« prev   random   next »

7
0

Reading Paper Books

By Patrick follow Patrick   2021 Jun 27, 8:34pm 2,786 views  164 comments           share      

In my early retirement, I've decided to read at least an hour a night in real paper books. So far, I've read:

- my dad's old college English book (always felt I needed to improve my grammar)
- Candide by Voltaire
- Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche
- The Politics by Aristotle

Now I'm reading The Prince by Machiavelli, and really enjoying it. One tip: before invading, look for minorities who will help you because they resent the traditional rulers in their own country. They may in fact invite you in to help them overthrow their own country. This makes me think that the Chinese have read The Prince and are using BLM, gays, and militant feminism as allies in their fight against America.

« First    « Previous    Comments 119 - 158 of 164   Next »    Last »

119   NuttBoxer   2022 Mar 3, 10:08pm  

Finally finished Tesla's autobiography. One of the last inventions he details is an engine design which sounded almost like perpetual motion. At the least it seemed to guarantee an efficiency I don't think we have today. Again, patented around the turn of the 20th century. Fucking genius.
120   Ceffer   2022 Mar 3, 10:19pm  

Stolen history site outlines the lost history of Tartaria and its amazing buildings. They postulate that many of these elaborate structures were designed for free energy collection by their shapes, much as postulated by the free energy inventions of Tesla.
121   Patrick   2022 Mar 4, 3:03pm  

I've started reading United States of Fear by Mark McDonald, MD.



It's a short book and I'm halfway through already. Very good so far.

The author explicitly links feminism and the resulting weak men with anxiety among white liberal urban women, and their frankly insane over-reaction to the virus Fauci created in Wuhan.

Women are not safe with weak men as husbands and they know this at a deep level.

Other trends which contributed to the Covidian Cult:

Safety and self-esteem were elevated over accomplishment, mastery, and truth. This become law.

Liberals prefer the promise of safety to liberty.
Conservatives prefer liberty to the promise of safety.

Women were far more affected by fear of the virus than men, especially unmarried women (women without any man at all to protect them, not even a weak man).

Public officials wildly over-reacted to the small threat of the virus in order to avoid blame. There was no political benefit to being reasonable. This greatly increased women's fear.

Feminism claimed to be about freedom and opportunity, but turned out to be mostly misandry.

American men no longer play their traditional role of grounding and containing women's anxiety in a crisis. Instead, male weakness amplifies women's anxiety.
122   Patrick   2022 Mar 4, 3:34pm  

More insights:

Liberal women paradoxically demand that men be more feminized, and then strongly resent the feminized men they have helped to create.

Testosterone and grip strength have been dropping among men.

The more formal education a man has, the less likely he is to rate himself as "very masculine".

Republican men are twice as likely to rate themselves as "very masculine" than Democratic men.

3/4 of Republican men view masculinity as a good thing, but only 1/2 of Democratic men do.

"As feminism exults in its triumph over men, both sexes lose."

"The surrender of real courage by men inevitably produces fearful women, and fearful women channel their fear into controlling others."
123   HeadSet   2022 Mar 4, 4:44pm  

Patrick says
Testosterone and grip strength have been dropping among men.

Why would testosterone drop? Pot use? One's politics will not affect juice level.
124   mell   2022 Mar 4, 4:47pm  

HeadSet says
Patrick says
Testosterone and grip strength have been dropping among men.

Why would testosterone drop? Pot use? One's politics will not affect juice level.


It does. The habits, soy food, being sedentary, not hunting women,not going to the gym but hiding in the basement, netfucks and chill. not asserting yourself, all have negative effects on T. It's been declining for decades now but leftoids are speeding it up.
125   Patrick   2022 Mar 4, 8:04pm  

I have read that psychology definitely affects testosterone levels. There is a positive feedback loop where winning men produce more testosterone. And conversely.
126   Patrick   2022 Mar 7, 1:10pm  

I've started reading The Federalist Papers as my next book.

