Why do Zionists insist on 6 million Holocaust dead?

[svk]

The word "holocaust" means burnt offering:

Thier God mapped it out in great detail for his followers (Torah, Old Testament) describing how he wanted the burnt offerings to be served.

But animal offerings, which were bad enough, were not enough to satisfy Yaweh's blood lust entirely and he upped the stakes by demanding human offerings. Moreover, he even ordered his followers to holocaust their own children: »Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."« [Genesis 22, 2]

For the permission to return to the Promised Land, God allegedly demanded from them a "6-Million-Holocaust-Offering", so the high priests interpreted a Torah prophecy that reads: "You shall return" (due to a spelling mistake the priests interpret it this way "You shall return, minus 6 million")

This self-imposed prophesy – without fulfilment of this prophesy the return to the Promised Land would not be permitted.

And so the zionists could not go back to the promised land until Yaweh came back to earth and led them there but they found this loophole that they think justifies their return without  Yaweh leading them there.

.

[abduLMaria]

For the permission to return to the Promised Land, God allegedly demanded from them a "6-Million-Holocaust-Offering", so the high priests interpreted a Torah prophecy that reads: "You shall return" (due to a spelling mistake the priests interpret it this way "You shall return, minus 6 million").

reading Scripture is not my strong suit.

my understanding is that 6 million casualties is based on the deaths of 4 million at Auschwitz.

and that there is a plaque at Auschwitz that once read, "4 million" that was subsequently revised to
1 1/2 million.

the 6 million was based on a figure of 4 million at Auschwitz, implying that 2 million were killed
at other places in Nazi Germany.

anyway, i think the number of casualties is closer to 3 1/2 million.

American society is incredibly myopic.  what about the deaths of 4 1/2 million in the Vietnam
War, at the hands of US troops ?  millions killed in Iraq, millions more rendered homeless,
at the hands of US troops with Israel guiding US foreign policy in the background ?

the Holocaust is just one of history's tragedies but apparently the only one Zionists focus on.

i think the Zionists cling to the old 6 million number -
A/  because they can get away with it, via control of the media & educational publishers.
B/  because it sounds worse than 3 1/2 million.

[Yo Mama]

Great post, svk.  That is exactly where the mystical "6 million" number comes from.  Most people aren't aware of this.  

[sullivan]

so the high priests interpreted a Torah prophecy that reads: "You shall return" (due to a spelling mistake the priests interpret it this way "You shall return, minus 6 million")

This is not from the Torah Shebichtav (written tradition). It is from the Talmud or Torah Shebealpe (oral tradition). In other words, it is Talmudic nonsense.

[Yo Mama]

Torah nonsense is just as bad as Talmudic nonsense.  Actually, it's worse, because it's much older and much more virulent.   :?

[GordZilla]

Torah nonsense is just as bad as Talmudic nonsense.  Actually, it's worse, because it's much older and much more virulent.   :?

Again 'much more virulent' than the Talmud  


Let's see;

Torah; Be righteous onto God and man, or suffer His wraith.
Talmud; Rape and murder all gentiles, younger the better -at anytime your heart desires with no consequence.
 
Torah; Thou shall not commit murder.
Talmud; (pick a page)

Again Yo Mama you are pushing this theory of yours that the Torah is the book of inherent evil, and the Talmud is all love and dovey in comparison without any passages or verses to make your point. It's clear you have a hate-on for God, but you're going to have to make your case a little here, so far you have failed at that, and you are merely spreading propaganda in support of your hatred of God.


It's quite easy for anyone here to try this for themselves; go to a website posting the KJV online, go to another with the Talmud online (harder find I know ...Geez wonder why? Probably cause its a lot less virulent than the Torah, right?    :roll: ) once you find both start reading, if by the end of an hour you can't see that Yo mama is talking out his ass then re-attend school, particularly reading and comprehension classes and try again.

Truth; speak it or be challenged, it's the rule here.

