Shocking parts of jewish religion -- according to Shahak -- Is this true ?

[Baltazar]

Here are some of my thought after reading the link I refer to
-Do they look upon non-jews as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose ??

-Are there any truth to what the jewist professor Israel Shahak writes in this book ?

-I would like to hear some views about this rather disturbing "information".

-I would like that some jews here and others can explain some of this !!


Here are the first part of the review:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Israel Shahak
about
Jewish "Religion"

Jewish History, Jewish Religion
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Notes

Book Review:

When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the peoples of the world in their intense hatred and contempt for all peoples but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.

Notable among these was the reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in "Von den Juden und Ihren Lugen":

"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle…[/quote]
the rest is here (the whole link):
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis.htm


This sucject fits better inn here. I tried to post this thread in the pit, but it was closed after 18-20 replies because the replies was of too much of an immature nature.
I suggest that these and similar members don't repeat this activety just to get this thread closed. You don't fool me twice!


Moderator's Notes: I've deleted the major portion of your copyright post. It was just too much. Don't do this again.


[Edited by UncleBeer on 08-24-2001 at 07:31 AM]

[Spiny Norman]

I believe Coventry is very nice this time of year. Bu-bye.

[andygirl]

I would just like to point out that on other pages of your weblink it states, among other things, that Jews are trying to "be in the actual process of providing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm

On that same page is praises Hitler, says that Judaism is essentailly communism, It also says that Hitler was "not anti-Semitic, but anti-Talmudic."

That same page also engages in Holocaust downplaying/denial, twists the numbers of Jews who were in Europe at that time, says that WWII was a merry time for all under Hitler's power, calls Hitler a moderate, and basically says that he wasn't a bad guy at all.

This page http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/priest.htm states, among other things, that Catholics believe in a "wafer-god" and are going to burn for their worshipping of graven images.

On their FAQ http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/abc.htm they say that Christians are those "born of Adam's race."

One can only specuate what that means.

They've also got a great conspiracy section http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/weekdx.htm wherin they invoke members of secret societies, the Illuminati, Rhodes Scholars,

This comes from a half-hour examination of the site. I'm sure that there's more gems there, but one can only examine so much of this before the ears start to bleed.

I don't know enough about what that professor wrote to answer it (I suspect some of the Jewish dopers will be along shortly) but I'm thinking that it's a bunch of anti-semitic claptrap.

If you want a reasonable debate you might want to find a cite that isn't so farfetched, hateful, and smacking of Nazis. Such a biased reference does not lend itself to debate, nor does it cast any great light on your motives in posting it.

[andygirl]

I forgot this gem of a link, which explains why the Holocaust did not in fact happen.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm

Explain yourself, please.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Baltazar
Here are some of my thought after reading the link I refer to
-Do they look upon non-jews as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose ??
Are you saying this is a quote from the book? Do you have a page number for me? (you said in the pit thread that you had not read the book yet)

Or is this a quote from the biblebelievers.nimrod?

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by andygirl
I would just like to point out that on other pages of your weblink it states, among other things, that Jews are trying to "be in the actual process of providing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm

On that same page is praises Hitler, says that Judaism is essentailly communism, It also says that Hitler was "not anti-Semitic, but anti-Talmudic."

That same page also engages in Holocaust downplaying/denial, twists the numbers of Jews who were in Europe at that time, says that WWII was a merry time for all under Hitler's power, calls Hitler a moderate, and basically says that he wasn't a bad guy at all.

This page http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/priest.htm states, among other things, that Catholics believe in a "wafer-god" and are going to burn for their worshipping of graven images.

On their FAQ http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/abc.htm they say that Christians are those "born of Adam's race."

One can only specuate what that means.

They've also got a great conspiracy section http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/weekdx.htm wherin they invoke members of secret societies, the Illuminati, Rhodes Scholars,

This comes from a half-hour examination of the site. I'm sure that there's more gems there, but one can only examine so much of this before the ears start to bleed.

I don't know enough about what that professor wrote to answer it (I suspect some of the Jewish dopers will be along shortly) but I'm thinking that it's a bunch of anti-semitic claptrap.

If you want a reasonable debate you might want to find a cite that isn't so farfetched, hateful, and smacking of Nazis. Such a biased reference does not lend itself to debate, nor does it cast any great light on your motives in posting it.

I'm not religious nor am I very nationalistic.
Shahak aren't fake he's a Israely jew.

Here is some link for you abour Shahak:
http://www.mideastmiscellany.org/Israel%20Shahak%20Dead.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,517411,00.html

http://www.miftah.org/articles/sharma.htm
..

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by spooje
Originally posted by Baltazar
Here are some of my thought after reading the link I refer to
-Do they look upon non-jews as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose ??
Are you saying this is a quote from the book? Do you have a page number for me? (you said in the pit thread that you had not read the book yet)

Or is this a quote from the biblebelievers.nimrod?

Not a quote from the book.
It's some thought I had after reading some of Shahaks work.

[andygirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baltazar

I'm not religious nor am I very nationalistic.
Shahak aren't fake he's a Israely jew.

You didn't answer me. Who Shahak is doesn't matter in the context of my post- I was questioning if the webpage was any more than Nazi babble. If you would care to address this, we will all be waiting with bated breath.

Incidentally, him being a Jew doesn't in any way make him immune from anti-Semitism. Self-hatred is a common enough phenomenon.

It would also be interesting to know why you believe what he is saying and if you have cites for it.

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by andygirl
I would just like to point out that on other pages of your weblink it states, among other things, that Jews are trying to "be in the actual process of providing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm

On that same page is praises Hitler, says that Judaism is essentailly communism, It also says that Hitler was "not anti-Semitic, but anti-Talmudic."

That same page also engages in Holocaust downplaying/denial, twists the numbers of Jews who were in Europe at that time, says that WWII was a merry time for all under Hitler's power, calls Hitler a moderate, and basically says that he wasn't a bad guy at all.

This page http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/priest.htm states, among other things, that Catholics believe in a "wafer-god" and are going to burn for their worshipping of graven images.

On their FAQ http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/abc.htm they say that Christians are those "born of Adam's race."

One can only specuate what that means.

They've also got a great conspiracy section http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/weekdx.htm wherin they invoke members of secret societies, the Illuminati, Rhodes Scholars,

This comes from a half-hour examination of the site. I'm sure that there's more gems there, but one can only examine so much of this before the ears start to bleed.

I don't know enough about what that professor wrote to answer it (I suspect some of the Jewish dopers will be along shortly) but I'm thinking that it's a bunch of anti-semitic claptrap.

