Muslim terror attack on London Bridge

[Rog]

2 hours ago, Lagman said:

Talmud?

It is immediately self evident that you obviously have no idea of what the Talmuds are.

[Lagman]

Just now, Rog said:

It is immediately self evident that you obviously have no idea of what the Talmuds are.

Parts of it aren't very pleasant.

[Rog]

12 minutes ago, Lagman said:

Parts of it aren't very pleasant.

The same can be said of most religious commentaries.

However it is very clear that you don't know what the TalmudS are or how they differ from the qur'an in basis.

[Chinahand]

Rog, the laws Jewish fundamentalists say were carved on stone tablets initially by a deity and then by Moses contain commandments to stone and how to enslave etc. They are horrible documents

What makes them so different than a similar set of documents dictated in an Arabian cave?

Both claim a direct command from a deity and submission to its will. 

[RIchard Britten]

15 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

How do you feel about Neo-Nazis?

@Rog Answer the question, like an adult this time

[RIchard Britten]

11 hours ago, Neil Down said:

Bit rich coming from somebody who spat his dummy out when called out on military career... Just saying

Don't remember "spitting my dummy" out after anything regarding my service.

I certainly don't create the sort of fantasy hollywood wannabe bullshit that MA was creating to prop up his wafer thin strawman.

[Rog]

Just now, RIchard Britten said:

@Rog Answer the question, like an adult this time

I already did. 

Your inability to understand a figurative response your problem.

[Lagman]

21 minutes ago, Rog said:

The same can be said of most religious commentaries.

However it is very clear that you don't know what the TalmudS are or how they differ from the qur'an in basis.

How would you know what I know? 

"The same can be said of most religious commentaries."

 - So are you saying it is one of those commentaries?

[RIchard Britten]

2 minutes ago, Rog said:

I already did. 

Your inability to understand a figurative response your problem.

The ability to form a sentence and a cogent thought are yours.

[Rog]

6 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Rog, the laws Jewish fundamentalists say were carved on stone tablets initially by a deity and then by Moses contain commandments to stone and how to enslave etc. They are horrible documents

What makes them so different than a similar set of documents dictated in an Arabian cave?

Both claim a direct command from a deity and submission to its will. 

The decalogue are the "carved in stone" thing. Leviticus and Deuteronomy were produced by Moses as time went on. 

The probability is that he himself produced the decalogue based on what he had learned in pharaoh's court as a first cut set of rules to control the tribes and later went on to add laws and punishments to ensure the tribes remained intact.

The huge difference is that as time progresses in the case of Judaism time, experience, and circumstances changed and many of the things prohibited were set aside as can be found in the book of Judges though the word used is not judge in the English way, in Hebrew it is "shofet" which is very much closer to great army leader.

Probably the finest example of changes with time concerns homosexuality which Christian bigots delight in using as an excuse for their blind hatred.  As time rolled on we read in the case of David and Johnathan that they were "at it like knives" but by then no one batted an eyelid.

As for the qur'an that is "sealed" by Mohamed under the direction of his invention Allah.  The Qur'an can NEVER change. EVER. what was writ by mohammed 1300 years past is just as vital today as it was then. That is one of the many reasons that I loath Islam.  

[Rog]

16 minutes ago, Lagman said:

How would you know what I know? 

"The same can be said of most religious commentaries."

 - So are you saying it is one of those commentaries?

Well it's pretty tootin' obvious you know the square root of sweet fuck all about Judaism!

And yes, the Talmuds do fit into the broad definition of commentaries.

BTW - Did you note the use of Talmuds and not Talmud?

[Rog]

20 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

The ability to form a sentence and a cogent thought are yours.

Thanks, I did.

[Lagman]

9 minutes ago, Rog said:

Well it's pretty tootin' obvious you know the square root of sweet fuck all about Judaism!

And yes, the Talmuds do fit into the broad definition of commentaries.

BTW - Did you note the use of Talmuds and not Talmud?

I suggested some of it was unpleasant which you seem to have grudgingly concurred with (eventually).

Yes  I saw that, your point?

[Lagman]

25 minutes ago, Rog said:

The decalogue are the "carved in stone" thing. Leviticus and Deuteronomy were produced by Moses as time went on. 

The probability is that he himself produced the decalogue based on what he had learned in pharaoh's court as a first cut set of rules to control the tribes and later went on to add laws and punishments to ensure the tribes remained intact.

The huge difference is that as time progresses in the case of Judaism time, experience, and circumstances changed and many of the things prohibited were set aside as can be found in the book of Judges though the word used is not judge in the English way, in Hebrew it is "shofet" which is very much closer to great army leader.

Probably the finest example of changes with time concerns homosexuality which Christian bigots delight in using as an excuse for their blind hatred.  As time rolled on we read in the case of David and Johnathan that they were "at it like knives" but by then no one batted an eyelid.

As for the qur'an that is "sealed" by Mohamed under the direction of his invention Allah.  The Qur'an can NEVER change. EVER. what was writ by mohammed 1300 years past is just as vital today as it was then. That is one of the many reasons that I loath Islam.  

Not sure I'd trust a guy with horns (or rays of light) who talked to a volcano -

 I wonder if he was based on one of the Thutmose's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_(prince)

[Rog]

21 minutes ago, Lagman said:

I suggested some of it was unpleasant which you seem to have grudgingly concurred with (eventually).

Yes  I saw that, your point?

My points are 

#1 the Talmuds are not fundamental to Judaism

#2 the Talmuds change with time to reflect the changing nature of the world.

There is a minor point and that is that some references that anti-Semitic crap that you pointed to included quite a lot of things that were not part of any Torah plus it's important to read what is in Talmuds while taking account of the context in which they were with and the overall historical context of when they were writ