One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Is a******n really against God's law?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 23, 2014 15:26:11   #
rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.
 
According to your Halachai, or Jewish Law, God holds only financial value on the Human Fetus? Good ole Jewish Law that still doesn't believe that Jesus Christ, the Savior and Son of God has already came in the Flesh. The Jewish people still wait for their Savior to come even today, so continue to live religiously in limbo.

20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. Psalm 94.


Now, how do you read this??
This is prophecy of Jesus Christ, and the 'mischief' of the evil priests manipulating his Crucifixion.
It is also referring to Exodus 20 of the Ten Commandments which your using:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that h**e me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

How do you read and understand that particular Commandment? It is Old Testament, the Pentateuch. Please tell me~
The evil Jewish Priests (God calls 'fathers') claimed obeyance and loyalty to "Ceasar" only- when seeking Jesus Christ's death.
Jesus Christ is from the "4th" tribe of Judah, John the Baptist is from the "3rd tribe of Judah. Their lives and all the mischief from the Priests, and Herod's that took their lives "is a generation":

30 "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." Psalm 22.
Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were cousins, as 'Mary'- Jesus Mother, was 'Elizabeth'- John the Baptist Mother's Niece. From the same seed.
Scripture states that "the Virgin Mary" was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Nathan." (Joseph was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Solomon." The virgin Mary was a 'direct' descendent of the Holy Bloodline of Adam.
OOPS, pressed wrong key- still adding to this post.......
please wait!


son of witless wrote:
I am curious. Exactly when does a fetus become a human being? When it is out of the womb it is a baby. In the womb 5 minutes earlier it was a fetus and had to rights. It, and it is an it inside the mother, has no legal standing until it escapes from it's prison. Ah, but the drama is always will it make it out alive.

It makes no sense to me why k*****g babies is murder and why it's open season on fetuses.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 15:26:41   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
slatten49 wrote:
Thank you, Rhomin57. I am not a Biblical scholar, so...if you would, explain the relevance of Genesis 3:1 to the topic subject. I must be missing something.

If you choose to respond, use either this thread, or PM your response to me. It is up to you. :wink:

------------

Rhomin57 id correct regarding my reference to Genesis 3:1. However, my response was to Augustus Greatorex. It was he who interjected Genesis 3:1 into the thread.

Realizing he was referencing the serpent from the Garden of Eden, I chose to allow him to clarify the reference. I can only suppose that he was tying the 'fall of man' to a******n.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 16:01:04   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
[quote=rhomin57]According to your Halachai, or Jewish Law, God holds only financial value on the Human Fetus? Good ole Jewish Law that still doesn't believe that Jesus Christ, the Savior and Son of God has already came in the Flesh. The Jewish people still wait for their Savior to come even today, so continue to live religiously in limbo.
----------
[color=red] 1st off, it isn't my Halachai. I was posting parts of the BBC website on a******n. I was saying that since Christ was Jewish and He did teach the Torah and other Jewish religious positions, it could be possible that He preached from the Halachai, too. We weren't there to confirm either way.

20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. Psalm 94.


Now, how do you read this??
This is prophecy of Jesus Christ, and the 'mischief' of the evil priests manipulating his Crucifixion.
It is also referring to Exodus 20 of the Ten Commandments which your using:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that h**e me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
-----------------
I read this as a portion of the 10 Commandments. How do you read it?

How do you read and understand that particular Commandment? It is Old Testament, the Pentateuch. Please tell me~
The evil Jewish Priests (God calls 'fathers') claimed obeyance and loyalty to "Ceasar" only- when seeking Jesus Christ's death.
Jesus Christ is from the "4th" tribe of Judah, John the Baptist is from the "3rd tribe of Judah. Their lives and all the mischief from the Priests, and Herod's that took their lives "is a generation":
------------
From what source do you get the above comments regarding the 3rd and 4th tribes of Judah?

30 "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." Psalm 22.
Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were cousins, as 'Mary'- Jesus Mother, was 'Elizabeth'- John the Baptist Mother's Niece. From the same seed.
Scripture states that "the Virgin Mary" was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Nathan." (Joseph was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Solomon." The virgin Mary was a 'direct' descendent of the Holy Bloodline of Adam.
-----------
And Joseph wasn't a direct descendent of Adam, too? This seems incongruous with the Bible story of Adam and Eve being the only 2 original humans. Then, too, after the flood, Noah and his descendants had to re-populate the Earth. Is David a direct descendant of Noah?

