First, the fact there are these dialogues at all of Jewish rabbis trying to justify ways to deceive and steal from non-Jews is an indictment in and of itself.
Secondly please state where it declares the majority view is that you cannot cheat or deceive a non-Jew in that 113 section. The progression I saw was first one rabbi stated you could, another said it would be a problem with sanctification of God's name, then a further opinion saying the loophole is dividing cases up into categories of those which do or do not harm God's name, and finally concluding this exception applies to non-Jews who aren't Noahide followers essentially, and then the counterpoint you mentioned. They can be cheated if they aren't submissive to Jews in other words, according to certain respected teachers. This is consistent with the general arc of Judaism seeing themselves as the rightful masters of Gentiles.
Even if we can find a statement that this is not majority opinion, which I saw no explicit reference to, this is written in their catalog of respected rabbinical teachings to be pulled from by modern Jews to justify what they wish.
In what kind of religion would a respected authority even posit this argument?
The Gemara cites another statement related to stealing from a gentile. Rav Beivai bar Giddel says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, but it is permitted to retain his lost item, i.e., one is not required to return it to him.
There should not be a book of rabbis discussing this, as if it were some contentious issue. The answer should be "return the item, the end". This book shows there are rabbis teaching this stuff. And they often just leave a wide loophole related to interpretation over if something desecrates God's name or not.
In a case where there is a concern that retention of an article lost by a gentile will result in the desecration of God’s name, it is prohibited even to retain a gentile’s lost item.
So as long as you (or your rabbi) justify that in this instance it doesn't desecrate God's name, then steal from the Gentile. They can cite rabbinical opinion from the Talmud to back it up
First, the fact there are these dialogues at all of Jewish rabbis trying to justify ways to deceive and steal from non-Jews is an indictment in and of itself.
Yes! And that should be the charge, not that Judaism teaches this, but that Judaism thinks it important to retain the words of extremists among its thousands of teachers, which is a much more comparable charge to Islam or Christianity.
Secondly please state where it declares the majority view
The majority view is demonstrated by late position and by not having a contrary argument follow it. In the first pair 113a:21 the later statement is Akiba, "One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The next paragraph accepts Akiba's authority but nitpicks (as you noted) that maybe we can declare whether or not God's name is at stake and cheat that way, and that is rejected (with rhetorical question "But is robbery a gentile permitted?") based on Lev. 25:47-50, with the majority conclusion "Be precise with purchaser" ending 133b:1 (the gloss makes the meaning of this conclusion explicit for those who don't nowadays follow, "This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile."). The next paragraph accepts the prohibition but builds on it the other objection from Yosef that it doesn't refer to all Gentiles, which is rejected by the words of Abaye to Yosef, "Aren’t both of them written next to each other?": a rhetorical question proving that the distinction he makes between classes of Gentiles isn't borne out by the text. In the KJV we see that Lev. 25:47 first has "sojourner or stranger" (two categories), but then the Hebrew makes them one as indicated by the italics in the second phrase "stranger or sojourner". So the argument is that the Hebrew makes all Gentiles one in this respect, and that Abaye is trumping Yosef. This conclusion is stated in the words "Not to a stranger, but to a ger toshav", meaning that everyone deserves to be treated as a righteous son of Noah (no exceptions). It's not as you say, "They can be cheated if they aren't submissive to Jews", but it's using the textual variation in Lev. 25:47 to say all Gentiles are treated as submissive (amenable) by default and therefore worthy of basic humanity.
It's a cumulative set of conclusions. However, it's understandable if the give and take doesn't make clear who is being put forth as in the right and who isn't.
You then cite 133b:7 for Beivai and Hasida, but their justification for their point doesn't appear until 133b:8, where they cite Deut. 22:3 (restoration "with all lost thing of thy brother's", KJV). It's understandable if one would read "brother" and affirm it teaches responsibility for one's own people and not for what is lost by foreigners. This is undone by a clear statement of majority opinion ("But say"): "But say this applies where has not yet come into hand", that one is not responsible for things one hasn't come across or in the verse's language what "thou hast found".
This is consistent with the general arc of Judaism seeing themselves as the rightful masters of Gentiles.
Seems to me that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe themselves as more blessed than infidels, and as having better systems that infidels should rightfully adopt. It's called triumphalism, and I affirm it.
their catalog of respected rabbinical teachings to be pulled from by modern Jews to justify what they wish
No, they don't pull as they wish, they respect the flow of the text that is straightforward enough once you know the method (exactly like reading Aquinas, a wiki backpage, or the US Code). That's why they merely laugh if someone quotes the text without even attempting to understand the flow like any good historiographer would. The church fathers say all kinds of ridiculous things if you get to know them, most Christians don't care because we remember them primarily for the good things they say, and yet Christian patristics collections contain all the ridiculous no matter how banal because we believe in preserving everything we have. Comparative.
