Total posts: 767
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Sin is a Hebrew transliteration. It means missing the target. For example, archers and those using slingshots sinned if they missed. If you are late for work you sin against your employer. If you exceed the speed limit you sin against the government, the law.
Sin is one of the English words used when translating any of a number of different Hebrew words. Trespass, transgression, sin, wrongdoing, crime... all have subtle shades of meaning or at least they might. In the Hebrew there are 4 or 5 words that occur regularly to indicate categories of misdeeds. One of those words is "chet" (with that gutteral ch sound) which is related to the word that means "to miss" as in "the arrow missed the target." This does not mean that any use of that root indicates that category of sin.
The root word is also used in Leviticus to mean something very, very different.
Created:
Posted in:
If you want to say that some sort of worship of a "Satan" character is anything then just call it Christian. Don't drag Judaism into this. In Judaism, Satan is an angel who works for God. There is no notion of Satan's being some opposing force worthy of separate worship.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The two references you are looking for are not to be found in the written text -- they come from the mind of someone who hasn't heard a new joke in 50 or so years so he is injecting old jokes into his posts. The earlier reference is to a Muslim tradition (I guess) so it won't be found in the biblical text, but it gives the writer an opportunity to try to get a rise out of people by using the verb "jew" in a way that some might find offensive and react to. Meh.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
a couple of points -- no, Moses wasn't "Jewish" because that label didn't exist then. Also, the version of a Moses-based story told through teh lens of Islam removes this from being relevant to Judaism. If you wrote about the Islamic stories surrounding Jesus, the topic wouldn't automatically be Christianity.
Created:
why would this be tagged "Judaism" when it has nothing to do with Judaism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
'pointing them out' that's a bit strong. More like saying there is a misconception and then leaving it at that.
OK, I'm pointing them out and saying that to understand a complex concept, one should start by understanding that he doesn't know instead of assuming he does know. It takes Jews years of study to understand to the level that we understand but if someone wants to spout off and show ignorance, I can't provide years of levels of learning. I can simply say "no, that's wrong". People don't like being told they are wrong I guess.
Yea I've heard that one before. That's what they say when you asked how god can be one and three at the same time.
I don't recall ever asking that.
So a 1st century text that speaks of covering during prayer is proof that a different practice existed years earlier? That's a weird contention. Any interesting Greek or Roman sources validate that?
but they are a strong indicator given their origin and the lack of other evidence.
you mean, lack of other evidence that you accept as evidence. The biblical text must not carry any weight.
Created:
Posted in:
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.
I'm not complaining, just pointing them out. If instead of making them, people chose to ask questions and understand that the practices exist in a larger theological context, they would understand that expecting simple answers is foolish.
Har har har, so funny. Look if you don't want to discuss it anymore just stop posting.
I'm having a fun time here. If you don't like the tenor of my posts, stop responding.
I also shouldn't get it from books where people say that if they had married at 14 they would have conquered the evil inclination entirely. Can't always get what you need.
great, then get it from no where and stick with your own state of not knowing.
The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?
Even though it is referenced in the biblical texts? How can it be that a biblical practice is not mentioned in non-Jewish texts? Maybe they are not the final arbiter of what Jewish people did.
Created:
Posted in:
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.
You seem to think it can be explained glibly and concisely to someone who hasn't studied the laws and legal system.
Moving the goalposts. Full context:
no, I corrected exactly what you claimed.
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
I could also have shown you a talmudic statement about covering the head all the time that dates (easily) to 100 years earlier. This was clearly a practice that was known (though often considered minhag chasidut). You can keep thinking it is some later innovation but the texts show your error.
You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?
Is Rabbi Yehoshua a verse? I had no idea.
You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah
You shouldn't get your information from wikipedia.
I think you're confused. You asked a different question about women wearing hair coverings.
You have completely missed the point. You are using the fact that there is no reference in non-Jewish texts to help you conclude that a practice didn't exist. But women covering their hair is another practice -- if it isn't mentioned in non-Jewish texts, you should draw the same conclusion. If you don't, then you are cherry picking when you use ancient, non-Jewish texts to validate the existence of Jewish practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's just a line that you can't cross on shabbot. It's got nothing to do with ownership, lots, use, just "because"?
so then you shouldn't try to invoke ownership. It is only "just because" because you don't happen to understand the complex concept. Instead of accepting that there is stuff you don't know, you insist on labeling it according to your pre-existing scheme.
He died 410 CE.
and if you think that he invented a practice, that's great. Judaism teaches that he was codifying a practice that predates him because that's how the talmud operates.
He is basing himself on the same verse that was quoted right beforehand.
