Israel Are Not Bad.

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by reeferman
 


bro...where are those quotes from

they cant be real...i refuse to accept that


muslims say that they corrupted the word of god...but i never imagined something this blatant


I checked out the one about having sex with children under 9 years old and it is there. The way Reeferman has said it though is not exactly correct though unless there is a word or two in there that pretty much means it is acceptable.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by reeferman
 


bro...where are those quotes from

they cant be real...i refuse to accept that


muslims say that they corrupted the word of god...but i never imagined something this blatant


I checked out the one about having sex with children under 9 years old and it is there. The way Reeferman has said it though is not exactly correct though unless there is a word or two in there that pretty much means it is acceptable.


here you go..




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

It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;


now, down in the footnotes to further clarify what is being said..



24 I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.


so what we have here is..

1) if a child is unable to have/understand sex it is not pederasty
2) if the child meets the age standards then it does count as such because they can not accuse (throw guilt) the rapist because the child is unable to participate in sex.
3) the age at which it does count 9 years & a day
4) the age it does count according to "Samuel" is 3 years & a day.

so what does this mean? it is ok to have sex according to this religion with a child under the age of 9 in one statement, and under 3 in another.

its disgusting to even think that this is a conversational topic for one and that there are two different views for another.. not to mention we are reading from a "holy" book.

how twisted is the logic to even justify such an act?

source
edit on 20-11-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
its disgusting to even think that this is a conversational topic for one and that there are two different views for another.. not to mention we are reading from a "holy" book.

The Talmud is not the Torah so it's not a "holy book". Even a cursory reading of the site you yourself linked to would tell you that it's Jewish oral law passed down, and it deals with lots of hypothetical situations where religious law would weigh in and how these certain rabbi's would interpret their laws to resolve the situation.

www.come-and-hear.com...


Originally posted by reeferman
so what we have here is..

1) if a child is unable to have/understand sex it is not pederasty
2) if the child meets the age standards then it does count as such because they can not accuse (throw guilt) the rapist because the child is unable to participate in sex.
3) the age at which it does count 9 years & a day
4) the age it does count according to "Samuel" is 3 years & a day.

No, the entire 54b is discussing hypothetical situations regarding who exactly and what exactly is being referred to in the biblical verse "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." What constitutes "lying" with "them", who "them" are, what is the age of accountability? etc.. You have to read it in context. These are discussing these situations because they're giving their opinions about ruling on situations that could (hypothetically arise) in a Jewish court of law. These are OPINIONS of rabbis about LEGAL rulings using HYPOTHETICAL situations to interpret the Mosaic law. It is not "holy scripture."

So it was the opinion of the rabbi, given they were using the Mosaic law as their guide, that males reach sexual maturity at 9 years & 1 day, and therefore can be held accountable for being an active (not passive) participant in homosexual activity.


Originally posted by reeferman
so what does this mean? it is ok to have sex according to this religion with a child under the age of 9 in one statement, and under 3 in another.

No, it's discussing the above mentioned bible verse, and how it may apply in real life proceedings to determine when someone (male or female) has reached the age of accountability. You seemed to have forgotten to quote some other relevant footnotes. here they are:



23. The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.

24. I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

25. At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.

26. Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.


and so it's not saying you can have sex with children, but that if the child is below a certain age or meets certain conditions, there is no blame on THEM because they are considered a 'passive' participant and not 'active' in breaking Mosaic law.



There are plenty of things to criticize, but let's not misrepresent things. I would take issue with the claim that women reach sexual maturity at three (LOL) - of course what do you expect when you have only a bronze age book to work with?





new topics
 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join