree that the Talmud doesn't say this, but don't regard the link as a rational discussion.

The site you referenced is just doing a song and dance to pretend that the passages from Ketubot are not weird.

Their logic seems to be that because the passages are in Ketubot they are dealing solely with matters pertaining to the

Ketubah.

Quote:

A ketubah (Hebrew: כתובה ; "document"; pl. ketubot) is a special type of Jewish prenuptial agreement. It is considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom, in relation to the bride.

I think this argument is absurd, the passages are what they are. At the same time I don't believe that they are condoning rape.

spin · 08-16-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Willful. Your refusal to believe is based on your desires. The text makes clear its meaning. All the men were killed in battle, so kill the little boys and kill the females who are likely to have had sex, leaving the little girls who haven't had sex "for yourselves".

OH Pleeeeeeeeeeze, It was a statute that all would share in the spoils of war, those that went to war and those that stayed behind (1Sam.30:24).

No, it's not: it's a tradition about a particular event, which has become overladen with rewriting that tends to obscure the traditions with later mores, which make the traditions appear more uniform. In the overwriting of this tradition the little girls suddenly become generically humans (adam), v.30.

The torah is a collection of disparate traditions with simple repetitions (two descriptions of the ten commandments for example), repeated tropes (consider the three forms of the patriarch palming off his wife as his sister in Genesis), different stories about the same thing (two creation accounts one after the other, two flood stories interwoven). There are lots of signs that these works were in origin collections of traditions. Trying to find uniformity across traditions is a form of eisegesis. It's not something derived from the text, but injected into it.

Disparate traditions yield disparate mores.

This tradition is not simply about the spoils of war. It is specific regarding a number of issues: kill all the little boys, kill all the females who are not little girls and keep the little girls for yourselves. In some other traditions all the people are killed, old and young, while in yet others, no-one is killed after the battle.

Little girls here are chosen because of their sexual purity, ie they have not slept with men. There are no traditions that say what a male dominated society does with these sexually pure little girls. We are just told here that they are to preserve the little girls "for yourselves". We can see the significance of keeping females "for yourselves" in Gen 34:9, where marriages are being suggested, "take our daughters for yourselves" (see also Neh 13:25).

Rape was a part of the spoils in the ancient world. Moses is giving instructions to the army officers. The significance of keeping the little girls "for yourselves" is overt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

The Israelite men had commited whoredom by having sex with the daughters of Moab. Then an Israelite man brings a Midianite woman into the camp and Phinehas chases them down, finds them in a tent (having sex no doubt), and kills them both.

So we have Phinehas killing a fellow Israelite for having anything to do sexually with a Midiante woman, YET, it would be alright for a priest to have anything to do with a Midianite (woman child) sexually? COME ON !

Leviticus 21:13,14 shows that a priest had to marry a virgin of his own people. There is every possiblity that the women children (Num.31:18), became propselytes but at what age a female was thought to be a woman old enought to marry, I don't have a clue.

Little Dot · 08-16-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

You are misinterpreting my post Toto.

They will also get removed! Have fun :hylidae:

Toto · 08-16-2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Daat Emet promotes freedom from religion and "the study of classical Jewish culture and the dissemination of its scientific, humanistic interpretation." I don't see anything on that site supporting your point about child rape.

You are misinterpreting my post Toto.

This was not in response to your post - do you have Little Dot on ignore?

I don't want to defend the Talmud - I don't want to take the time to delve into it - but the charge that it approves of child rape is an anti-semitic slur.

Quote:

... At the same time I don't believe that they are condoning rape.

I think we can agree on this.

semiopen · 08-17-2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

You are misinterpreting my post Toto.

This was not in response to your post - do you have Little Dot on ignore?

I don't want to defend the Talmud - I don't want to take the time to delve into it - but the charge that it approves of child rape is an anti-semitic slur.

Quote:

... At the same time I don't believe that they are condoning rape.

I think we can agree on this.

No, I do have a short little attention span though... carry on.

Little Dot · 08-17-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So, Little Dot - it's time to come clean. Most evangelical Christians have repudiated their anti-Semitic past and now love the Jews.

Where is you evidence for this? Evangelical Christians have always taught that at Jesus' second coming, he will give the Jews a second chance to believe in Him.

Please prove that:

Quote:

Most evangelical Christians have repudiated their anti-Semitic past

That is if they ever had one! :constern01:

stephan huller · 08-17-2011, 10:32 AM

Ding dong,

If evangelical Christianity develops from Luther it has an anti-Semitic past.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2011, 03:17 PM	#42
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Daat Emet promotes freedom from religion and "the study of classical Jewish culture and the dissemination of its scientific, humanistic interpretation." I don't see anything on that site supporting your point about child rape.

08-17-2011, 10:32 AM	#50
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Ding dong, If evangelical Christianity develops from Luther it has an anti-Semitic past.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.