The beginning says that the goal of our Constitution is freedom from tyranny, so it's very relevant to right now in America.
127   DooDahMan   2022 Apr 9, 3:40am  



Tokugawa Ieyasu founded a dynasty of rulers, organized a system of government and set in train the re-orientation of the religion of Japan so that he would take the premier place in it. Calm, capable and entirely fearless, Ieyasu deliberately brought the opposition to a head and crushed in a decisive battle, after which he made himself Shogun, despite not being from the Minamoto clan. He organized the Japanese legal and educational systems and encouraged trade with Europe (playing off the Protestant powers of Holland and England against Catholic Spain and Portugal). This book remains one of the few volumes on Tokugawa Ieyasu which draws on more material from Japanese sources than quotations from the European documents from his era and is therefore much more accurate and thorough in its examination of the life and legacy of one of the greatest Shoguns.
128   DooDahMan   2022 Apr 9, 3:43am  



An incisive and compelling account of the case of 21-year-old Lucie Blackman, who stepped out into the vastness of Tokyo in the summer of 2000 and disappeared forever. The following winter, her dismembered remains were found buried in a seaside cave.

The seven months in between had seen a massive search for the missing girl, involving Japanese policemen; British private detectives; Australian dowsers; and Lucie's desperate, but bitterly divided, parents. As the case unfolded, it drew the attention of prime ministers and sado-masochists, ambassadors and con-men, and reporters from across the world. Had Lucie been abducted by a religious cult, or snatched by human traffickers? Who was the mysterious man she had gone to meet? And what did her work, as a "hostess" in the notorious Roppongi district of Tokyo, really involve?

Richard Lloyd Parry, an award-winning foreign correspondent, followed the case since Lucie's disappearance. Over the course of a decade, he traveled to four continents to interview those caught up in the story, fought off a legal attack in the Japanese courts, and worked undercover as a bartender in a Roppongi strip club. He talked exhaustively with Lucie's friends and family and won unique access to the Japanese detectives who investigated the case. And he delved into the mind and background of the man accused of the crime--Joji Obara, described by the judge as "unprecedented and extremely evil." With the finesse of a novelist, he reveals the astonishing truth about Lucie and her fate.

People Who Eat Darkness is, by turns, a non-fiction thriller, a courtroom drama, and the biography of both a victim and a killer. It is the story of a young woman who fell prey to unspeakable evil, and of a loving family torn apart by grief. And it is a fascinating insight into one of the world's most baffling and mysterious societies, a light shone into dark corners of Japan that the rest of the world has never glimpsed before.
129   Patrick   2022 Apr 10, 5:48pm  

Patrick says
I've started reading The Federalist Papers as my next book.

The beginning says that the goal of our Constitution is freedom from tyranny, so it's very relevant to right now in America.


Lol, just ran across this on https://patriots.win/?source=patrick.net :



130   Patrick   2022 Apr 11, 7:57pm  

Huh, just learned from The Federalist Papers that bankruptcy law in the US is largely a federal affair because the framers of the Constitution foresaw that some people would try to move property from one state to another and then declare bankruptcy in the first.
131   richwicks   2022 Apr 11, 8:01pm  

Patrick says
I finally finished The Origin of Species by Darwin.


I love that book. I've read it several times.

Read Brave New World again. As a kid I kind of saw it as a sort of paradise, as an adult, I can see it for the dystopia it is. No progress, people are just meat robots servicing the machine. A completely purposeless life.

I have an audiobook of The Gulag Archipelago and am in the process of fixing it to remove the useless tidbits of "now flip the cassette over to side B" and so on. It's a dark comedy, or would be, if it wasn't based on reality. I'll send you a link once I edit it. It's 104 audio tapes. I think I'll break it up into 3 parts.
132   Patrick   2022 Apr 13, 7:03pm  

The Constitution has this section:


Article 1, Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


How are they able to not use "gold and silver Coin" in payment of their debts?
133   Patrick   2022 Apr 13, 7:39pm  

Another bit of the Constitution that seems violated:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


So how is it that states like California can simply refuse to enforce federal immigration law?

Or how can California legalize marijuana when it is illegal under federal law?
134   richwicks   2022 Apr 13, 7:44pm  

Patrick says
Another bit of the Constitution that seems violated:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


So how is it that states like California can simply refuse to enforce federal immigration law?

Or how can California legalize marijuana when it is illegal under federal law?


The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper - George W. Bush told you 20 years ago.

The United States doesn't enforce the Constitution any more than the USSR enforced THEIR constitution. If American citizens don't care, fuck 'em.
136   Patrick   2022 Apr 13, 8:04pm  

In Federalist paper number 45, Madison claims that the number of federal employees will always be far below the number of state government employees. He was wrong.


