Does anyone know of any intolerant/unjust/ridiculous verses in the Talmud? I've seen many criticisms of the Koran and the Bible; it seems as though very few people trash-talk the Jewish Torah, since they'd likely be accused of Antisemitism. But aren't all religions fair game for skepticism? In short: yes. So, if you know of any sadistic verses, please post them.

The Old Testament of the Bible is the Torah (basically).

The Talmud is a collection of debates over religious law. There are few to no conclusions drawn, and is very dense. Its purpose is not to tell people how to live, but to include them in the intellectual process of religious thought. It is not law in and of itself.

So could the Torah be seen as a collection of possible answers to the debates in the Talmud?

(sorry if this is a stupid question. I'm not as well-versed in Judaism as I ought to be.)

No, the torah is part of the Jewish biblical texts, the 5 books of moses, etc similar to the old testament. The Talmud is a collection of rabbinical interpretations of the tanakh. There's also the midrash, which is similar but more legal.

Torah, technically refers to the Tanakh, but more typically refers to the entire collection of Jewish law and teachings. This includes the Talmud. There is really no resolution to the arguments in the Talmud, as this would be against there initial concept, however, in later years, books like the Shulchan Aruch and Moshe Ben Maimon's (Maimonides) Guide to the Perplexed, codified Jewish Law. This was very controversial at the time, but the Shulchan Aruch has become the standard set of laws for Orthodox Jews the world over, primarily because it took advantage of the advent of the printing press and became rapidly and widely circulated. I don't have alot of time at the moment, nor am I in any way a scholar in the field but I have done some study; but if you leave a list of questions, or just have a general topic you want me to discuss, let me know, and I will do my best to answer.

If you manage to find one do let me know, i will not call you anti-semetic.

To my knowledge there is nothing hateful in there, possibly some un-liberal and 'harsh' stuff, but nothing which incites the same kind of war that the Qu'ran does in start.

However, in the Torah G-d fucks shit up.

The torah is only part of the Tanakh, but the Tanakh as a whole, is basically the OT. Here is what it consists of:

The twenty-four "Books" in the Tanakh are as follows:


The Five Books of Moses or Torah ("Teaching") [also known as the Pentateuch/Khumash] consists of:
1. Genesis [בראשית / B'reshit]
2. Exodus [שמות / Sh'mot]
3. Leviticus [ויקרא / Vayiqra]
4. Numbers [במדבר / B'midbar]
5. Deuteronomy [דברים / D'varim]


The books of Nevi'im ("Prophets") are:
6. Joshua [יהושע / Y'hoshua]
7. Judges [שופטים / Shophtim]
8. Samuel (I & II) [שמואל / Sh'muel]
9. Kings (I & II) [מלכים / M'lakhim]
10. Isaiah [ישעיה / Y'shayahu]
11. Jeremiah [ירמיה / Yir'mi'yahu]
12. Ezekiel [יחזקאל / Y'khezqel]
13. The Twelve Prophets [תרי עשר]
I. Hosea [הושע / Hoshea]
II. Joel [יואל / Yo'el]
III. Amos [עמוס / Amos]
IV. Obadiah [עובדיה / Ovadyah]
V. Jonah [יונה / Yonah]
VI. Micah [מיכה / Mikhah]
VII. Nahum [נחום / Nakhum]
VIII. Habakkuk [חבקוק /Khavaquq]
IX. Zephaniah [צפניה / Ts'phanyah]
X. Haggai [חגי / Khagai]
XI. Zechariah [זכריה / Z'kharyah]
XII. Malachi [מלאכי / Mal'akhi]
The Ketuvim ("Writings") are:


The "Sifrei Emet," "Books of Truth":
14. Psalms [תהלים / T'hilim]
15. Proverbs [משלי / Mishlei]
16. Job [איוב / Iyov]
The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls":
17. Song of Songs [שיר השירים / Shir Hashirim]
18. Ruth [רות / Rut]
19. Lamentations [איכה / Eikhah]
20. Ecclesiastes [קהלת / Qohelet]
21. Esther [אסתר / Est(h)er]
The rest of the "Writings":
22. Daniel [דניאל / Dani'el]
23. Ezra-Nehemiah [עזרא ונחמיה / Ezra wuNekhem'ya]
24. Chronicles (I & II) [דברי הימים / Divrey Hayamim]




As you can see, beside translational differences, anything found in these books of the OT will suffice as a flaw/attack of the Tanakh. Ergo, the Tanakh is extremely flawed and obviously ridiculous to any intellectually honest person.

