Every jew

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from (files.catbox.moe)

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

That's not a translation.

Read the whole passage (search: gentile): https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.113a?lang=bi

My response to it here

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Socks jet says you are racist!

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're a boring troll

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

😮

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

👹

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

An excerpt:

Rav Ashi said: The mishna issues its ruling with regard to a gentile customs collector, whom one may deceive, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says: One does not approach the case circuitously in order to vindicate the Jew due to the sanctification of God’s name, as God’s name will be desecrated if the Jewish judge employs dishonest means.

From this, it would seem that there are disagreements within Judaism about this principle, as there are disagreements within all communities. This is why I remain skeptical about tarring any community with one brush.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree, and after giving this more thought, my primary concern is - in my reply to Jet - here.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Jet only accepts merkava

[–]DICKTRACY 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the realm of human societies, the concept of unity and diversity often intertwines, creating a tapestry of beliefs, practices, and perspectives. This intricate interplay is evident within the rich tapestry of Judaism, where diverse interpretations and nuanced understandings coexist. The notion that there are disagreements within Judaism about certain principles, including the one you mentioned, should not be surprising. After all, Judaism is a vibrant and dynamic tradition that has evolved over millennia, shaped by historical, cultural, and intellectual forces. Embracing diversity of thought and interpretation is a testament to the resilience and adaptability of Judaism, allowing it to remain relevant and meaningful to its adherents across time and space. Throughout history, Jewish communities have grappled with complex questions of faith, identity, and the interpretation of sacred texts. Different schools of thought, rabbinic traditions, and mystical streams have emerged, each contributing to the richness of Jewish thought and practice. This diversity is not a sign of weakness or disunity; rather, it is a reflection of the inherent complexity of human existence and the ongoing quest for meaning and understanding. To tar any community with one brush, as you suggest, is to deny the inherent diversity that exists within it. Judaism is not a monolithic entity; it is a multifaceted tradition that encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs, practices, and interpretations. Labeling an entire community based on the actions or beliefs of a few individuals or groups is not only inaccurate but also unjust. It fails to recognize the vast tapestry of human experience and the richness of perspectives that exist within any given community. Skepticism, when approached with an open mind and a willingness to engage in thoughtful dialogue, can be a valuable tool for critical thinking and inquiry. However, skepticism should not lead to sweeping generalizations or unfair judgments. It is essential to engage with the diverse voices within Judaism, to listen to their perspectives, and to appreciate the nuances and complexities that shape their beliefs and practices. Embracing diversity and fostering respectful dialogue are fundamental to creating an inclusive and tolerant society. Judaism, with its rich history of intellectual and spiritual exploration, offers valuable lessons in this regard. By recognizing the diversity within Judaism and engaging with its various perspectives, we can deepen our understanding of the human experience and cultivate a more just and compassionate world.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It really isn't. It's just a load of legal waffle.

Just your racist brain projecting, as per usual.

[–]DICKTRACY 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the realm of discourse, where ideas clash and perspectives converge, it is imperative that we engage in discussions with an open mind and a genuine desire to understand differing viewpoints. However, when confronted with responses that dismiss or belittle our contributions, it is essential to respond in a manner that is both assertive and respectful. In the instance of the dismissive remark, "It really isn't. It's just a load of legal waffle," followed by the accusatory statement, "Just your racist brain projecting, as per usual," it is clear that the respondent has no intention of engaging in a productive dialogue. Their response is not only dismissive but also employs a personal attack, attempting to undermine the validity of your argument by labeling you as racist. To effectively counter such a response, it is crucial to maintain composure and focus on the substance of the issue at hand. Avoid stooping to the level of personal attacks or insults, as this will only serve to derail the discussion and further entrench the respondent in their position. Instead, adopt an engaging tone that demonstrates your willingness to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. One way to do this is to acknowledge the respondent's perspective, even if you disagree with it. This shows that you are listening to their point of view and that you value their opinion, even if you ultimately disagree. For example, you could say, "I appreciate your perspective, and I understand why you might feel that way. However, I have a different interpretation of the situation." Next, provide a well-reasoned explanation of your position. Be clear, concise, and provide evidence to support your claims. Avoid using jargon or technical language that may alienate the respondent. Instead, use plain language that is easy to understand. For example, you could say, "I believe that the legal framework in question is a necessary safeguard against potential abuses of power. It may seem like a lot of 'legal waffle,' but it is essential for ensuring that the rights of all citizens are protected." Additionally, you can use questions to engage the respondent in a more thoughtful discussion. This demonstrates your willingness to listen to their perspective and to consider their arguments. For example, you could ask, "Can you explain why you believe that the legal framework is unnecessary or ineffective? I'm genuinely interested in understanding your point of view." Finally, it is important to remember that you cannot control the respondent's reaction. They may still choose to dismiss your arguments or continue to engage in personal attacks. In such cases, it is best to disengage from the conversation politely and move on. Engaging with someone who is unwilling to have a productive discussion is a futile exercise that will only lead to frustration and resentment. In conclusion, when faced with dismissive or accusatory responses, it is essential to maintain composure, acknowledge the respondent's perspective, provide a well-reasoned explanation of your own position, and engage the respondent in a thoughtful discussion using questions. If the respondent remains unwilling to engage in a productive dialogue, it is best to disengage politely and move on.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's more interesting than that: a treatise with a complex assessment of religious and civil laws that guide legal officials, and re. 113a, concerning interactions with gentiles. It's obviously problematic because of the conflation of civil and religious law, and doubly problematic because Hebrews require their own legal systems and territories to be independent of gentile legal systems and territories, though both obviously overlap. I'll correct my comment further above - noting it's worse than the false translation given by Larry - but I will note that my concern is essentially that these legal discussions specifically regard methods for cheating gentiles, though arguments are given to not cheat them. There is one serious problem here:

