Why European Culture is Hated

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:15 pm

What if, You would find Yourself one earthly day a Buddhist who believes in retrograde karma, (for want of beleiving something other then your self) what if, you would be a nigger in the next life as you put it, or even a white man imorisoned in a black ruled ,white enslaved community. Would your ideas change?

Can you honestly ask yourself? Because if you wouldn't, or couldn't, the results would be quite conformational and predictable.

And what if Karmic law, or eternal return were really the way it all works?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:22 pm

Here you go:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bab ... -full-text


I'll take note that you admit you haven't verified any of these supposed sayings for yourself.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby AutSider » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:14 pm

You're the ones preoccupied with what Jews write. I care about what they do.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby AutSider » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:16 pm

Meno_ wrote:What if, You would find Yourself one earthly day a Buddhist who believes in retrograde karma, (for want of beleiving something other then your self) what if, you would be a nigger in the next life as you put it, or even a white man imorisoned in a black ruled ,white enslaved community. Would your ideas change?

Can you honestly ask yourself? Because if you wouldn't, or couldn't, the results would be quite conformational and predictable.

And what if Karmic law, or eternal return were really the way it all works?


That's logically flawed thinking. If nigger then not me. "if you were a nigger" is a contradiction.

Every group wants to advance its own interests, both niggers and whites. I never denied this part. What do you want?
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:36 pm

AutSider wrote:You're the ones preoccupied with what Jews write. I care about what they do.


Not really, you're the one who brought up those (fake) quotes from the Talmud. And they are fake. I checked it out.

Let's take this one, from your own graphic you posted: "Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry... he was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."

So I went to the Talmud online and found this section, Sanhedrin (funny enough some of the sections aren't even spelled correctly in your graphic, and the Talmud isn't even organized like it says (there is no "43a", rather there are 11 chapters)), and I went through each chapter and did a word search for the following terms, just to make sure I didn't miss it: Jesus, Yeshu, Nazarene, and Passover.

Guess what? It's not in there.

This is just one example out of others I also tested. You can try it for yourself.

So why would your own "information" cite misspelled names of books in the Talmud, improper ways of dividing those books into sections, and then the actual lines it claims aren't even anywhere in there? Hmmmmm this is a tricky one to figure out!

Oh yeah, you were duped. Like a little kid who believes everything he is told without thinking for himself. You are duped by fake racist propaganda some asshole in his basement made, and you never once had the intellectual honesty to wonder if it's actually true or not.

Fucking pathetic. And quite embarrassing for you.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Mimisbrunnr » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:56 pm

I was going to stay out of this because Autsider is shockjocking and is bringing disrepute to himself and his ideas by intentionally provoking such reactions......But... Void seriously.... I have been paying a lot of attention to your posts of late and I have noticed something. Your basic position is that you know the "truth" of X. You will carry on with lengthy posts telling someone why they are wrong, without ever acknowledging the substance behind what they are saying and looking into it yourself. If you do look into it yourself, which is not usually until after you order someone to spoon feed you the information, you will find the nearest confirmation and go "SEE!?!?". (This is what Peter does, not a great example to follow).

For example. You spoke like you knew everything about the "conspiracy" (as if the word itself de-legitimizes the idea), yet it is obvious you know much less than everything about it as indicated by your demands for spoon fed information and your lack of understanding of the core issues. You then "looked into it" yourself regarding the quotes and found confirmation that it's all made up, and there you stopped. You didn't actually do any research of any kind. For example, you know there are different versions of the talmud, and that the untranslated texts are generally not open for public digestion? Let me guess you googled the sentences, or found a jewish website with a copy of "the talmud" and surprise surprise you couldn't find anything. This is lazy research. Do you ever start on "the dark side" and research something, or are you incapable of setting aside your bias?

Just as a side note, the subject matter you are struggling to deal with here usually takes people a number of years before they understand the truth of things. Don't expect to be spoon fed a few sentences and have some greater insight than people who have put 20 years into it.

Do some better research on those quotes and you will find what you are looking for. Have you ever asked yourself "why?" when it comes to this subject?

If the establishment "right" and literalists could admit the truth to themselves, many many issues that are "complex" and many seemingly conflicting principles would instantly correct themselves and the path to "making our culture great again" would be clear (which involves simply ensuring our cultural expressions come first in all media).