Sorry, misspoke, far to early in the morning to be thinking, but don't forget about the Oral Torah. Torah is not simply the Pentateuch.

Edit-Also, your argument supposes that there are flaws in the "OT", which I imagine you believe, but that is not fact.

Sorry, misspoke, far to early in the morning to be thinking, but don't forget about the Oral Torah. Torah is not simply the Pentateuch.

Edit-Also, your argument supposes that there are flaws in the "OT", which I imagine you believe, but that is not fact.

Yes. The story of Noah's Ark is infact ridiculous and thus makes for atleast one argument against the validity of the OT.

Edit-Also, your argument supposes that there are flaws in the "OT", which I imagine you believe, but that is not fact.

It is fact. Here is one of my favorite example of a flaw in the OT

God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Leviticus 14:2-52

This is clearly NOT the way to cure leprosy. This MAY have prevented people from discovering medicines to help lepers. This is complete bullshit.

For more fun facts and problems with the OT please check out

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com An athiests best weapon (other than science and common sense) against christians.

It is fact. Here is one of my favorite example of a flaw in the OT


This is clearly NOT the way to cure leprosy. This MAY have prevented people from discovering medicines to help lepers. This is complete bullshit.

For more fun facts and problems with the OT please check out

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com An athiests best weapon (other than science and common sense) against christians.

You would be correct, if the Hebrew word refers to Hansen's disease; however, that word, which is translated to leprosy, actual means a state of ritual and spiritual impurity (hence the sin offering), not the disease we have come to associate with that word. I will check out that site, and if you wish you may present more issues from the OT here if you would like to hear a Jewish defense of them.

You would be correct, if the Hebrew word refers to Hansen's disease; however, that word, which is translated to leprosy, actual means a state of ritual and spiritual impurity (hence the sin offering), not the disease we have come to associate with that word. I will check out that site, and if you wish you may present more issues from the OT here if you would like to hear a Jewish defense of them.

I already stated Noah's Ark. Oh, and talking snakes.

I already stated Noah's Ark. Oh, and talking snakes.

Metaphor and allegory. By the way, the flood story is nearly omnipresent in mythologies in that area of the world. Recently, science has begun to examine the possibility of the flood being a historical event, and numerous scientists argue that an event similar to that described most likely occurred.

The Old Testament of the Bible is the Torah (basically).

The Torah is comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (5 books) which are all traditionally attributed to Moses.

The Old Testament also includes a number of Hebrew prophetic and poetry books.

Finally, the Talmud is something completely different (not included in the Bible) written by Jewish rabbinic councils starting around 100 AD containing a number of cultural practices, historical notes, and a few of their reasons for rejecting Jesus Christ as the Jewish messiah (including large sections where they launch personal attacks against Jesus & the virgin Mary).

The Torah is comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (5 books) which are all traditionally attributed to Moses.

The Old Testament also includes a number of Hebrew prophetic and poetry books.

Finally, the Talmud is something completely different (not included in the Bible) written by Jewish rabbinic councils starting around 100 AD containing a number of cultural practices, historical notes, and a few of their reasons for rejecting Jesus Christ as the Jewish messiah (including large sections where they launch personal attacks against Jesus & the virgin Mary).

Torah has numerous meanings. As you mentioned, the first five books of the OT are the books of the Torah. Also, Torah refers to those oral traditions that accompany the text. Torah in a broader sense refers to the collection of the teachings of the Jewish faith, including Talmud, Midrashic Texts, and, according to some, the Kaballa.