If you want a reasonable debate you might want to find a cite that isn't so farfetched, hateful, and smacking of Nazis. Such a biased reference does not lend itself to debate, nor does it cast any great light on your motives in posting it.

I base my thoughts on what Shahak writes, and not on any extreme religious or nationalistic sites or viewpoints. I was not born yesterday.
Here are some links about Shahak:
http://www.mideastmiscellany.org/Israel%20Shahak%20Dead.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,517411,00.html

http://www.miftah.org/articles/sharma.htm

[andygirl]

I read them the first time, thanks.

1) You still have not answered to the fact that the webpage is hateful claptrap.

2) You not being religious or nationalistic matters how in regards to this point?

3) I have heard of Shahak before. No religion or institution should be immune from criticism, but it seems like this webpage is using his words to further their Nazi views. Any thoughts on that?

4) The way you are presenting this seems as if you expect us all to run away hating the dirty Jews. Interesting. One can only speculate what the owners of this webpage would do to minorities were they in charge of a country.

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by andygirl
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baltazar
[B]
It would also be interesting to know why you believe what he is saying and if you have cites for it.

It fits very well according to my observations the last 10-12 years.

I think Shahak writes the truth, but I also thinks he exaggerates. (I haven't read the whole book though).
I must also say that I think his description fits first and foremost on the more nationalistic and extremistic parts of jews and Israelis. Perhaps most where orthodoxy- and zionistic ideology meet. The problem is that this is a very effective group with a lot of power.



I can say this to you if you are questioning my motives:
I am not a neo-nazi and I do not denie that 5-6 million jews was killed during ww2.
.

[C K Dexter Haven]

The technical term for those comments is "rabid anti-semitism." For the record, such comments are untrue, perioid. Bold, outrageous, ridiculous lies and sheer propaganda.

Alas, they are not new lies. They go back as far as Paul, who was angered at being rejected by the Jews and said some very, um, un-Christian things about them.

The essence of very early Christianity was to try to supplant Judaism, or be an evolution from Judaism. When that failed, the thought emerged that Judaism was "failed" and the Jews were "evil" so that the new religion could replace it. (Hard to argue that you worship the Messiah of the Jews, but the Jews don't worship him, unless you argue that the Jews are misguided, evil, depraved.)

So the lies are very old, and, amazingly, still effective and still believed (though, thank God, only by the lunatic fringe.) They were used as the justification of seizing ewish property, rounding up Jews in ghettos, robbing and murdering Jews. It's a bizarre reversal, but the people who espouse those arguments try to make the Jews into "sub-humans" (while claiming that it is the Jews who view Christians as "useful animals.")

Sorry, bud, it ain't the Jews who view others as sub-human, it's the vicious antisemites and racists who do that.

It is certainly true that there have been Jews who are every bit as lunatic as Christians. There was indeed a rabbinic statement that the Biblical laws did not apply to non-Jews, but it was never OK to murder non-Jews. The distinctions were more subtle -- for example, non-Jews living amidst Jews were not required to follow the Jewish laws of Sabbath, for example. The worst example is the question of whether one could violate religious rules to save a life, for which (to their eternal shame) early rulings were different if the life being saved was Jewish or not.

However, if we want to go that route, we might also bring up the Christian notion that it's OK to kill heretics and nonbelievers (like Aztecs, Incas, Jews, Protestants, etc.). Those notions were imbedded in Christian practice for centuries.

In any case, the notion that Judaism is "malevolent" while Christianity is "benevolent" is obvious propoganda.

[edwino]

Dunno why I'm bothering replying after the pit thread or assorted other posts of the OPer, but:

Jeez, Baltazar, you're really quite a broken record, aren't you.

1) It doesn't matter that Shahak was Jewish. There are plenty of secular Jews in Israel who are anti-Orthodox. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think Jews are all evil. Nor does it mean that they would particularly be more comfortable with fundamentalism of any flavor (namely Muslim and Christian).
2) The web site which your OP is based on also contains misinformation about the Holocaust and anti-Catholic diatribe. Your OP information is therefore from a shoddy source. Would you care to provide additional cites from somewhere other than biblebelievers? From somebody (other than Shahak) who actually knows something about Judaism.
3) Do you care to explain your opinion? Is it only based on this one source? Have you ever met any Jews? Have they treated you poorly? Have you been maligned by Jews?

[C K Dexter Haven]

It occurs to me that my last statements might be taken as condemning Catholicism, and I hasten to add that, for centuries, the Protestants thought it was perfectly OK to murder Catholics, too.

[IzzyR]

I feel that I would be remiss if I did not comment on this issue.

It is impossible to fully explain the exact nature of Talmudic expression and organization to someone who has not studied in extensively. In general, it is somewhat loosely organized, with something of a tendency to teach by example and derive the principles from them, And it is very given to metaphor, particularly when applying Biblical phrases to situations - often these are not intended to serve as literal descriptions, but rather some aspect or characteristic, or to make some point.

The Talmud is very un-PC, in terms of expressing opinions about groups of people which might be regarded as offensive by today's standards. These cut both ways and apply to both Gentiles and Jews (e.g. the Talmudic statement "most thieves are Jews"). There are also many positive statements about both groups. The Talmud was intended for an audience that understood the context and mode of expression in which it was written.

So the important issue is not whether this or that quote is fabricated, but rather whether the overall picture presented in the Talmud is that suggested by Shahak, or whether he mined the Talmud for quotes that supported his thesis (he appears to have been very troubled by Zionism)? Perhaps more to the point - do Jews (particularly religious ones) actually go about with these attitudes about Gentiles?

I could personally answer these questions from my own experience. But this would be useless. I might just be another one of those Jews faking out the Gentiles about the Real Inner Secret. So I would suggest that people base their judgement on their own observations of people they know. Do they seem to be bigoted (more than any other group)? Is it likely (or possible) that a large group of people could keep as a secret their contempt for others? I don't think so. YMMV.

;j

[andygirl]

Originally posted by Baltazar
It fits very well according to my observations the last 10-12 years.

Which are?

I think Shahak writes the truth, but I also thinks he exaggerates. (I haven't read the whole book though).

What does he write the truth about and what is he exaggerating? We need more details here. Specific quotes and books would be nice- he's written quite a few.

I must also say that I think his description fits first and foremost on the more nationalistic and extremistic parts of jews and Israelis. Perhaps most where orthodoxy- and zionistic ideology meet. The problem is that this is a very effective group with a lot of power.