You never explained why Tractate Kiddushin 29b said that it was not a common practice for unmarried men to wear a hat.
I didn't know I was supposed to. That text is talking about a thing called a "sudar" which is a specific type of head covering that was used by married men and sages. It isn't a hat, nor a kippah, but a turban (see Pesachim 111b). So kiddushin doesn't say what you claim it does.
Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"
exactly -- so there is no non-Jewish writing about it, and yet you accept that it was a practice. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.
but there is nothing in the Jewish concept about ownership so the question of "your" house is immaterial.
Well you haven't contradicted him in substance about the eruv line.
the eruv (shituf mevo'ot) exists - what's to contradict. It is a bit more complex than as presented and the problem isn't in the fact that its existence is documented, but in the presentation of it as a trick. It has nothing to do with tricking anyone.
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
Kiddushin 31a
"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."
I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.
what non-Jewish texts do they rely on for that? Where is this attested to by non-Jewish sources from the time in question?
They decide. Today it's just one guys boast. Tomorrow it's recommended. The next day it's required. Then eventually somebody spins some BS that allows the requirement to be bypassed (which was the OP point about eruv lines and water bottles).
that is, indeed, your preconceived opinion based in your worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The forum part of the site is intended to test arguments out for debates or to set up arguments for debates later on.
can you show me that in the documentation for this site? It seems, then, that a whole bunch of the threads here (and therefore, the authors) didn't get that memo.
On the front page, the forum is described as "A classic forum with all familiar features for those who prefer discussions without formats". The Help section on Forums does not support your claim either. In fact, under "Basics" the text reads, "Our forum section provides a space for users to engage in more casual conversations, ask questions, and share their thoughts on a wide range of topics. Users can create their own forum topics and participate in discussions with other members."
Please provide some support for your position on the intentions of this forum. TIA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is a debate site. It isn't for proselytizing or arrogance. Th fact you only stick with one topic and don't even debate that specific topic but instead "clarify" without actually making argumentation but instead just giving a perspective is problematic.
this is a forum on a site that also hosts debates. It isn't a space for debates but for conversation. The fact that you speak about things you don't know and then don't learn about is problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
To learn, preferably through continual deconstruction of your beliefs
then we have a serious disagreement. Argumentation is about advancing and defending positions and then considering challenges to those positions and reevaluating the position based on new facts.
They should be treated equally yes. If not why?
because the "blank slate" of a child who doesn't know language is different from the "blank slate" of someone who has studied all sorts of things but not one particular subject. That you equate them is sad.
I am for the most part. We can't completely avoid bias but we should try to eradicate any strong beliefs as hard as we can. Nothing should be taboo and any bias should be eliminated if it is discovered.
No, you aren't, because you are starting with assumptions and an established position (look at the title of this entire thread; it bespeaks an established belief). Your language and approach make it clear that you have a very muddled slate and are trying to convince others that your confusion is useful.
Explain
you think that calling your state of misunderstanding and preconceived (erroneous) opinions is a "blank slate" and this will make you unable to learn anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".
really? I have a friend who lives on an estate which is substantially larger than a few city blocks. Is that not his private property? Are you making the mistake of taking the English wording "domain of a single person" and considering it just from your perception of what you think makes sense?
Why would you be debating it online if the evaluation of others meant nothing to you?
I'm not debating it, nor is it useful to debate it with someone who simply doesn't know it. I am discussing and trying to correct misunderstandings. I didn't start this topic -- the title of this is not "do the Jews..." but is worded as a claim "how the Jews..." so it is incumbent on me to explain that the titled claim is in error. There is nothing to debate because I have information and the person who posted it has none.
No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.
So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it, you assume it doesn't exist. The talmud pretty explicitly teaches about it, not as a hint but a explicit practice. Do the non-Jewish texts discuss whether a woman should cover her hair once she is married? I'm curious.
It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).
except that people who study the text understand the difference between legal requirements and random comments in the text. This is why snipping little bits of text out of context isn't very useful.
Created:
Posted in:
I suspect that you have strong beliefs and that you don't approach analysis of an argument from a tabula rasa perspective before addressing it. Those are flaws.This is why it is shocking to you that somebody would accept an argument at face value prior to attacking it and you see doing so as som sort of weakness.
