Jusitification for my religious beliefs

The Hammer
The Hammer's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Jusitification for my religious beliefs

Hello everyone. I wanted to post a defense of my Jewish beliefs.

1) The Tanakh: The Tanakh encompasses all of God's commands for daily life (ie Kosher laws, Sabbath restirctions or circumcision practices). It also contains the story of the Jewish people from the golden age of the monarchy, through the exile, through Greek and Roman conquests. The Tanakh contains depths of knowledge about human life in relationship with Hashem.

2) The Mishnah and the Talmuds: At times, the Tanakh is archaic and difficult to understand. Commandments that were applicable 3000 years ago no longer have practical significance today. The Mishnah represents Hashem's continued revealtion to the Jewish people through oral tradition. The Talmud updates the Torah to be more applicable to daily life in accordance with God's progressive revelation.

3) Failure of the Jewish monarchy: King Solomon built the incredible Temple in Jerusalem. However, Solomon was also essentially a henotheist. This practice of henotheism continued through the divided monarchy (see Chronicles). Their failure demonstrates the necessity for Jews to maintain worship in the one true God.

4) The survival of the Jewish people: My people faced constant persecution from the exile until the modern day (like the Holocaust denying bishops or the Israeli tennis player barred from Dubai). We faced Christian pogroms under the Roman Empire, Medieval kingdoms, and (to a lesser extent) Muslim kingdoms. We were falsely accused by Christians of host desecration, and the sacrifice of Christian children. All we wanted as a Diaspora people was tolerance. As emancipation began, with the enlightenment, we were hated no just for our religion, but for simply being Jews ethnically. Obviously, the Holocaust was the culmination of more then 2000 years of hatred, bigotry and ignorance. If you don't read anything else above, read this: I am a Jew because I cannot deny my heritage, my people and my God. We died for our beliefs, and we suffering because of our ethnicity. I am furious with God for allowing the Shoah. But the Jewish faith and tradition will not end with me.

5) Jewish Culture: Many Jews today don't believe in God. The majority of Israelis are non-religious. However, even if I didn't believe in God, I would still hold to the religious traditions of Judaism. Jewish practices such as holidays, the Sabbath and Kosher laws are an important part of who I am and where I came from.

 

Note: Don't assume that I have a literal Christian understanding of the Bible. Remember, my people wrote these books.

Also, just for better understanding...The Mishnah is the oral tradition of the Torah written in 200 CE. It is viewed as a holy text. The Talmud is commentary on the Tanakh and the Mishnah. Hamshem is a Jewish name for God. Finally, henotheism is the belief in many gods, with one god as the supreme god above the rest.

Finally, I would really appreciate it if no one used the divine name on this thread (YHWH). Don't spell it out please.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
manofmanynames wrote:Gauche

manofmanynames wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Oh wait. You're a fucking idiot who doesn't even know what censorship is and you've already conceded everything else.   

A feat of avoidance clearly shows who the real idiot is. I asked you two simple questions, that I explicitly asked you to respond to and you fled like a little bitch. But tis cool. 

You latched on to a post, a reply to hamby, who claimed that hammer asking politely if people would refrain from spelling out the word Yahweh out of respect for him, as censorship, and claiming that he (hamby) was being "persecuted" as a result. And if hamby was stupid enough to equate censorship with persecution, then you'd have plenty of trolls, and theist on these forums claiming "persecution" as well. 

I asked you to find one definition in support of your view of censorship and you still have not done it. I wonder why?  Clearly the definition of the term supports my claim that the RRS site censors (this is not claim that that's a bad thing or a good thing), and you have failed to demonstrate even one point in which the term according to the dictionary or any other material defining the term, for which the use here would not apply.

You pulled some definition out of your ass, and want everybody to take it on blind faith, that a cat is actually a duck. So I suggest if you can't put out, you shut the fuck up. You can call me an idiot all you want, but clearly you've demonstrated who the real idiot here is. 

 

 

If anyone has mastered the art of lying about a cat being a duck it woud be you. Your problem with us is that we know what a duck is and don't mistake warm fuzzy feelings as  being a duck.

Quack all you want, but disembodied beings dont exist. I know my cat exists and I do not pray to it that idiots like you try to "save" me.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Stop crying like a bitch.

Stop crying like a bitch. You're not an oppressed political dissident, you're a troll trying to spam somebody else's website.