Much like... say, fundamentalists in America?

I can say this to you if you are questioning my motives:
I am not a neo-nazi and I do not denie that 5-6 million jews was killed during ww2.

You saying that doesn't mean a thing. I can say that I'm Bill Gates. I can affirm and swear up and down that I own Microsoft. That doesn't make it true. And you saying "but it is true" isn't a good answer.

What you have to understand is that your arguement cannot be divorced from the cites you use. You are using a biased and hate-filled webpage as a primary source of information, and you have to answer to that or be faced with being called an anti-semite.

Find something about the guy that doesn't involve people screaming about the evil Jews and Praise Jesus and then you might get a real debate.

[andygirl]

Whew. I was waiting for the calvary to arrive.

[Monty]

Originally posted by Baltazar
It fits very well according to my observations the last 10-12 years.

Ah, so you're 12 years old then. That would put you in the 5th, 6th, or 7th grade.

Here's a hint: Don't believe everything you read.

Another hint: Not everything in the Bible is literally true.

And yet another: Not every website that has the word "Bible" in its title is literally true.

These gems were gleaned from my 42 years of observation.

Now take your racist and bigoted tush elswhere.

[Waverly]

You’ve done this already trollboy. The writer of that ‘book-report’ has bit of an agenda. How about going back to the source material to make your case, or do you prefer to rely on someone else’s interpretation? I’m still waiting for you to cough up anything that corroborates these allegations. If Jews exploit gentiles “as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose”, then surely you can cite some ways in which they do this. I’ll wait.

[sdimbert]

::sdimbert imitates Jon Stewart rubbing his eyes and staring at the camera in mock surprise::

Huuuuh?!?

I thought there was something wrong with the Board... wasn't this Thread already tossed into the Pit then locked by Tuba?

Do you all realize that Baltazar is quoting an uncredited Book Review?!

[Magic Patience Hat ON]

Baltazar, this should not be difficult to understand. In this Forum, we debate issues. The way this is done is by presenting propositions and supporting them with credible sources.

Your OP does not do this. Instead, you've posted some hateful, unsupported lies and asked the rest of us to dispute them. That's simply not the way this works.

Here's an illustration. Over at this (http://www.flat-earth.org/society/about.mhtml) site, a bunch of yo-yos propose that:

While the Society is not a "crackpot" group, it is opposed to the fashionable, politically correct Spherical Earth theory, which is expounded every day by so-called "scientists", the media and political leaders. The Society asserts that the Earth is flat and has five sides...[/b]

Now, I could post that silliness here and ask everyone to "explain" it to me. But, if someone like andygirl pointed me to NASA or space.com or some other credible source, I would have to either 1) terminate the debate or 2) find another source, equally credible to her’s that disputed her position and supported mine.

You've been accused here (and elsewhere) of supporting an untenable anti-Semitic position. If you want us to believe that you're anything more than a troubled misanthrope, you're going to need to do better than simply spouting propaganda and denying non-existent ad-hominem attacks.

[Magic Patience Han OFF]

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by Monty
Originally posted by Baltazar
It fits very well according to my observations the last 10-12 years.

Ah, so you're 12 years old then. That would put you in the 5th, 6th, or 7th grade.
I'm over 27 years old.

Here's a hint: Don't believe everything you read.

Another hint: Not everything in the Bible is literally true.

And yet another: Not every website that has the word "Bible" in its title is literally true.

I don't believe in the bible. Period.
I'm not christian or religious.

Now take your racist and bigoted tush elswhere.
[b]I'm attacking jewish culture, religion and nationality bcause I beelieve that part of it's racistic. Perhaps fundamental parts.

[Mars Horizon]

I'm counting down the minutes until this thread gets moved to the pit (again!) or closed....

[DocCathode]

These millenia old lies about the Jewish people are
just the kind of ignorance that the Straight Dope was created to fight.

1 Before Passover, the celebration of the exodus from Egypt, first-born-males fast to remember the deaths of the last plague. The Haggadah, the prayer book containing the Passover service, reminds us many times that the Egyptians were also God's children and that we should be saddened by the suffering and death they experienced.


2 The Talmud assures us that all righteous people may share in heaven-Jew, gentile, Invisible-Pink-Unicorn worshippers etc.

3 As Izzy has said, there are plenty of people who hate themselves and their heritage. Mostly they turn up on Springer, wearing hoods and wanting to be the first Jews in the KKK. Sadly, sometimes they also write books.

On a side note-Izzy would you be willing to start a "Ask The Talmud Guy" thread?

[lucwarm]

Why deny the holocaust if you are in favor of finishing what Hitler started?

[Tamerlane]

Baltazar: You never really answered my question in the Pit. Your reply then, and your reply here, has been that your personal experience supports Shahak's views. That's not really an answer, when I asked for evidence. Perhaps you could try going into a little more detail on this experience of yours. And after that, I'd like to see something of a less subjective nature, like has been requested by other posters in this incarnation of this thread.

Extreme views may not always require extreme evidence, but they do require more than you've provided. And lest it be in doubt ( though from the "welcome" you've received, I don't see how it could be ), this is an extreme view.

Frankly, you've already been rebutted, both directly and by link. If you are defending the views expressed in this book review ( and it appears to be obvious you came in here with some level of support for this stuff ), then I'd like to see a response to those rebuttals. Have they altered your opinion? If not, why not?

Of course if you are just trolling, never mind.

- Tamerlane

[Monty]

Originally posted by Baltazar
Originally posted by Monty
Originally posted by Baltazar
It fits very well according to my observations the last 10-12 years.

Ah, so you're 12 years old then. That would put you in the 5th, 6th, or 7th grade.
I'm over 27 years old.

Then how about acting it instead of the display of 10-12 year old behavior. Adults, especially those with critical reading skills, have learned to support and defend theses.

Here's a hint: Don't believe everything you read.

Another hint: Not everything in the Bible is literally true.

And yet another: Not every website that has the word "Bible" in its title is literally true.

I don't believe in the bible. Period.
I'm not christian or religious.

Then what's got you uptight against Judaism? For someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, it's kind of odd that the only reference you can find is a site called "Biblebelievers." ::rollseyes::

Now take your racist and bigoted tush elswhere.
I'm attacking jewish culture, religion and nationality bcause I beelieve that part of it's racistic. Perhaps fundamental parts.

As has been asked already: What brings you to that conclusion besides ONE unsupported tome?

Note to Mods: When's this getting moved to the Pit?

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by Waverly
If Jews exploit gentiles “as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose”, then surely you can cite some ways in which they do this. I’ll wait.