[sullivan]

Torah; Thou shall not commit murder.

Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. (Joshua 10:40)

And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes.. (I Chronicles 20:3)

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:16-18)

Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. (Judges 4:21)

Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. (Isaiah 13:15-16)

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. (Deuteronomy 2:34)

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)

And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.  (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)

[GordZilla]

Many great passages Sullivan, not one where the "Jews are to Dominate the world"

God's enemies were often ordered to be killed by God. Murder is an Individual act, you have a couple examples above, where an individual murdered someone –not order by God.  God is a "Do as a say not as I do" kinda fellow, He does commit some nasty acts to His enemies, especially in the Old Testament. I will not dispute that. What I am disputing here, Sullivan, is that the Torah is nowhere as evil as the Talmud, and that God NEVER ordered the JEWS to dominate the world and practice usury upon it.

The children of Israel, are not Jews, but Jacob's Family.

The point still remains. But thanks for your input, now we know God has enemies on earth,  but I think we already knew that , no?

Talmud to Torah, that is the debate, just which contains the references for JEWS to dominate the world and practice usury upon all man.

That is the argument, and so far Yo Mama (and now you) have failed to show where it is in the Torah this is written. And neither of you can honestly say the Torah is more evil than the Talmud, no one can HONESTLY say that.

[sullivan]

What I am disputing here, Sullivan, is that the Torah is nowhere as evil as the Talmud, and that God NEVER ordered the JEWS to dominate the world and practice usury upon it.

While I agree that the Talmud is an order of magnitude more nasty than the Torah. I beg to differ on your last claim...
For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

[GordZilla]

What I am disputing here, Sullivan, is that the Torah is nowhere as evil as the Talmud, and that God NEVER ordered the JEWS to dominate the world and practice usury upon it.

While I agree that the Talmud is an order of magnitude more nasty than the Torah. I beg to differ on your last claim...
For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

A) They are not Jews he's talking about but Sons of Israel (there is a difference, although the Jews would like you to believe there is not)
B) This says you shall lend but not borrow, lending and usury are not the same, Lending with interest, particularly heavy interest, is usury.

My problem is what Yo Moma has posted (on 4 different threads so far that I'm aware of) is simply not true, and he has yet to show me otherwise, bullshit is bullshit, and to aggressively post this lie leads me to wonder why.  However I don't think he has an agenda but rather a large hate for religion. That's fine, I do too , but God is not at fault for man's misguided religions. He only said rest on Sunday, not go to church.
 

[sullivan]

While I agree that the Talmud is an order of magnitude more nasty than the Torah. I beg to differ on your last claim...
For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

A) They are not Jews he's talking about but Sons of Israel (there is a difference, although the Jews would like you to believe there is not)
B) This says you shall lend but not borrow, lending and usury are not the same, Lending with interest, particularly heavy interest, is usury.

I notice you are ignoring the 'you shall reign over many nations' bit. I really don't care whether they are the Jews or the sons of Israel. Anyone believing that as a tribe they will always be a position of power - i.e. lending, not borrowing, ruling over but never ruled over - is automatically in my bad books. Those that believe so because a deity told them so are even more so.

My problem is what Yo Moma has posted (on 4 different threads so far that I'm aware of) is simply not true, and he has yet to show me otherwise, bullshit is bullshit, and to aggressively post this lie leads me to wonder why.  However I don't think he has an agenda but rather a large hate for religion. That's fine, I do too , but God is not at fault for man's misguided religions. He only said rest on Sunday, not go to church.
 

He is as free to distrust any set of religious beliefs as you are to espouse them. This site has no particular agenda vis-a-vis religious faith.

[GordZilla]

While I agree that the Talmud is an order of magnitude more nasty than the Torah. I beg to differ on your last claim...
For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

A) They are not Jews he's talking about but Sons of Israel (there is a difference, although the Jews would like you to believe there is not)
B) This says you shall lend but not borrow, lending and usury are not the same, Lending with interest, particularly heavy interest, is usury.