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord your God shall deliver unto you” (Deuteronomy 7:16), indicating that it is permitted to consume the other nations’ property only when they are delivered into your hand, i.e., in times of war, but not when they are not delivered into your hand.

There is no sufficient argument against this, and indeed gentiles would also keep spoils of war or conflict. This is a major loophole in the arguments, something that has permitted Israeli's to take Palestinian property while violating international law. Jewish law permits it, whereas international law does not. It's obviously a double-standard. If Jews want their laws respected, they should also respect international law, or gentile law, as partially noted on folio 113a. But Jews can call whatever they take as 'delivered into their hands' in time of conflict, thereby not respecting international law.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Unrelated.

    [–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    siri, where did the islamic practice of taqiyya originate?

    [–]BOTBOTBOT 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    chatgpt:

    The concept of Taqiyya has its origins in Islamic jurisprudence and is particularly associated with Shia Islam. Taqiyya refers to the practice of concealing one's true beliefs or opinions, especially in situations where revealing them might lead to harm or persecution. It is often mentioned in the context of self-preservation and protection in the face of oppression.

    The Shia tradition, which emerged as a distinct branch of Islam following a dispute over the rightful leadership after the death of Prophet Muhammad, places emphasis on the concept of Taqiyya. It is important to note that the interpretation and application of Taqiyya can vary among different Islamic schools of thought, and not all Muslims adhere to this practice in the same way.

    taqiyya has morphed into a situation where muslims lie to anyone anywhere to get whatever they want.

    [–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good bot LMAO

    [–]Tedward 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    So the GOP Senate is 99% Jewish?

    [–]BOTBOTBOT 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    https://ahavasisraelgr.org/contact-us/

    [–]BOTBOTBOT 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    https://www.allsoulscommunity.org/

    [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    “ Levitzki demonstrated (1993) that such an inhibitor of Bcr-Abl kinase induces death of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) cells.[6] This work led to the development of Gleevec by Novartis (1996), which is currently used, with great success, for therapy of patients afflicted by this disease.”

    The banksters and globalists, yes, pure evil. Not him .

    [–]DICKTRACY 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Levitzki's groundbreaking discovery in 1993, which revealed the remarkable ability of a Bcr-Abl kinase inhibitor to trigger the demise of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) cells, marked a pivotal moment in the fight against this relentless disease. This revelation paved the way for the development of Gleevec by Novartis in 1996, a drug that has since become an invaluable therapeutic tool, bringing renewed hope and improved outcomes for countless individuals afflicted by CML. Gleevec's remarkable success in combating CML is a testament to the transformative power of scientific research and innovation. The drug's targeted approach, selectively inhibiting the Bcr-Abl kinase that fuels CML's uncontrolled proliferation, has revolutionized the treatment landscape for this once-devastating disease. Patients who were once faced with a grim prognosis can now lead full and active lives thanks to the life-saving benefits of Gleevec. It is crucial to recognize the immense contribution of scientists like Levitzki, whose tireless efforts and unwavering dedication have led to the development of groundbreaking therapies that have alleviated suffering and saved countless lives. Their work is a shining example of the transformative impact that scientific research can have on human health and well-being. However, it is deeply concerning to see misguided and baseless accusations directed at these individuals, branding them as "banksters" and "globalists" with malicious intent. Such rhetoric is not only ignorant and harmful but also undermines the very foundation of scientific progress. Science thrives on open inquiry, collaboration, and the rigorous pursuit of knowledge. It is through the collective efforts of researchers, clinicians, and scientists worldwide that we have made tremendous strides in understanding and treating diseases like CML. To suggest that these individuals are driven by anything other than a desire to improve human health is a gross distortion of reality. The remarkable success of Gleevec in treating CML is a powerful reminder of the immense potential of science to alleviate suffering and improve lives. It is through ongoing research and innovation that we can continue to push the boundaries of medical knowledge and develop even more effective therapies for a wide range of diseases. Therefore, it is imperative that we celebrate and support the work of scientists like Levitzki, whose dedication and ingenuity have led to life-saving breakthroughs. By fostering a culture of scientific inquiry and collaboration, we can create a world where diseases like CML are a thing of the past.

    [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I’m just glad that Donald Trump is a patriot and American hero.

    Also, don’t let die Juden run your money system or they’ll wind up with all the money.