We hear the words "judeo-christian" all the bloody time. Someone please go to a local orthodox synagogue and start talking about "judeo-christian" anything, let me know when the awkward silence starts.
Mimisbrunnr
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:19 pm

I used an online English translation of the Talmud, which I posted the link to. You're free to confirm or disconfirm any of those supposed lines from it that AudSider posted. I'll assume you haven't done so, and aren't interested in doing so.

I've already explained why the "Jewish conspiracy" is clearly nonsense. I've explained it more than once here. As of yet I've seen neither evidence of such a conspiracy (and I've now debunked what Autsider presented), nor have I seen a response to the arguments that I raised. You yourself here are ignoring not only the arguments I raised but also my recent refutation of that crap that is supposed to be in the Talmud but actually isn't.

You make allusions to me doing "Google searches" as if that is going to convince anyone that I didn't actually look at the Talmud itself and prove those passages aren't in there.

So you're free to offer your evidence, or to refute what I just posted regarding those sayings not actually being in the Talmud. If you have a source of the Talmud or Torah that shows these saying, why haven't you brought it for us to see? I'll wager a simple guess: because you don't have it.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:25 pm

As for Judeo-Christianity, everyone knows that the Torah is basically just part of the Old Testament in the Bible. Jesus himself was Jewish. Moses, Abraham, those old people and stories are shared between Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity is a fusion between Roman and Greek religion and philosophy, based upon the foundation of Judaism. This isn't even controversial, I am surprised you don't know it.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:58 pm

Yeah that's right, you got no response at all.

As I said, just pathetic.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Otto_West » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 pm

AutSider wrote:You're the ones preoccupied with what Jews write. I care about what they do.

Actually I would say what they write or talk about amongst themselves is usually a great indicator of their actions where all in observance is important.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Mimisbrunnr » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:30 pm

You missed almost everything I said. I don't give a crap one way or another about the "conspiracy" or lack thereof as an ideological chess piece and there are jews in my family that I certainly don't hate. I also don't really care to prove anything. My point is that you are going beyond telling someone to backup a claim, you are telling them to do your research for you, lest you simply google an "english translation" of whatever and formulate your opinion based on 5 minutes of "research". It is a lack of respect for the arguments and doesn't do yourself any good other than to satisfy your bias.

So, for the sake of argument on this topic, I am curious as to what would be sufficient for you? Does someone have to go and find an uncensored version for you? Do they have to read it to you? Or put it in your hand?

Sanhedrin 54b

Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old
one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with
a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said:
Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 What is the basis
of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as
the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to
engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel
maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;

Talmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 24a

The question was asked: Did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say this [with regard to things found in places]
where the majority of the people are heathens,8 but not where the majority are Israelites, or [did he
say this] also [with regard to things found in places] where the majority are Israelites? And if you
come to the conclusion that [he said this] also where the majority are Israelites do the Rabbis differ
from him or not? And if you come to the conclusion that they differ from him — they would
certainly differ where the majority are Israelites — do they differ where the majority are heathens, or
not?9 And if you come to the conclusion that they differ even where the majority are heathens, is the
law in accordance with his view or not? And if you come to the conclusion that the law is in
accordance with his view, does this apply only to the case where the majority are heathens, or also to
the case where the majority are Israelites? — Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or
a house of study, or in any other place where crowds are frequent, it belongs to the finder, because
the owner has given it up.10 Now, who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the
majority11 if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that [he applies this principle]
also to a case where the majority are Israelites!12 — Here we deal with [a case where the money
found was] scattered.13 But if [the money was] scattered, why refer to places where crowds are
frequent? It would apply also to places where crowds are not frequent!14 — Admittedly, therefore,
[the reference is to money found] in bundles,15 but we deal here with Synagogues16 of heathens. But
how can this be applied to ‘houses of study’?17 — [The reference is to] our houses of study in which
heathens stay.18 Now that you have arrived at this conclusion [the reference to] ‘Synagogues’ [can]
also [be explained as meaning] our Synagogues in which heathens stay.
Come and hear: If one finds therein19 a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be
announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.20 Now who is the authority
that lays it down that we go according to the majority if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must
therefore conclude that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this only where the majority are heathens, but not
where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] This is the view of the Rabbis. But then you could
conclude therefrom that the Rabbis accept R. Simeon b. Eleazar's view in the case where the
majority are heathens! — Admittedly, therefore, this21 represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar,
and his ruling applies also to a case where the majority are Israelites, but here21 we deal [with a case
where the money was] concealed.22 But if it was concealed, what has [the finder] to do with it? Have
we not learnt: ‘if one finds a vessel in a dungheap, if covered up he may not touch it; but if
uncovered he must take it and announce it’?23 — As R. papa explained:24 [The reference is] to a
dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear
away — so here also [the reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which
[the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away.25

