Talmudic laws allow much worse than pedophilia, as long as it is done to goyim. Nothing new here.
I did find the Lerner connection strange initially because of Podesta's extensive links to the Vatican/Jesuits. But by now I consider them one big evil cult. A Satanic oecumene.
The Talmud does not endorse pedophilia. Shills are trying to get us branded as anti-semites, racists, neo-nazis, etc. Shill network coming out of the woodwork to upvote this post. OP accusing me of being a shill for deleting original post due to lack of a source.
Edit: Look at all the blatant anti-semitism in this thread. The proof is in the pudding. At least one user saying I must be Jewish, LOL.
Not beating a dead horse, you have to refute this being in the talmud in the first place... you linked to a completely anonymous source.
The interpretation offered by your source is one of the utmost twisting of definitions when the object of the sentence is whether or not the man has caused any injury to a girl less than 3 years and 1 day. IT'S CLEARLY WRITTEN that if an adult man has sex with a girl less than 3 years and 1 day that she does not get any dowry b/c she can't lose her virginity due to her inability of not losing her hymen...
One is a total psycho if you come to any other conclusion of this passage in Kethuboth 11b
Actually it is. I'm not sure if you're even able to mentally process what a rebuttal is. I'll spell it out for you since you're having trouble. Your source claims that Kethuboth 11b has nothing to do with sexual rape of a converted slave of less than 3 years and 1 day but that it's about whether a dowry can be judged to be higher or not.
It completely ignores a huge posit of Kethuboth 11b which is about whether a man has to pay a dowry for a converted slave of less than 3 years and 1 day which Kethuboth 11b clearly states that one does not b/c she can not lose her virginity "it's as if putting a finger into the eye" as she has no hymen and will be able to appear as a virgin later in life b/c her husband at that time will be able to prove the hymen has broken through bleeding. You're inability to even comprehend this most basic facet is astonishing and disgusting considering the ramifications to your interpretation which is sympathy towards condoning sexual rape of a child less than 3 years and 1 day.
which is about whether a man has to pay a dowry for a converted slave of less than 3 years and 1 day which Kethuboth 11b clearly states that one does not b/c she can not lose her virginity "it's as if putting a finger into the eye" as she has no hymen and will be able to appear as a virgin later in life b/c her husband at that time will be able to prove the hymen has broken through bleeding.
I am not disputing the literal meaning of the text. The link I posted provides a reasonable interpretation of the context and how the passage was meant to be interpreted. It is not justifying pedophilia.
And I just rebutted it. YOUR link COMPLETELY ignores the distinction between 3 years and 1 day... it doesn't even mention it in fact. It's trying to make Kethuboth 11b appear as if it didn't even write about this distinction of less than and greater than this age which is to completely miss the interpretation the rabbis were debating in the first place which is whether there is any injury or harm done to a child less than 3 years and 1 day or not and whether the man is liable for paying her for losing her virginity to WHICH THEY CONCLUDE THAT SHE IS NOT INJURED AND THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION..... You can't be this dunder headed and doltish.
YOUR source also completely IGNORED the 3rd case which is a boy who has sexual relations with a woman.
view the rest of the comments →
Singleservename ago
Talmudic laws allow much worse than pedophilia, as long as it is done to goyim. Nothing new here.
I did find the Lerner connection strange initially because of Podesta's extensive links to the Vatican/Jesuits. But by now I consider them one big evil cult. A Satanic oecumene.
Millennial_Falcon ago
CALLING BULLSHIT. http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/three.html
The Talmud does not endorse pedophilia. Shills are trying to get us branded as anti-semites, racists, neo-nazis, etc. Shill network coming out of the woodwork to upvote this post. OP accusing me of being a shill for deleting original post due to lack of a source.
Edit: Look at all the blatant anti-semitism in this thread. The proof is in the pudding. At least one user saying I must be Jewish, LOL.
ich1baN ago
And just so you can see evidence clear in front of your face... I will post this here for all to see the proof the Talmud condones child rape:
https://archive.is/PWDR1
Millennial_Falcon ago
You still haven't responded to the rebuttal in the link I provided. You are just beating a dead horse.
ich1baN ago
Not beating a dead horse, you have to refute this being in the talmud in the first place... you linked to a completely anonymous source.
The interpretation offered by your source is one of the utmost twisting of definitions when the object of the sentence is whether or not the man has caused any injury to a girl less than 3 years and 1 day. IT'S CLEARLY WRITTEN that if an adult man has sex with a girl less than 3 years and 1 day that she does not get any dowry b/c she can't lose her virginity due to her inability of not losing her hymen...
One is a total psycho if you come to any other conclusion of this passage in Kethuboth 11b
Millennial_Falcon ago
Still not a response to the rebuttal.
ich1baN ago
Actually it is. I'm not sure if you're even able to mentally process what a rebuttal is. I'll spell it out for you since you're having trouble. Your source claims that Kethuboth 11b has nothing to do with sexual rape of a converted slave of less than 3 years and 1 day but that it's about whether a dowry can be judged to be higher or not.
It completely ignores a huge posit of Kethuboth 11b which is about whether a man has to pay a dowry for a converted slave of less than 3 years and 1 day which Kethuboth 11b clearly states that one does not b/c she can not lose her virginity "it's as if putting a finger into the eye" as she has no hymen and will be able to appear as a virgin later in life b/c her husband at that time will be able to prove the hymen has broken through bleeding. You're inability to even comprehend this most basic facet is astonishing and disgusting considering the ramifications to your interpretation which is sympathy towards condoning sexual rape of a child less than 3 years and 1 day.
@YingYangMom @Investigate1999 @Vindicator @Spoor @yuke @redditsuckz @followdamoney @disciple7 @viebleu @victuruslibertas @Singleservename @wokethefkup @queen_laqueefa @Fateswebb @ich1ban @OrwellKnew @andrevandelft @carmencita @quantokitty @biebergangrape
Millennial_Falcon ago
I am not disputing the literal meaning of the text. The link I posted provides a reasonable interpretation of the context and how the passage was meant to be interpreted. It is not justifying pedophilia.
ich1baN ago
And I just rebutted it. YOUR link COMPLETELY ignores the distinction between 3 years and 1 day... it doesn't even mention it in fact. It's trying to make Kethuboth 11b appear as if it didn't even write about this distinction of less than and greater than this age which is to completely miss the interpretation the rabbis were debating in the first place which is whether there is any injury or harm done to a child less than 3 years and 1 day or not and whether the man is liable for paying her for losing her virginity to WHICH THEY CONCLUDE THAT SHE IS NOT INJURED AND THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION..... You can't be this dunder headed and doltish.
YOUR source also completely IGNORED the 3rd case which is a boy who has sexual relations with a woman.
@OrwellKnew @BLOODandHONOUR
OrwellKnew ago
Remember now....@Millenial_Falcon is just sooo, soo, so busy. He barely has ANY TIME to upvoat people
But yet he can waste time on this nonsense, j/s
ich1baN ago
Right. lol.