Carl Pearlston: Christians Prefer Sex With Cows!

Or Do They?

The following email thread shows how defenders of the Talmud begin with the premise that the Talmud is correct in its claim that Christians "prefer sex with cows", they infer that rumors about non-Christians like Sal Mineo having sex with their dogs if proof, they dig back through Greek mythology to edify their false premise, and then finally claim that Christians assert that there is *no* bestiality in the US when Christians assert no such thing

To add icing to the cake, Talmudists then deny their original premise

It is a circular argument which is difficult to follow, but it's worth trying because it's the classic case study of how the Talmud adversely affects a man's integrity, or, conversely, how perverted the authors of the Talmud were from the beginning.  Here's a summary of their circular argument:

  1. June 4, 2000: Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

  2. June 6, 2000:  The proof that gentiles prefer sex with cows is that Babylon and Rome were heavily into bestiality.

  3. June 7, 2000:   "17% of American males are estimated to have practiced this at least once".

  4. June 7, 2000:   "Why do you consider this a slur on gentiles, when it is just a matter of historical fact"?

  5. June 8, 2000:   "I recall a story about Sal Mineo and his dog that made the rounds several years ago."

  6. June 8, 2000:   "The point is that the Encyclopedia Britannica gives the 17% figure."

  7. June 12, 2000:   "The Talmud does not say or imply that Christians prefer sex with animals"

  8. June 12, 2000:   "nor did I say or imply that Christians, or anyone, prefer sex with animals"

horizontal rule

Can there be anything more outlandish than for a jew to assume that a story about Sal Mineo and his dog is proof positive that "Christians perfer sex with cows".  First of all, and this is nothing against Sal Mineo, but he might not even have been a Christian at all.  For a jew to assume that a non-jew living in this Christian nation is a Christian isn't that far off base, but the presumption that he must be a Christian BECAUSE of the story about his dog is evidence of a very weak argument (and a flaccid mind).  For him to assume that any such story is true gets even more bizarre.  Why would anyone believe such a story is true  in the first place?  Why would a jew believe such a story about someone he believes to be a Christian? And why wouldn't he use an example of someone still alive rather than someone who died 24 years ago and can't now defend himself?  We don't know if the story is true.  We don't know if he was even a Christian.  But we DO know that he can't defend himself, and we DO know that his dog was not a cow.   If "Christians prefer sex with cows", why not cite a recent example of a Christian having sex with a cow, rather than some possible non-Christian who allegedly had sex with a dog before he died a quarter of a century ago who can't now even defend such a charge?

You have to understand that jewish minds like this can't adjust itself to this Christian culture, which is why they are trying so "valiantly and proudly" to adjust our culture instead.  Thanks, but no thanks, we do not need such an attitude adjustment hour from the mouths of the great unwashed.  Would his grandmother really have let him get away with such language and thoughts, or would she have washed his mouth out with soap like yours would have?

horizontal rule

You have to wonder if people who are this wishy washy about their own religion recognize their own duplicity.  In less than a week, it was admitted that the Talmud warns Jews that Christians "prefer" sex with cows, cites were used to "prove" this, examples were given, and then it was denied that this is even in the Talmud and that the commentator even admitted it.  Could this be why Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Talmud?:

What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook.

horizontal rule

From: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbpearl@access1.net> To: "John Knight" <fathersmanifesto@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:08 AM

> John, here are the citations you requested--I had sent them before, but you
> apparently didn't read them.  These are not generalizations, but accurate
> translations and proper inferences and interpretations of the meaning of
> ambiguous text.  For some reason, you and your friends want to give an evil
> interpretation to every questionable passage  of this 1500-yr old work,
> because it was written by Jews.  So was the Bible, both Old and New
> Testaments.  I suspect that these citations really don't make any difference
> to you and that this correspondence is a waste of time; you want to believe
> the evil of the Talmud and its Jewish writers, defenders, and practitioners,
> and facts to the contrary will not stand in your way.  I am really sorry
> that that seems to be the case.  Carl
>
>snip<
> CLAIM (30)
> Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
> RESPONSE (1)
> The Sages suspected that the nations of Babylon and Rome were heavily into
> bestiality, and the 20th century historians back them up.
> In any case, it was this issue which the Talmud presented as the reason for
> discouraging Jewish children playing with Babylonian or Roman children they
> feared they would end up partners in their neighbors' immorality.

