God-ordered abortion

[DeBunkem]

Actually, there are several examples of Yahweh ordering the murder of fetuses. One that may not have been mentioned is the Torah's command to stone women for adultery. In "crimes" such as this, conception as a result is a foregone conclusion. Barbarism from the "God of Love." We rightly condemn it in Sharia Islam as well, but mark well where the practice started.

[chris_brown207]

I suppose this is a common sentiment. I don't know that I take it myself, of course, but do try to be quick to say that I don't wish demonize those who do.
In any case, I do always come back to the matter of definitions, feeling that a biological definition of humanity makes the most sense unless we're going to invoke a religious belief. That being the case, it seems more consistent to include a fetus in the term "human life" than not.
So, very tough balance, but the goal is to come across as deeply troubled (to say the least) that so many abortions occur while being understanding/empathetic toward the supporters (and even practitioners) of the process.

I can understand you hesitation, it is definitely a difficult question, because of the potential that is inherent in something that starts out as a few cells, multiplying rapidly. I agree that the definition should be biological, but I do not think it can be contained by mere being human - as a skin cell is human, carry the same DNA, but
does not carry the same moral weight. It cannot be that it is growing, because the hair follicles and nails of a cadaver keep growing for some time after death.

Mind you, I am not likening a fetus to either of these. I am aware that a fetus is something special and different. The difficult thing is determining at what point it goes from being just a group of rapidly dividing cells, to a sentient independent person with the same inalienable rights guaranteed by our constitution. In my mind, the person carrying said fetus has the same rights to decide what is best for her body and her life. In my mind there has to be a definable point at which the former takes precedence over the latter, and that is does not make sense to make it indefinite.

[Murad]

You haven't read many of my posts, have you?

Not really, but i know there are a variety of religious scriptures relating to Judaism. But the Tanakh has overall authority am i right?

Okay. How about "No Jews have actually practiced stoning for more than two thousand years" and "Some Muslims practice stoning in the present day"?

That is true.
Fact is the rabbinical courts have given up the ability to inflict any kind of physical punishment. Such punishments are left to the civil court system to administer.

I am on the record many, many times as saying that Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, a sibling faith of Judaism, and that all Muslims ought not be blamed for the misdeeds, excesses and atrocities committed by a few. I am also the guy who requested and paid for the Islam discussion subforum, even though I have little to say on the subject aside from what I have just said. Don't look for enemies where you might find a friend.

You might've understood me wrongly or i expressed my thoughts wrong.
I wanted to point out that the sources of authority in our religions(Judaism & Islam) does not prohibit capital punishment. So they are both almost identical except the Jews as a whole abolished capital punishment where-as only some muslims abolished it.

Biblical law explicitly mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses, from murder and adultery to idolatry and desecration of the Sabbath. Still, Jewish scholars since the beginning of the common era have developed such restrictive rules to prevent execution of the innocent that the death penalty has become de facto illegal.

Sure i've never heard of any Jew being physically abused by the rabbinical court.
But im sure you know that the civil courts have the power of capital punishment, and that there is no need for the rabbinical court to have such power when another system can do it for them. Dont you agree?

The difference is the style of Government, not the religious laws.

& I apologize if i offended you in my earlier post.

[cnorman18]

You haven't read many of my posts, have you?

Not really, but i know there are a variety of religious scriptures relating to Judaism. But the Tanakh has overall authority am i right?

Not exactly. This is odd, but the fact is, NO ONE and NOTHING has the ultimate authority in Judaism. The foundational documents are found in Tanakh, with the Torah considered more authoritative than the rest of Tanakh; but the rulings in the Talmud are considered to be essential, since they represent the Oral Torah, which is just as authoritative as the Written. Even there, in the Talmud, there are multiple viewpoints and often contradictory rulings on particular matters, and all are considered acceptable and authoritative. Individual rabbis can depart from tradition in their local communities, and the community itself, both locally and as a whole, determines practice by consensus. It's not as simple as in many other religions and religious communities, mostly because Judaism is not AT ALL hierarchical except within certain very Orthodox communities. There is no Jewish Pope, no Supreme Council, nothing like that. Every congregation is on its own, but if it departs TOO far from common practice, other Jewish communities will no longer recognize it as legitimate. We're dealing with precisely such a controversy over patrilineal descent in Reform congregations in the present day, and it has not yet been resolved.

Okay. How about "No Jews have actually practiced stoning for more than two thousand years" and "Some Muslims practice stoning in the present day"?