Your definition of censoring also supports the claim that editing is censoring. It also supports the claim that selection is censorship. It also supports the claim that moderating is censoring.

So let's look at a real definition of "censorship" that isn't entirely vague and see why you're stupid.

"censorship
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 |

censorship official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group. It may be applied to the mails, speech, the press, the theater, dance, art, literature, photography, the cinema, radio, television, or computer networks. Censorship may be either preventive or punitive, according to whether it is exercised before or after the expression has been made public. In use since antiquity, the practice has been particularly thoroughgoing under autocratic and heavily centralized governments, from the Roman Empire to the totalitarian states of the 20th cent. "
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/censorship.aspx

An editor (moderator) is paid by a publisher (website owner) and therefore indirectly by the subscriber (website viewer) to provide a service (deciding what to print and what not to print) for the subscriber, that the subscriber wants . A censor is not providing a service that the subscriber wants.

You might think that everyone wants to read your idiotic rambling and flaming but they don't. That's why they come to a MODERATED forum and not an UNMODERATED forum.

Another difference is that censorship usually tries to disallow expression of certain views in ALL media. A single discussion forum whose audience has agreed to a charter that describes what is on or off-topic is not censorship.

Now dazzle me with your brilliance professor. Make me look more foolish like you said and tell me the difference between "editing" and "censoring".

What's the difference between "selection" and "censorship"?

What's the difference between "moderating" and "censoring"?

Because according to your definition and your rationale all those things are synonymous with censorship.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Stop crying

Gauche wrote:

Stop crying like a bitch. You're not an oppressed political dissident, you're a troll trying to spam somebody else's website.

Haha what's there to cry about dude? I haven't even been censored, or any of that shit, and the last thing I feel on this forum where i freely choose to participate in, is oppressed. That's some serious projection

Quote:
Now dazzle me with your brilliance professor. Make me look more foolish like you said a

Let's own you real quick, we are speaking about a particular sort of example, such as the RRS removing post that are obscene, or deemed as demeaning towards RRS core members. You claim this is not censorship.

Apparently you seem to be living in your own world.

The RRS, including Sapient have implied that Youtube has (or possibly have) censored them. Type "youtube censoring RRS" in google, see how many hits you get, or check out this thread on this forum: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/5637?page=2

or go to wikipedia, and check out Censorship by Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

Here are a few examples:

 

"-In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam.[20][21] These included the http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); padding-left: 0px; background-position: 100% 50%; ">The New Media Journal, which contained phrasing such as in the "World of Islam ... it is common for the men to have multiple wives, and harvest many children with each of his wives to train for martyrdom." Other sites removed includedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); padding-left: 0px; background-position: 100% 50%; ">MichNews and http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); padding-left: 0px; background-position: 100% 50%; ">The Jawa Report.

Google responded by stating that "We do not allow articles and sources expressly promotinghate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable".

-YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations.

-YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. "

These are all examples of censorship idiot, even though youtube owns their site, and decides freely what they want to prohibit and allow, no different than the RRS.

SO please make even more of an idiot of yourself, because I'd wager that even the most dimwittted individuals on this forum would agree that if Youtube removes videos that they deem as being demeaning towards christianity, such as the blasphemy challenge video, that that's censorship. But according to you idiotic logic it wouldn't be huh?

If i posted a similar sort of video about atheist on this site, and the site decided to remove the video, and ban my user account, that would be censorship as well moron.

Everybody and their momma here, except you would say that if Youtube removed videos for the sole reason that they felt they promoted RRS brand of atheism, and demeaned Christianity, would call that censorship, and they have. SO you tell me if mine and everybody elses logic is flawed but yours. You tell me who the fool here is, you or the rest of us?

Consider yourself owned bitch.

I'm really enjoy this shit, if you want to continue making a fool out of yourself, let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hamby aka Don Assholio

Gauche wrote:
Because according to your definition and your rationale all those things are synonymous with censorship. 

I had always thought that censorship, at least if we are considering the "persecution" use of the word, was forced. Like the gov't telling a record label what it could or couldn't do, that kind of thing.

It seems that not saying or doing something, or being told not to say or do something, or being forced not to say or do something, would all be censorship. Just that, the *kind* of censorship being discussed is a particular variety.

The OP was awesome! I mean, that kind of self righteous holier than thou craziness can't be bought in stores! It's a shame he was run off so quickly, but he never would have made it here long anyway. Even if Hamby hadn't started authoring a new book consisting entirely of the secret word.