Talmud - Mas. Baba Kama 113a

Still others read these statements with reference to the following: To [escape] murderers or
robbers or customs-collectors one may confirm by a vow a statement that [e.g.] the grain is
terumah30 or belongs to the Royal Court, though it was not terumah and though it did not belong to
the Royal Court.31 But [why should] to customs-collectors [not] apply the statement made by Samuel
that the law of the State has the force of law? R. Hanina b. Kahana said that a customs-collector who
is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the school of R. Jannai it was stated that we
were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority.32 But R. Ashi said: We
suppose the customs-collector33 here to be a heathen publican34 as it was taught: ‘Where a suit arises
between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel,
justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens
justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use
subterfuges to circumvent him.34 This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should
not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R.
Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no
infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him! Is then the robbery of a
heathen permissible?35 Has it not been taught36 that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was
expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin:37 ‘Whence can we learn that the robbery of a
heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: After that he is sold38 he may be redeemed
again,39

Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 116a

Come and hear: The blank spaces above and below, between the sections, between the columns, at
the beginning and at the end of the Scroll, defile one's hands.13 — It may be that [when they are]
together with the Scroll of the Law they are different.14 Come and hear: The blank spaces15 and the
Books of the Minim16 may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and
the Divine Names occurring in them. Now surely it means the blank portions of a Scroll of the Law?
No: the blank spaces in the Books of Minim. Seeing that we may not save the Books of Minim
themselves, need their blank spaces be stated? — This is its meaning: And the Books of Minim are
like blank spaces.

Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 22a - 22b (emphasis NOT mine)

CHAPTER II
MISHNAH. ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS’ INNS,9 BECAUSE THEY
ARE SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE
ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A
MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD.


That last one goes on to discuss different stipulations on the trade of cattle that has been used for an immoral act by a heathen.

I could continue, for quite a while and actually reading some other parts really made me laugh. Sounded like something out of a Ferengi book of the Rules of Acquisition.

So again, I'm not really sure what you are looking for, because you aren't doing any real research of your own. Nobody is going to change your mind in a few forum posts, especially if you have already cemented your opinions. Your approach is not conducive to learning.

As for your post regarding modern usage of the phrase "judeo-christianity", I don't know what to say other than it betrays your lack of understanding on the issue.

Pathetic? You aren't hiding your defensive posturing very well.
Mimisbrunnr
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby UrGod » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:04 am

You missed the entire point I have been making; which is that none of those phrases can actually be verified. At least not by me, not yet. Have you opened a Talmud and verified them; or are you just copying and pasting from some random website you googled?

Why can't anyone produce actual evidence here? I already provided a link to an English translation of the Talmud... where is the link to your source? Not confident enough to share it?

It's funny that these "sources" are often not even spelling the names of the sections correctly, and that the Talmud isn't even laid out into sections like those in your supposed source. Again, you would know this if you had bothered to read what I already posted. Which obviously you didn't do.

And yet again, more failure by you to address the points I made regarding the idiocy of the entire notion of a Jewish conspiracy; so in addition to ignoring the arguments I've made and failing to provide even a single link to a source that we can check for ourselves, you are basically just repeating yourself without saying anything.

What's the point of that? I don't know, you tell us.

Same goes for your "response" to my comments about Judeo-Christianity. You have quite literally no response, nothing to counter against what I said, and yet you pretend to be responding? Pure dishonesty, blatantly transparent and not even interesting.

"As for your post regarding modern usage of the phrase "judeo-christianity", I don't know what to say other than it betrays your lack of understanding on the issue". Lol. That's it?