The "personal attacks on Jesus and Mary" are derived from selective readings, taking bits of a huge volume out of context, remember that the Talmud is a debate, and for nearly every point there is a counter point. That form of incomplete reading is commonly used in antisemetic attacks, and is a flawed method of reading and interpretation.

This is going to sound like a really weird or trivial question, but I correspond with a Jew who lives in Israel, and he told me once that Jews are not allowed to write the name of God (they normally write it G-d), except on computers because they're not counted in the Jewish texts as written word. Is this true or was he having a laugh? If it's true, do all sects believe God's name can be written online or do some interpret the texts differently? If so, why?

Metaphor and allegory. By the way, the flood story is nearly omnipresent in mythologies in that area of the world. Recently, science has begun to examine the possibility of the flood being a historical event, and numerous scientists argue that an event similar to that described most likely occurred.

I just don't see how god wanting to kill all sentient beings, the flood, or noah's ark are metaphorical. It doesn't even use slightly metaphorical language.

It literally says "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." - Genesis 6:19

"Every living thing on the earth perished..." Genesis 7:21

and a few of their reasons for rejecting Jesus Christ as the Jewish messiah (including large sections where they launch personal attacks against Jesus & the virgin Mary).

Ohhh, so Judaism has a good side :p

This is going to sound like a really weird or trivial question, but I correspond with a Jew who lives in Israel, and he told me once that Jews are not allowed to write the name of God (they normally write it G-d), except on computers because they're not counted in the Jewish texts as written word. Is this true or was he having a laugh? If it's true, do all sects believe God's name can be written online or do some interpret the texts differently? If so, why?

He is right that Jews do not write the name of Gd (I personally don't even type it). This is so that the name of Gd in written form cannot be desecrated or erased; since typed words are not physical, some argue that this is irrelevant in typing. In essence, most Jews agree with this belief; I don't write it online as a personal sign of devotion and for the sake of habit.


I just don't see how god wanting to kill all sentient beings, the flood, or noah's ark are metaphorical. It doesn't even use slightly metaphorical language.

It literally says "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." - Genesis 6:19

"Every living thing on the earth perished..." Genesis 7:21


Metaphorical language? You are aware that metaphors are direct comparisons, without any special language. Special language such as like or as indicates a simile.

The view taken by the vast majority of Judaism is that of Jewish Philosopher Saadi Gaon; the Torah is to be taken literally only in those situations in which it is logical to do so. If something is obviously illogical, then there is obviously an alogical meaning.

Many would likely argue that the true meaning is revealed in the light of Oral Torah, but not having studied the Oral Torah specifically related to this passage, I can't delve further into that matter. The Oral Torah serves as a method to reveal the meaning of numerous scriptural passages, and is of approximately the same age as the Written Torah, though somewhat older.

There is nothing "illogical" - as in "breaking the rules of logic" - in a global flood, or in killing a vast number of humans. Maybe something really fucking disgusting or "evil", which makes you want to distance yourself from the passage...


As for the metaphoric language, just because a metaphor lacks "as" or "like" doesn't mean there aren't' clues in the passage of the metaphor. But even this is pretty irrelevant, if it was meant as a metaphor, yet a humongous amount of people read it as literally, then obviously god is pretty terrible at metaphors. One would think that god would spend a little more care, life death hanging on the balance and all...

There is nothing "illogical" - as in "breaking the rules of logic" - in a global flood, or in killing a vast number of humans. Maybe something really fucking disgusting or "evil", which makes you want to distance yourself from the passage...


It WOULD be (definitely against scientific evidence) that there has been a flood that could cover the ENTIRE earth and every person not on the ark was killed (as it is said in the bible). It's also verrry illogical to think that every specie could be fit onto any boat.

It WOULD be (definitely against scientific evidence) that there has been a flood that could cover the ENTIRE earth and every person not on the ark was killed (as it is said in the bible). It's also verrry illogical to think that every specie could be fit onto any boat.