I notice you are ignoring the 'you shall reign over many nations' bit. I really don't care whether they are the Jews or the sons of Israel. Anyone believing that as a tribe they will always be a position of power - i.e. lending, not borrowing, ruling over but never ruled over - is automatically in my bad books. Those that believe so because a deity told them so are even more so.

My problem is what Yo Moma has posted (on 4 different threads so far that I'm aware of) is simply not true, and he has yet to show me otherwise, bullshit is bullshit, and to aggressively post this lie leads me to wonder why.  However I don't think he has an agenda but rather a large hate for religion. That's fine, I do too , but God is not at fault for man's misguided religions. He only said rest on Sunday, not go to church.
 

He is as free to distrust any set of religious beliefs as you are to espouse them. This site has no particular agenda vis-a-vis religious faith.

Sullivan;

My god, are you a brick? It's simple;  4 times he has posted the Talmud is not as evil as the Old testament and the old testament contains the Jew's instruction to dominate the world and practice usury upon it. 4 times I asked him to prove it. You got into this debate for what? To make sure when people post an opinion as fact that they don't get challenged? Is that your Job? I guess if he said something improvable, another fallacy,  that had nothing to do with God, but perhaps say "no planes hit the buildings' then you'd be all over it??? Or would you still maintain that anyone can post anything  etc etc ...

Please stay out of it, you are trying to turn this into something it's not. The question was simple and directed towards Yo Moma, who has spammed an opinion, presented as fact, and when challenged on it has offered nothing.  Why you felt the need to jump into the argument, with no points of your own – that relate to the original question, is beyond me.

"I notice you are ignoring the 'you shall reign over many nations' bit. I really don't care whether they are the Jews or the sons of Israel."

Who cares what you think? This wasn't about your opinion on it. (and for the record I did address that, the point is they are NOT Jews so the point you were making does not relate)  

One more time;
Where in the Old Testament does it say the Jews shall and should dominate the earth and practice usury upon it? How could one think the Old testiment is more evil than the Talmud? THAT, and Only THAT is the disinfo that has been spammed and that is what I'm challenging. Get it??

[sullivan]

My god, are you a brick?

Wow, an ad-hom. Now who do we know who relies on ad-homs?

It's simple;  4 times he has posted the Talmud is not as evil as the Old testament and the old testament contains the Jew's instruction to dominate the world and practice usury upon it.

And I have responded that he is correct in the sense that the Pentateuch contains the blueprint for what is later espoused in the Talmud, but you are correct in (implicitly) stating that it is not as vile.

4 times I asked him to prove it.

I've provided more than enough in the way of quotes to prove a continuum between one and the other.

You got into this debate for what?

Because I wanted to, and I don't need your permission or consent to do so.

To make sure when people post an opinion as fact that they don't get challenged?

They are being challenged, by you. However, I regard your challenge as being as fundamentally flawed.

Is that your Job? I guess if he said something improvable, another fallacy,  that had nothing to do with God, but perhaps say "no planes hit the buildings' then you'd be all over it???

I'd certainly have a strong opinion on it, just as I do on this issue. It appears that strong opinions backed up by relevant quotations bother you.

Or would you still maintain that anyone can post anything  etc etc ...

Within reason.

Please stay out of it, you are trying to turn this into something it's not.

Please DO NOT assume you can tell me what to do. Got that?

The question was simple and directed towards Yo Moma, who has spammed an opinion, presented as fact, and when challenged on it has offered nothing.

This is a public forum. If you haven't gotten to grips with public fora then it is probably better if you refrain from using them until you do.

Why you felt the need to jump into the argument, with no points of your own – that relate to the original question, is beyond me.

Because I want to, and because I can. My points are relevant to the original argument, in that I can demonstrate that each one of you is partly correct. You, on the other hand, appear to be hell-bent on defending a belief system that many view as being nothing more than a mythology. That's your perogative, just as it is mine to post what I want, when I want, without seeking permission from the likes of you.