137   komputodo   2022 Apr 13, 8:18pm  

mell says
HeadSet says
Patrick says
Testosterone and grip strength have been dropping among men.

Why would testosterone drop? Pot use? One's politics will not affect juice level.


It does. The habits, soy food, being sedentary, not hunting women,not going to the gym but hiding in the basement, netfucks and chill. not asserting yourself, all have negative effects on T. It's been declining for decades now but leftoids are speeding it up.

Chronic masturbation?
138   Patrick   2022 Apr 20, 7:23pm  

Another good insight from The Federalist Papers, from number 50: it is necessary and good to have multiple political parties opposed to each other "because an extinction of parties necessarily implies either a universal alarm for the public safety, or an absolute extinction of liberty."

This does seem to be true. In the case of, say, attack by space aliens, I think people would work together and forget about which party they belong to until the danger has passed. On the other hand, in countries not under attack, a lack of multiple parties is a reliable indicator of despotism, as in North Korea.
139   Patrick   2022 May 5, 8:44pm  

Another interesting thing in The Federalist Papers is that the writers of the Constitution clearly intended the Electoral College to be independent. That is, the people are to vote for the electors in their state (one elector for each member of the House and Senate for that state). Then the electors themselves are to choose the president.

Now why doesn't it work that way now? It seems that you vote for an elector who has already declared himself or herself in favor of a particular candidate. The original idea was that the people simply pick electors of good character and let them decide on a president after that.
140   stfu   2022 May 6, 6:46am  

Patrick says

Another interesting thing in The Federalist Papers


If you enjoy that, you may enjoy this :

http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm?source=patrick.net
141   Patrick   2022 May 6, 7:35am  

Yes, it would be nice to hear the arguments against the Constitution as well.
142   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:33pm  

Patrick says
arguments against the Constitution


The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.

Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Anti-Federalists were concerned about excessive power of national government

The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French.

To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution.

The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius.

Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer).

By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:

the excessive power of the national government at the expense of the state government;

the disguised monarchic powers of the president;

apprehensions about a federal court system;

fears that Congress might seize too many powers under the necessary and proper clause;

concerns that republican government could not work in a land the size of the United States;

and their most successful argument against the adoption of the Constitution — the lack of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties.

Anti-Federalists pressured for adoption of Bill of Rights
The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain.

Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties.

More here: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1175/anti-federalists?source=patrick.net#:~:text=The%20Anti%2DFederalists%20opposed%20the,of%20a%20bill%20of%20rights.
143   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:37pm  

The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened.

Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights.

Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights.

Open the link to read from the following:

(F) Federalist Essays/Speeches

(AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/?source=patrick.net
144   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:42pm  

The case against the American Constitution

Everyone agrees that the American Constitution is perfect, an exceptional document akin to holy writ. It is the absolute essence of freedom distilled, committed to parchment for the eternal benefit of all mankind... right?

Wrong. The Constitution is janky. It's antiquated. It's poorly designed. And it's falling apart before our very eyes.

I'll concede that there was indeed a time, hundreds of years ago, when the Constitution was, briefly and for its era, a halfway decent first stab at a workable democratic political system for the Northern states. (In the South, it organized one of the most brutal tyrannies in history.) Still, it only got close to systemically democratic with the Reconstruction Amendments, half of which were promptly ignored for 90 years. And even with those amendments, it still has three fundamental defects.

https://theweek.com/articles/677164/case-against-american-constitution?source=patrick.net
145   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:47pm  

Explained: The strengths and weaknesses of the US constitution

Sunday National reader George McQ. – who describes himself as “an American, British and Scottish citizen” – asks:

“It would be interesting to compare the strength and weakness of the American constitution. Unlike Britain, it gives the legislature strong powers and the President usually has to negotiate with it in order to carry out a legislative program. As school children, we were always taught about the system of “checks and balances”. However, in the past 10 years, with America becoming increasingly politically polarised, the weakness of the American system has become evident.”

We asked leading expert on constitutional matters Dr Mark McNaught of Rennes University to respond:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17522108.explained-strengths-weaknesses-us-constitution/?source=patrick.net
146   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:51pm  

Is the Constitution Outdated ?