What an asshole.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames wrote:Gauche

manofmanynames wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Stop crying like a bitch. You're not an oppressed political dissident, you're a troll trying to spam somebody else's website.

Haha what's there to cry about dude? I haven't even been censored, or any of that shit, and the last thing I feel on this forum where i freely choose to participate in, is oppressed. That's some serious projection

Quote:
Now dazzle me with your brilliance professor. Make me look more foolish like you said a

Let's own you real quick, we are speaking about a particular sort of example, such as the RRS removing post that are obscene, or deemed as demeaning towards RRS core members. You claim this is not censorship.

Apparently you seem to be living in your own world.

The RRS, including Sapient have implied that Youtube has (or possibly have) censored them. Type "youtube censoring RRS" in google, see how many hits you get, or check out this thread on this forum: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/5637?page=2

or go to wikipedia, and check out Censorship by Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

Here are a few examples:

 

"-In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam.[20][21] These included the http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); background-position: 100% 50%;" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newmediajournal.us" class="external text" href="http://www.newmediajournal.us/">The New Media Journal, which contained phrasing such as in the "World of Islam ... it is common for the men to have multiple wives, and harvest many children with each of his wives to train for martyrdom." Other sites removed includedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); background-position: 100% 50%;" rel="nofollow" title="http://michnews.com/" class="external text" href="http://michnews.com/">MichNews and http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; color: rgb(51, 102, 187); background-position: 100% 50%;" rel="nofollow" title="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/" class="external text" href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/">The Jawa Report.

Google responded by stating that "We do not allow articles and sources expressly promotinghate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable".

-YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations.

-YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. "

These are all examples of censorship idiot, even though youtube owns their site, and decides freely what they want to prohibit and allow, no different than the RRS.

SO please make even more of an idiot of yourself, because I'd wager that even the most dimwittted individuals on this forum would agree that if Youtube removes videos that they deem as being demeaning towards christianity, such as the blasphemy challenge video, that that's censorship. But according to you idiotic logic it wouldn't be huh?

If i posted a similar sort of video about atheist on this site, and the site decided to remove the video, and ban my user account, that would be censorship as well moron.

Everybody and their momma here, except you would say that if Youtube removed videos for the sole reason that they felt they promoted RRS brand of atheism, and demeaned Christianity, would call that censorship, and they have. SO you tell me if mine and everybody elses logic is flawed but yours. You tell me who the fool here is, you or the rest of us?

 

Consider yourself owned bitch.

I'm really enjoy this shit, if you want to continue making a fool out of yourself, let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would be OK if we asked youto balspheme your God before we allowed you to post?

Hammer wanted a similar thing - he wanted to kowtow to his religion's problem with spelling out his and your Canaanite god's name before we were granted the privilege of responding to him. If I wanted to foloow the tenets of Judaism, I would be of that faith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Yaweh.  Jevhova.  Jehova,

Yaweh.  Jevhova.  Jehova, Jehova, Jehova!

This reminds me of a Monty Python skit from Life of Brian.  Tell me, in modern-day Judaia, I mean Israel, what would happen to a person who uttered or wrote Yaweh or any other name for god aloud or completly?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
If you're going to post


If you're going to post links at least post links that support what you're saying and not ones that say this:

darth_josh wrote:
It is understood that it is the site owners prerogative to disallow any videos that they deem unfit to carry. However, their pusillanimous judgments concerning what should stay bespeaks of the ethical character of the editors at youtube in my opinion.


and this:

Sapient wrote:

jmm wrote:

not to be an asshole, but doesn't youtube have the right to suspend any account or delete any video for any or no reason, being a free site?

Yes. Just as people have the right to lambaste them for doing so selectively.

    With that aside, I think the issue is closer to copyright than censorship.  Although as I continue to say, I'M STILL NOT SURE.

 Yeah, he really strongly implied that it was censorship when he said "I'm not sure" and he really drove it home with "I think the issue is closer to copyright".

or this:

Unlucky13 wrote:
If this had been a Christian organization then they would never had touched it. I'm so fucking sick of Christians doing this shit.


Clearly stating not just implying that an outside group pressured youtube to take the video down which actually is censorship as per my definition. Remember this:

"It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group."