"I notice you are ignoring the 'you shall reign over many nations' bit. I really don't care whether they are the Jews or the sons of Israel."

Who cares what you think?

For a start, I do.

This wasn't about your opinion on it. (and for the record I did address that, the point is they are NOT Jews so the point you were making does not relate)

What is it about this that you don't get? Whether they were Jews or not is immaterial. It doesn't matter what the group of people call themselves or whether that group of people way back in mythological time are related to the current bunch of psychopaths. NOTHING justifies that particular worldview, and the worldview then was as sociopathic as it is now.

Where in the Old Testament does it say the Jews shall and should dominate the earth and practice usury upon it? How could one think the Old testiment is more evil than the Talmud? THAT, and Only THAT is the disinfo that has been spammed and that is what I'm challenging. Get it??

Ok, I'll play your stupid game. The quote I have already provided....

For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

... didn't apply to the Jews. It applied to some other group of sociopathic bastards who thought that some big guy in the sky had given them permission to lend to other nations and to rule over other nations.  It doesn't matter whether they were Israelites, Jews or Mayans. The fundamental idea in this quote is repugnant, and is clearly the root of even more obnoxious nastiness found in the Talmud.

[GordZilla]

Lol Nothing!! , ok so it still stands there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that explicitly  states the Jews should have dominance over the world and practice usury on it.
Nothing you've quoted states otherwise .
He is posting lies as if they were facts, I challenged that and got 'crickets' from both of you.
Most of Yo moma's stuff is pretty square on, but those 4 posts of his were certainly not.

And yes you're ticking me off, because the original point is still unaddressed by you or him.  But here you are going off trying to find another point to make to defend the original fallacy made by Yo Moma, it's rather annoying cause you have nothing but a long winded keyboard.

And I didn't tell you that you were a brick, I ask if you are.-( "Wow, an ad-hom" lol ...grow a pair!!)- . I asked you that as the point I made was ignored by you then you wonder why I didn't address your - lol -'counter point'

Read it again. No attack was made on you.

I will leave this point , because OBVIOUSLY neither of you can prove where it states Yo Moma's assertion in the Old Testament.

If he does post that shit again, I will again address it.

If I post shit, I'd expect the same from you.

And P.s. if your gonna break apart my post to counter it line per line, please START WITH THE ORIGINAL POINT

Oh yeah,  you can't.

" I've provided more than enough in the way of quotes to prove a continuum between one and the other." – ah no you didn't, the ones you did I already summarily disproved and dismissed as they do NOT PROVE Yo Moma's orriginal point as being accurate.
As for the rest of your 'counter points' and  quotes , No they do not prove Yo Moma had any point to be made that the Old Testament states the Jews have dominance over the world and should practice usury on it.  ... ..I should frame that last sentence as THAT IS THE POINT.
Get it yet?

[sullivan]

Ok so it still stands there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that explicitly  states the Jews should have dominance over the world and practice usury on it.

I concede that it doesn't refer to the Jews in particular. You are just playing with semantics.  The OT does provide ample excuse for usury and attempted world domination, whatever the name of the people allowed to carry such usury and/or domination happens to have been.

Nothing you've quoted states otherwise .

Now you are just becoming annoying.

He is posting lies as if they were facts, I challenged that and got 'crickets' from both of you.

He was posting an opinion. He didn't claim that opinion was fact. Can't you tell the difference?

And yes you're ticking me off, because the original point is still unaddressed by you or him.

Oh, I'm ticking you off, am I? I don't give a damn.

But here you are going off trying to find another point to make to defend the original fallacy made by Yo Moma, it's rather annoying cause you have nothing but a long winded keyboard.

Where is the EVIDENCE you have posted to refute his opinion? Nowhere.