Not jews in general.


From chapter 5:

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.48 In more recent times, when laws were passed in most countries making it mandatory to return lost articles, the rabbinical authorities instructed Jews to do what these laws say, as an act of civil obedience to the state - but not as a religious duty, that is without making a positive effort to discover the owner if it is not probable that he is Jewish.

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'. Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our rule', but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'


Gentiles in the Land of lsrael
The exact geographical definition of the term 'Land of Israel' is much disputed in the Talmud and the talmudic literature, and the debate has continued in modern times between the various shades of zionist opinion. According to the maximalist view, the Land of Israel includes (in addition to Palestine itself) not only the whole of Sinai, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, but also considerable parts of Turkey.(Interesting)


Murder and Genocide
ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.
When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2


PRAYERS
Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one of the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile.59 The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the most solemn part of the service on New Year's day and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: 'We must praise the Lord of all ... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help.

[Waverly]

OK. Here’s how a debate works [I won’t even call it a Great Debate, because frankly it sucks donkeys]: andygirl, IzzyR, sdimbert, and myself [sorry if I missed someone] all make points or question the veracity of your argument. You are supposed to address these statements to the best of your ability. Instead you have just stated your age and your assurance that you are not radical nor religious. You are a trolling anti-Semitic goose-stepping grand inquisitor.

[Captain Amazing]

So, do you have any sources other than this guy's book, mebbe? The simplest answer to your question is "No, it's not true. Shahak is taking it all out of context and ignoring the facts that contradict him".

[Waverly]

I was about to apologize, thinking you had actually thought out some arguments. Alas, you are cutting and pasting from the exact same book review!. We read it. It’s linked in the OP. I want examples of these activities being carried out, evidence from other credible sources, evidence from the primary source and not biblebeliever.com’s slanted review of it. Does any of this make sense?

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Baltazar
Originally posted by Waverly
If Jews exploit gentiles “as some kind of usefull animals they can use for their own purpose”, then surely you can cite some ways in which they do this. I’ll wait.

Not jews in general.

[Pointless anti-Semetic silliness removed]



Baltazar,

One last time.

I am going to say this slowly: IDON'TCAREWHATTHATBOOKSAYS. If you want to seriously engage in debate here, you're going to need more than one source.

I suspect that one of the following is true:
[list=1]
You have no other sources and are afraid to admit it.
You lack the mental capacity to wrap your head around the way we do things here.
You are not seriously interested in debate.
[/list=1]

If any of these are the case, please do us all the favor of just going away.

[Tamerlane]

Easy Waverly. I understand the annoyance, but don't let yourself get chastized by the mods over something this inane :) . There's always the Pit.

Baltazar: I'll let someone more knowledgeable about the Talmud than me respond to your specific points ( though I may try to find a refutation on the web, if I can ). But I'll note that you're just quoting from your single source, not providing corraborating evidence to support it, as has been requested.

- Tamerlane

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by DocCathode
As Izzy has said, there are plenty of people who hate themselves and their heritage. Mostly they turn up on Springer, wearing hoods and wanting to be the first Jews in the KKK. Sadly, sometimes they also write books.

My I remind you that Shahak is a 68 year old professor who survived the Holocaust.
He's not likely the kind of person who would turn up in Jerry Springer show.

[andros]

My I remind you that Shahak is a 68 year old professor who survived the Holocaust.
He's not likely the kind of person who would turn up in Jerry Springer show.

And he's also a drooling idiot. what's your point?

[Gaudere]

You are a trolling anti-Semitic goose-stepping grand inquisitor.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Well, you ARE going to get chastized for something this inane, because you apparently lack the self-control to respond as appropriate to this forum. Calling someone names is an even *worse* attempt at debate than Baltazar's.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Waverly]

Originally posted by Gaudere
[Moderator Hat ON]

Well, you ARE going to get chastized for something this inane, because you apparently lack the self-control to respond as appropriate to this forum. Calling someone names is an even *worse* attempt at debate than Baltazar's.

[Moderator Hat OFF]
I respectfully withdraw this unneeded ad hominem. I should have let Baltazar’s own attitude speak for itself.

[Baltazar]

I do however think that the Talmud can be interpreted in more than one way.

There's difference between liberals and orthodox.

[Cap'n Crude]

Once again, I violate my personal code and venture into the GD forum. Maybe someday I'll learn better.

Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one of the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile.

This sounds vaguely like the Sh'ma, but it's a pretty funky misinterpretation of it. Sh'ma Yisroel: Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad. Baruch shem k'vod malchuto leolam va'ed. Translated, this is "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Blessed is his glorious kingdom forever and ever."

The story behind this blessing is that Jacob (who was also called Israel) was worried in his old age that his sons would lose touch with tradition and faith when they went to Egypt (this is part of the story of Joseph). The prayer is Jacob's sons affirming their solidarity with the religion and customs of their father. Nothing more, nothing less. Every religion has something similar, AFAIK.

That was quick. Now let me out of here. I gotta go back to MPSIMS where it's safe.

[andros]

There's difference between liberals and orthodox.

And you do not know what those differences are.

Would you like to learn?

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Baltazar: You never really answered my question in the Pit. Your reply then, and your reply here, has been that your personal experience supports Shahak's views. That's not really an answer, when I asked for evidence. Perhaps you could try going into a little more detail on this experience of yours. And after that, I'd like to see something of a less subjective nature, like has been requested by other posters in this incarnation of this thread.

I suspected this loong before I by accident came over shahak.
He confirmed my deepest fear and suspicions of what Judayism and jewish nationalism really was. It's true face was revealed.
.

[andros]

Oh, and I mean to ask: Is English your native language?

[yojimbo]

Originally posted by Baltazar
It's true face was revealed.

Nope. YOUR true face has been revealed.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Cap'n Crude
This sounds vaguely like the Sh'ma, but it's a pretty funky misinterpretation of it. Sh'ma Yisroel: Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad. Baruch shem k'vod malchuto leolam va'ed. Translated, this is "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Blessed is his glorious kingdom forever and ever."

I think rather than the Sh'ma, he was talking about "Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech haolam shelo asani goy" which sort of translates to "not made me a Gentile", even though "one of the nations" is probably better. That goes along with the blessing that one has not been made a slave, or a woman. The blessing doesn't neccesarily connote an attitude of natural superiority, though. Free men have more religious obligations than slaves, men more than women, and Jews more then Gentiles. The blessing is for the fact that you're requirements are higher, and you're held to a stricter standard.