 

From: "Fathers Manifesto" <manifesto@worldspy.net> To: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbpearl@access1.net>; <repeal19th@topica.com>; <repeal19th@egroups.com>; <demand@egroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:06 AM Subject: [demand] Re:

>
> Dear Carl,
>
> Thank you for forwarding these citations.  You would have gotten a response
> earlier if I had seen them, so your time is not wasted.
>
> Do Michael and Reimer really believe that the Roman or Babylonian cultures
> were built on bestiality?  It's hard to imagine that they would blindly
> accept such a premise.  Every culture or religion which ever thrived had
> laws and proscriptions against bestiality, so to make such a sweeping
> assertion is clearly an attempt to slander gentiles.
>
> Have you ever seen or heard Christians talk about Jews, or any other race,
> this way?  The Holy Bible condemns bestiality, but it doesn't claim that
> everybody besides Christians are guilty of bestiality, as this
> interpretation of the Talmud clearly does.  As you know, "gentiles" were
> everybody but Jews, and this passage says they all *prefer* bestiality,
> specifically with cows.
>
> Please tell me that you don't think Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or
> Hindus prefer sex with cows.

From: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbpearl@access1.net> To: "John Knight" <fathersmanifesto@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 5:42 PM Subject: Bestiality and Kol Nidre

> John, where do you get your history? Haven't you ever heard the old Greek
> myths of Leda and the Swan, and
> Europa and the Bull?  Where do you think those came from, if no one
> practiced bestiality?  Note that 17% of American males are estimated to have
> practiced this at least once.  I've attached a few notes from the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, which should be authoritative enough for anyone.
> Why haven't you taken the trouble to check this out? Why do you consider
> this a slur on gentiles, when it is just a matter of historical fact that
> bestiality and homosexuality were fairly common in the Middle East, and the
> Jews condemned both in their Bible and forbade the practice.

From: "Fathers Manifesto" <manifesto@worldspy.net> To: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbpearl@access1.net>; <repeal19th@egroups.com>; <demand@egroups.com>; <repeal19th@topica.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 6:15 PM Subject: RE: repeal19th Bestiality and Kol Nidre

> Wow.
>
> Carl, you are exhibiting the traits of a Talmud eating, Kol Nidre taking,
> incredibly biased Jew.  Maybe you really do believe what you write, but this
> only proves that the Talmud has been far more effective than even you
> realize.
>
> Even if someone claimed that 17% of Jews practice bestiality, this would be
> difficult for Christians to believe.  But it's impossible to believe that
> 17% of Christians practice bestiality.  Even if you produced a survey or a
> poll from a non-feminist organization, it would still be impossible to
> believe.
>
> And, if you need to dig back to Greek myths to prove your point, then you
> just proved that Talmud followers believe and accept everything written
> therein.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John

From: CARL PEARLSTON To: Fathers Manifesto ; repeal19th@topica.com ; repeal19th@egroups.com Cc: demand@egroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: [repeal19th] RE: Kol Nidre

The Guttmacher Institute study, which is the most credible, puts
homosexuality around 3%; some estimate it a bit higher, some a bit lower.
Everyone, including myself, discount the Kinsey 10% figure.  I have no idea
what percentage of males engages in sex relations with animals, but I recall
a story about Sal Mineo and his dog that made the rounds several years ago.
If Kinsey says 17%, maybe its 3x too high, and the number is 5% or less--I
have no idea.  The point is not what I believe is the percent of Christians
or others who engage in bestiality.  I have no idea and know no one
personally who does, but there are web sites galore with pornographic
pictures of such activity that pop up if you enter that search word in your
browser, so it cannot be an unknown practice as you suggest. The point is
that the Encyclopedia Britannica gives the 17% figure.  You choose not to
believe it; fine, go argue with the Encyclopedia or the Kinsey Institute or
do your own study. The point is that you seem to believe that the Talmud and
the Torah prohibitions on bestiality came out of thin air and are a slur on
unknown people, having nothing to do with the practices of the societies in
which the Jews found themselves; you are wrong, and you should be honest
enough to admit it instead of descending to ad hominem attacks, which is
really all you have done.
Carl