Well, there you go, you've figured it out, it must be a metaphor for something.

It WOULD be (definitely against scientific evidence) that there has been a flood that could cover the ENTIRE earth and every person not on the ark was killed (as it is said in the bible). It's also verrry illogical to think that every specie could be fit onto any boat.

Neither of those are illogical since neither of those break any rules of inference. Science could be wrong. That's not illogical or impossible.

Moreover, not everything of the myths must be illogical, only parts. You cite the number of species which couldn't fit on the boat, then that, in itself, could be a metaphor, but the global flood correct and literal (i.e. there was a global flood, but they didn't bring every species only some; a quantity that made the flood fiscally possible).

The whole point is that his argument that simply because he thinks something is illogical then it must have been a metaphor, doesn't hold any water when the things he's calling illogical could have happened (i.e. were not impossible or did not break any rules of inference). If "against the scientific evidence" was the criterion he was using, then pretty much everything would be a metaphor; god's omniscience, omnipotence, God's miracles ... almost anything that would make the JudeoChrisitan god important would be against the scientific evidence! Clearly, this "illogical therefore metaphor" card isn't being used honestly.

Well, there you go, you've figured it out, it must be a metaphor for something.

Or God is just a real asshole. Either of those.

Let's guess which one a theist will pick...

Let me clarify, I am not using illogical in the sense of philosophical jargon, I am rather using it as used in the general vernacular. Gaon's more complete argument contains four main points. The Torah is not to be taken literally in the following circumstances:

1) The statement is objectively false.
2) Logic argues against a literal interpretation.
3) There is an apparent contradiction.
4) Tradition says that there is a non-literal meaning to the story.

One popular interpretation is that this story illustrates the destructive nature of sin, both to the individual and society; and that virtue can provide one safety from the repercussions of a sinful society.

Let's guess which one a theist will pick...

And which one an atheist will pick will be any less biased?

The whole point is that his argument that simply because he thinks something is illogical then it must have been a metaphor, doesn't hold any water when the things he's calling illogical could have happened (i.e. were not impossible or did not break any rules of inference). If "against the scientific evidence" was the criterion he was using, then pretty much everything would be a metaphor; god's omniscience, omnipotence, God's miracles ... almost anything that would make the JudeoChrisitan god important would be against the scientific evidence! Clearly, this "illogical therefore metaphor" card isn't being used honestly.

What scientific evidence is against Gd's omniscience, omnipotence, miracles etc.?


As for the metaphoric language, just because a metaphor lacks "as" or "like" doesn't mean there aren't' clues in the passage of the metaphor. But even this is pretty irrelevant, if it was meant as a metaphor, yet a humongous amount of people read it as literally, then obviously god is pretty terrible at metaphors. One would think that god would spend a little more care, life death hanging on the balance and all...

As to the metaphorical language, I am curious as to what you are referring. Just because people fail to appropriately read a metaphor, does not mean it is a bad metaphor, it means human comprehension is terribly limited. Add the complication of translation to a metaphor, and it can be very difficult to decipher. One would think that WE would take more care, we are the ones reading.

3) There is an apparent contradiction.

Apparent to who? If this doesn't use the "philosophical jargon" to define logic, then what in the world is an apparent contradiction - contradictions are things which would break established rules of inference in what you call the "philosophical jargon" - and to whom must the contradiction be apparent to? Anyone?


And which one an atheist will pick will be any less biased?

"They are biased too!" isn't a defense for bias.


What scientific evidence is against Gd's omniscience, omnipotence, miracles etc.?

He said it would be illogical in that it would be against the scientific evidence. Are you suggesting there is scientific evidence supporting the idea of omnipotence, omniscience, and miracles?

The very definition of Science - a naturalist methodology - precludes any evidence involving the supernatural, which is what a god is often defined as.

Just because people fail to appropriately read a metaphor, does not mean it is a bad metaphor, it means human comprehension is terribly limited.