I suspect that you don't understand the goals of argumentation and learning and think that all blank slates are equal and that you are working from a blank slate. That's a serious error on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If you disprove your mistake or argument how is that not learning why they were wrong?
because you have not learned anything of substance; you have just reassured yourself by looking online for bits and pieces that you think are relevant but have no way of vetting them because you never actually learned the ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
When you value disproving your own mistakes over actually learning why they were mistakes in the first place, you have already lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You certainly haven't backed down in your claims about Judaism, and that's a subject you know nothing about, so good for you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
correct. If I already am well informed about a topic than I am not going to learn much if anything by discussing it. If already am well informed it just goes into my obsidian writing and is there for somebody to read if I die. It's all completely unencrypted.What would I gain from discussions where I am already an expert in the subject matter?
so you are asking to debate about something you don't know. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I suppose I should also take it as granted that one musttrick oneself first if one aims at tricking god.
Since I don’t understand the conceptof “tricking” God, this statement is useless to me
No I don't know hebrew and I don'tknow what reshut hayachid means, but "the domain of a single person"sounds incompatible with "several city blocks". There is the spiritand the letter, but I know that people leave out letters they don't like andignore extravagant interpretations they don't like while embracing the onesthey do.
People invent a “spirit” to excusenon-observance when they haven’t studied the law or want to avoid it. Did youknow that acres and acres of forest can be considered “private property”? Thatdoesn’t seem really “private” to me. I guess the legal definition doesn’t haveto comport with my non-legal understanding.
you seem to be making excuses for theconcept instead of disowning or rejecting the description of the commandmentitself. Why would I disown or reject God’slaw?
Since you haven't used the simple outI think it's a good bet that you are caught in this web of some guy a thousandyears ago deciding that the 4th commandment from exodus meant "stay inyour house because you shouldn't even think about working around theproperty" (or something) but now you want to stop by starbucks and that'sresting isn't it?
Again, you are imposing your beliefsfrom the outside and that means nothing to me.
Unscoped rationality (global scope)has this to say: God doesn't care what you decide is the "domain of asingle person", he didn't care about the exaggerations of some guy 1000years ago, in fact if he cared about any human behavior at all and was willingto empower prophets with miracles to convince people he would just tell youabout it.
That’s a fine worldview, but not onethat accords with Judaism. What if I were to say “your system is mired in selfdelusion and a lack of understanding about history”? I would hope you would say“your opinion of my system has no bearing on what my system actually is.”
I think I had a similar impressionabout the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn'tdo that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from asection of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.
You insist that Jews did not always dothat. Do you have any evidence of that? Photos maybe? And, again, if you usethe fact that an idea is discussed in the Talmud as an automatic statement thatit therefore is less valid as a divine commandment then you are speaking fromoutside the system and your opinion is worthless. No offense, but the thousandsof years of history and practice of Judaism doesn’t fail because you, anoutsider, have decided that it doesn’t make sense to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No, the takes were separate from theclaims.
Actually, if you look, you presentedthem as claims, not “takes.” Only when I told you that they were invalid asclaims are you now admitting that they were just opinions.
No, I never advocated for that. Iexpanded on what I said. You accept it 100% and then immediately startchallenging your new belief.
So you challenged it by studying thelaws and investigating their behavior and learning whether or not their claimconforms to Jewish law, right? Or did you just have a “cynical observation”because of your opinions?
You can claim they are breakingJewish law by putting a water bottle under their seat and I can't find anyresults, but I am sure many people would disagree.
Be as sure as you want to be. You’d bewrong. There is a reason you can’t find any results…because it doesn’t exist.
you don't. See how easy that is
Actually, I do. Laws were given so Ifollow them – that’s why he gave them. You intuit his intention and don’t. Butsince you can’t know that his intent is any different from what he says, youare inevitably wrong.
It's on the listener or the reader toparse opinion and fact.
that’s because you see presentingintellectually dishonest positions as a valid method.
the point of debate is not to advance true positions.
So feel free to think you are doing somethinguseful by advancing lies. Good luck with your lies.
I already destroyed premise one and dida better job of it than you. Your criticism of it here is worse than thecriticism I presented and insufficient. I would destroy you in a competitivedebate.
Be proud that you undermined your ownposition if that’s what you need. I showed that your statement didn’t even riseto the level of premise. You seem not to understand what that means.
stupid take. No debate judge willagree with this criticism and you would lose points and it would likely costyou the debate.
You would already have lost byadvancing opinions as premises. No judge would reward you for pushing lies andopinions when you know they aren’t claims or logical premises.
Sometimes correct fact can take toolong to explain and then the timer goes off before it is able to be explained
So if a correct fact takes too long,state an incorrect claim. Brilliant! And I’m sorry that the timer on aninternet forum is forcing you to post wrong information. Life can be sopressure filled, knowing that the messages will disappear if you don’t,quickly, post lies. You clearly know very little aboutrhetoric and sound argumentation but think you have something to provide toothers. You are in serious error. Add arrogance to your list of faults.