From: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbpearl@access1.net> To: "Fathers Manifesto" <manifesto@worldspy.net>; <repeal19th@egroups.com>; "Ted Pioro" <tpioro@netscape.net>; <theseries@egroups.com>; <repeal19th@topica.com>; <roundtable@flinet.com>; "Religionornotnow" <Religionornotnow@egroups.com>; "Patriotawareness" <patriotawareness@egroups.com>; "Koresh" <koreshx98@egroups.com>; "Christian Patriot" <ChristianPatriot@egroups.com>; "Christian Nationalist" <Christian_Nationalist@egroups.com> Cc: <repeal19th@egroups.com>; <demand@egroups.com>; <kriegsherr@juno.com>; <HorstWessel@juno.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 3:19 PM Subject: RE: [repeal19th] Re: [RE: : [[theseries] Re: repeal19th Jewish Racism in UN-Israel]]]]

> What is the matter with you?  Can't you read English, or do you just not
> understand it?  Why do you continue to lie about what I said?  The Talmud
> does not say or imply that Christians prefer sex with animals, nor did I say
> or imply that Christians, or anyone, prefer sex with animals.  You made this
> up, and then go on repeating it as if it were so, ignoring my denials that I
> said or implied any such thing.  That is such boorish, obnoxious, and
> offensive conduct.
> Further, despite giving you the information that you are quoting a
> fraudulent Franklin statement, you blithely go on referring to it as though
> it were authentic.  How ignorant and dishonest!
> Finally, I don't think you understand Jefferson and his comments on the
> Talmud. It is obvious that subtleties and shades of meaning are lost on you,
> and you are unable to read anything in context, but fasten only on the words
> you want to see.  Discussion with you is pointless, since your mind is
> closed.

horizontal rule

NEWS FLASH:  IS PEARLSTON RIGHT--DO CHRISTIANS *PREFER* SEX WITH COWS

  1. Was he an American?  No.  He was a Swede and Swedes DO have strange tastes );

  2. Was he a Christian?  Probably not.

  3. Did he "prefer sex with cows"?  It's a good best that the cow was his last choice.

  4. Is he typical of Christians?  This is the FIRST story I ever heard about this, and my bet is that a jew wrote the story.

  5. Is this story accurate?  As Sunshine suggests, it seems very unlikely that cows would suffer either physical or psychological damage from being "raped" by a man.

  6. Would "rape" cause more psychological damage than being slaughtered like most cows are?  Certainly not. 

  7. Shouldn't those who eat McDonald's hamburgers be charged with physically and psychologically damaging cows?  Certainly they should:  the demand they put on farmers to raise cows for slaughter MUST be stopped if this many really was charged with such an offense.

  8. Would a jewish judge convict a Christian man who "preferred sex with cows"?  You bet.  Wouldn't you like the distinction of being known as the first judge in 2,000 years to convict a Christian of such an act?

 

From: David R. Wyder ("$DailyCow1"@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Man Charged After Sex With Cows
Newsgroups: alt.cows.moo.moo.moo, alt.cows.are.nice
View this article only

Date: 1998/09/12

 

MAN CHARGED AFTER SEX WITH COWS

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A 50-year-old man from western Sweden has been charged with cruelty to animals after having sex with two cows, Swedish news agency TT said Friday.

The man from Alingsas near Gothenburg, who has admitted the crimes, became excited after watching a pornographic film and set off for a nearby farm armed with a vibrator and other sex aids,as well as a camera, to abuse the cows.

A few weeks later he returned for a second visit, TT said, quoting the local Alingsas Tidningen newspaper.

But when he tried to get his films of the cows developed, the local photo company alerted the police, who arrested the man and seized his sex aids.

The county vet has examined the photographs of the cows and determined the animals suffered both physical and psychological damage, TT said.

--


DAILY COW Web Site
http://members.aol.com/dczines/index2.htm
THE HOLY CHURCH OF MOO Web Site
http://members.aol.com/DailyCow/indexhcom.htm

Message 2 in thread

From: Sunshine (mds47@NOSPAM.columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: Man Charged After Sex With Cows
Newsgroups: alt.cows.moo.moo.moo, alt.cows.are.nice

View this article only

Date: 1998/09/12

that story somewhat piqued my interest... what i mean is, do the cows
actually suffer physical damage, say, if you were to have sex with them,
without using "toys", or would more of the damage occur to the human?  cows
are big creatures, i can't imagine a person without technology could pose
much of a threat sexually.

just curious

sunshine