[DPWhite]

There is nothing moderate about this thread. It is disgusting, hateful, neo-Nazi garbage without absolutely no redeeming social importance. Please see if it can be removed.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Baltazar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tamerlane

I suspected this loong before I by accident came over shahak.
He confirmed my deepest fear and suspicions of what Judayism and jewish nationalism really was. It's true face was revealed.


Let me give you a clue or two, for free before you are banned for what you are.

(a) When pretending to be (i) either an adult or (ii) something more than a drooling sub-literate garden variety anti-semite you should take care to display a basic mastery of the English language. The proper adjective is Judiasm, which you can locate in the dictionary. Your misplaced use of the y here and in other places suggests illiteracy or childish command of English, or both. You will find that future, if futile forays will be met with less ridicule if you display such a mastery.
(b) In attempting to peddle anti-semitism one should take greater care to find citations to sites which are less obviously fetid (and poorly written) swamps of racism and neonazism. Again, this will allow you to at least not be ridiculed by thinking persons.
(c) When attempting to appear "neutral" observe the writing styles of non anti-semitic writers and attempt to copy, the above is so laughably obvious that it scarcely merits a comment. At the very least you might accidentally become literate.

Your obvious bigotry, however, in general is pedestrain and uninteresting, try taking it somewhere else.

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by edwino
1) It doesn't matter that Shahak was Jewish. There are plenty of secular Jews in Israel who are anti-Orthodox.
I'm fully aware of this.

2) The web site which your OP is based on also contains misinformation about the Holocaust and anti-Catholic diatribe.
I didn't search specific after this side. I came over it when I was searching for some issues about the Middle East. I don't care much for the ordinary skinhead/nazi propaganda. That is the big shame really. Zionists are very eager to link Shahak to nazis and such groups.

3) Do you care to explain your opinion? Is it only based on this one source? Have you ever met any Jews? Have they treated you poorly? Have you been maligned by Jews?
My opinion is that people and especially politicans should be aware of what Shahak writes. People shouldn't be to naive about Israel, Sionism and jewish religion (especially Americans shouldn't be).

I have never meet any jews.

[cmkeller]

All right, time for me to jump into the fray as well.

Some of these I can answer without even going back to the Bais Midrash (we never hold world-conspiracy meetings on Fridays, too busy preparing for Sabbath). Others will have to wait until after the weekend, if this thread isn't closed by then.

In true "golem" fashion (Pirkei Avoth reference), I'll start by answering the last points first:

PRAYERS
Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one of the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile.59 The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the most solemn part of the service on New Year's day and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: 'We must praise the Lord of all ... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help.

Yes, that's right. We think we know the truth about these matters, and that people who worship other faiths don't. Whoa, what a SHOCKER! We actually think that what we believe is correct! Like, maybe that's why we believe in it?

At the very least, you might note that the prayer statements you quoted above don't condemn those of other faiths as evil, but merely as "mistaken."

Yes, we think that what we believe in is correct, and that those who disagree with us are not. And of course, we're happy to be correct. If this is so terrible, then yes, we're guilty of that.

The other things I intend to look up and see exactly what context your precious Shahak took the quotes out of. However, if you'll forgive my repeating myself (which you should, considering that you posted this in three different forums), I am boggled why anyone would be surprised that people think those who don't believe what they do are mistaken, or why it would be a bad thing for them to thank G-d for not being amongst the mistaken.

[Collounsbury]

Bloody hell, you all understand of course that an evil computer djinn slipped Tamerlane in there and in fact the quote goes to our OP, such as he is.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Baltazar
My I remind you that Shahak is a 68 year old professor who survived the Holocaust.

And my grandfather was an 85-year old man who survived his mother's abusive live-in boyfriend (of sorts), the death of his own father when he was 9, deaths of siblings before and after, two wars, and was poetry editor for the Washington Post in addition to working at the Library of Congress. His poetry and essays were published numerous times, as were his translations of French works, such as those by Andre Chouraqui. He also helped to found a church (which I still attend) and the school I went to from 1986 to 1995.

The fact that someone is old and has been through lots of bad things does not make them anyone to turn to for advice or knowledge. And the fact that Shahak was a chemistry professor has little, if anything, to do with his ability to interpret the Torah, Talmud, or any other historical document. And as Captain Amazing pointed out in the Pit thread, nobody worth their weight in salt in the academic world, from historians to scholars to renowned religious minds, has endorsed Shahak's views.

When you say one thing and the world says another . . . you kinda gotta wonder.

andros: Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?:)

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baltazar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tamerlane
(c) When attempting to appear "neutral" observe the writing styles of non anti-semitic writers and attempt to copy, the above is so laughably obvious that it scarcely merits a comment. At the very least you might accidentally become literate.


I haven't said nothing about being neutral.
But I'm open for the fact that I must upgrade or change my views about jews. (I must however say that I have gotten less sympathy for them over the last 7-9 year or so)

Perhaps most of what Shahak's writes are false ? But I don't really think so. However, I do not buy everything he writes about this issues.
.

[Jodi]

BALTAZAR --

I have never meet any jews.

Well, there's your problem in a nutshell. But then, it's much easier to ascribe to them all kinds of bigotry and evil if you've never actually met one, isn't it?

I will NOT attack you because I haven't yet seen evidence you truly are a trolling bigot as opposed to a person wishing, albeit inartfully, to discuss this book. The moment I see anything indicating you are the former, this conversation is over.

Couple of points:

1. The fact that Shahak is an Israeli and a Jew does not mean he is correct, or has any greater insight into Jewish beliefs and texts than any other Jew. The Neo-Nazis hanging out in Idaho are white, Christian (they claim), and from the American Pacific Northwest. That does not mean they are correct in their racist interpretation of Biblical texts.

2. The fact that you have have found a book making particular accusations or putting forth a certain theory does not mean the accusations are true or the theory correct. A book can act as a starting point for you to explore the theories therein (as it seems you have attempted to do with this thread), but then you cannot simply parrot "The book says this, the books says that; the author claims this, the author claims that." You cannot point to the very thing you are investigating for proof of it's own validity; a book is not self-proving.

3. The fact that you have found in this book a theory that fits with what you "suspected all along" should also make you very suspicious. What were your "suspicions" based on? Surely not interaction with Jewish people, since you now admit you've never so much as met one. Be aware and beware of your own emotionalism, because if you are truly attempting to find the truth of this or any other subject, it will only lead you astray.