So pick any topic that doesn't fairlyadvantage you
You mean like knowledge of Judaism, thetopic that you continue to spew about even though you know nothing? Do youoften opine about things you haven’t a clue about? You would not survive fiveminutes in a real debate. Find your refuge behind a website and continue tospout mistakes and champion your idiocy. Feel free to change your position whenconfronted and think that your “training” has any bearing on your ability toput forward a reasonable set of claims and draw a logical conclusion. You haveyet to make a single point that hasn’t been destroyed, from definitions ofwords, to your presumptions about things you haven’t studied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Well it's an opinion not a fact that the mental gymnastics is anattempt to trick.
Good – you're improving, recognizing that yourclaims are just your opinions and not facts.
Ultimately it's merely a cynical take on an observed phenomenon.
Great – so you observe and don’t study and thenmake claims that you later say are just opinions. This seems like soundargumentation to you?
whether something is pedantic or not is entirely opinion. Not afact that is true or untrue. It's a cynical take that you disagree with andthat is fine. If you want to give a less cynical take than that is welcome inthis thread.
OK, so more of your admission that you are notstating facts. So your claims, all based on personal cynicism then carry noparticular weight in any rhetorical context.
I am friends with a Jewish family who does this thing where theyput a water bottle under the drivers seat to trick God into thinking they arein a boat. They claim the command is about "traveling over water". Myopinion is that they are lying to themselves about the spirit of the rule.
Not only is it “unique” to that family but it isalso against Jewish law, categorically. They are inventing a stupid forthemselves and you are assuming that they speak for anyone else in thereligion. Shouldn't you just accept their argument 100%? Isn't that what you advocated before?
However my points about a Eruv line and things such asautomatically starting ovens being legalistic interpretations that disobey thespirit of what God intended still stand.
Because you think that you know what Godintended. You don’t.
The argument essentially being that these legalisticinterpretations are nonsense and disobey the spirit of what God intended.
No, these are applications of law in order tofollow the law precisely. Arguing that you know the “spirit” and intent meansyou are OK avoiding laws because you think they mean something else. Betweenyou and God, I’ll listen to God.
I could be way off base, but my points aren't being addressed byyou other than by the semantic equivalent of saying "nuh uh"
As long as you understand that you are, indeed,way off base.
I am sure there is plenty I have stated that is untrue.
Well, then, why ask me (in post #23) “What statement did I say that was untrue?”
Thats not really how debate works though.
Agreed. One does not debate by advancingpositions that are untrue. Debate isn’t about laying out baseless and wrongclaims and then demanding that someone else prove them wrong even while youknow they might be wrong.
Maybe you teach a critical thinking class or something butargumentation doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Now you should look up the word “irony”.
I have taken a critical thinking class in college. I passed andit was insufficient for debate and the point of the class was to be better atrecognizing bullshit. So it did attempt to tune your bullshit detector, but theknowledge in the class was insufficient for debate.
So you took one class in college. How adorable.This must make you an expert. Well, you admit that the class is insufficient for debate so that also makes it irrelevant. I wonder what your professor would say when youadmit to phrasing opinion as fact and advancing positions which might beuntrue. I’m so glad you passed the class and recognize that your studies wereinsufficient for debate. Someday you might learn that ALL classes should be “criticalthinking classes.”
P1 God has written plainly the rules he wants followed in theTorah, and extrapolations of what is plainly obvious is a fools errand
This is another set of opinions. Your premiseshouldn’t be an opinion. Your feeling about what is “written plainly” is yourview and your calling something a “fool’s errand” is just your opinion. So, no,no premise here.
p2- many Jews extrapolate things from the commands that are notplainly obvius like Eruvs.
Oof, more mistakes. Jewish law establishes,based on text and accepted Jewish methodology, the concept of what you arecalling an eruv. This also relies on your opinion of “plainly obvious” soanother non-premise.àconclusion - the Jews who do this are on a fools errandAnd a conclusion that comes from 2 non-premisesis a non-conclusion. QED.Any questions?
The rules are not as plainly written as you may think becausesome things do in fact get lost in translation. Let me explain an example ofhow the Torah is not as plainly written as you believe.......
Ugh. Try not working with translation, or maybeuse a translation that is written from within the system into which the textwas introduced. And I’m not the one who claims the text is “written plainly”—thatwas your opinion in your fake-premise. If you are trying to impress anyone byundermining your own opinions then have fun. I try not to introduce argumentthat is so easily shown to be wrong.
You need to calm down and take a step back and re frame youropponents arguments. so you can understand the logical argument, avoid gettingsucked in by red herrings and inflammatory language and focus on defeating theargument or if you can't than conceding.
