History /
Why are Jews pestering Poland for "proper" WW2 monetary restitution/reparations? [750]
I agree - and most religions are thought extreme by those who practice opposing faiths.
I am what one may call 'Agnostic' - I find such ancient texts to be but historical record.
It is unfortunate that some have inferred my comments as support for one over another.
I don't believe these Talmudic writings are mainstream Jewish teachings.
The Talmud was written a long time ago, about 1700 years ago.
Although misguided, it was meant to keep Jews from converting to Christianity.
While I agree with your premise, my research leads me to rethink the role of the Talmud.
The more respected scholars within the rabbinical community have thus proclaimed that
"the Talmud is the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish Religious Law and it is the
textbook used in the training of Rabbis" (Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer; 1952).
Its radical teachings are rejected by mainstream Judaism.
The teachings of the Talmud are accepted by Christians in the highest political echelons.
One such Christian (who first recognized Israel) was 33rd-Degree Mason Harry Truman:
When presented with his second set of Talmud writings, Truman was quoted as saying,
"I have read many more of the ones presented four years ago than a lot of people think."
A known avid reader, Truman claimed the book he read the most was the Talmud which,
in his words, "contains much sound reasoning and good philosophy of life." (Fair enough)
("Facts are Facts" - Benjamin H. Freedman).
Here's some more information about Harry Truman and his association with B'nai B'rith:
fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1259090646
Again, I mean no judgment here. My passion for history just happens to coincide with my obsession :)
Here's the full text. Looks immediately a bit different than how you put it: Narrated Aisha:
How so? Granted, it's more wordy in full content, but the context remains.
By the way: Tutankhamon married when he was 12 with his niece of 12 years old. The Talmud was written about 2700 years ago - ppl lived to be 30 years max at the time, it was completely normal to marry around 12 years or even a little younger.
Fair enough, BUT...
Nowadays, ppl tend to get older, therefore the age of consent has gone up as well.
NETHERLANDS has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all,
sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16
is permitted by law as long as young person consents - LOWERED in 1990.
ageofconsent.com/netherlands.htm
Priests should know that.
VATICAN CITY: There is an equal age of consent set at 12 years of age in Art. 331 (1).
When there is a relationship of dependence (teacher/student, etc.) the age of consent
is 15 years in Art. 331 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe)
All the quotes you selectively put here
It's called 'debate' - I'm not going to argue your case for you. :)
are still no explaination as to why you need to defend Catholic priests that nowadays with all the laws against it, still performing sexual acts with underaged.
Like I (truthfully) stated to MediaWatch, I have no agenda. I am, however, Agnostic.
Still, some outside of the Catholic Church not only condone, but advocate, such behavior. I DO NOT, but the point is, SOME DO:
A new book that says child molesters are not a major peril to children is part of a larger movement within academia to promote "free sexual expression of children."
Feminist writer Judith Levine's book "Not Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex" has been condemned by those who say she excuses sexual abuse of children - a charge she strongly denies.
Ms. Levine says she was "misunderstood" after a news article last month quoted her saying a boy's sexual experience with a priest "conceivably" could be positive.
"Do I advocate priests having sex with their child parishioners? No, absolutely no," she said in a telephone interview. However, she said, "The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young - even quite young - people can have a positive [sexual] experience with an adult. That's what the research shows."
Featuring a foreword by Clinton administration Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders,
Ms. Levine's book endorses a Dutch law, passed in 1990, that effectively lowered the age of consent to 12.come-and-hear.com/editor/ca-wt-04-19-02/index.html
Circumsizing is not sexual abuse, by the way. If it's performed under hygenic circumstances there is nothing against it...
There's really no argument here. My point of that article is its practice as Talmudic Law.
as it is even more hygienic than when you would leave your foreskin there.
Even doctors debate this. Besides, it didn't quite work out in the example I cited, did it?
And besides, one article doesn't make summer, especially not when you compare it to the tsunami of Catholic cases that come to surface now. And the fact that you try to defend acts like that makes you look not that good.
Conversely, as was your assumption this was my intent...
Here's a nice one as well:
israelect.com/Come-and-Hear/editor/ca-trimm/index.html
Take especially a look at the first reaction-email.
Again, this may require a re-visit on your part:
"Update July 2003: For the Latest on James Trimm and his activities, including his false doctorate..."
"James Trimm has posted to Mormon forums under the names of Rabbi Yosef, Rabbi Yosef ben Yehudah and Yosef Liahona. Trimm aka Yosef was promoting the idea he was a qualified Jewish Rabbi with a doctorate. He was teaching that the Book of Mormon was a relevant Jewish book and that it was true. James Trimm was then at his own Nazarene forum refuting that, using the name James Trimm, but he was also posting as Steve Cohen who was also advocating the Book of Mormon."
Oh, and my Grandparent were both 26 when they married. The other two were 28 and 25, so they followed proceedings and morales very correctly.
This would be condescending, if not so ludicrous. I dare say your grandparents EXCEEDED
"proceedings and morales (sic)" deemed legal requirement throughout the whole of Europe.
Are you SURE you're not CONSERVATIVE?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
If my grandparents were still alive, I would have them inform the Rabbi who married them
of his failure to "very correctly" follow social norms you espouse, despite 50 happy years.
PS - The correct answer to
(where in the Talmud is THAT?)
is: [The Mishnah] Shabbos (19:2; 133a). Sorry, no Bonus Points.