Your links about google are referring to censorship but they have nothing to do with the claim that you're making. They're about google complying with government and religious censorship. Apparently you like to post links without actually reading them you may want to look into that as one of the reasons you look like a moron right now.

You obviously can't defend your claim that this site is censoring you or you would have done it already instead of posting a bunch of random links that don't support what you're saying and even contradict it.

So, once again professor what is the difference between "editing" and "censoring"? What is the difference between "moderating" and "censoring"? What is the difference between "selecting" and "censoring"?

Or are you just going to cum-dodge all day?




 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: It seems

marcusfish wrote:

 

It seems that not saying or doing something, or being told not to say or do something, or being forced not to say or do something, would all be censorship. Just that, the *kind* of censorship being discussed is a particular variety.

 

Not necessarily, if a grammar school librarian doesn't order a book on linear algebra that isn't censorship it's just selection. It isn't an attempt to suppress anything. It's an attempt to get appropriate material for the library.

If you want to take part in a moderated forum then it wouldn't make much sense to call the moderation censorship. They're providing a service for you.

 

 

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:marcusfish

Gauche wrote:

marcusfish wrote:
 It seems that not saying or doing something, or being told not to say or do something, or being forced not to say or do something, would all be censorship. Just that, the *kind* of censorship being discussed is a particular variety.

Not necessarily, if a grammar school librarian doesn't order a book on linear algebra that isn't censorship it's just selection. It isn't an attempt to suppress anything. It's an attempt to get appropriate material for the library.

If you want to take part in a moderated forum then it wouldn't make much sense to call the moderation censorship. They're providing a service for you.

Ok, I see the distinction you are making. It's a matter of intent, the intent to keep a piece of information from being exposed/circulated... to "suppress" it.

I know I'm totally derailing this long since lost thread but, if the librarian doesn't order a book on Christianity because she thinks it is illogical and children shouldn't be exposed to it... is she censoring at that point? Or would it not be an attempt at censorship until she penned an official guideline prohibiting the ordering of said book which she disagrees with?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:Ok, I see

marcusfish wrote:

Ok, I see the distinction you are making. It's a matter of intent, the intent to keep a piece of information from being exposed/circulated... to "suppress" it.

I know I'm totally derailing this long since lost thread but, if the librarian doesn't order a book on Christianity because she thinks it is illogical and children shouldn't be exposed to it... is she censoring at that point? Or would it not be an attempt at censorship until she penned an official guideline prohibiting the ordering of said book which she disagrees with?

I think when trying to discern between what does and does not constitute censorship it's important to remember that censorship almost always comes from an outside source and editing is the prerogative of someone in authority within the publishing entity. Otherwise it's impossible to make a distinction between censorship and things like editing and moderating.

In the case of a librarian who refuses to order books on a certain subject for personal reasons the real question is whether that is within the purview of a librarian. Most reasonable people would say that it is not.

If someone said that librarian was censoring I wouldn't necessarily argue with that but I think it might be more accurate to say they are a shitty librarian.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:10 out of 10

Christos wrote:
10 out of 10 on the asshole scale

Second.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

The Hammer wrote:

Hello everyone. I wanted to post a defense of my Jewish beliefs.

1) The Tanakh: The Tanakh encompasses all of God's commands for daily life (ie Kosher laws, Sabbath restirctions or circumcision practices). It also contains the story of the Jewish people from the golden age of the monarchy, through the exile, through Greek and Roman conquests. The Tanakh contains depths of knowledge about human life in relationship with Hashem.

Except of the embarrassing little fact that the first collection of these stories appears as the Greek Septuagint centuries before a Hebrew version appears in history.

As for that god's  commands does it not strike you as odd that it would require ritual genital mutilation like some primitive African tribe? Not only disgusting, savage and primitive it is a serious risk to life in the days before sterilization. Perhaps this explains the encouragement towards polygamy due to so many men dying in infancy from massive infections.

Seriously now, no educated or even well read person thinks there is any history in those books. They have as much connection to real history as Xena, Warrior Princess.

The Hammer wrote:
2) The Mishnah and the Talmuds: At times, the Tanakh is archaic and difficult to understand. Commandments that were applicable 3000 years ago no longer have practical significance today. The Mishnah represents Hashem's continued revealtion to the Jewish people through oral tradition. The Talmud updates the Torah to be more applicable to daily life in accordance with God's progressive revelation.