You need to stop confusing your opinion foranything more than your opinion, accept that you know so little that yourclaims are flawed, and understand that if you can easily refute your ownsupposed premises, then they are really useless and your conclusions shouldn’tbe trusted. Stop pretending that a class in college taught you anythingrelevant here.
I would absolutely crush you in a debate. All I would have to dois start my round off with some inflammatory language and throw a bunch of redherrings into my argument and my syllogism would likely go unattacked and stillstand in the final round.
So your method in a debate would beintentionally not to argue your point but instead throw in mistakes andattacks. That would “crush” me? You clearly have never been in an actualdebate. And if you can’t see that I have shown your premises to be wrong thenyou certainly couldn’t handle an actual forensic debate.
I could likely argue that the president is a reptile in ahumans body and still defeat you because you'll get distracted byinconsequential bullshit.
You just keep thinking that if it provides youany comfort in that cold, ignorant world you call home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How about this: If you can't trespass people from it, it's not your house.
There are a couple of problems with that -- first off, you are confusing legal property ownership with the concept of "enclosed". I can carry my things on the sabbath in an enclosed area I don't own so it isn't about the "your" part of it.
What if a township wanted to follow those same religious definitions and nclose community property? I can't trespass people (though I haven't heard the word used as a verb before) but I can carry. The question is about the definition of "boundary" and "enclosed" not about ownership. This very often happens when people try to translate the Hebrew reshut hayachid (literally "the domain of a single person") as "personal property." But that's not what the term means.
So, again, none of this has to do with tricking anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Much of the problem here is that people are assuming that their notion of Jewish holy text is limited to the literal words of the 5 books of Moses. Judaism has never believed that because with only the written text, there is no way to understand, let alone follow the laws. Judaism (at least Orthodoxy) believes that along with the written, there was a simultaneous oral law which included additional laws and explanation of the written ones. Now, anyone can choose not to accept that, but once you know that Judaism has an established set of rules for determining laws and defining their utility, and a whole lot of text that goes well beyond the written books, one can see that no where in there is there any attempt to trick God. In fact, our understanding of the complete canon of law is based on the belief that God gave us a lot more than people outside the system understand.
I'll ask you a question -- assuming (though this is not exactly correct) that one is allowed to carry things inside his own house, can he build an extension on his house and then carry within that? What is the definition of this "extension"? Are there limits in terms of lot coverage, acreage, height, depth? And what constitutes a "wall" enough to determine that the newly enclosed area is, in fact, enclosed?
Judaism has teachings (that we attribute to God) with answers to questions like that and we understand that the minimum to enclose a space for religious understandings can be accomplished by building a very regulated and precise set of visible boundaries around (certain) otherwise undefined areas. This is an application of God's law and God's instructions to us in understanding and working with God's law. So how can that be "tricking"? Our religion teaches of an infinite and all-knowing God. How can it be thought that we are trying to trick the all-knowing? If one were to study the entire body of law and see how these things come about, how they are grounded in text and divine teaching and how they develop, one would not make such statements about the intent of Jewish people when they establish an eruv (though, TBH, the thing commonly called an "eruv" is not exactly one, but a concept called shituf mevo'ot) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What statement did I say that was untrue? That Eruv lines exist?Or is it that you just don't agree with the framing of these things?
when you claim that Jews are trying to trick God, already you are starting with an untruth. When you claim that the explanations of Jewish ideas are the result of "being pedantic" you are stating an untruth. You keep making a claim about a bottle of water in a car. This is also untrue. Should I comb through your ramblings and find more things you wrote that are untrue?
Created:
Posted in:
you really don't understand Judaism at all. The sad part is that you don't have any interest in learning because you think you know everything already. I could give you a list of basic words, or websites that you should try to go through before you think to draw conclusions, but since you are already convinced that you are right, no contrary material is useful.
I mean, you could learn Aramaic and actually learn Jewish law, or you could just project your feelings on little bits and pieces and decide that you are right about everything.
So wallow in your ignorance if you wish. I hope that anyone here who actually wants to learn doesn't just take your tenders for true pay which are not sterling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
nobody denies overrepresentation of jews in these fields. I think it's so plainly obvious thatthis is true that you are not mistaken but outright lying when I mention thatconceding the point is not only true but a good tactic to get at the person'spremises.
Wow…youreally don’t understand then. It is an issue of statistics and definitions.
I hope to God that is alie because you made no attempt to turn my argument into a syllogism and attackthe premises and you seem clueless about how conceding a point can strengthenyour own argument, while disarming an opponent.