That is true.
Fact is the rabbinical courts have given up the ability to inflict any kind of physical punishment. Such punishments are left to the civil court system to administer.

That was true even when the Jews DID have their own courts of justice, though, and even when the Jews were left to their own devices in the medieval period and allowed to run their own affairs and their own courts at certain times and places.

In Israel today, the death penalty is imposed for one crime and one crime only, and that is genocide; I don't know of anyone since Adolf Eichmann who has been executed under that law, and Eichmann was executed by hanging.

I am on the record many, many times as saying that Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, a sibling faith of Judaism, and that all Muslims ought not be blamed for the misdeeds, excesses and atrocities committed by a few. I am also the guy who requested and paid for the Islam discussion subforum, even though I have little to say on the subject aside from what I have just said. Don't look for enemies where you might find a friend.

You might've understood me wrongly or i expressed my thoughts wrong.
I wanted to point out that the sources of authority in our religions (Judaism & Islam) does not prohibit capital punishment. So they are both almost identical except the Jews as a whole abolished capital punishment where-as only some muslims abolished it.

The BIBLE does not prohibit capital punishment, but as I said, in the Jewish religion, counterintuitive as it seems, the Bible does not have that authority. The TRADITION prohibits capital punishment, and has for two millenia; and that IS authoritative - insofar as there is any "authority" at all.

Biblical law explicitly mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses, from murder and adultery to idolatry and desecration of the Sabbath. Still, Jewish scholars since the beginning of the common era have developed such restrictive rules to prevent execution of the innocent that the death penalty has become de facto illegal.

That is correct; and there is the authoritative ruling. The Bible has been overruled on that count, and many others. For starters, we no longer practice animal sacrifice; there is no Temple, hasn't been since 70 CE, and that forced change may well have sparked the development of the other changes within Judaism that largely began at that time. Since the original practices of the Jewish faith were simply impossible, new approaches had to be developed. The alternative was simply the extinction of our faith - which in the case of the Greek-influenced Sadducean Temple-based institution, actually happened. That form of Judaism IS extinct.

Sure i've never heard of any Jew being physically abused by the rabbinical court.
But im sure you know that the civil courts have the power of capital punishment, and that there is no need for the rabbinical court to have such power when another system can do it for them. Dont you agree?

Well, actual historical accuracy aside, consider the case of Jesus. To oversimplify, the rabbinical court (the Sanhedrin in this case) did in fact sentence Jesus to death, and turned him over to the civilian Roman court to have that sentence carried out. There is much doubt about the historical accuracy of that account for many reasons, but to my knowledge, nothing like it has ever occurred before nor since. I doubt that it happened as reported in the Gospels even in that case.

The difference is the style of Government, not the religious laws.

I disagree. There have been many periods in Jewish history when the two were the same.

& I apologize if i offended you in my earlier post.

I'm not offended. I'm just concerned about accuracy.

Here's a hint; I don't make pronouncements about the beliefs or practices of Islam beyond the strictly and verifiably factual, and I don't make pronouncements about the significance of those facts in ANY way. I don't claim to know beans about Islam aside from the basics - the Pillars of the Faith, for instance, and the fact that Islam is strictly monotheistic. I'm not qualified to make judgments or talk about motivations or attitudes, because (1) I'm not a Muslim, and (2) I'm not a scholar of Islam and know my own ignorance and limits.

Many people -- Christian, Muslim, atheist, and otherwise -- THINK they have a knowledge base about Judaism and understand it, but very few do. Not even all Jews are well-versed in the history, philosophy and standards of authority in their own faith. I know that that is true of Christianity as well, and probably Islam. We shouldn't speak of other faiths without being certain that we know what we're talking about, and maybe not even then.

[Jester]

I can understand you hesitation, it is definitely a difficult question, because of the potential that is inherent in something that starts out as a few cells, multiplying rapidly. I agree that the definition should be biological, but I do not think it can be contained by mere being human - as a skin cell is human, carry the same DNA, but does not carry the same moral weight. It cannot be that it is growing, because the hair follicles and nails of a cadaver keep growing for some time after death.

Mind you, I am not likening a fetus to either of these. I am aware that a fetus is something special and different. The difficult thing is determining at what point it goes from being just a group of rapidly dividing cells, to a sentient independent person with the same inalienable rights guaranteed by our constitution. In my mind, the person carrying said fetus has the same rights to decide what is best for her body and her life. In my mind there has to be a definable point at which the former takes precedence over the latter, and that is does not make sense to make it indefinite.

Very reasonable.
For a response, let's see...