And I didn't tell you that you were a brick, I ask if you are.-( "Wow, an ad-hom" lol ...grow a pair!!)- .

Grow a pair? Take a hike, disingenuous troll.

I asked you that as the point I made was ignored by you then you wonder why I didn't address your - lol -'counter point'

Given that you have read none of what I have written, I'm not surprised you have jumped to this conclusion. I have stated that I believe Yo Mama is WRONG in his opinion. Didn't that fact penetrate your skull yet? I do, however, believe there is plenty of basis for supremacism and usury in the Pentateuch, even if you play word games by focusing on the fact that the word 'Jews' didn't appear in there, with statements that can not be proven one way or the other, such as
"The children of Israel, are not Jews, but Jacob's Family."

I will leave this point , because OBVIOUSLY neither of you can prove where it states Yo Moma's assertion in the Old Testament.

If he does post that shit again, I will again address it.

If I post shit, I'd expect the same from you.

You sure as hell can, which is why I am here right now.

And P.s. if your gonna break apart my post to counter it line per line, please START WITH THE ORIGINAL POINT

Debates develop away from but still related to the original point. You obviously can't cope with that. Again, and hopefully for the last time... YOU DO NOT TELL ME WHERE WHEN AND HOW TO POST.

Oh yeah,  you can't.

Given that your argument is specious and all over the place, yes, you are right, I can't.

" I've provided more than enough in the way of quotes to prove a continuum between one and the other." – ah no you didn't, the ones you did I already summarily disproved and dismissed as they do NOT PROVE Yo Moma's orriginal point as being accurate.

I didn't set out to prove his opinion to be correct. I set out to show that there is a commonality and continuum between the two, and I did. The nastiness in the Talmud is a development of the nastiness already present in the Pentateuch.

You can label me as one of God's enemies if you wish, but the quotes speak for themselves. If you want to believe in a god who takes his wrath out on innocent children and livestock of his 'enemies' then knock yourself out.

As for the rest of your 'counter points' and  quotes , No they do not prove Yo Moma had any point to be made that the Old Testament states the Jews have dominance over the world and should practice usury on it.

If you are going to go on the offensive, don't leave big gaping holes in what passes for your argument, like the piece quoted above. Please show me where in this thread Yo Mama has said ANYTHING of the sort. Answer... he didn't, end of story. You invented that bit all on your lonesome.

... ..I should frame that last sentence as THAT IS THE POINT.
Get it yet?

Yeah, I get it all right, just not the way you intended.

[GordZilla]

Ok so it still stands there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that explicitly  states the Jews should have dominance over the world and practice usury on it.

I concede that it doesn't refer to the Jews in particular. You are just playing with semantics.  The OT does provide ample excuse for usury and attempted world domination, whatever the name of the people allowed to carry such usury and/or domination happens to have been.

Semantics?, no it's the point; Jews of today are NOT the sons of Israel in the bible. Believing otherwise is a fallacy.

Nothing you've quoted states otherwise .

Now you are just becoming annoying.

That's cause you still have northing...but onward you go blowing what is amounting to hot air.

He is posting lies as if they were facts, I challenged that and got 'crickets' from both of you.

He was posting an opinion. He didn't claim that opinion was fact. Can't you tell the difference?

Can you?  Lets take a look at 2 of the posts in question;

" Torah nonsense is just as bad as Talmudic nonsense. Actually, it's worse, because it's much older and much more virulent"
"Actually" ??
"Well, for one thing, in the Old Testament the Jewish tribal desert god Yahweh commands the Jews to take over the world through money-lending and usury. Did you know that?"
If that's not stated matter-of-factly then I don't know what is. He even asks me did I know that  (btw it was this post that started the whole thing, as he did ask and I claimed it was HE that did not know that, then asked him to prove it.)

Those were factually made statements, not presented as his opinion.

And yes you're ticking me off, because the original point is still unaddressed by you or him.

Oh, I'm ticking you off, am I? I don't give a damn.

