|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 15, 2023 18:19:59 GMT -5
Your religious interpretation is at odds with the thousands of year old Jewish legal interpretation. You've conspicuously avoided commenting on that, even though I explicitly asked you for comment. Why do you think your religion should take precedence? Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception?No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body. Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus. I am a little mystified as to why Judaism is supposed to be the bedrock for Evangelicals or anybody who is not Jewish. I get that you and Zen point to Jesus being one who followed the laws and customs of Judaism, but there are significant times where He did not. Working on the Sabbath and "blasphemously" claiming He was the Son of God come to mind. His willingness to go against Jewish culture and interact with Samaritans is another. Juxtapose that with how He regarded children in the New Testament leaves me wondering how exactly He would have regarded abortion. I can live with saying that no one knows for sure, but by the accounts left, it seems doubtful to me that He would be favorable towards abortion. Especially abortion as a means of birth control. Also, as far as I know, Christians who didn't come from a background of Judaism were not expected to convert to Jewish custom or law. Just asking. I in no way think Jewish law is better or expect anybody not raised in the Jewish tradition to convert and follow Jewish law. It is simply example of one religion attempting to impose their religious tradition on another religion. We are supposed to be against that in the United States. As an exercise, I challenge anybody who wants to have an honest discussion on this issue, to go over the history and examine how we got where we are from where we were in1968, and why. Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. In 1968, the flagship evangelical magazine Christianity Today convened a conference with another evangelical organization, Christian Medical Society, to discuss the ethics of abortion. After several days of deliberations, twenty-six evangelical theologians issued a statement acknowledging that they could not agree on any one position, that the ambiguities of the issue allowed for many different approaches. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.” The statement cited “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as possible justifications for abortion and allowed for instances when fetal life “may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life.”
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 15, 2023 18:21:40 GMT -5
Evangelicals are the biggest group of frauds and hypocrites in existence. A bunch of clowns. Yes, but how and why? It doesn't take much digging to learn the answer to each, and the answer is not pretty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2023 18:28:02 GMT -5
I am a little mystified as to why Judaism is supposed to be the bedrock for Evangelicals or anybody who is not Jewish. I get that you and Zen point to Jesus being one who followed the laws and customs of Judaism, but there are significant times where He did not. Working on the Sabbath and "blasphemously" claiming He was the Son of God come to mind. His willingness to go against Jewish culture and interact with Samaritans is another. Juxtapose that with how He regarded children in the New Testament leaves me wondering how exactly He would have regarded abortion. I can live with saying that no one knows for sure, but by the accounts left, it seems doubtful to me that He would be favorable towards abortion. Especially abortion as a means of birth control. Also, as far as I know, Christians who didn't come from a background of Judaism were not expected to convert to Jewish custom or law. Just asking. I in no way think Jewish law is better or expect anybody not raised in the Jewish tradition to convert and follow Jewish law. It is simply example of one religion attempting to impose their religious tradition on another religion. We are supposed to be against that in the United States. As an exercise, I challenge anybody who wants to have an honest discussion on this issue, to go over the history and examine how we got where we are from where we were in1968, and why. Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. In 1968, the flagship evangelical magazine Christianity Today convened a conference with another evangelical organization, Christian Medical Society, to discuss the ethics of abortion. After several days of deliberations, twenty-six evangelical theologians issued a statement acknowledging that they could not agree on any one position, that the ambiguities of the issue allowed for many different approaches. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.” The statement cited “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as possible justifications for abortion and allowed for instances when fetal life “may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life.” It may have something to do with the takeover of the administrative organs of those churches by white southerners. Nah, that could never be.
|
|
|
Post by dc on Mar 15, 2023 18:31:00 GMT -5
a lot of abortion talk and no hoolie
others have to take up the usual self-righteous blather
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 15, 2023 18:47:50 GMT -5
It may have something to do with the takeover of the administrative organs of those churches by white southerners. Nah, that could never be.
