1. Bel is therefore asserting without proof or even an explanation, that kabbalists mean NOTHING. According to Bel Suave, all that the Talmud and all kabbalistic literature and ideation consist of NOTHING, for to claim that they are only symbols without a referent -- like Bel is doing -- means nothing other than this. A 'symbol' is a 'stand-in' or a placeholder for something else. A symbol cannot exist without another entity or concept which the symbol refers to and picks out in the real world, or at least in the conceptual 'mental' world. Bel's proposition is therefore a false argument because Bel is positing that a symbol can exist in the absence of a referent. How can you point to something when there is NOTHING?
2. Neither the kabbalists nor the Talmud-worshipping rabbis claim thus endorse Bel Suave's position that the Talmud and kabbalism are meaningless. Nor do Jews do not claim that they don't mean what they wrote or that it means something entirely different, to the extent that 'white' refers to 'black' or that 'girl' really means 'gold' etc.
3. And nothing can rationalize nor justify the depravity evinced by the Jews in their willful choosing of the rape of a 3-year-old girl as a symbolic tool signifying something else, in addition to their being perverts, for 'the medium is the message' too, always.
A. Bel Suave says: "A maiden aged three years and a day" is a 'number, letter, syllable, no more or less - since there can be no psycho-motor satisfaction in the act of piercing thusly, it's entirely 'symbolic' an act with meaning best known to those same devils and their rebbe 'familiars.'"
B. Maestro remarks: I don't see any reason to claim that the talmudist doesn't mean having sex with a 3-year-old girl when he's actually written down in the Talmud about having sex with a 3-year-old girl.
C. Bel answers: "Reference? Since I anticipate you having a tough time applying the quote to anything I've written...either this is an example of 'voices whispering in the head'... or you are carrying on a conversation with someone whom you have mistaken me for."
D. Maestro replies to 'C' above: please refer to 'A' above where Bel Suave claims that 'a maiden aged three years and a day is an entirely SYMBOLIC consideration' and does not really refer to 3-year-old girls.
E. Bel further CONTRADICTS himself in 'A' above by now claiming that Talmudic tales actually have meaning (which he formerly DENIED the possibility of by stating that "No 'meanings' exist outside of symbols in kabbalism...") for Bel Suave says, "...it's entirely 'symbolic' an act with MEANING [emphasis mine] best known to those same devils and their rebbe 'familiars.'"
Last but not least,
Bel Suave completely IGNORES PROOF http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-sues-ex-husband-du-pont-heir-dodged-prison-raping-3-year-old-daughter-article-1.1740180
that Bel Suave is WRONG when he claims that " "A maiden aged three years and a day" is a 'number, letter, syllable, no more or less - since there can be no psycho-motor satisfaction in the act of piercing thusly" in reference to the sexual abuse of 3-year-old girls prescribed in the Talmud.
Bel Suave says: "No 'meanings' exist outside of symbols in kabbalism..."