Our Outdated Constitution - Why is the nation so poorly governed? This is the question that we address in our new book, Relic. What we show is that the fundamentals of an answer can be traced to the Constitution—which, for all its admirable qualities, imposes a structure of government that has long been outdated, and is ill-suited to modern times.

Congress is right at the center of the nation’s modern-day dysfunction. As a decision-maker, it is inexcusably bad. It is immobilized, impotent, and utterly incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation. A common refrain among today’s cognoscenti is that polarization is to blame—and that, were a more moderate brand of politics to emerge, Congress could get back to the good old days when it did a fine job of making public policy, and all would be well. But all would not be well, because the good old days were not good.

With some exceptions, Congress has never been capable of crafting effective policy responses to the nation’s problems, a fact that is well documented (see, for instance, Peter Schuck’s comprehensive assessment of the evidence in Why Government Fails So Often). Polarization has made a bad situation worse, but it is not the underlying cause of Congress’s core inadequacies—which are baked into the institution and not of recent vintage. Congress is an ineffective policymaker because it is wired to be that way by the Constitution, whose design ensures that legislators are electorally tied to their local jurisdictions and highly responsive to special interests. Congress is not wired to solve national problems in the national interest. It is wired to allow hundreds of parochial legislators to promote their own political welfare through special-interest politics.

With Congress’s pathologies rooted in the Constitution, the ultimate problem is the Constitution itself. The founders crafted a government 225 years ago for a simple agrarian society of just four million people, some 700,000 of whom were slaves. Of the free population, 95 percent were farmers. Government was not expected to do much, and the founders—mainly concerned about avoiding “tyranny of the majority”—purposely designed a byzantine government that couldn’t do much, separating authority across the various branches of government and filling it with veto points that made coherent policy action exceedingly difficult.

When government has been able to act, moreover, congressional lawmaking has typically led—due to the built-in nature of legislators’ incentives—to cobbled-together policy concoctions crafted to attract disparate legislators with disparate interests into the necessary support coalitions, not to provide the most effective means of addressing social problems. (See, for example, Steven Brill’s account of the Affordable Care Act, America’s Bitter Pill.) Legislators and special interests have gotten what they wanted. But their political intent has not been to create policies that are serious, coherent, well integrated, intellectually justifiable solutions to the problems they allegedly address—and the result is that problems have festered and rarely been resolved.

This approach to governance may have been fine for the late 1700s. But that era is long gone, and it isn’t coming back. Within 100 years, the nation grew to fifteen times its original population, stretched all the way to the Pacific, and was developing explosively into a modern industrial society—generating countless problems along the way, from rapacious monopoly to tainted meat to unregulated drugs, that the founders never anticipated and their antiquated government was never designed to solve. It was already a relic of the past.

More here: https://www.hoover.org/research/our-outdated-constitution?source=patrick.net
147   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:54pm  

Is the Constitution too old and outdated?

In the link are debate answers for yes and no. When the link was put out, 51% said yes, 49% said no.

https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-constitution-too-old-and-outdated?source=patrick.net
148   DooDahMan   2022 May 6, 4:55pm  

@Patrick - is that enough for you to read for awhile ? If you need more counter arguments, let me know.
149   Patrick   2022 May 6, 5:05pm  

Lol, too much!
150   richwicks   2022 May 15, 2:17am  

@Patrick

Not a paper book, but a good audio presentation of 1984.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBPNrVQwqeo

I've read this book many times but I like to experience it many ways. This version is not abridged, so it's like 10 hours long.

I turned it into an MP3 if you prefer:

https://samoyed.dynu.net/~patrick/1984%20-%20audiobook.mp3

You can just download that onto a device. I'll keep it around there for a few weeks, but eventually I'll organize it. I do like to collect.
151   DooDahMan   2022 May 16, 10:48am  

The Tin Foil Hat Club: And Other Odd Short Stories (this book has really great reviews, and yes it is a real book)

The Tin Foil Hat Club unleashes yet another batch of unusual and quirky tales from the imagination of Scott Baron. Conspiracy theorists who might not be mad after all. A young woman mysteriously stranded on the open sea. A flamboyant homeless man who dubs himself Mayor. Silver spoon debutantes who should be careful what they wish for. And hedge fund millionaires with a shifting world view


152   NuttBoxer   2022 May 16, 5:37pm  

Been reading through the Old Testament lately. I skip over the super Jewie stuff(large parts of Deuteronomy), but overall really enjoying it as I've always liked history. And next time a Jew tries that holier than thou shit, remind him of Numbers when they refused to go to the promised land. Temper tantrum of epic proportions. They whined so much God struck them with three different plague's/calamities.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible isn't full of saints, its chock full of sinners. God doesn't ask for perfection, just that we try.
153   Patrick   2022 Jun 13, 12:48pm  

My next book after The Federalist Papers is "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonides, a Jewish scholar writing in Arabic in about 1100 AD. It attempts to reconcile the Old Testament with Greek philosophy, partly by analyzing words and taking them as metaphors rather than literally.