OOPS, pressed wrong key- still adding to this post.......
please wait![/quote]

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 16:01:55   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
------------

Rhomin57 id correct regarding my reference to Genesis 3:1. However, my response was to Augustus Greatorex. It was he who interjected Genesis 3:1(?) into the thread.

Realizing he was referencing the serpent from the Garden of Eden, I chose to allow him to clarify the reference. I can only suppose that he was tying the 'fall of man' to a******n.



Thank you, Alabuck.

I knew it was Augustus who injected Genesis 3:1 into the topic matter. I will accept your tentative assessment of his meaning, but that seems quite a stretch...if indeed your interpretation is correct. The "quote" he made mention of does not equate to the subject matter, either...to my way of thinking. That is why I questioned the actual reference to Biblical chapter and verse. As I said, I am no scholar of the Bible, but I am fairly capable of grasping the obvious, and it was not in either Genesis 3:1 or Genesis 31.

With all due respect, I am still both confused as to his Biblical reference(s)...and still looking for an answer or explanation. :oops:

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 16:10:27   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
slatten49 wrote:
Thank you, Alabuck.

I knew it was Augustus who injected Genesis 3:1 into the topic matter. I will accept your tentative assessment of his meaning, but that seems quite a stretch...if indeed your interpretation is correct. The "quote" he made mention of does not equate to the subject matter, either...to my way of thinking. That is why I questioned the actual reference to Biblical chapter and verse. As I said, I am no scholar of the Bible, but I am fairly capable of grasping the obvious, and it was not in either Genesis 3:1 or Genesis 31.

With all due respect, I am both confused as to his Biblical reference(s)...and still looking for an answer or explanation. :oops:
Thank you, Alabuck. br br I knew it was Augustu... (show quote)


It doesn't take a scholar to see that people of various political and religious persuasions pick and choose parts of the Bible to substantiate their views. It still DOSENT make them right.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 16:21:49   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
It doesn't take a scholar to see that people of various political and religious persuasions pick and choose parts of the Bible to substantiate their views. It still DOSENT make them right.


Exactly, and that is why I'm trying to get to the t***h of what Augustus was implying. Peoples' interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution are so varied, it is mind-boggling. It is not surprising, though. Biblical and Constitutional scholars themselves often disagree as to the meaning of the words written in both. My implication was that not even in a stretch beyond my imagination could I find relevance to God's Law/stand on a******n in the verse(s) mentioned. :roll:

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 16:41:44   #
rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.
 
Oh well, site would not allow me to finish, and edit the post. Not many care these days anyway.
rhomin57 wrote:
According to your Halachai, or Jewish Law, God holds only financial value on the Human Fetus? Good ole Jewish Law that still doesn't believe that Jesus Christ, the Savior and Son of God has already came in the Flesh. The Jewish people still wait for their Savior to come even today, so continue to live religiously in limbo.

20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. Psalm 94.


Now, how do you read this??
This is prophecy of Jesus Christ, and the 'mischief' of the evil priests manipulating his Crucifixion.
It is also referring to Exodus 20 of the Ten Commandments which your using:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that h**e me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

How do you read and understand that particular Commandment? It is Old Testament, the Pentateuch. Please tell me~
The evil Jewish Priests (God calls 'fathers') claimed obeyance and loyalty to "Ceasar" only- when seeking Jesus Christ's death.
Jesus Christ is from the "4th" tribe of Judah, John the Baptist is from the "3rd tribe of Judah. Their lives and all the mischief from the Priests, and Herod's that took their lives "is a generation":

30 "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." Psalm 22.
Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were cousins, as 'Mary'- Jesus Mother, was 'Elizabeth'- John the Baptist Mother's Niece. From the same seed.
Scripture states that "the Virgin Mary" was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Nathan." (Joseph was a direct descendent of King David and his Son "Solomon." The virgin Mary was a 'direct' descendent of the Holy Bloodline of Adam.
OOPS, pressed wrong key- still adding to this post.......
please wait!
According to your Halachai, or Jewish Law, God hol... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2014 17:25:51   #
rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.
 