So the author isn't at fault? It's not his fault that he failed to reach his audience? That he used a metaphor that the vast majority of his audience fails to understand? If I use a metaphor involving plasma TVs for an audience that has never even heard of plasma TVs (lets say a tribe in Africa or the Amazon), are they at fault? Or am I at fault when I know full well that my audience would find it difficult to understand the metaphor, yet I needlessly decided to use it anyway?

Surely it's not completely the reader's fault. The author can share responsibility as well. When we see a book that a substantial amount of people (if not the majoirity), cannot agree on what's a metaphor and what isn't, then it's perfectly resonable to conclude that the author is partly at fault.

All this while ignoring the fact that the "author" in question has the ability of making any metaphor he uses be fully understood by any person in the world, in any context in the world. Apparnetly he likes it when people 'fail to appropriately read'...


Add the complication of translation to a metaphor, and it can be very difficult to decipher.

That's a maginificent reason why we shouldn't believe a single word it says to begin with; metaphor or not.

Apparent to who? If this doesn't use the "philosophical jargon" to define logic, then what in the world is an apparent contradiction - contradictions are things which would break established rules of inference in what you call the "philosophical jargon" - and to whom must the contradiction be apparent to? Anyone?

I did not use the word "illogical" in terms of philosophical jargon earlier, and I was clarifying that. I used the word apparent meaning in appearance and not in substance. I will have to do more research to find Gaon's exact belief on that, but typically in reference to experts, a.k.a. Rabbi's, just as in any other field.



"They are biased too!" isn't a defense for bias.

Not intended as a defense of bias, it was intended to point out a flaw in his argument, nothing more.

He said it would be illogical in that it would be against the scientific evidence. Are you suggesting there is scientific evidence supporting the idea of omnipotence, omniscience, and miracles?


I am simply suggesting that I have not seen scientific evidence against these beliefs. Specific miracles, maybe, miracles in general, I would like to see proof against. As I would these other issues. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, over quoted but still true.


The very definition of Science - a naturalist methodology - precludes any evidence involving the supernatural, which is what a god is often defined as.

I fail to see where the observationalist methodology precludes the so-called supernatural.



So the author isn't at fault? It's not his fault that he failed to reach his audience? That he used a metaphor that the vast majority of his audience fails to understand? If I use a metaphor involving plasma TVs for an audience that has never even heard of plasma TVs (lets say a tribe in Africa or the Amazon), are they at fault? Or am I at fault when I know full well that my audience would find it difficult to understand the metaphor, yet I needlessly decided to use it anyway?

Surely it's not completely the reader's fault. The author can share responsibility as well. When we see a book that a substantial amount of people (if not the majoirity), cannot agree on what's a metaphor and what isn't, then it's perfectly resonable to conclude that the author is partly at fault.

All this while ignoring the fact that the "author" in question has the ability of making any metaphor he uses be fully understood by any person in the world, in any context in the world. Apparnetly he likes it when people 'fail to appropriately read'...

That's a maginificent reason why we shouldn't believe a single word it says to begin with; metaphor or not.

Who did he give the book to? That would be his target audience, and it seems they understood it. Considering a substantial portion of clarity was lost in translation, and more by time, I do not believe the author is at fault. Using human language, which works in the realm of human comprehension and is therefore limited in its capabilities, He could only explain perfectly to the group of people who spoke that language in that way. To understand further, we must understand how they understand, and allow that to transition into the modern world. This is the purpose of rabinical study.

Do you blame a flawless programer for the mistakes of a flawed language and a flawed compiler? I most certainly hope not.

I see no defense of your final statement, but maybe you can explain it to me.

Please, don't mistake me for a fool, and if you must mistake me as such; civility at the very least would be appreciated. I feel that you are being rather hostile. If I have given anyone else that feeling that I intend to be antagonistic, I apologize

I did not use the word "illogical" in terms of philosophical jargon earlier, and I was clarifying that. I used the word apparent meaning in appearance and not in substance. I will have to do more research to find Gaon's exact belief on that, but typically in reference to experts, a.k.a. Rabbi's, just as in any other field.