Ipointed out that your premises are false and based in your stilted view of aconspiracy laden world. You are driven by your conclusions. Sorry you can’t seebeyond your own biases.
you teach argumentationand never heard of this technique? WTF LOL. It's F Scott Fitzgerald and I thinkAristotle touched on it a bit as well. Here is what f. scott Fitzgerald says.It's a famous quote;"“Thetest of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas inmind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"--
Compartmentalizingparallel or truths is a completely different skill. Tohold an idea in mind is not the same as accepting the truth of an argument. Youare advocating double think instead of critical thinking. You really need to learnmore about so, so much.
I used a classicsyllogism
You usedyour own biases and conspiracy theories and ignorance of Judaism as your bases.All flawed. And yet you want your conclusion to be something other thannonsense.
Premise 1 - if somebodyis trying to genocide a race (loose definition of genocide) than they will showtheir hand by pushing for policies such as open borders in those countries toreplace the host population as well as make efforts to reduce fertility ratethrough methods such as feminesm and the LGBT movement which do lower birthrate.
Premise1 (with its grammatical errors) is flawed as it is only conditionally true, just a guess projecting what you think would happen onto others. And your examplesof methods are steeped in your personal view of them, not on their actualnatures. So, flaws galore.
premise 2- The Jewsare at the forefront of the LGBT movement, open borders and feminism which seemto harm predominantly white countries
Correlationand causality error. Biased understanding of complex social issues also. Youaren’t very good at this. A premise based on “seem to”? Wow.
conclusion- Jews aretrying to genocide europeans
See?Flawed conclusion based on ridiculous claims that don’t even rise to the levelof premises. Yourentire line of thinking is built on mistakes and ignorance. I hope that you don’tthink that your personal insanity is worth teaching to others. I notice youhaven’t tried backing up an actual knowledge of Judaism and think that throwingtogether a question of definitions as some sort of test because you think thatthe diversion will distract people from all your errors. That’s intellectuallydishonest. Should I define that for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I forgot what position I was defending my bad. I disproved the claim either way. Something you failed to do because apparently you skipped logic classes in college or never took them.
so you forgot your own position and disproved what claim exactly? Your own? Claims have to be based in something and yours are based in ignorance. Deal with it. And no, I didn't skip logic class, and I actually teach argumentation. You could benefit from a class or 7.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I don't try to trick God. I don't puta water bottle under my seat and try to convince God it is a boat LOl.
Neither does any Jew.
I was trying to help you out. It's sadthat I had to destroy my own arguments because you couldn't and apparently youhave 40 years of experience. Perhaps it was in speaking past people and notactually turning their argument into a syllogism .
You can’t help me out because you haveno idea what you are talking about and (as you keep admitting) you makemistakes and forget what you are arguing.
This is why I choose not to be a partof any culture. I am not going to go along with factually incorrect things justbecause my culture does.
But not being part makes yourassessment of “factually incorrect” laughably ignorant.
They are useful because if you getsomebody defending the premise that hews are overrepresented in media and bankING because you deny it or lie about it than all you are going to do is makethem more antisemitic. Just admit that it is true and explain why it istrue.
All you are doing is showing that youdon’t understand statistics along with not understanding logic. You should just admit that and move on.
Yes it is an easier way o get to thetruth. You 100% buy into an argument and then you look to disprove it and thenaccept that argument 100% that disproves it and then you worl to disprovethat.
That may be the single dumbest thing Ihave ever heard anyone espouse. Congratulations!
You aren't giving an argument a fairshake if you don't buy into it completely.
And that’s a close second.
There is a reason I know more aboutjudaism than you. For example you had no ideal that many jews use legalisticinterpretations of holy words and ignore the spirit of what God issaying.
It isn’t enough to say you know lessthan I do about Judaism; that's just plain ridiculous. You clearly know nothing about Judaism. You want to putyour bona fides out there that make you such an expert. I’m happy to providemine.
You follow Jesus. That makes you Christian. You think youknow Judaism because of what Christians have taught you. Someday, maybe youwill learn how to vet sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Would you like to do a debate on whether mafia groups and secret societies exist or not, because that is my claim and you seem incredulous that such groups could exist.
no thanks because that isn't a position I took. I just marvel at the full range of imaginary cabals which you have invented.
That in no way makes it a secret coordinated cabal.
really?
You claimed "Obviously not all jews are in the know but there is a top down force among the leaders to accomplish a particular goal" The claim that the leaders, a very specific and exclusive group (thus a group, working together, hence coordinated) are working to advance a specific, evil agenda but not all know about it (thus it is secret)
The rest of your attempt at redefining your statements and introducing your theory of man and society don't change that.
I disagree that it isn't to trick God.
great. Who cares that you disagree. You are making a claim about Judaism when you can do little more than express a personal opinion about Judaism. Don't tell us why we do what we do. You don't know us better than we know ourselves.