The dialogue you're reading isn't much different from early bishops arguing hotly over the nature of God. We all have a Nicene confession but they didn't and so they tried to form accurate statements and butted heads over it.
Specifically, there wasn't anything in Moses saying explicitly you must return the lost item of a Gentile, and in most cases one doesn't need to post a sign saying "not responsible for lost items". So they asked the question of each other. It's not a hard moral fault when one side says we need to be responsible for our own people more than for others. But since they insisted on going to the OT as ultimate settlement (even if that sometimes meant taking an esoteric argument), now that you've had me review it in more detail I can explain to people that the change in wording within Lev. 25:47 is taken as Mosaic approval that all Gentiles have the same positive rights even if they have not registered as ger toshav. [We might translate the first as "alien or resident" and the second as "resident alien", indicating that all aliens get counted by Moses as having the rights of residents.]
Now, does having this tremendous body of law tempt Jews to pick and choose, making a wax nose of their patrimony at whim? Yes it does, in exactly the same way the vast body of Christian or Muslim law tempts the same. It's straightforward that out of millions of Jews and billions of Christians and Muslims, many crazy things have been justified, and some by decently-sized groups rather than just individuals. The religion goes on nevertheless, despite the extremists pulling it in one direction, because the consensus pulls away from the extremists and reveals them as such. If someone makes a self-serving ruling from a holy book, the question is not whether it's self-serving, the question is whether it's an accurate historical reading or just "special pleading" against the face of consensus. And that question isn't easy and shouldn't be handled by snap misquotes like OP engages.
And that should be the charge, not that Judaism teaches this
Nope, it's both. The fact they are having serious discussion on this shows it is very much taught in Judaism by trusted authorities (rabbis).
This is an exercise in justifying cheating gentiles by a lot of rabbis. Glad there is some opposition, but the point stands that this is very much part of Judaism. And the proof is in the pudding, it's clearly manifested at scale among organized Jewry.
If you follow any of these teachings, I encourage you to repent and submit to the holy spirit. Cheers.
And Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa engaged in exercises in justifying cheating non-Christians ("heathens") by a lot of church fathers. Glad there is some opposition, but the point stands that this is very much a part of Christianity. And the proof is in the pudding, it's clearly manifested at scale among organized Jesuitry.
Difference being, Christians have no Talmud. All the many false or pseudo-Christians have no excuse when they are compared to what scripture actually teaches.
All it comes down to is, are you born again or not. Are you surrendered to the Lord or are you creating false gospels to justify your sin? Professing christian do this too, but the Talmud is testament to the same practice put into writing. To even have a chance at salvation you must first reject the Talmud and that entire wicked tradition.
First, the fact there are these dialogues at all of Jewish rabbis trying to justify ways to deceive and steal from non-Jews is an indictment in and of itself.
Secondly please state where it declares the majority view is that you cannot cheat or deceive a non-Jew in that 113 section. The progression I saw was first one rabbi stated you could, another said it would be a problem with sanctification of God's name, then a further opinion saying the loophole is dividing cases up into categories of those which do or do not harm God's name, and finally concluding this exception applies to non-Jews who aren't Noahide followers essentially, and then the counterpoint you mentioned. They can be cheated if they aren't submissive to Jews in other words, according to certain respected teachers. This is consistent with the general arc of Judaism seeing themselves as the rightful masters of Gentiles.
Even if we can find a statement that this is not majority opinion, which I saw no explicit reference to, this is written in their catalog of respected rabbinical teachings to be pulled from by modern Jews to justify what they wish.
In what kind of religion would a respected authority even posit this argument?
There should not be a book of rabbis discussing this, as if it were some contentious issue. The answer should be "return the item, the end". This book shows there are rabbis teaching this stuff. And they often just leave a wide loophole related to interpretation over if something desecrates God's name or not.
So as long as you (or your rabbi) justify that in this instance it doesn't desecrate God's name, then steal from the Gentile. They can cite rabbinical opinion from the Talmud to back it up
Yes! And that should be the charge, not that Judaism teaches this, but that Judaism thinks it important to retain the words of extremists among its thousands of teachers, which is a much more comparable charge to Islam or Christianity.