4. If you are not religious, as you claim, then it should raise a red flag with you that you are relying solely on a site called "Bible Believers." There is some inherent tension between fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews, naturally arising from the belief by each that they are right and the other is wrong. Never get your information from a source that has an obvious agenda to skew that information one way or the other.

5. Never rely upon a book you haven't personally read.

[David B]

Baltazar said:
I have never meet any jews.How do you know? There are ways of hiding the little horns on their heads, you know.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
The proper adjective is Judiasm, which you can locate in the dictionary.

<SNIP>

Your obvious bigotry, however, in general is pedestrain and uninteresting, try taking it somewhere else.

Or he might try switching the "ia" and the "ai":)

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by iampunha
Originally posted by Baltazar
My I remind you that Shahak is a 68 year old professor who survived the Holocaust.

And my grandfather was an 85-year old man who survived his mother's abusive live-in boyfriend (of sorts), the death of his own father when he was 9, deaths of siblings before and after, two wars, and was poetry editor for the Washington Post in addition to working at the Library of Congress. His poetry and essays were published numerous times, as were his translations of French works, such as those by Andre Chouraqui. He also helped to found a church (which I still attend) and the school I went to from 1986 to 1995.

The fact that someone is old and has been through lots of bad things does not make them anyone to turn to for advice or knowledge. And the fact that Shahak was a chemistry professor has little, if anything, to do with his ability to interpret the Torah, Talmud, or any other historical document. And as Captain Amazing pointed out in the Pit thread, nobody worth their weight in salt in the academic world, from historians to scholars to renowned religious minds, has endorsed Shahak's views.

When you say one thing and the world says another . . . you kinda gotta wonder.

andros: Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?:)

I'm not talking about a guarantee here. I'm just saying that he's an old educated professor who probably have a lot more credibility than a 25 year old hothead with strong opinions.

[Baltazar]

Originally posted by David B
Baltazar said:
I have never meet any jews.How do you know? There are ways of hiding the little horns on their heads, you know.

Thsi can be used in both a negative and positive way.

[andygirl]

Even a 25 year old talmudic scholar?

You have never met any Jewish people. Ever. Then where does this wealth of suspicions about the religion and Israel come from?

[andygirl]

Originally posted by Baltazar

Thsi can be used in both a negative and positive way.

Amazingly enough, so can this message board.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Baltazar
I'm not talking about a guarantee here. I'm just saying that he's an old educated professor who probably have a lot more credibility than a 25 year old hothead with strong opinions.

Yes. An educated professor. In chemistry. Not history or religion or any sort, or something else useful like linguistics. Chemistry.

What are his credentials regarding his knowledge of history? Why should anyone believe him at his word?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Baltazar
I'm not talking about a guarantee here. I'm just saying that he's an old educated professor who probably have a lot more credibility than a 25 year old hothead with strong opinions.

Well, but he was a Chemistry professor, and I'm willing to believe he was educated about chemistry, but that doesn't mean he knew enough about Judaism to write a book about it. I have a masters degree in government, and would have a BA in History (Thanks a lot, Mr. "No double majors even if you have the credits"), but that doesn't mean I could tell you anything about calculus, for example.

[Baltazar]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MOST PEOPLE HERE.

I seems like most of you don't even considers the option that some of the things Shahak writes may be true.

.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, it's more that you don't consider the possibility that what he writes may be false. If you're going to say "What he says is true", you need evidence from somebody other than him. There's no rule saying that just because a person says something, it's true.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Baltazar

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MOST PEOPLE HERE.

I seems like most of you don't even considers the option that some of the things Shahak writes may be true.

.

No, no, no, no, no.

You still don't get it.

I don't consider the possibility of his conclusions being true because I already know that they aren't.

Unless you can show me corroborative evidence that outweighs the years and years I've spent immersed in Jewish Study, I'm going to continue to know that his conclusions are spurious.

[Waverly]

If a certain someone had bothered to do some research he may have found an anecdote offered by Shahak to explain his stance:
I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighbourhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting with the members of the Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem, which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such behaviour was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequences of such an act puts Jews in danger, violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake.- Israel Shahak

So did I find the compelling evidence that I had been asking for since this debate originated in the depths of the pit? Well, at least something worthy of debate, but it takes a great acrobatic leap of hatred to condemn all Jews based on this anecdote. And keep in mind that is an anecdote. There is also quite bit missing from the story. Was the man OK? Presumably, or Shahak would undoubtedly have mentioned it. Did someone else offer to make the call? Would the first person have relented had help not been forthcoming? We simply don’t know. It may be true that taken literally, the ancient Talmudic law is xenophobic, but how many take and apply it so literally? I’ll spare everyone the tedium of retelling bible tales that would be disturbing if taken literally.

Of note is the fact that modern Israeli law does not distinguish between Jews and gentiles [surprise]. What’s more, placed in it’s proper context in time and location, the gentiles mentioned in the ancient laws were generally at war with the Jewish peoples. Does context matter? Consider this: In York it is still legal to kill a Scotsman with bow… excepting Sundays. Is this an indicator of past hatred? Yes. Is it reason to mistrust the British? No.

[andros]

People shouldn't be to naive about Israel, Sionism and jewish religion (especially Americans shouldn't be).

I have never meet any jews.

You don't even see the flaw there, do you? You admit to supreme ignorance of Jews and Judaism, and yet you demand and end to naïvety.

Educate yourself, dammit!!!

[Papermache Prince]

Baltazar

Maybe you haven't >met< any Jews, but I'll betcha you've eaten more than one kosher item in the last month without even knowing it.

[/cackle] eh-eh-eh [/cackle off]

[iampunha]

[Haley Joel Osment]

I see Jewish people . . .

[/Haley Joel Osment]

[rjung]

Originally posted by Baltazar
I seems like most of you don't even considers the option that some of the things Shahak writes may be true.
Not quite; we don't consider that his ideas may be true if he is the only source for those claims.

Or, to put it another way, I can say that I'm the king of the world and that everyone must obey me, but unless I've got something to support that claim besides my saying so, nobody here would believe it. And they shouldn't.

(Not to wander into Pit territory here, but it's folks like you that test my will in the fight against ignorance...)

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by rjung
Or, to put it another way, I can say that I'm the king of the world and that everyone must obey me, but unless I've got something to support that claim besides my saying so, nobody here would believe it. And they shouldn't.


Well, but Rjung, he wrote a book and all, so... I mean, you know somebody wouldn't write something unless it were true.

[Jodi]

I might also add, in light of WAVERLY's post, that the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israelis are no more the only example of Jews (or Judaism) than ultra-fundamentalist Christians are the only example of Christians (or Christianity).