Please format your responses correctly.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 15, 2023 20:31:30 GMT -5
Evidently Democrats are incredibly concerned about Ron DeSantis given the amount of attacks he’s been under lately. They obviously view him as a front leader.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 15, 2023 20:46:02 GMT -5
Evidently Democrats are incredibly concerned about Ron DeSantis given the amount of attacks he’s been under lately. They obviously view him as a front leader. Are you going to dump 2 days of accumulated stupidity on us all at once, or are you going to pace yourself?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 15, 2023 20:51:55 GMT -5
He jumped the gun on his return. Should that mean an extra 24 hour time out or something?
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 15, 2023 21:10:37 GMT -5
He jumped the gun on his return. Should that mean an extra 24 hour time out or something? I decided to 48 hours, and it was exactly 48 hours. Sorry Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 15, 2023 21:22:09 GMT -5
He jumped the gun on his return. Should that mean an extra 24 hour time out or something? I decided to 48 hours, and it was exactly 48 hours. Sorry Charlie. No, the timestamp shows you cheated. Leaving the penalty box early is a two-minute minor. Back to the sin bin with you!
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 15, 2023 21:38:40 GMT -5
He jumped the gun on his return. Should that mean an extra 24 hour time out or something? I decided to 48 hours, and it was exactly 48 hours. holiday watching the clock
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 15, 2023 21:39:20 GMT -5
I decided to 48 hours, and it was exactly 48 hours. Sorry Charlie. No, the timestamp shows you cheated. Leaving the penalty box early is a two-minute minor. Back to the sin bin with you! No thanks, frankly I’ve never seen such boring and dull discussions in my life.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 15, 2023 22:04:41 GMT -5
No, the timestamp shows you cheated. Leaving the penalty box early is a two-minute minor. Back to the sin bin with you! No thanks, frankly I’ve never seen such boring and dull discussions in my life. Yay, the resident narcissist is back. There goes the two day dip in hit and runs.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 15, 2023 22:06:49 GMT -5
No thanks, frankly I’ve never seen such boring and dull discussions in my life. Yay, the resident narcissist is back. There goes the two day dip in hit and runs. You’re welcome
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Mar 16, 2023 7:27:46 GMT -5
I am a little mystified as to why Judaism is supposed to be the bedrock for Evangelicals or anybody who is not Jewish. I get that you and Zen point to Jesus being one who followed the laws and customs of Judaism, but there are significant times where He did not. Working on the Sabbath and "blasphemously" claiming He was the Son of God come to mind. His willingness to go against Jewish culture and interact with Samaritans is another. Juxtapose that with how He regarded children in the New Testament leaves me wondering how exactly He would have regarded abortion. I can live with saying that no one knows for sure, but by the accounts left, it seems doubtful to me that He would be favorable towards abortion. Especially abortion as a means of birth control. Also, as far as I know, Christians who didn't come from a background of Judaism were not expected to convert to Jewish custom or law. Just asking. I in no way think Jewish law is better or expect anybody not raised in the Jewish tradition to convert and follow Jewish law. It is simply example of one religion attempting to impose their religious tradition on another religion. We are supposed to be against that in the United States. As an exercise, I challenge anybody who wants to have an honest discussion on this issue, to go over the history and examine how we got where we are from where we were in1968, and why. Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. In 1968, the flagship evangelical magazine Christianity Today convened a conference with another evangelical organization, Christian Medical Society, to discuss the ethics of abortion. After several days of deliberations, twenty-six evangelical theologians issued a statement acknowledging that they could not agree on any one position, that the ambiguities of the issue allowed for many different approaches. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.” The statement cited “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as possible justifications for abortion and allowed for instances when fetal life “may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life.” And I think, for the most part, those are the issues and circumstances the Evangelical church still wrestles with today. The problem comes when they, seemingly, try to force their position on others politically. That being said, they still have the right to voice their opinions and to try and convince others that their stance on abortion is preferable.
|
|