Yes like an empty can just rattling away. Disecting my post like you actually had some point to make or some real stake in this argument, to which you have neither. Again just hot air.

But here you are going off trying to find another point to make to defend the original fallacy made by Yo Moma, it's rather annoying cause you have nothing but a long winded keyboard.

Where is the EVIDENCE you have posted to refute his opinion? Nowhere.

Again read above, it is not I that needs to defend the point, I didn't make it, I merely challenged it after 4 posts of it. (this is why you are like a third wheel in this, he asked me if "I knew that" – if I knew what he was saying was FACT

OMG – do you not get that?

And I didn't tell you that you were a brick, I ask if you are.-( "Wow, an ad-hom" lol ...grow a pair!!)- .

Grow a pair? Take a hike, disingenuous troll.

The best one yet; You falsely accuse me of ad hominem attacks, then when I prove to you I didn't you proceed with your own.  Hypocrite. (not 'ad hominem' -this description of you clearly fits by your own words)

I asked you that as the point I made was ignored by you then you wonder why I didn't address your - lol -'counter point'

Given that you have read none of what I have written, I'm not surprised you have jumped to this conclusion. I have stated that I believe Yo Mama is WRONG in his opinion. Didn't that fact penetrate your skull yet? I do, however, believe there is plenty of basis for supremacism and usury in the Pentateuch, even if you play word games by focusing on the fact that the word 'Jews' didn't appear in there, with statements that can not be proven one way or the other, such as
"The children of Israel, are not Jews, but Jacob's Family."

You stated you believed he was wrong in his 'opinion' (though he never states it as such) that the Old testament is more virulent than the Talmud, and yes I concur. But you do maintain the Jews were/are to dominate the world threw usury (which you think is synonymous with lending -it is not)  And it's not word play. Just like other parts of history, what you originally learned was just plain wrong, you know that now. The same for what we 'learn' about the bible. It is a key point that the 'Jews' of today are not the children of Jacob as spoken about in the bible, so to say they are is rather naive, especially in this forum.  Oddly the new part to that book will tell you just that.

I will leave this point , because OBVIOUSLY neither of you can prove where it states Yo Moma's assertion in the Old Testament.

If he does post that shit again, I will again address it.

If I post shit, I'd expect the same from you.

You sure as hell can, which is why I am here right now.

Well? Point something out then, cause so far ...well,  just read see above. I've addressed this in a style that you seem to relate to best; piece by piece, and I've been soundly refuting your 'points' in the same manner.

And P.s. if your gonna break apart my post to counter it line per line, please START WITH THE ORIGINAL POINT

Debates develop away from but still related to the original point. You obviously can't cope with that. Again, and hopefully for the last time... YOU DO NOT TELL ME WHERE WHEN AND HOW TO POST.

I won't but just realize, the point was never about you, and has remained all this time unchallenged. It was the one I originally 'framed' in my last post in the hopes that maybe you might remember it, apparently not.  It is you that's drawing this into another avenue.  I am concerned ONLY with Yo moma's repeated post of what was UNDENABLY presented as FACT, and which is clearly NOT. Again why you're  here on this, God only knows ..but I'm sure that won't stop you, you probably have much more catharsis to attend to. By all means let it spill.

Oh yeah,  you can't.

Given that your argument is specious and all over the place, yes, you are right, I can't.

The only part of my argument that's all over the place is the part countering your endless dribble. My original argument, has been repeatedly reposted throughout this debate yet you still don't seem to understand it. It is all I am concerned about; a fallacy presented as fact in which I challenged. That's it, try to stay with it.

" I've provided more than enough in the way of quotes to prove a continuum between one and the other." – ah no you didn't, the ones you did I already summarily disproved and dismissed as they do NOT PROVE Yo Moma's orriginal point as being accurate.

I didn't set out to prove his opinion to be correct. I set out to show that there is a commonality and continuum between the two, and I did. The nastiness in the Talmud is a development of the nastiness already present in the Pentateuch.

