hey polycarp
thought your facts needed balancing

from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

quote..>>'The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,

the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:

SANHEDRIN,55b-55a:"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(2)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 guilty (upon the actual offender);whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty(in that respect) (3).

But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman(4)

It has been taught in accordance with Rab:Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;(55a)(he) ho commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally:or a woman who causes herself to be beastially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."

(footnotes) "(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in 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.(2)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.(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness. 4) Lev XVIII, 22 (5) Rashi reads ("xxx")(Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts.

A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha
..<<
i am not able[nor wanting to understand what is being wtitten
but people in glass house[speck/plank in the eye[come to mind]

Dear OUG...I'm glad you tracked that down.. it makes most illuminating reading but Jews I know are repulsed by it and usually claim it is a Muslim attack on them...but the source is quite correct.

But to clarify about Jesus.. no, he did not draw His inspiration from the Talmud..He drew it from such realities as "Before Abraham was..I am"

and..

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:3-5)

I suggest that the abhorrent practices you described in your links, were illustrative of the very fact that "darkness has not understood" the Light.

The rules developed by the Rabbi's were along the lines of "We MUST have a 'LAW' for every situation in life"..and that included the age of betrothal... But the principles of the Old Testament are pretty clear.. 'common sense' and decency.

Jesus said "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."

The Pharisees would not allow you to wear sandals with a metal buckle on the Sabbath.. that was WORK (as defined by the same mentality as that which suggested you can have sex with a 3 yr old girl)

Please..if you wish to compare the Quran and Christianity.. let's stick to the Bible itself :

Is this article a poor attempt at humour? If it isn't, we've gone way, way too far with our exclusively white phenomenon known as tolerance.

While tempting to respond by pointing out the fact that it is only white run nations where tolerance of minorities actually even exists, the hide of a

Go out to the Chinese Embassy and protest there! And while you're there, walk down the road to every African, Asian, and Arab embassy (basically the non-west except for Israel) and protest!

Whitey has tolerated racists for way, way too long.

Me too, Boaz.

>>It's worth pointing out however.. that most of what I write is a response to something else.<<

Yep, me too.

>>you don't have to be a_fortune_teller or an_astrologist to know what will come from my keyboard<<

Both observations lead straight to...

>>As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them. I hope everyone read the last phrase.<<

This is rich, coming from a self-confessed daughter-beater, Boaz.

Did you justify your actions through reference to the Bible, by any chance? Or was it just a "make it up as you go" moment?

>>But hey...don't rely on my blusterings.. after all..I'm a biased whack-a-mossie Christian hyper fundamentalist, hate and fear and loathing promoting rabble rouser ....right?<<

At last, at last, some self-awareness is creeping in. Even though you are even now seeking the answer "no, of course not..."

You are going to have to lift your game a little, though, there are some serious challengers coming through the ranks.

Benjam1n seems to be shaping up nicely to inherit your mantle.

>>the fact that it is only white run nations where tolerance of minorities actually even exists... Whitey has tolerated racists for way, way too long.<<

Do you know, Benjam1n, that is one of the reasons that so many of us are happy to live here.

How about you? Would you prefer to live in a free country, or one where your religion is prescribed for you, under pain of severe punishment, even death? Or one where your religion is prohibited to you, also under pain of severe punishment, even death?

Seems a no-brainer to me, but what do I know? I've never committed an act of personal violence on a woman in my entire life.

There are two quotes here that hold a lot of truth. Firstly, “Australian debates seem fiercely resistant to looking at what might be learned from other cultures.” Indeed many posts on OLO attest to this. Some indicate the assumption we’ve nothing to learn from other cultures or that any criticism of Australia is invalid. “Moaning migrants”? What a cop out. The author’s wasting her time for some.

I work with many immigrants who have an excellent knowledge of English who before migrating were IT specialists and medical practitioners. Here they wash dishes. It’s not all about language. There is a reluctance to accept immigrants at face value.

The second is “Instead, conservative politicians and commentators are using gender issues as a proxy for racism and Islamophobia”. The number of articles on OLO regards immigration and migration has fallen recently compared to about 18 months ago towards the end of Howard’s prime ministership. It is no coincidence given Rudd does not ride the wave of fear that drives conservatism.

There are some sections of the Mulsim community that do not share ‘Australian’ values towards women. Old ways do die hard and must be changed. Equally there are some sections of the Australian community that are no different. Recall the recent glassing incident by a Sydney ARL player. He got the press coverage he deserved but "Aussie Christian icon disfigures partner" was not how it was covered.

The word ‘misogyny’ has been around for centuries and it is not by chance it is part of the English vocab. As a whole immigrants are more law-abiding than local born. (can't find the reference but will if required).

We’re a nation of immigrants, people, and some cultures are worth learning from.

Perilous.. reminding me of something I shared with the forum in times past (which seems like a bone to you as u keep digging it up) does not help the debate about this particular issue.

Feel free to call me a few names if it helps you along..then when you have vented your spleen.. actually look at what the Quran says here.

Feel free to criticize the Bible if you like.. after all.. we must be fair here. "Spare the rod..spoil the child" there you go.. it's the only verse I know of which refers to it.

Children who don't know some of the dangers in store for them, are one thing.. a grown adult.. your wife.. is another.

But leave that aside.. just consider that the Quran specifically permits a husband..to whack his wife and it is spelt out in graphic detail by men from countries which are "most Muslim".....

If you don't find some difficulty with the religion on that basis alone...then I would need to put seriously heavy duty panelling around my 'hypocrisy' meter which would otherwise explode as it read your posts.

Pointing to me continually like that only shows you cannot be trusted with information of that nature. You just show how determined you are to avoid facing the issue of the nature of Islam.

My post is a response to what the author says... not you. Criticize it on the basis of truth or falsehood...not on your shabby personal attacks on me.

There's a lot of sense in my last paragraph... it simply points you to the debate...rather than attacking people.