I know what pilpul is and we are using different words to describe the exact same thing.
no, you really don't, especially if you think we are describing the same thing.
It seems that Jewish people often create legalistic interpretations of the word of God to escape what the spirit of his rulings are saying.
It might seem that way to you but who cares how something seems to you. That doesn't affect what it is according to those in the thing's culture.
The Eruv roof in New York is another example of legalistic interpretations meant to trick God, though I am sure you will disagree it is an attempt to trick.
The idea that you think it is possible to trick God is proof enough that you know nothing of Judaism and its God concept. You also clearly don't know anything about the legal concept you are trying to denigrate. So you lash out and show your ignorance. Go off and google it and I'm sure you can find some soundbites that can adequately miseducate you formally.
I will help here. Legalistic interpretations of scripture to avoid following scripture is in fact an attempt to trick God. You know what he meant.
Whether it is "in fact" isn't something I'm qualified to judge because that scenario is alien to Judaism.
I always start by believing any argument I see as true.
you what?????
you are Jewish. You have a personal responsibility to destroy bad arguments.
Yes, I have been doing it online for close to 40 years and in person for most of that as well.
The problem isn't bad arguments, it is insane arguers who invent their own premises, shift goal posts by trying to redefine terms and start by making assumptions instead of recognizing their own ignorance.
It's not a fair responsibility, however given the current climate on campuses and on the world stage and the growing rate of antisemitism you need to learn how to stand up for your people. I have some tips.
seriously, there isn't a single tip you could give me. I could give you a few like "take your meds" and "ask instead of assuming you know"
2. Concede to true points like Jewish overrepresentation in segments of society such as banking or media, but contextualize the over representation so it doesn't feel so malevolent
see, here you are already introducing premises that need not be foundationally useful and you are swallowing statistics blindly. If you start like that then you will be swayed by whoever speaks loudest.
I hope that some day, you realize that there is a whole world that exists in a real sense and you don't get to tell it its rules. Good luck growing up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ah okay, so Hitler wasnt Amalek?
there is no way to know since we don't know who Amalek is these days.
You dont know what Hitler might say about being a good speaker. You do know what Hitler might say about being a good speaker.
so I do or don't? Which is it?
I dont either, because he didnt write a manual and you dont speak like Hitler. Maybe AI knows. Wait, let me try.
If you don't then how do you know that what I suggested is wrong? You have already presented the possibility that I do know and never presented the possibility that YOU know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So it cant happen but it happened?
No, it can't happen so it didn't happen.
I would ask him how did he became such a good speaker.
He might say it started with his mastery of simple grammar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Strawman I never stated or insinuated that.
Actually, you did -- "Obviously not all jews are in the know but there is a top down force among the leaders to accomplish a particular goal"
Nice way to dodge all of my questions such s why 1/3 of jews attending the funeral of a guy whose main message was that the goyim should be enslaved.
Already answered.
It also doesn't really answer my questions as to why so many Jews in academia seem to be leading the charge on things harmful to Eastern civilization such as mass migration and trying to transition children.
you see what you are looking for. They "seem" to you because that's the conclusion you want to draw.
I don't know if a Jewish mafia type group exists at those levels or not. Since we have white cabals of groups trying to push agendas, black cabals, Hispanic cabals, and Asian cabals I am also not sure why we would assume there are zero secret Jewish groups pushing agendas. Not sure why they would be the only group on the planet isolated from such action.
ah, so your conspiracy theory expands! There are many cabals all trying to control the world. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
His teaching was that non jews were the slavesof jews https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2010-10-20/ty-article/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews/0000017f-db45-d3ff-a7ff-fbe547cd0000
Ovadia was a politician among other things and said things about people that advanced his political standing sometimes. His opinions that he presented in (for example) a 2010 interview are not his religious teachings. Those comments were roundly criticized by Jewish groups in Israel and abroad.
My understanding is it is jews arguing over how to interpret the words of holy texts. It's why a lot of them try to trick God into thinking they are riding in a boat by putting a bottle of water under their driver's seat. If I am misunderstanding it my bad but I thought it was getting pedantic when arguing over religious text.
That's not really what pilpul is nor is it any attempt to "trick" God (as if that is possible). Pilpul has to do with precise textual reading and the use of logical argumentation and textual supports to advance an understanding of a larger legal concept.
My assumption is that they agreed with his teaching that Goyim should be enslaved. If they went to his funeral for other reasons besides support for the racist teachings than I am curious. As to why?