"I know you are but what am I??"
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Mimisbrunnr » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 am

They are excerpts from a digitized version of a copy I own, all 9900+ pages of it (them). Again, how would you like this verified void? There is literally nothing that would be good enough for you. I will point to 3 rabbi's that will tell you it's true, you will point to 3 rabbi's that tell you it's not. Never mind that you seem to be completely ignorant of or are omitting the long history of debate over the talmud, and you have even still ignored the fact that there is more than one talmud. I don't know void read some bloody history, even Wikipedia knows this crap. What would you accept? Because right now I can link you anything on the internet, but that wouldn't be enough right? Because you're comfortable in the position of acting like you aren't making a claim, demanding proof which you summarily dismiss (and it wouldn't matter what was provided) and then demand more, and if nobody brings it to you, then you're "right". You were speaking of pathetic? It wouldn't matter if we were talking about the talmud or the "sky being blue", the conversation would be the same. So what would it take? What would prove it to you?

This isn't exactly an obscure text. I found similar translations on mainstream jewish websites with a simple google search. Translations are sanitized and censored to various extents.
Mimisbrunnr
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:19 am

Folio 57a

for it is written, The earth also was corrupt before God;1 and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, it must refer to immorality and idolatry.2 'Immorality.' as it is written, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.3 'Idolatry,' for it is written, Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image, etc.4 And the other teacher [who deduces this from the verse, and the Lord God commanded etc.]?5 He maintains that this verse [sc. the earth also etc.] merely describes their way of living.6 'Bloodshed', as it is written, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, etc.7 And the other?8 — This verse [he will maintain] merely teaches the manner of execution.9 Robbery, for it is written, As the wild herbs have I given you all things;10 upon which R. Levi commented: as the wild herbs, but not as the cultivated herbs.11 And the other?12 — He will hold that this verse is written to permit animal flesh,13 [but not to prohibit robbery]. Flesh cut from the living animal, as it is written, But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.14 And the other?15 — He may hold that this verse teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.16 Emasculation, for it is written, Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.17 And the other?18 — He may regard this merely as a blessing.19 Forbidden mixture, as it is said, Of fowls after their kind.20 And the other?21 — He will maintain that this was merely for the sake of mating.22
R. Joseph said, The scholars23 stated: A heathen is executed for the violation of three precepts — Mnemonic G Sh R—24 viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth objected: Now bloodshed is rightly included, since it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;25 but whence do we know the others? If they are derived from bloodshed,26 the other four should also be included; whilst if their inclusion is taught by the extending phrase any man,27 should not idolatry too be included?28 But R. Shesheth said thus: The scholars stated, A heathen is executed for the violation of four precepts [including idolatry]. But is a heathen executed for idolatry? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen. This implies that they are merely forbidden, but their


Dilling Exhibit 57
Begins
violation is not punished by death! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Their prohibition is their death sentence.29
R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed30 or [seized] a beautiful woman,31 or [committed] similar offences,32 if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean33 against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'?34 But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, 'but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,' therefore the former clause reads, '[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.'35 But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'?36 — How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, 'forbidden' … 'permitted'? Surely it