You can label me as one of God's enemies if you wish, but the quotes speak for themselves. If you want to believe in a god who takes his wrath out on innocent children and livestock of his 'enemies' then knock yourself out. .

'His opinion'? Again see above. And well that's what I set out to do; ask him to prove his assertion that he presented as fact. What you set out to do is beyond me, I'm still scratching my head on that one. Yes God is mean in the bible, again does this equate to "God commanded the Jews to practice usury on the world" in the Old Testament? Ah NO!

There it is again , Sullivan, write it down for that is yet again; THE POINT.

As for the rest of your 'counter points' and  quotes , No they do not prove Yo Moma had any point to be made that the Old Testament states the Jews have dominance over the world and should practice usury on it.

If you are going to go on the offensive, don't leave big gaping holes in what passes for your argument, like the piece quoted above. Please show me where in this thread Yo Mama has said ANYTHING of the sort. Answer... he didn't, end of story. You invented that bit all on your lonesome.

Easy, see above, or search his posts, or if need be  - just for you I will link them here, will you then believe that is what he said or perhaps it'll depend on what the definition of 'is' is?


viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6087&p=24668#p24668

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6286&p=24693#p24693

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6087&p=24649#p24649

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6036&p=24692#p24692





Ok now do you get it?

Couldn't have made it plainer than that.

[sullivan]

Yawn. This is plain boring and a waste of my time. You cling on to and defend your mythologies if you wish. I'm playing your dumb game.

[GordZilla]

Yawn. This is plain boring and a waste of my time. You cling on to and defend your mythologies if you wish. I'm playing your dumb game.

Myths? Yeah ok whatever sullivan. Good to see you out, keep in touch.



Now, Yo Moma, speaking about myths, can you please show me just where you got this idea from the Old Testament?
You know the one.

If not fine, but please tag it with IMHO.

[sullivan]

Yawn. This is plain boring and a waste of my time. You cling on to and defend your mythologies if you wish. I'm playing your dumb game.

Myths? Yeah ok whatever sullivan. Good to see you out, keep in touch.

You didn't see me out. I just don't have the time to waste on circular arguments.

[GordZilla]

Yawn. This is plain boring and a waste of my time. You cling on to and defend your mythologies if you wish. I'm playing your dumb game.

Myths? Yeah ok whatever sullivan. Good to see you out, keep in touch.

You didn't see me out. I just don't have the time to waste on circular arguments.

I didn't mean "see you out" of the argument, I meant; 'see you out participating' - like "Good to see you out" , but alas I'm done with it too.

[Yo Mama]

In the Jewish book of Deuteronomy 15:6; 23:20; 28:12-13, the Jewish tribal desert god commands the Jews to take over the world through money-lending and usury:

"15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. [***] 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. [***] 28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. 28:13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:"

8-)

[GordZilla]

In the Jewish book of Deuteronomy 15:6; 23:20; 28:12-13, the Jewish tribal desert god commands the Jews to take over the world through money-lending and usury:

"15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. [***] 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. [***] 28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. 28:13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:"

8-)

Well I be damned, would not have believed if not pointed out for me. I can concede the point then, God does apparently grant the right to lend with interest to strangers but not to brothers, He grants it to a still disputed 'somebody'. Well that's as close as we're gonna get anyways.

Yo moma, I stand corrected, with regards to the usury part, dominance for 'Jews' I still question, we do not any longer know exactly who He was talking to, but we can be certain it is not the 'so called Jews' of today, least I am certain.

So for the usury end of the argument I concede, but as for the Old Testament being more virulent then the Talmud, that I cannot and do not concede.

Sullivan, sorry to have got you involved, never meant to, I wish Yo moma posted this right from the get go.

[sullivan]

Well I be damned, would not have believed if not pointed out for me. I can concede the point then, God does apparently grant the right to lend with interest to strangers but not to brothers, He grants it to a still disputed 'somebody'. Well that's as close as we're gonna get anyways.