Under what very strange idea of history would one ever thing any of the crap was ever applicable? Even if it were that old the Code of Hammurabi is older and downright rational. So were the laws of Egypt which predate it. You are talking about a bunch of savage, unwashed goatherds pretending superiority to civilized peoples.

Having had a sample of this Talmud's contents when does it get updated from its tribal, xenophobic, goyim hating contents to something civilized, at least to the level of civilization of ancient Greece?

The Hammer wrote:
3) Failure of the Jewish monarchy: King Solomon built the incredible Temple in Jerusalem. However, Solomon was also essentially a henotheist. This practice of henotheism continued through the divided monarchy (see Chronicles). Their failure demonstrates the necessity for Jews to maintain worship in the one true God.

Everyone knows Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and his temple, as well a biblical Israel are myth and legend and never existed.

Henotheism is an invention solely to pretend the enter collection of books is not explicitly polytheist. There is no need for this invention. They were polytheists. It is written.

The Hammer wrote:
4) The survival of the Jewish people: My people faced constant persecution from the exile until the modern day (like the Holocaust denying bishops or the Israeli tennis player barred from Dubai). We faced Christian pogroms under the Roman Empire, Medieval kingdoms, and (to a lesser extent) Muslim kingdoms. We were falsely accused by Christians of host desecration, and the sacrifice of Christian children. All we wanted as a Diaspora people was tolerance. As emancipation began, with the enlightenment, we were hated no just for our religion, but for simply being Jews ethnically. Obviously, the Holocaust was the culmination of more then 2000 years of hatred, bigotry and ignorance. If you don't read anything else above, read this: I am a Jew because I cannot deny my heritage, my people and my God. We died for our beliefs, and we suffering because of our ethnicity. I am furious with God for allowing the Shoah. But the Jewish faith and tradition will not end with me.

There is a justification for this recorded in Acts. The Jews attempted to exterminate the Christians in a pogrom rivaling the Tzars. Don't start a fight you can't finish. And stop whining about payback being a bitch.

Also educated people know there is no evidentiary basis for most of your claims for your holy holocaust so don't start using that as an excuse to murder Palestinians and steal their land.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.

The Hammer wrote:
5) Jewish Culture: Many Jews today don't believe in God. The majority of Israelis are non-religious. However, even if I didn't believe in God, I would still hold to the religious traditions of Judaism. Jewish practices such as holidays, the Sabbath and Kosher laws are an important part of who I am and where I came from.

If they do not practice Judaism including believing in its primitive, savage god, then they are not Jews.

One does get tired of all the fake Jews whining about what happened to real Jews.

The Hammer wrote:
Note: Don't assume that I have a literal Christian understanding of the Bible. Remember, my people wrote these books.

Which begs the question as to how "my people" imbues an understanding of the original intention after thousands of years. What kind of idiot belief is that?

The Hammer wrote:
Also, just for better understanding...The Mishnah is the oral tradition of the Torah written in 200 CE. It is viewed as a holy text. The Talmud is commentary on the Tanakh and the Mishnah. Hamshem is a Jewish name for God. Finally, henotheism is the belief in many gods, with one god as the supreme god above the rest.

The "oral tradition" is how the petty tyrants you folks call rabbis invent new rules which give them even more power over the fools who believe them.

That henotheism nonsense again. So tell me why there was a temple to Astarte in Jerusalem in the 2nd c. AD if the Jews, aka Judeans, did not worship her?

The Hammer wrote:
Finally, I would really appreciate it if no one used the divine name on this thread (YHWH). Don't spell it out please.

Do you have a problem with spelling out the name of his consort Astarte/Ashara?

In this regard can you explain the jewish fascination with letter magic? It is really very silly. It is the sort of thing one expects from people who have never seen writing before. Same question on the numerology. Such silly superstitions.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Wow Hamby, you are an asshole.

One of my biggest pet peeves, and one of the biggest pet peeves of all the core members of RRS is the demand by various religious groups that their particular religious beliefs be imposed on others.  This is an atheist website, and we do not respect, condone, or otherwise give sanctuary to irrational religious demands.  It is rude to come here and tell us that we have to play by any other rules just because it offends someone's delicate sensibilities.  Here, we talk about religion openly and plainly, and that's it.

If someone cannot stand to see a word in print -- any word at all -- they do not need to be here.

 

 

That's fine.

Just don't type my holy userid!