Dilling Exhibit 58
Begins
has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.]37 need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]!38 'And similar acts.' To what can this apply in the case of robbery? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered: To a worker in a vineyard [who eats of the grapes]. When so? If his is the finishing work, it is permitted?39 If it is not the finishing work, is it not actual robbery?40 — But R. Papa said: This applies to [the theft of] an article worth less than a perutah.41 But if so, why say that such robbery of a Jew by a Cuthean must not be kept: does he not forgive him?42 — Though he later forgives him, he is grieved when it occurs [therefore it is prohibited] — But how can you say that such robbery by one Cuthean from another is but a 'similar act' [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a Cuthean does not forgive,43 is it not actual theft? — But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.44 One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.45 To what can 'a similar act' apply in the case of a beautiful woman? — When R. Dimi came,46 he said in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hanina: To a heathen who allotted a bondwoman to his slave [for concubinage] and then took her for himself, for this he is executed.47
'A similar act', however, is not taught with reference to murder.48 Abaye said: If it should be, however, that it is so taught, it would be in accordance with R. Jonathan b. Saul. For it has been taught; If one was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, and the latter could have saved himself by maiming a limb [of the pursuer, e.g., his foot], and did not thus save himself [but killed him instead],
To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
Gen. VI, II
And once they were punished for these offences, they must first have been admonished against them.
Ibid. 'Corrupted his way' connotes immorality; cf. the way of a man with a maid. Prov. XXX, 19.
Deut. IV, 16.
How does he utilize this latter verse?
But is not intended to imply a prohibition.
Gen. IX, 6.
I.e., who deduces it from the verse, all the Lord commanded.
I.e., by the sword, v. p. 380 n. 5; but the fact of execution is taught elsewhere.
Ibid. 3.
I.e., only as that which grows wild, without any owners; but not as that which is cultivated, hence owned by someone. This proves that robbery was forbidden them.
V. n. 8.
Which was prohibited to Adam, v. infra 59b.
Ibid. 4. 'Flesh with the blood thereof' means flesh cut from the living animal.
V. n. 8.
V. infra 59a, b.
Ibid. This, of course, is a direct negation of emasculation.
V. p. 386, n. 8,
But it is not intended to convey any prohibition.
Ibid. VI, 20; hence different species are not to be crossed.
V. p. 386, n. 8.
It being easier to mate with the same species than with another; but no prohibition is implied thereby.
The term be Rab does not necessarily mean the school presided over by Rab, though it may have that meaning occasionally. In one sense, it connotes the school founded by him, but lasting many generations after his lifetime. In another, it denotes schools in general. In this very instance, the views attributed to be Rab conflict with the teaching of Rab, Rab Judah, and all his disciples (Weiss. Dor II, p. 206.)
[H]: a mnemonic is given to facilitate the remembering of the subjects of a discussion. Here it stands for Gilluy 'Arayoth — adultery; Shefikuth damin — murder; and birkath ha-shem — blasphemy.
Gen. IX, 6.
That as bloodshed was forbidden on pain of death, so were the others too.
Heb. [H]. Lev. XXIV, 15: Any man ([H]) that curseth his God shall bear his sin. Ibid. XVIII, 6: No man ([H]) shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. In both cases one referring to blasphemy, and the other to incest, the repetition of ish extends the law to embrace heathens too.
Lev. XX, 2: Whosoever he be (ish ish ) of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Moloch (i.e., engages in idol worship); he shall surely be put to death. The repetition then, here too, should extend the death penalty for idolatry to heathens.
I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death; for only in speaking of Jews is it necessary to distinguish between prohibition and punishment.
Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.
In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]
Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.
'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).
[I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]
But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.
Both are regarded as robbers the latter because they permit their charges to graze in other people's fields.
One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible, therefore he is forced to speak of punishment.
E.g., the gathering in of the grapes. Deut. XXIII, 25 is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to work in connection with the finishing touch given to the produce.
Not merely bordering thereon.
A small coin, one-eighth of the Roman as.
One does not mind such a trifle, and readily forgives it.
Even such a trifle, v. infra 59a.
This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses
I.e., non-actionable.
R. Dimi was a Palestinian Amora of the fourth century, who travelled to and fro between, Babylon and Palestine, and was very zealous in transmitting the teachings of Palestine Scholars to his colleagues in Babylon (v. J. E. IV, 603; cf. p. 361, n. 5, supra.
This, though not actual robbery, is similar to it.
A deed is either actual murder or not. Even unwitting murder is murder, though the Almighty shewed mercy by sparing the murderer.


And Void,
How do you explain the USS Liberty incident?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25454
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby AutSider » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:18 am

AutSider wrote:You're the ones preoccupied with what Jews write. I care about what they do.


Maybe I'd care enough to check sources for somebody else... Void? Nah. Not worth my time.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Why European Culture is Hated

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:58 pm

AutSider wrote:Why European Culture is Hated.



Image

I prefer the word "Faustians“ to describe what Occidentals really are. The words "Europeans“ and "Westerners“ tell us more about geographical aspects than about what this people really are. Faustians have the absolute will, are absloutely dynamic (energetic), very intelligent, they are by far the best technicians, inventers, designers, scientists, geniuses, artists, poets and thinkers ... and so on; but they are all this in the negative way too, which means, for example, that they can get a very bad conscience, if correspondending circumstances are given: so, for example, in the case of decadence (nihilism) they use their absolute will, their absolute dynamics (energy), their high intelligence and all their other high features against themselves. :o

So the Faustians are very successful people - by far the most successful people of all times (see above) -, but they are very tragic people too. Maybe that success and tragedy correlate with each other, at least in the long run. It is very likely that the end of this tragedy will really be that the Faustians will have sacrificed themselves. :o
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users