The majority view is demonstrated by late position and by not having a contrary argument follow it. In the first pair 113a:21 the later statement is Akiba, "One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The next paragraph accepts Akiba's authority but nitpicks (as you noted) that maybe we can declare whether or not God's name is at stake and cheat that way, and that is rejected (with rhetorical question "But is robbery a gentile permitted?") based on Lev. 25:47-50, with the majority conclusion "Be precise with purchaser" ending 133b:1 (the gloss makes the meaning of this conclusion explicit for those who don't nowadays follow, "This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile."). The next paragraph accepts the prohibition but builds on it the other objection from Yosef that it doesn't refer to all Gentiles, which is rejected by the words of Abaye to Yosef, "Aren’t both of them written next to each other?": a rhetorical question proving that the distinction he makes between classes of Gentiles isn't borne out by the text. In the KJV we see that Lev. 25:47 first has "sojourner or stranger" (two categories), but then the Hebrew makes them one as indicated by the italics in the second phrase "stranger or sojourner". So the argument is that the Hebrew makes all Gentiles one in this respect, and that Abaye is trumping Yosef. This conclusion is stated in the words "Not to a stranger, but to a ger toshav", meaning that everyone deserves to be treated as a righteous son of Noah (no exceptions). It's not as you say, "They can be cheated if they aren't submissive to Jews", but it's using the textual variation in Lev. 25:47 to say all Gentiles are treated as submissive (amenable) by default and therefore worthy of basic humanity.
It's a cumulative set of conclusions. However, it's understandable if the give and take doesn't make clear who is being put forth as in the right and who isn't.
You then cite 133b:7 for Beivai and Hasida, but their justification for their point doesn't appear until 133b:8, where they cite Deut. 22:3 (restoration "with all lost thing of thy brother's", KJV). It's understandable if one would read "brother" and affirm it teaches responsibility for one's own people and not for what is lost by foreigners. This is undone by a clear statement of majority opinion ("But say"): "But say this applies where has not yet come into hand", that one is not responsible for things one hasn't come across or in the verse's language what "thou hast found".
Seems to me that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe themselves as more blessed than infidels, and as having better systems that infidels should rightfully adopt. It's called triumphalism, and I affirm it.
No, they don't pull as they wish, they respect the flow of the text that is straightforward enough once you know the method (exactly like reading Aquinas, a wiki backpage, or the US Code). That's why they merely laugh if someone quotes the text without even attempting to understand the flow like any good historiographer would. The church fathers say all kinds of ridiculous things if you get to know them, most Christians don't care because we remember them primarily for the good things they say, and yet Christian patristics collections contain all the ridiculous no matter how banal because we believe in preserving everything we have. Comparative.
The dialogue you're reading isn't much different from early bishops arguing hotly over the nature of God. We all have a Nicene confession but they didn't and so they tried to form accurate statements and butted heads over it.
Specifically, there wasn't anything in Moses saying explicitly you must return the lost item of a Gentile, and in most cases one doesn't need to post a sign saying "not responsible for lost items". So they asked the question of each other. It's not a hard moral fault when one side says we need to be responsible for our own people more than for others. But since they insisted on going to the OT as ultimate settlement (even if that sometimes meant taking an esoteric argument), now that you've had me review it in more detail I can explain to people that the change in wording within Lev. 25:47 is taken as Mosaic approval that all Gentiles have the same positive rights even if they have not registered as ger toshav. [We might translate the first as "alien or resident" and the second as "resident alien", indicating that all aliens get counted by Moses as having the rights of residents.]
Now, does having this tremendous body of law tempt Jews to pick and choose, making a wax nose of their patrimony at whim? Yes it does, in exactly the same way the vast body of Christian or Muslim law tempts the same. It's straightforward that out of millions of Jews and billions of Christians and Muslims, many crazy things have been justified, and some by decently-sized groups rather than just individuals. The religion goes on nevertheless, despite the extremists pulling it in one direction, because the consensus pulls away from the extremists and reveals them as such. If someone makes a self-serving ruling from a holy book, the question is not whether it's self-serving, the question is whether it's an accurate historical reading or just "special pleading" against the face of consensus. And that question isn't easy and shouldn't be handled by snap misquotes like OP engages.
Nope, it's both. The fact they are having serious discussion on this shows it is very much taught in Judaism by trusted authorities (rabbis).
This is an exercise in justifying cheating gentiles by a lot of rabbis. Glad there is some opposition, but the point stands that this is very much part of Judaism. And the proof is in the pudding, it's clearly manifested at scale among organized Jewry.
If you follow any of these teachings, I encourage you to repent and submit to the holy spirit. Cheers.
And Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa engaged in exercises in justifying cheating non-Christians ("heathens") by a lot of church fathers. Glad there is some opposition, but the point stands that this is very much a part of Christianity. And the proof is in the pudding, it's clearly manifested at scale among organized Jesuitry.
We don't judge religions by their extremists.
Difference being, Christians have no Talmud. All the many false or pseudo-Christians have no excuse when they are compared to what scripture actually teaches.
All it comes down to is, are you born again or not. Are you surrendered to the Lord or are you creating false gospels to justify your sin? Professing christian do this too, but the Talmud is testament to the same practice put into writing. To even have a chance at salvation you must first reject the Talmud and that entire wicked tradition.