“Rabbi Jacob Neusner on the importance of the Talmud in Judaism:

That sustained, systematic exposition, through one instance after another, of the right reading of the Torahin both its media comesto Israel nowas in the past as a single document, the Talmud of Babylonia. That statement of fact describes the centrality of Talmud in the future curriculum of the Judaic intellect, the priority of the Talmud from the time of its closure in about 600 C.E. to the present.
For ‘Judaism’ s Rabbinic Judaism, and the Talmud of Babylonia is the authoritative statement of the Torah that Judaism embodies. The Talmud is the prism, receiving, refracting all light. To state the proposition in academic language: into that writing all prior canonical writings emerged; to it, all appeal is directed; upon it, all conclusions ultimately rest. In the language of the Torah itself: study of the Torah begins, as a matter of simple, ubiquitous fact, in the Talmud.”

You were saying?

http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_condemnation.asp

Protocols, Talmud, two sides of the same object? Yes.

Not, however, two sides of Judaism. Two sides of a particular variety of Occultism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

“Strong Atheism” is the definite belief that no supernatural being exists (which is of course heavily tied to however the believer in no-Gods happens to define “natural,” making it a highly subjective term).

Contra the people desribed in the final paragraph of that article, I lack the faith to hold a “Strong Atheist” position.

“Weak Atheism” is a lack of belief in any particular supernatural being. This is not only subjective, it is also quite vague.

“Apathetic Atheism” doesn’t know, and doesn’t much care. The term “Agnostic” (which lterally means someone who believes that we cannot know whether God exists or not; this is the opposite of a “Gnostic” who beleives that we are required to know a particular thing or set of things about a God or gods) is often mistakenly used to refer to such a person.

I used the term in the “Strong Atheist” sense, as the other senses are basically useless in a descriptive domain.

As far as atheism goes, that argument doesn’t hold water. Atheism is the antithesis of ANY religion, as it is predicated upon the belief in NO god whatsoever, ergo, it cannot rightfully be called a religion.

The USA also features groups of Zionist “Christians” [that term is not as straight-forward as one might hope] and I would be surprised if there really were no Zionist Atheists.

In terms of outright death tolls, Atheism clearly rules (Pol Pot killed about twice as many people in one — of several — planned famines as the entire population of Australia, which was over 80% of Lenin’s total official tally), followed by Islam (started by the centred-on-Mithraism hegemony set up by Constantine), followed by said hegemony.

Crew like Adolf Hitler are not so clear. He (and both of his parents) were members in good standing of said hegemony, however his interests were clearly more directly occult (which Atheism often acts as a hedge for anyhow).

The people really-behind-the-scenes appear to be Strong Determinists (and Narcissists) so for them to genuinely care about anybody else would contradict their core beliefs.

Taking away peoples’ firearms not only makes them more controllable in the immediate sense, it conditions them to being helpless.

Removing firearms is only one controlling factor. The way in which money (fails to) work is another. Eroding all moral boundaries is another. The oxymoron we generally refer to as “politics” is another.