I ran across a funny passage in which he says:


In the same manner does the root "nasa" (to lift up) denote both elevation in space and elevation in dignity.
154   AmericanKulak   2022 Jun 13, 1:12pm  

NuttBoxer says


Been reading through the Old Testament lately. I skip over the super Jewie stuff(large parts of Deuteronomy), but overall really enjoying it as I've always liked history. And next time a Jew tries that holier than thou shit, remind him of Numbers when they refused to go to the promised land. Temper tantrum of epic proportions. They whined so much God struck them with three different plague's/calamities.



Yeah, I skip over the various rules and regualtions too, but I gotta get a large print in my old age. I stopped about where you are now.

The Jews are an example of why humans can't just be given some laws and obey them to prosper. They have to be graced with Spirit. But some fall into the Marcionite Heresy - not understanding the OT is needed to understand the NT, which refers to it constantly.

I think the most relevant story to today is Jehu vs. Jezebel. A bigmouthed, burly general who "Rode his chariot recklessly" and adored by women, did what a Prophet was scared to do. 2 Kings? I also believe it's 2 Kings that trashes the Oral Torah idea: They couldn't have forgotten Pesach/Passover if they had the phony balony Oral Torah fiction. Notice the Bible, including the NT, NEVER references any Oral Torah crap. Another confirmation is that ALL the Prophets and Kings descent is given through the male, not female like Oral Torah claims, line. Jewish Protestantism! The Karaites also suggest the Oral Torah is a post-Temple invention, not given to the Levites with that very vague passage in Exodus as claimed.
155   Patrick   2022 Jun 15, 7:52pm  

Also interesting: Maimonides knew the earth was spherical before the year 1200:


For a proposition which can be proved by evidence is not subject to dispute, denial, or rejection: none but the ignorant would contradict it, and such contradiction is called 'denial of a demonstrated proof.' Thus you find men who deny the spherical form of the earth, or the circular form of the line in which the stars move, and the like: such men are not considered in this treatise.


And I had to chuckle at this line:

he whose testicles are warm, humid, and vigorous, and the organs connected therewith are surcharged, will not easily refrain from sin, even if he makes great efforts to restrain himself.
156   AmericanKulak   2022 Jun 15, 7:53pm  

Patrick says



And I had to chuckle at this line:

"he whose testicles are warm, humid, and vigorous, and the organs connected therewith are surcharged, will not easily refrain from sin, even if he makes great efforts to restrain himself."


Why is there a Quaker on Quaker Oats?

Because it's been thought of since forever, that meat and eggs makes people horny, and bland food makes people have a lower sex drive. Therefore, to be continent, be like a quaker and eat bland, grain based foods.
157   NuttBoxer   2022 Jun 22, 12:37pm  

AmericanKulak says

I also believe it's 2 Kings that trashes the Oral Torah idea


I attended a Christian college, and have never heard of an "Oral" Torah. Starting with the 10 Commandments God wrote them for the Jews on stone tablets. That's not that much to remember, but God purposely wrote them down. There's no way they just memorized all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There are several references to reading the law during festivals, and at other critical junctures in Israel's history.
158   Patrick   2022 Jun 22, 1:10pm  

The Oral Torah is a whole other set of laws in addition to the written Torah, which has not only the 10 Commandments, but a slew of other laws. Maimonides counted 613 rules for Jews, I think all from the written Torah, but not sure.

The Oral Torah idea sounds kinda bullshitty to me, especially because the written Torah explicitly states that nothing may be added to it, but it's accepted by mainstream Judaism.

The Karaites are a small Jewish group that has always rejected the Oral Torah and the Talmud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

« First    « Previous    Comments 119 - 158 of 164   Next »    Last »

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   one year ago   suggestions