Actually, I am going to finish my comment! It needs to be said.
The difference between Mary's lineage through King David and his Son Nathan, vs King David's son Solomon is this:
Nathan and Solomon was born of Bathsheba, of whom King David had her husband k**led so he could have her 'as his wife. King David impregnated Bathsheba during the affair they had, against his prominent soldier Uriah who was Bathsheba's husband and still alive. After impregnating Bathsheba, King David gave Uriah leave of the war so he could go home to Bathsheba and he could cover the pregnancy that way. Uriah however was loyal to his company of soldiers and would not go home to Bathsheba as his solders had no leave to their wifes. So, King David had Uriah k**led, and took Bathsheba for his own wife. God struck the newborn infant sick, and it died in it's first week.
God promised King David that the sword would never leave his house.
Nathan was named after King David's closest and most cherished friend "Jonathan," King Saul's first born. Jonathan kept David from harm and Death due to his father King Saul's jealousy and rage as David has been anointed as the next king of Israel, by the Prophet "Nathan." After this King David's son Nathan is spoken of no more.
Solomon, however, was King David's youngest Son whom Bathsheba made certain was to be crown King of Israel after David's death from Old Age.
Solomon, once crowned, asked God for one thing: Wisdom, and was by far the wisest king and man in all lands. However, King Solomon took 700 wifes of Pagan Kings daughters from other lands to make alliance with them, and allowed his wifes to set up their Pagan Alters, and temples, so they could worship their Idols, do sacrifices to them, along with many others in Jerusalem. King Solomon's wisdom had turned to simply doting old age, and opened Jerusalem to gross Idolatry.

So, Mary's lineage goes through Nathan, King David's son as stated in Scripture, going all the way back to Adam, who through his mother Mary, falling upon Jesus Christ as well, besides his father being The Holy Spirit of God.

Joseph, Mary husband, his lineage goes back to King David through his Son Solomon as stated in scripture.
The difference between the two son's; Nathan and Solomon, their upbringing and there lives provide the distinction. Nathan was a quiet man, uneventful life, where Solomon was more Vain in his life than wise.

Now you know why the distinction. It may not mean anything to some of you, but, it sure did to God.
rhominDa
57 wrote:
Oh well, site would not allow me to finish, and edit the post. Not many care these days anyway.

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 17:26:01   #
Caboose Loc: South Carolina
 
alabuck wrote:
And yet, as the Israelites looked out at the Promised Land, God ordered them to k**l all of the inhabitants; men, women and children.


Are you Judgeing GOD?

Reply
Apr 23, 2014 18:07:18   #
rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.
 
This is all scripture, and I will tell it but the looking it up you all can do.
Through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God was establishing a Holy bloodline of them on to his son Jesus Christ. That Holy bloodline of 'men only' is stated in Luke 3.
The first world of Evil, through the murderous Cain, had not Covenant (Testament) of which to judge the people, nor a Savior in which to save the people. It had to go as evil had taken over.Only the seed of God within Goodly Noah and his family was saved so to start over. In the Second World of Earth, the Old Testament was established, and the Book of the Law to judge it.
God chose the Hebrew tribes of Jacob in which to establish his Covenant, Testament. and lead them to a land where they would survive, thrive, and multiply.
The lives of the Israelites are completely documented in the Holy Bible as a lesson and teaching guide for all sin under God that could be commited, and was, promised punishments due to them, as well as his Blessing and Rewards for those who Loved and Believed on him.

That land of flowing milk and honey that God wanted his chosen children (our lessons)to live in was Canaan. That land was filled with pagan worships and gross primitive idolatry. God did not see any change in the pagans future so they were taken out of the way. In the land of Canaan was a primitive pagan city named "Salem" that God has also chose to be a city for himself.
As the Hebrew Armies under Joshua began their military assault on ancient Canaan, They 'were' instructed to k**l all the inhabitants of the pagan cities, save for the virgin girl of age, to take as wife's and bare children. God did not want a pagan man or women within his Hebrews that out of bitterness, hatred, or anger, that would raise a sword with his tribes to k**l. Nor did he want their pagan influences within his tribes. The children were k**led as well so that would not grow up with bitterness, anger, and hatred as well so to raise a sword or ill influence within God's Tribes. As a parent to a new born child, was God to the Hebrews.
The Hebrews of Old Testament came to be called Jews, when they did begin mixing their Holy Bloodline with pagans and idolaters from other lands. Their Bloodline was not pure anymore.(save for Jesus Christ's lineage, hidden by God until it was time to show it once born)


Does it make sense to us? Not all of us, but it is our Lord God.