There are extremely conservative fringes of almost every major religion. The beliefs of such people cannot safely be imputed to everyone else in their religion. So even if Shahak's theories were correct -- and there is no proof that they are -- you could not safely apply his conclusions to all of Judaism or all of Israel.

[JeffB]

Originally posted by Baltazar
I have never meet any jews.

And yet, you've formed your opinions based on your "observations the last 10-12 years" and that you've "gotten less sympathy for them over the last 7-9 year or so)." So what "observations" are you basing your opinions on?

Where do you live that, as a 27-year-old, you have never met any Jews?

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Baltazar

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MOST PEOPLE HERE.

I seems like most of you don't even considers the option that some of the things Shahak writes may be true.

.

:eek:

What's wrong with us? Hmmm..if you call condemning anti-Semitism wrong...

[tomndebb]

I seems like most of you don't even considers the option that some of the things Shahak writes may be true.You have posted one book review from a rabidly anti-Jewish web site with a few quotes that may or may not be in context from a book written by a Jew who has one perspective of the Jewish experience based exclusively on his personal reactions to living in Israel.

If you wander over to the U.S. - The evil empire (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81554) thread you will find several U.S. citizens saying very similar things about the U.S.--and a number of U.S. citizens opposing that sort of position.

Based on the "logic" you have thus demonstrated, we must conclude that only the anti-American sentiments are honest and valid while the pro-American sentiments must be merely cover-up of the True American Agenda.

You have also claimed that "your experience" confirms the opinions found in the book review, although you have provided no evidence that you have any experience beyond your acknowledgment that you are not (knowingly) acquainted with any Jews.


If you would like for this to be a debate, or even a discussion, then you must provide more for your position than simply claiming that this single book review by an anti-Jewish hate group of a single book by one disaffected Jew provides Truth. I would be willing to accept that several incidents in the book may have occurred (even as Shahak described them). People are no damned good and you can find hatred and despicable actions and beliefs among any group of people. For you to make a substantial argument, however, you need to provide a record of a clear pattern of behavior and thought from more than one source.

(I fail to see how the Jews could be plotting the submission of the whole world to their nefarious plots when Jack Chick has assured me that it is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is so engaged. There is a good "single source" for information. Jack actually claims to have been a Catholic at one time, too.)

[andros]

In other words, when you asked in the thread title "Is this true?" the answer is a resounding "No. No, it is not."

It's clear, my friend, that you have no interest in learning one damned thing here.

And I'm sorry for you.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by andros
In other words, when you asked in the thread title "Is this true?" the answer is a resounding "No. No, it is not."


I tried to tell him that in the pit (the first thread), but I guess he didn't listen.

[capacitor]

Are you kidding me?? What is this ridiclousness? Haven't you heard of the statement, "If the Jews weren't busy fighting others, they would fight each other." And Shahak is a prime example. The Jews would attack each other just as voiceferously, or more, than they attack any other group. I ought to know. I was in a college in which 70% of the students are Jewish. Mmm the backbiting they do on each other and on famous Jewish people still rings in my ears. In my experience, I find them to be highly self-critical, even in areas where they shouldn't be.

I have had the unfortunate experience hearing about Jewish people blaming the Holocaust on their own people, thinking that if they would have done more to work to stem the runaway inflation and misery plaguing Germany during the 1920's, Hitler and Goebbles would not have risen to power. This is akin to a woman blaming herself for sexually used or abused, because she might have unintentionally turned the assailant on.

[DocCathode]

Acording to Balt's profile, he's located in western
Europe. I didn't think it was possible to live there for 27 years and not see a Jew. Then again, depending on the country B's in perhaps all the Jews are keeping quiet due to pogroms.

Baltazar, just what counrty are you in? My entire neighborhood is filled with Jews from western Europe. I'm sure I can find some who came from your country and can supply me with information on the size and visibility of the Jewish population.

On a side note- I confess to the Jewish conspiracy. We will take over the world. Every street will be required to hava a kosher deli. The Elders of Zion will end world hunger-bagels, gefilte fish, and brisket will be free for the asking. Barbara Streissand's head will be added to Mt Rushmore. And everyone will be legally required to call their mama once a day.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Baltazar
Perhaps most of what Shahak's writes are false ? But I don't really think so. However, I do not buy everything he writes about this issues.
. Does this mean you've gotten around to reading the whole book?

[edwino]

I tell ya, one day I'm finally gonna get around to writing my masterwork, Protocols of the Elders of Des Moines for times just like this.

[JeffB]

Originally posted by DocCathode
On a side note- I confess to the Jewish conspiracy. We will take over the world. Every street will be required to hava a kosher deli. The Elders of Zion will end world hunger-bagels, gefilte fish, and brisket will be free for the asking. Barbara Streissand's head will be added to Mt Rushmore. And everyone will be legally required to call their mama once a day.

You know, if those are the results of the Jews taking over the world, I can live with it. I'd love to have a kosher deli close by. Heck, I'd settle for a koser deli within 10 miles. I will pass on the gefilte fish, though, and concentrate on the brisket instead. And as long as you're talking about Barbara Streisand's actual head, I'm all for that, too.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Originally posted by DocCathode
2 The Talmud assures us that all righteous people may share in heaven-Jew, gentile, Invisible-Pink-Unicorn worshippers etc.

<snip>

On a side note-Izzy would you be willing to start a "Ask The Talmud Guy" thread?

Please do. I am interested in learning more about that bit in the Talmud about Jews being thieves. Also, I was under the impression that Jews didn't believe in a literal Heaven, and I am curious to know what kind of afterlife they do believe in, if any.Originally posted by JeffB

Originally posted by DocCathode
On a side note- I confess to the Jewish conspiracy. We will take over the world. Every street will be required to hava a kosher deli. The Elders of Zion will end world hunger-bagels, gefilte fish, and brisket will be free for the asking. Barbara Streissand's head will be added to Mt Rushmore. And everyone will be legally required to call their mama once a day.

You know, if those are the results of the Jews taking over the world, I can live with it. I'd love to have a kosher deli close by. Heck, I'd settle for a koser deli within 10 miles. I will pass on the gefilte fish, though, and concentrate on the brisket instead. And as long as you're talking about Barbara Streisand's actual head, I'm all for that, too.