Of course the somebody is disputed, but the fact that it is granted to anyone is enough by itself, and it doesn't stop any particular group from claiming they are that special somebody.

Yo moma, I stand corrected, with regards to the usury part, dominance for 'Jews' I still question, we do not any longer know exactly who He was talking to, but we can be certain it is not the 'so called Jews' of today, least I am certain.

The fundamental point is that a group is given permission to dominate others. I find that repugnant regardless as to whom the permission is granted.

Sullivan, sorry to have got you involved, never meant to, I wish Yo moma posted this right from the get go.

You didn't get me involved. I did

[mgt23]

The fundamental point is that a group is given permission to dominate others. I find that repugnant regardless as to whom the permission is granted.

in zionists cases definitely or any other clinically insane group that has power. but further more no group should dominate all the way down to any individual.

[Free Truth]

Doesn't the 6 million number have some Kabbalistic root?

For everybody that reads this: Do yourself a favor and forget ALL about the Old Testament. It's for the so-called jews!

Yahweh is not for you.
It turns out Yahweh could very well be Ba'al (as in Beelzebub)!!!

Don't be like I was; trying to figure out and justify what the OT/Yahweh says (considering Jesus would never say what Yahweh would) or what it says about the Hebrews... Just trash it. In all probability, it's nonsense... The tales of them being slaves, creation and the exodus are probably nothing more than fairy tales. I should have written it off long ago...

Stick to the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!!! He is the man.

I think I have more for everybody on this and on God in general...

Relevant
6 million number showing up in 1919:

http://www.judenfrei.org/files/glynnjews.png

[Free Truth]

While Yahweh may or may not be Ba'al (who knows), El is certainly Saturn.

Astrological Saturn has always been associated with the letter of the law and Gnostics have identified Saturn with the god of Early Scripture, whom they regarded as a tyrannical father, obsessed with rigid enforcement of the law. There is a symbolic link between Saturn and the God of Early Scripture through the use of Saturday (+ Sabbath). Saturn's Day, the seventh day of Scripture, the holy day of rest.

When Hellenes encountered Phoenicians and later, Hebrews, they identified the Semitic El, by interpretatio graeca, with Cronus (Saturn).

[Father Brown]

The word "holocaust" means burnt offering:

Thier God mapped it out in great detail for his followers (Torah, Old Testament) describing how he wanted the burnt offerings to be served.

But animal offerings, which were bad enough, were not enough to satisfy Yaweh's blood lust entirely and he upped the stakes by demanding human offerings. Moreover, he even ordered his followers to holocaust their own children: »Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."« [Genesis 22, 2]

For the permission to return to the Promised Land, God allegedly demanded from them a "6-Million-Holocaust-Offering", so the high priests interpreted a Torah prophecy that reads: "You shall return" (due to a spelling mistake the priests interpret it this way "You shall return, minus 6 million")

This self-imposed prophesy – without fulfilment of this prophesy the return to the Promised Land would not be permitted.

And so the zionists could not go back to the promised land until Yaweh came back to earth and led them there but they found this loophole that they think justifies their return without  Yaweh leading them there.

That may be where that number ultimately comes from. But, I seem to remember a poster claiming that 6 million Jews were either killed, or maybe displaced, during WWI. It appeared in the '20s or maybe sometime in the '30s. Seems to be a number they are stuck on.

However, your interpreation of Abraham and Isaac is disingenous at best. Abraham was being tested, and never killed Isaac. He was spared at the last moment and a ram appeared for the sacrfice. Isaac also carried the wood necessary for the burnt offering, which is a prophecy of Christ's cross.  God only asked for one human sacrifice. That of his son.

[hurensohn]

Deuteronomy 15:6; 23:20; 28:12-13

Well, that means they'd have to lend gold and silver coins and not print paper bullshit.