Reply
Apr 24, 2014 01:32:23   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)


alabuck, without the BBC URL, it's impossible to know exactly what you're discussing in toto. Could you post it, please?

Following are three highly regarded Bible versions of the verse to which I believe you are alluding:

Exodus 21:22-23 (HCSB) “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely, but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.
If there is an injury, then you must give life for life,"

Exodus 21:22-23 (NIV) "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined wh**ever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,"

Exodus 21:22-23 (NKJV) "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,"

From the word order of the sentence, it seems obvious that the baby is
being referenced, strongly inferring that a******n is a capital offense.

Animals have no souls, nor are they created in God's image, so the fetus of a cow is irrelevant.

Christians are not under Jewish law. We're under the New Covenant of Grace, which Jesus instituted at His Last Supper with His disciples before the crucifixion.

It's impossible to be under both.

John 1:17 "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and t***h were realized through Jesus Christ."

Romans 4:16 "For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,"

Romans 5:20 "The Law came in so that the t***sgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,"

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace."

Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!"

Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Galatians 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Jesus did teach the Scriptures of the Tanakh (Old Testament), but not the many Jewish traditions made up by men.

Mark 7:13 (Jesus said,) "And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others."

The reason some verses are omitted from the newer versions of the Bible, the NAS, the NIV, the ESV and the HCSB, among others, is because Archaeologists have discovered many older manuscripts of the New Testament since the Geneva or King James versions of the Bible were recopied by hand, and these manuscripts were unavailable to those who produced them.

These older manuscripts DID NOT contain those verses of which you speak, and it was determined the verses had been inadvertently copied as though text, after being written in as study aids in prior versions - after their completion, for the Tyndale Bible was copied to the newer Geneva Bible, and the Geneva Bible, in turn, was copied to create the King James.

Because the oldest manuscripts did not contain the extra "verses," they were correctly omitted from newer versions, which did go back to the best and oldest manuscripts in the original tongues, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

Your topic is replete with errors, and Yes, A******n is against God's will as expressed in His Holy Scriptures.

A******n is murder.

Reply
Apr 24, 2014 01:49:57   #
rumitoid
 
ginnyt wrote:
As a Jew, I will speak only of our belief system. While there is debate among the Rabbis whether a******n is a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition, all agree on the fundamental concept that fundamentally, a******n is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations. Jewish law does not sanction a******n on demand without a pressing reason. This includes a******n because the child may be deformed or unwanted. Basically, if a woman's life is threatened by the unborn child, the child is considered to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to k**l her. It is important to point out that the reason that the life of the fetus is subordinate to the mother is because the fetus is the cause of the mother's life-threatening condition, whether directly (e.g. due to toxemia, placenta previa) or indirectly (e.g. exacerbation of underlying diabetes, kidney disease, or hypertension). A fetus may not be aborted to save the life of any other person whose life is not directly threatened by the fetus, such as use of fetal organs for t***splant.

So although the vast majority of what you quoted is a non-Jewish interpretation of our beliefs, it is lacking in an understanding of the laws. If you have an interest in learning more; May I suggest the following material that deals specifically with a******n for Jewish women:
Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II: 69B.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 423:1
Ashken**i, Rabbi Yehuda, Be'er Hetiv, Choshen Mishpat 425:2
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 1:9; Talmud Sanhedrin 72B
Oholos 7:6
See Steinberg, Dr. Abraham; Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, "A******n and Miscarriage," for an extensive discussion of the maternal indications for a******n.
See Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. P. 10, for references.
See Spero, Moshe, Judaism and Psychology, pp. 168-180.
Zilberstein, Rabbi Yitzchak, Emek Halacha, Assia, Vol. 1, 1986, pp. 205-209.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:11, p. 288.
Tzitz Eliezer, Volume 13:102.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth cited in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425:23, p. 294.
See excellent chapter in English Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat, 425 by Dr. Abraham Abraham, particularly p. 293.
b As a Jew, I will speak only of our belief syste... (show quote)


I am a grief counselor and went through intensive Hospice Training. I do not remember where I read about the "strong Jewish belief in life." It had something to do as a response to the Hemlock society but all searches availed nothing. In the article I vaguely recall (this is almost a quarter century ago) that even if death would occur in a few days or just hours and the person was in incredible agony, it was still wrong to take their life. Is this true in Jewish teaching, ginnyt?