1. I know you were clarifying that. I acknowledge that by saying "If this doesn't use the "philosophical jargon" to define logic". In other words, 'if point three isn't using "logic" in the context of what you call "philosophical jargon"...'

2. I know the definition of "apparent". There was no confusion in this regard. My point, which your reply did not address, is that 'to whom the alleged contradiction must be apparent to' is not explained. Who gets to decide what appears to be a contradiction? 'What appears to be a contradiction' is not objective; it depends on the observer.

If you say it may refer to what "experts" say, then the problem of subjectivity still exists. Any so-called "expert" could call any passage in the text an apparent contradiction.


Not intended as a defense of bias, it was intended to point out a flaw in his argument, nothing more.His? I think you're confused on who you're replying to. I made the comment you were replying to. In fact, I made all comments you quoted in that previous post of yours.

That aside, you haven't pointed out any flaw. I never once denied that the atheist could be biased. That is immaterial. My sole point was to show that there was bias, and apparently you agree. I was successful then.


I am simply suggesting that I have not seen scientific evidence against these beliefs. Specific miracles, maybe, miracles in general, I would like to see proof against. As I would these other issues. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, over quoted but still true.The "absence of evidence" comes from the very fact that Science does not deal with the supernatural in the first place. You will not find any scientific evidence supporting the idea of miracles, omnipotence, or omniscience. That
was the point.

If you do have evidence supporting it - and thus allowing you to state it is "logical" in the sense that it is supported by Science - go ahead.


I fail to see where the observationalist methodology precludes the so-called supernatural. It's not just "observationalist" it is naturalist, as I said, which precludes the supernatural by definition.


Who did he give the book to? That would be his target audience, and it seems they understood it.

1. So his book was not intended for us in modern times? Wonderful! Even better. I couldn't have argued against modern usage of those ancient texts myself. Thank you.

2. Are you suggesting you know for a fact there was not misinterpretation from what you allege was his target audience?

Using human language, which works in the realm of human comprehension and is therefore limited in its capabilities, He could only explain perfectly to the group of people who spoke that language in that way.If he's omnipotent he must be able to do much more than that, by definition. He must possess the ability to explain it to all people, in all contexts, in any language.


Do you blame a flawless programer for the mistakes of a flawed language and a flawed compiler? I most certainly hope not.I would certainly blame him if he needlessly chose to use that flawed language and that flawed compiler.

Again, the "author" in question (the programmer in your analogy) is not limited to a flawed human language (a flawed programming language and/or flawed compiler in your analogy). He has at his disposal, by virtue of his omnipotence, the ability to make his text be understood by any living being, in any context, and at any time (to use a perfect programming language and a perfect compiler in your analogy).

If he has both that at his disposal and control of his actions, yet he deliberately and needlessly chose not to use it, then I definitely do blame him.


I see no defense of your final statement, but maybe you can explain it to me.What defense were you expecting? I don't understand.

My final statement means just what it says:

"That [I]. is a maginificent reason why we shouldn't believe a single word it [the Bible, or any text that suffers from that] says to begin with; metaphor or not."

In other words, in addition to it not being a valid argument for the reasons already stated above, 'it being hard to decipher' only serves to support the idea that we shouldn't put weight in those texts in the first place.


Please, don't mistake me for a fool, and if you must mistake me as such; civility at the very least would be appreciated. I feel that you are being rather hostile. If I have given anyone else that feeling that I intend to be antagonistic, I apologizeHow am I being hostile? Did I insult you in any way? I was being rather civil. How am I mistaking you for a fool? It would help if you provide an example of the alleged hostility.

That being said, I truly don't give a shit whether you think I was being hostile or not, since hostility (or the lack of it) would not make my statements any less true or any less false, which is all that matters to me. For future reference, that sentence right there was hostile. :)