I do try to keep in mind that, unless I can draw a clear line saying "this isn't a person", I want to side with the fetus. That is, I put the burden of proof on the side claiming that there is no person being killed.
As to drawing that line, I see basically two options:
First is contrasting the aforementioned skin cell with a fetus by means of pointing out that it is the entirely of the being in question. (I'm not sure if you would accept the term "being", but for lack of a better word...). This would leave me to be opposed to all abortions, save those in which the life of the mother is in danger.
A second option, which strikes me as a fairly reasonable place to draw a line the advent of brain activity. That would lead me to oppose abortions occurring after the 4th or 5th week (with the same caveat).

I do wish to be compassionate toward the mother, but at the same time feel the need to mention that adoption is still a possibility. I am aware that an unwanted pregnancy is always a difficult situation, but don't feel that anyone's right to end a difficult situation extends to the potential ending of a human life.

[Murad]

Many people -- Christian, Muslim, atheist, and otherwise -- THINK they have a knowledge base about Judaism and understand it, but very few do. Not even all Jews are well-versed in the history, philosophy and standards of authority in their own faith. I know that that is true of Christianity as well, and probably Islam. We shouldn't speak of other faiths without being certain that we know what we're talking about, and maybe not even then.

Interesting read.

I thought the tanakh had authority but i was wrong, so yeah pretty much the reason i based my arguements upon.

Though ive been studying rabbinical law recently, im sure i can also learn from your posts.

[cnorman18]

Many people -- Christian, Muslim, atheist, and otherwise -- THINK they have a knowledge base about Judaism and understand it, but very few do. Not even all Jews are well-versed in the history, philosophy and standards of authority in their own faith. I know that that is true of Christianity as well, and probably Islam. We shouldn't speak of other faiths without being certain that we know what we're talking about, and maybe not even then.

Interesting read.

I thought the tanakh had authority but i was wrong, so yeah pretty much the reason i based my arguements upon.

Though ive been studying rabbinical law recently, im sure i can also learn from your posts.

You might want to take a look at this post, entitled "What Judaism Is: One Jew's View" (mine) on the Judaism board. Any good introductory book on basic Judaism will be helpful, too; Basic Judaism by Rabbi Milton Steinberg, not surprisingly, is good, as is Judaism for Dummies.

Thanks for the interest. I converted to Judaism at the age of 50 and have never looked back; this is my home. Thirty-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister. It's been an interesting ride.

[Murad]

You might want to take a look at this post, entitled "What Judaism Is: One Jew's View" (mine) on the Judaism board. Any good introductory book on basic Judaism will be helpful, too; Basic Judaism by Rabbi Milton Steinberg, not surprisingly, is good, as is Judaism for Dummies.

Thanks for the interest. I converted to Judaism at the age of 50 and have never looked back; this is my home. Thirty-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister. It's been an interesting ride.

Thanks for the link.

A question out of curiosity, what is your view of Jesus now?

[cnorman18]

You might want to take a look at this post, entitled "What Judaism Is: One Jew's View" (mine) on the Judaism board. Any good introductory book on basic Judaism will be helpful, too; Basic Judaism by Rabbi Milton Steinberg, not surprisingly, is good, as is Judaism for Dummies.

Thanks for the interest. I converted to Judaism at the age of 50 and have never looked back; this is my home. Thirty-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister. It's been an interesting ride.

Thanks for the link.

A question out of curiosity, what is your view of Jesus now?

I get that question a lot....

Jesus was a nice fella, a good Jewish boy who wanted to see reform in his religion and his culture; more concern for people and less concern with the rules and regs and rituals of the Temple crowd.

I have said in the past, and often, that though Jesus was NOT the Jewish Masiach, I think he may very well have been sent by God as a "messiah for the Gentiles." The Jews will always be a small people -- the Book says so, and that seems to have remained true for millenia. But there must be SOME way for Gentiles to come into knowledge of the One God and the truths of the Torah, and if not for Jesus (and perhaps even more for Paul), my own Celtic ancestors might have continued to paint themselves blue and worship trees. For the record, I regard Islam as another channel to know that One God; I make no other judgments about it, since I confess I know little about that faith beyond the basics.

I don't know that we can ever really know, today, who Jesus was and what he taught. I think that much of what we have in the Gospels was put in Jesus's mouth by later generations; the influence of Pauline thought is easily seen there, and it doesn't square with much of the rest of Jesus's message (not many people realize that the oldest books in the NT are not the Gospels, but the letters of Paul). I don't know that it's possible to know today the historical truth of Jesus's story. Like the Exodus, I think that that actual history is probably not recoverable, and also like the Exodus, I don't think it matters very much.

