They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid?
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
Reminds me of that song “Kill the Boer”
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
Historical context is relevant.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.