ROFLMAO! Another perfectly good keyboard destroyed by transnasal coffee. I was going to say, up until the Streisand thing I was going to just passively accept the Jewish takeover, but I wouldn't stand for that. But with your spin on it, I say it can't happen soon enough. :D

[Hiyruu]

People should be allowed to take a revisionist look at historical facts without right wing Jewish groups pulling their "Your a Nazi" card in any debate.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Hiyruu
People should be allowed to take a revisionist look at historical facts without right wing Jewish groups pulling their "Your a Nazi" card in any debate.

No doubt, they should. Of course, that's not happening here, (and in fact, I see neither a discussion of history nor right wing Jewish groups), so I wonder why you bring it up.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Hiyruu
People should be allowed to take a revisionist look at historical facts without right wing Jewish groups pulling their "Your a Nazi" card in any debate.

:shocked:

I'm in a right-wish Jewish group and I didn't even know it!

I demand a recount.

[Hiyruu]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Originally posted by Hiyruu
People should be allowed to take a revisionist look at historical facts without right wing Jewish groups pulling their "Your a Nazi" card in any debate.

No doubt, they should. Of course, that's not happening here, (and in fact, I see neither a discussion of history nor right wing Jewish groups), so I wonder why you bring it up.

Lets say a professor in a University challenged the so called "Facts" he would probably loose his job because the university is probably sponsored by offshoots of B'nai Birith or another jewish group of that nature.

Why the hell has the U.S been funding Israel's military? Perhaps they have been setting up the war from behind the scenes.

[Kyla]

Baltazar, you can put away the sock puppets. People aren't going to agree with you any more because you're using a new name.

[tomndebb]

Lets say a professor in a University challenged the so called "Facts" he would probably loose his job because the university is probably sponsored by offshoots of B'nai Birith or another jewish group of that nature.Given the number of openly anti-Jewish college professors I have encountered (including those who attained tenure after letting their feelings show), I think we can dismiss this claim as pure bullshit.

(I have heard of two college teachers (one in the U.S. and one Canadian) whose jobs were threatened for teaching that the Holocaust never happened, but that is a simple matter of firing an incompetent for teaching lies. There are many college professors who are hostile to the actions of Israel in regards to the Palestinian situation who blythely teach their views with no interference.)

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by Hiyruu
Lets say a professor in a University challenged the so called "Facts" he would probably loose his job because the university is probably sponsored by offshoots of B'nai Birith or another jewish group of that nature.

Cite, please. :rolleyes:

Why the hell has the U.S been funding Israel's military? Perhaps they have been setting up the war from behind the scenes.

Did Mr. Shahak also mention that the US has sent money to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc...? Because that clearly proves that the US also supports the world Islamic conspiracy. :rolleyes:

[Spoke]

Baltazar, it ought to have occurred to you by now that you have cast your seeds of hatred upon stony ground.

Now let's all join hands and sing, shall we?

[Waverly]

Originally posted by spoke-
Baltazar, it ought to have occurred to you by now that you have cast your seeds of hatred upon stony ground.

Now let's all join hands and sing, shall we?
Intolerant verbal Onanism? I like the sound of that.

Hiyruu: Some proof of professors being silenced by colleges in thrall to the Jewish conspiracy please. Let’s not make these things up if we can’t support them. Also, would you expand on “setting up the war from behind the scenes” and provide some proof of this as well?

[David B]

Hiyruu said:
Lets say a professor in a University challenged the so called "Facts" he would probably loose his job because the university is probably sponsored by offshoots of B'nai Birith or another jewish group of that nature. How about a different "let's say"? Let's say you actually find out what you're talking about before spewing it here?

The fact of the matter is that one of the most well-known Holocaust deniers of past years is a professor at Northwestern University. He has not been fired and even has used a Northwestern University website (as any professor can) to help promote his views. Northwestern University also happens to be in the heart of the (rather Jewish) Chicago suburbs.

Gosh, a person who defends anti-Semites doesn't know what he's talking about. What a shock...

[Captain Amazing]

I've never heard that Bnai Brith was right-wing, either. So, Hiyruu, could you give us examples of that occuring? Also, could you please let me know what that has to do with this thread, which, as I stated, contains neither a debate on history nor right wing Jewish groups?

[casdave]

Perhaps the most serious Holocaust revisionist, David Irving, was allowed to continue in his ways for decades before he put the legal rope around his neck, stood on a wobbly libel action case in the British courts and jumped off.

It was only when his views were openly challenged by an American journalist that he took her to court, hoping to claim damages for defamation and libel, that he was finally examined in a public arena against the so-called facts that he purported to be true.

The British legal system can be slow and it isn't perfect but when it demands rigour in proving facts it is without peer, that legal sytsem, reonwned for its independance, looked at the facts presented by both sides and then declared that David Irving had no basis for his action with the final sting in the tail being that he was required to meet the legal costs of both sides, which has bankrupted him.

Point and lesson being that he had been left alone to make his statements, he won several cases when actions were brought against him, but in a nice twist of justice, when he brought a spurious case against another it did for him.

Balthazar

If you think you have never met a Jew then how do you know that you have not met one ?

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by DocCathode
Izzy would you be willing to start a "Ask The Talmud Guy" thread?Unfortunately I must decline, for a variety of reasons. But there are several Dopers who are familiar with Talmudic issues, and one or more of them usually comment when such issues arise.

Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein
I am interested in learning more about that bit in the Talmud about Jews being thieves.That's not what the Talmud says, or what I said. Its "most thieves are Jews", not the other way around.

Obviously, no such statement could be made about every time and place. The statement was made with regards to an incident in which unknown thieves had tampered with some barrels of wine. The question arose as to whether one must suspect that they may have used the wine for idolatrous purposes. One of the lenient factors was the fact that "most thieves are Jews" making the suspicion less likely.

I did not bring this up to make a statement about Jews, but rather as an example of how the Talmud contains many blunt statements, both positive and negative, about Jew and Gentile. To assess the overall picture the totality must be considered in context. But it does provide ample opportunity for someone with an agenda to present a one-sided picture.

A side note of related interest: the type of accusations of Prof. Shahak are not new, but have been hurled by anti-Semites for generations. In many eras there were government-appointed censors, responsible for making sure that no "objectionable" material was printed. These people were frequently ignorant, which led to many bizarre misunderstandings. One example that I recall was when a censor objected to the Aramaic word min meaning "heretic", and would replace it with "Gentile". Unfortunately, he frequently confused this with the (more common) Hebrew/Aramaic word min meaning "type". And thus he replaced "type of beans" with "Gentile of beans", and so on.
Also, I was under the impression that Jews didn't believe in a literal Heaven, and I am curious to know what kind of afterlife they do believe in, if any.I seem to recall this being discussed in a previous thread.