The structure and development of both Judaism and Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) are what they are, and looking to history is not where we shall find answers or solutions - just as in the current political situation in the Mideast. Arabs and Jews espouse differing historical narratives that are largely mutually exclusive; objective examination will show that neither is either wholly true nor wholly false, and we shall find no answers on that channel. We should turn away from those narratives, without prejudice to either, and look to the future. EVERYONE wants their children to grow up in safety and prosperity and with the freedom to worship and live as they choose. That will begin when both sides value the lives of the others as they value their own, and learn to respect differing beliefs even if they do not share them.

[Murad]

Jesus was a nice fella, a good Jewish boy who wanted to see reform in his religion and his culture; more concern for people and less concern with the rules and regs and rituals of the Temple crowd.

The mainstream Christian perspective of Jesus is that he ordered Paul to 'abolish' the Laws of Moses. But Jesus' love for the Law is evident in numerous places of the New Testament. So its kind of hard for me to understand the Christian perspective of Jesus' intentions towards the law.

I have said in the past, and often, that though Jesus was NOT the Jewish Masiach,

Im aware he did not fulfill numerous prophecies in Jewish scriptures.

I don't know that we can ever really know, today, who Jesus was and what he taught.

I think me and you both know he was not 'God Incarnate'

I think that much of what we have in the Gospels was put in Jesus's mouth by later generations; the influence of Pauline thought is easily seen there, and it doesn't square with much of the rest of Jesus's message (not many people realize that the oldest books in the NT are not the Gospels, but the letters of Paul).

Agree'd, the authors of John differed greatly from the other 3 Gospels.
I think the words put into the mouth of Jesus were the authors opinions rather than facts.


Well cnorman18 to sum it all up from my perspective, the only reason im uncomfortable with the Jewish rejection of the Messiah(Jesus) is that its been prophesied by our Prophet that the Messiah the Jews accept will be the AntiChrist(False Messiah).
Since there can only be one Messiah according to Christian & Islamic laws/tradition, any other 'Messiah' is considered a false Messiah.

Although i understand some rabbi's dont believe a Messiah will ever come.

[cnorman18]

Jesus was a nice fella, a good Jewish boy who wanted to see reform in his religion and his culture; more concern for people and less concern with the rules and regs and rituals of the Temple crowd.

The mainstream Christian perspective of Jesus is that he ordered Paul to 'abolish' the Laws of Moses. But Jesus' love for the Law is evident in numerous places of the New Testament. So its kind of hard for me to understand the Christian perspective of Jesus' intentions towards the law.

I have said in the past, and often, that though Jesus was NOT the Jewish Masiach,

Im aware he did not fulfill numerous prophecies in Jewish scriptures.

I don't know that we can ever really know, today, who Jesus was and what he taught.

I think me and you both know he was not 'God Incarnate'

I think that much of what we have in the Gospels was put in Jesus's mouth by later generations; the influence of Pauline thought is easily seen there, and it doesn't square with much of the rest of Jesus's message (not many people realize that the oldest books in the NT are not the Gospels, but the letters of Paul).

Agree'd, the authors of John differed greatly from the other 3 Gospels.
I think the words put into the mouth of Jesus were the authors opinions rather than facts.


Well cnorman18 to sum it all up from my perspective, the only reason im uncomfortable with the Jewish rejection of the Messiah(Jesus) is that its been prophesied by our Prophet that the Messiah the Jews accept will be the AntiChrist(False Messiah).
Since there can only be one Messiah according to Christian & Islamic laws/tradition, any other 'Messiah' is considered a false Messiah.

Although i understand some rabbi's dont believe a Messiah will ever come.

Well, just to be clear, I maintain that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah; but I have to warrant to declare Christianity a false religion or anything like it. Jews, as a rule, have no comment on other faiths except on the topic of idolatry. None of our business. And wouldn't it be nice if that attitude was more common?

The Messiah is not as important a concept in Judaism today as it was in the first century, though some Chasidic sects still hold it in high regard; but in any case, no Jew has ever held that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, or that one obtained "salvation" through belief in him. Many modern Jews hold that it is for us, ordinary humans, to perfect the world and institute the Messianic Age - that is, a time of perfect peace, justice and faith - and only then will Messiah come; and most hold that that Age is the point, and not the person of the Messiah. We are not, in any case, to merely wait; we are to work toward that time, and make this world a better place.