You would be wrong. He was the Sephardic chief rabbi who issued many actual religious rulings and who did many things to help the overall Israeli Jewish community. He was also a political leader and many flocked to his political identity. And in Judaism, it is a very large commandment to attend a funeral and escort the body of the dead person. So people went for many, many reasons, having nothing to do with his personal position that he expressed in 2010.
There is no response ses to those questions when you Google it or ask jews. I pm whiteflame with questions about this shit all the time and he never gas a defense or answers. He is just like *shrug "I don't believe that stuff or even know who that rabbi is"
Really? No response. And yet here I am responding.
You seem to know so little about Judaism and how it works and how people within it are bound or not bound by certain obligations. You should reevaluate your approach if your method is to read something, assume it is true and then impose your value system and ask why is this so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So you are buyi g into the conspiracy theory of some elite cabal of Jews somehow controls the world. Got it. I'll update your card so I remember.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It can't happen but many people think Hitler was from Amalek. What would you do if you came across Hitler?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You clearly don't understand who Ovadia Yosef was, what he taught, what pilpul means and why people went to his funeral. Maybe you should start by asking general questions to address your knowledge gaps instead if letting random websites give you soundbites that you mistake for news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Amalek is descended from Edom which is connected to Rome so Amalek would be from a "white" group, but since we don't know who Amalek is these days, we do not advocate genocide against anyone, "white" or otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I watched half the video and can't figure out how you came to the conclusion you did. Judaism has a commandment to destroy (even) the memory of Amalek. Most understand that we don't know who Amalek is now (this is explained talmudically so this isn't a new belief) so we can't fulfill the commandment. Others say that anyone who acts like Amalek, trying to kill us, is from there and we have the obligation to kill those who rise up against us.
Your video moves very quickly, though, into a discussion of Edom (the Roman empire). There is no commandment to kill Edom but there is a belief that in the future messianic days, the influence of the Roman empire (that is, western influences that work against Judaism) will be removed. That's what the messianic dream is all about -- all the world recognizing God and not attacking the Jews.
How you get to whether we are "trying to genocide" anyone is unclear to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Lest we forget as well, Jesus became His own Father and a bastard child (manzar) through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was NOT His paternal father!
the Hebrew word you are looking for is "mamzer"
Joseph's not being the father (suggesting Mary's infidelity) does not automatically mean the child is a mamzer. If she had relations with a non-Jew, the resulting child is not a mamzer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
All true, but that means that when engaging in any conversation, it is essential that the participants define terms and come to agreement about linguistic ground rules. For the word "Zionism" people don't do that, and even worse, many are unaware of any other meaning/subgroup and assume not that their understanding is the right one, but is the only one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The broadest definition, though, would not be practical and useful since in its application, it would never be agreed upon. Consider one person for whom "Zionism" means "theological Zionism" (self-rule under the structure of a religious government, fulfilling biblical religious functions) and another person believes in Political Zioniasm which embraces a secular government.
Never the twain shall meet. So even though both are pursuing an autonomy (as per the definition), its iteration would be exclusive to its variety and a conversation between each of them and a third party about "Zionism" would be very different from each other, often saying opposite things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Zionism is simply the wish for Jewish autonomy. For many, it is centered around the geographical/biblical notion of a nation of Israel in the land now called Israel. But that's a really broad thumbnail sketch. There are so many sub-genres including religious Zionism, political Zionism, messianic Zionism, Christian Zionism, theological Zionism, and others.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't know anything about that story or the Book of Noah. The sotah ritual, though, was not in place until after the giving of he law at Sinai and only applied to Jews (and there are other reasons...). Since the Lemech era was well before, I would hazard to guess that the ritual would not have been used.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
where in the bible is she suspected of anything?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Adah or Zillah?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the section you quoted is the "Sotah" ritual. In this ritual, a woman suspected of adultery, but who swears she hasn't committed it (and whose behavior fits a specific set of requirements) must drink a certain water. If she is innocent, she will become pregnant afterwards, but if she is guilty,
אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה
"her thigh will fall and her belly will swell."
It mentions nothing about miscarrying -- that is an interpretation people make assuming that, if she cheated, she would be pregnant and a suitable punishment would be the loss of the child. But that's not in the text at all.
The biblical reference to something akin to abortion is referenced at the beginning of this article
Created:
Here's one:
Resolved -- That the existence of God can be proven
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
those definitions are skewed in particular ways. Because Zionism actually refers to a wide variety of different manifestations and even ideologies, using it as an umbrella term becomes cumbersome. The "anti" material is also focused on a narrow part of that attitude, ignoring a lot of other stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
sadly, the hatred often comes before the reason. See the "other" and then vilify him so as to justify hating the other.
Created: