Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-17-2011, 04:41 PM

I can't believe the nonsense you come up with Little Dot. Evangelical Christianity has nothing to do with Luther. Really?

spin · 08-17-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I can't believe the nonsense you come up with Little Dot. Evangelical Christianity has nothing to do with Luther. Really?

You needed to help Little Dot out of her error, Stephan. Let's quote from the same Wiki article on

Evangelicalism,

By the time of the Reformation, theologians began to embrace the term evangelical as referring to "gospel truth". Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche or evangelical church to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, and especially among Lutherans, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense. This can be seen in the names of certain Lutheran denominations or national organizations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Church in Germany.

Evangelicalism all stems from this naughty priest's break away from the noble catholic church.

So, let's look at it again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Ding dong,

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

Wrong!I'm wrong again. :frown:

Fixed again.

Little Dot · 08-18-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

He's not my idol :brood:

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

I would certainly disavow him if he is a Holocaust denier and it would be wise to remember that not just the Jews suffered. Gypsies and other groups of people suffered, but from what I have read in his book so far he is not anti-semetic and has passion for those (i.e. Jews) that are in the clutches of the Talmudists.

As far as his information about the Talmud I will post this again.

Quote:

Whenever raw quotations from the Talmud are published we are accused of distorting them or "taking them out of context." Some go so far as to claim they are "antisemetic fabrication." People who make such allegations must be very lazy indeed, because it is not a major ordeal to locate the volumes of the Socino or Steinsaltz Englsih-language edition of the Talmud and confirm the existence of these passages as well as their context

Toto · 08-18-2011, 01:53 PM

I've given you some links from people who have tried to fact check Michael Hoffman.

The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old

And this review from a pro-Palestinian source that would like to accept him: The Talmud Impaled.

Quote:

This is a polemical work, almost a pamphlet; a critical book, dealing with beliefs of Jews (Hoffman prefers to turn an adjective “Judaic” into a noun, and writes of “hapless Judaics”, in order to avoid the loaded J-word). That's fine -- political correctness has made much of theology irrelevant by expressly forbidding negative statements about competitors. There is certainly a place for a critical study of Judaism -- for a book that will take into account previous voluminous studies and will move us forward to better understanding of this faith and its adherents. However, Hoffman’s book appears dated, despite being fresh off the press. Books such as this were written by proud Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the 19th century on, say, the faith of the Hindus or even of Catholics (“papists”, to Hoffman). This book is rather a torrent of vituperation: “heathen, heathenish, diabolic, satan-worshipping, counterfeit, delusion, obscenity, racism, superstition, deceit”. Or “the pagan Talmud consisting of abominable wickedness, prodigious filthiness and superlative vileness”.

In the time of WASP supremacy, such a style was considered de rigueur, and indeed British and American missionaries in India or Polynesia employed such language. But nowadays we are supposed to know better. Some of the best literature and art was created by “pagan heathens”, from Homer to Mahabharata. “Filthiness, vileness, obscenity” – all these complaints were brought against Boccaccio and Joyce, and they make precious little impact on us today. I am altogether for a spade being called a spade, but Hoffman turns it into a bloody shovel every time.

For this reason, Peter Myers, our Australian Catholic friend, refused to do a review of the book, writing: “The reason I do not deal with Judaism Discovered, is that Hoffman encases his argument in Protestant spin. He condemns Judaism as an anti-Biblical reversion to Babylonian paganism. That sort of language leaves me cold: Babylon, Egypt and the Indus civilization were the three centres from which our own civilization comes - by borrowing. I am constantly amazed at the Protestant efflorescence in the US. The US is in a time-warp; even some genuine scholars pitch their view of the ancient civilizations in the Bible’s hateful terms.”

Iskander · 08-18-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I've given you some links from people who have tried to fact check Michael Hoffman.

The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old

And this review from a pro-Palestinian source that would like to accept him: The Talmud Impaled.

Quote:

This is a polemical work, almost a pamphlet; a critical book, dealing with beliefs of Jews (Hoffman prefers to turn an adjective “Judaic” into a noun, and writes of “hapless Judaics”, in order to avoid the loaded J-word). That's fine -- political correctness has made much of theology irrelevant by expressly forbidding negative statements about competitors. There is certainly a place for a critical study of Judaism -- for a book that will take into account previous voluminous studies and will move us forward to better understanding of this faith and its adherents. However, Hoffman’s book appears dated, despite being fresh off the press. Books such as this were written by proud Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the 19th century on, say, the faith of the Hindus or even of Catholics (“papists”, to Hoffman). This book is rather a torrent of vituperation: “heathen, heathenish, diabolic, satan-worshipping, counterfeit, delusion, obscenity, racism, superstition, deceit”. Or “the pagan Talmud consisting of abominable wickedness, prodigious filthiness and superlative vileness”.

In the time of WASP supremacy, such a style was considered de rigueur, and indeed British and American missionaries in India or Polynesia employed such language. But nowadays we are supposed to know better. Some of the best literature and art was created by “pagan heathens”, from Homer to Mahabharata. “Filthiness, vileness, obscenity” – all these complaints were brought against Boccaccio and Joyce, and they make precious little impact on us today. I am altogether for a spade being called a spade, but Hoffman turns it into a bloody shovel every time.

For this reason, Peter Myers, our Australian Catholic friend, refused to do a review of the book, writing: “The reason I do not deal with Judaism Discovered, is that Hoffman encases his argument in Protestant spin. He condemns Judaism as an anti-Biblical reversion to Babylonian paganism. That sort of language leaves me cold: Babylon, Egypt and the Indus civilization were the three centres from which our own civilization comes - by borrowing. I am constantly amazed at the Protestant efflorescence in the US. The US is in a time-warp; even some genuine scholars pitch their view of the ancient civilizations in the Bible’s hateful terms.”

Good work, Toto.

semiopen · 08-18-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I've given you some links from people who have tried to fact check Michael Hoffman.

The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old

I didn't realize the level of crap Little Dot was writing.

First of all a gentile saying that they don't like rabbinic Judaism is just wrong. That's like
Can white people say nigger?

You can't say shit like that Dot unless you are Jewish, otherwise it is anti-semitic.

Toto that link sucked yesterday and it still sucks...

Why not just quote the passage?

http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kethuboth.pdf

Quote:

WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A
LITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP
WOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD-[IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECE OF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH!4 Raba said. It means5 this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6 it is as if one puts the
finger into the eye;7 but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.’ and [with regard to the case of] ‘a girl injured by a piece of wood.’ itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages.

Clearly this doesn't condone raping little girls but -

The reason they didn't quote the whole passage is because it is so bizzare.

Some of this has to do with the piece of wood. For example. if a girl slides down a tree and a stick pokes her in the vagina, does she still remain a virgin?

Does a woman whose hymen was torn by a stick have the marriage rights of a virgin or a non-virgin?

Quote:

According to one sage, Rabbi Meir, she is considered a virgin with all a virgin's rights because her hymen was not torn as a result of sexual activity. According to other sages she is not considered a virgin because her hymen was torn by the penetration of a stick, which is similar to the penetration of a sexual organ, and therefore she receives only half the rights of a virgin, "One who has been injured by a stick of wood has a ketubah of a maneh." The scholar Rav Judah ruled that if a small child, under the age of nine, has sexual relations with a woman she is considered as a woman whose hymen was tore by a stick of wood.

Your rational link goes out of its way to tap dance around the stick issue.

Juststeve · 08-18-2011, 04:33 PM

Semiopen proves the point that my old Rabbi often made. "Talmud is not for the lazy or the simple minded".

Steve

stephan huller · 08-18-2011, 05:45 PM

Anti-Semites cite this material to 'prove' that Judaism 'condones' sex with minors. This is not the substance of the discussion. At worst it demonstrates indifference on part of the rabbinic authorities as to the suffering of the women and girls and treats them as commodities fixing a 'price' relative to the degree to which they have become 'damaged goods.' Yet no one can deny that women were second class citizens in the tradition. This is not the same thing as saying that Jews condoned all the horrible things attributed to them by people like Little Dot.

Besides these ideas here are little more than extensions of the misogyny already established in the Pentateuch. Little Dot would have to disassociate himself completely with the supposed sanctity of 'the Old Testament' if he wants to have pure hands something I am not sure he is prepared to do.

semiopen · 08-19-2011, 07:03 AM

Hope juststeve wasn't referring of me with his quote although I might be guilty of both.

The passage I quoted also discusses every boys dream about sex with a grown woman. The good/bad news is that the woman can still be considered a virgin. Frankly, my fantasies about sex with grown women didn't involve them being virgins.

Little Dot · 08-19-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I've given you some links from people who have tried to fact check Michael Hoffman.

The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old

And this review from a pro-Palestinian source that would like to accept him: The Talmud Impaled.

Quote:

This is a polemical work, almost a pamphlet; a critical book, dealing with beliefs of Jews (Hoffman prefers to turn an adjective “Judaic” into a noun, and writes of “hapless Judaics”, in order to avoid the loaded J-word). That's fine -- political correctness has made much of theology irrelevant by expressly forbidding negative statements about competitors. There is certainly a place for a critical study of Judaism -- for a book that will take into account previous voluminous studies and will move us forward to better understanding of this faith and its adherents. However, Hoffman’s book appears dated, despite being fresh off the press. Books such as this were written by proud Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the 19th century on, say, the faith of the Hindus or even of Catholics (“papists”, to Hoffman). This book is rather a torrent of vituperation: “heathen, heathenish, diabolic, satan-worshipping, counterfeit, delusion, obscenity, racism, superstition, deceit”. Or “the pagan Talmud consisting of abominable wickedness, prodigious filthiness and superlative vileness”.

In the time of WASP supremacy, such a style was considered de rigueur, and indeed British and American missionaries in India or Polynesia employed such language. But nowadays we are supposed to know better. Some of the best literature and art was created by “pagan heathens”, from Homer to Mahabharata. “Filthiness, vileness, obscenity” – all these complaints were brought against Boccaccio and Joyce, and they make precious little impact on us today. I am altogether for a spade being called a spade, but Hoffman turns it into a bloody shovel every time.

For this reason, Peter Myers, our Australian Catholic friend, refused to do a review of the book, writing: “The reason I do not deal with Judaism Discovered, is that Hoffman encases his argument in Protestant spin. He condemns Judaism as an anti-Biblical reversion to Babylonian paganism. That sort of language leaves me cold: Babylon, Egypt and the Indus civilization were the three centres from which our own civilization comes - by borrowing. I am constantly amazed at the Protestant efflorescence in the US. The US is in a time-warp; even some genuine scholars pitch their view of the ancient civilizations in the Bible’s hateful terms.”

Dear Toto, I never said anything about Hoffman addressing the subject of sex with a three year old. What I quoted was the remark on BT Sanhedrin 37a:

Quote:

the passage referred to in "Schindler" is BT Sanhedrin 37a, and, it read in the Steinsaltz edition, as follows:

"whosoever destroys even a single life in Israel, Scripture regards him as if he had destroyed an entire world. And the converse is also true: Whoever saves a life in Israel, Scripture regards him as if he had saved the entire world." The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition, v. 17, p.68.

Sanhedrin 37a is often inappropriately applied to anyone saving anyone's life. This due to the fact that English versions of the Talmud have been censored. Neither the authentic Talmud nor the Mishnah support such an interpretation. The Talmud nad Mishnah restrict the duty to save life to saving only Judaic lives.

In other words, the rendering used by "Schindler's List" is a counterfeit and thus, the universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie attributes to the Talmud, is intended to give a humanistic gloss to a rabbinical text, which in essence, constitutes racist literature!

Micahael Hoffman Judaism Discovered, p. 527, 528

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

08-17-2011, 04:41 PM	#61
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I can't believe the nonsense you come up with Little Dot. Evangelical Christianity has nothing to do with Luther. Really?

08-18-2011, 04:33 PM	#67
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Semiopen proves the point that my old Rabbi often made. "Talmud is not for the lazy or the simple minded". Steve

08-18-2011, 05:45 PM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Anti-Semites cite this material to 'prove' that Judaism 'condones' sex with minors. This is not the substance of the discussion. At worst it demonstrates indifference on part of the rabbinic authorities as to the suffering of the women and girls and treats them as commodities fixing a 'price' relative to the degree to which they have become 'damaged goods.' Yet no one can deny that women were second class citizens in the tradition. This is not the same thing as saying that Jews condoned all the horrible things attributed to them by people like Little Dot. Besides these ideas here are little more than extensions of the misogyny already established in the Pentateuch. Little Dot would have to disassociate himself completely with the supposed sanctity of 'the Old Testament' if he wants to have pure hands something I am not sure he is prepared to do.

08-19-2011, 07:03 AM	#69
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Hope juststeve wasn't referring of me with his quote although I might be guilty of both. The passage I quoted also discusses every boys dream about sex with a grown woman. The good/bad news is that the woman can still be considered a virgin. Frankly, my fantasies about sex with grown women didn't involve them being virgins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.