Reply
Apr 24, 2014 06:34:57   #
martychristiansoldier Loc: PA
 
alabuck wrote:
I found this website and thought its reasoning on a******n and the Judaeo/Christian ethic rather interesting. So, I posted portions of it for your comments.

The legal status of a fetus, compiled from a BBC website on religion

One of the basic tenants of the pro-lifers, especially in the US, centers on the belief that the fetus is a person at conception. This tenant has its genesis (no pun intended) in an interpretation of Jewish and Christian Biblical passages which are said to prove the belief in humanity at conception and the sanctity of life.

A little background for our non-believers who've never been to church nor have ever read the Bible.

Christianity is the faith based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to the world to sacrifice Himself on behalf of mankind, so that mankind, by accepting Jesus as their savior, can receive God's grace and live an eternal life after death, in Heaven, with God.

According to the Bible, although conceived by the virgin, Mary, with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is prophesized to be from the lineage of the Israelite king, David. As a child, Jesus, during a trip to Jerusalem by His parents, was found, "in His Father's house," the Temple, with the priests. Later, as a young adult, He spent a lot of time in the Temple and the local synagogue, teaching the Jewish Torah (the Law) and other religious books.

It's safe to say that Jesus was Jewish, being brought up in the Jewish religion and Jewish customs, and being the Son of the God of Israel. Jesus spends His adult life ministering to the poor and downtrodden of Israel. He healed the sick, raised some from the dead and, spoke against the collection of riches on Earth, and taught His followers to take care of the less fortunate because as He said, "wh**ever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

To the chagrin of the Saduccees and the Pharisees, the 2 major political/religious parties in Israel, Jesus developed a following. (One must know that at this time, Israel was a theocracy, much like the Islamic theocratic states who practice Sharia Law, today.). To silence Him, the members of the 2 parties had Him arrested and turned over to the Roman ruler, Pontious Pilot, for k*****g. After a mock trial, Jesus was tortured, scourged and crucified; all in accordance with the Jewish religious prophecies in the Torah that Jesus' tormentors failed to note.

After Jesus died, rose from the dead, met with His disciples and 500 other people, t***sfigured and assented into Heaven, His followers began a new religion based on the belief that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, sent to fulfill the prophecies. The new religion was called "The Way." Later, it came to be called Christianity, and it's followers, "Christians."

Today, modern Christians tend to forget that Jesus was first, Jewish; that He taught in the Temple; that He taught Jewish religion and traditions. Part of those traditions and religious beliefs dealt with pregnancy and the unborn.

Now, for the parts of the BBCwebsite:

"Traditional Judaism regards a fetus as a being part of the mother's body that is developing towards being a person.

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in "Halacha" [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In Judaism a fetus is not considered to be a person until it is born. Before that, it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status. During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

"According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a fetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

"When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... ." "Other damage" is taken, in this text, to mean "the death of the mother."

"This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the fetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the fetus is not a person. But, k*****g the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

"From an ethical point of view, then: a fetus is not a person but a fetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood. So a fetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons. The high status given to a fetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a fetus.

"The distinguished Jewish rabbi Rashi wrote: "For as long as it (the fetus) did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another. This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a fetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

"But although the fetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed."

"The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the fetus.

"The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the fetus to the buyer and the fetus belongs to the buyer.

"The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth."

Okay, all you pro-choices and pro-lifers, what say ye?
I found this website and thought its reasoning on ... (show quote)

This is very simple for the pro-life, there is nothing to think about.

Reply
Apr 24, 2014 10:11:43   #
Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE
 
alabuck wrote:
------------

Rhomin57 id correct regarding my reference to Genesis 3:1. However, my response was to Augustus Greatorex. It was he who interjected Genesis 3:1 into the thread.

Realizing he was referencing the serpent from the Garden of Eden, I chose to allow him to clarify the reference. I can only suppose that he was tying the 'fall of man' to a******n.


You don't see a similarity between "Is a******n really against God's law?" and "Did God really say, not to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden?" ???

Well, I guess it is just me. I am not opposed to aborting pregnancies, just babies.

Reply
Apr 24, 2014 11:02:41   #
LAwrence
 
You people avoid the bible and quote other books. The King James 1611 bible condemns a******n in both the old and new testaments.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.