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.

[cnorman18]

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.

If we’re going to discuss the practice of stoning in Judaism, let’s discuss it: that's obviously the intent here, since the references are not to "God" and "the Bible," but to "Yahweh" and "the Torah." ("God of Love" doesn't fit in that context, by the way - that's not a characteristically Jewish expression nor a commonly prescribed element of Jewish belief.)

The facts: Capital punishment, in any form, was effectively abolished in Jewish law at least two thousand years ago (at some time prior to 30 CE), and was extraordinarily rare long before that.

Stonings under Sharia law, of course, are being carried out as we speak, in the present day. A discussion of stoning in general, including these facts, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The imams apparently do not support bizarrely equating this brutal form of execution with abortion, though - they have “mercifully� spared a woman from the punishment until immediately after she gives birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm

One wonders why the prehistoric origins of stoning, which are entirely obscure, are particularly relevant anyway. Stoning was a common punishment all over the ancient world, and apparently predated Mosaic law and developed in cultures which had no contact with it.

One wonders, again, what the point of this post was, though "blame the Jews" does seem to be a recurrent theme in many areas.

[DeBunkem]

My point is political, as this is the indicated Forum. Abortion continues to be the touchstone for the religious right. We may well get a Mormon President because of wedge issues such as this.
I have no quarrel with any ethnicity: Both Jews and Arabs are equally Semitic. Yet as an anti-Imperialist I oppose apartheid, militarism, occupation, and violation of Human Rights as resolved in the UN. This puts me squarely against Likudnik and Zionist policies. It also put me equally against US-backed Saddam Hussein's policies both domestic and foreign...especially his agression against Iran.
Barbaric religious practices have abounded in the Abrahamic religions. The Torah is the source of the particular practice of stoning in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, (practiced in the Middle Ages against witches) and Islam.
It is not practiced in all Muslim countries. The worst offender is a US ally, Saudi Arabia, where Presidents go to bow and kiss the hand of the ruling despot. FOX is co-owned by a Saudi prince (along with another foreign hyper-Capitalist, Rupert Murdoch). So what might be the present-day holy symbol and battle flag for the Abrahamic religions?


Just my idea....Might interesting to do a montage of others' ideas.

[cnorman18]

My point is political, as this is the indicated Forum. Abortion continues to be the touchstone for the religious right. We may well get a Mormon President because of wedge issues such as this.

So... why the emphasis on the Jewish tradition in your OP? If you're interested in opposing the religious right, it seems odd to speak of the Jews. Very, very few Jews are political supporters of the religious right; in point of fact, most Jews in the US are liberal Democrats. If that's your "political point," it seems an odd way to present it.

I have no quarrel with any ethnicity: Both Jews and Arabs are equally Semitic.

Who said anything about "Semitic"?

Yet as an anti-Imperialist I oppose apartheid, militarism, occupation, and violation of Human Rights as resolved in the UN. This puts me squarely against Likudnik and Zionist policies. It also put me equally against US-backed Saddam Hussein's policies both domestic and foreign...especially his agression against Iran.

Which has what to do with the issue of stoning in Jewish law, exactly?

Barbaric religious practices have abounded in the Abrahamic religions. The Torah is the source of the particular practice of stoning in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, (practiced in the Middle Ages against witches) and Islam.

And again I ask, so what? The Torah is a very old document. It's also the source of the practice of treating animals humanely. So what? Are we to give it special blame or praise for either? What does all this have to do with your "political point"?

It is not practiced in all Muslim countries. The worst offender is a US ally, Saudi Arabia, where Presidents go to bow and kiss the hand of the ruling despot. FOX is co-owned by a Saudi prince (along with another foreign hyper-Capitalist, Rupert Murdoch). So what might be the present-day holy symbol and battle flag for the Abrahamic religions?


Just my idea....Might interesting to do a montage of others' ideas.

And we get to these points, about Muslim brutality, capitalist perfidy, and oil, by claiming that the origin of the practice of stoning people to death is the Torah....

Okay. Thanks very much for the instructive posts.

[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.

If we’re going to discuss the practice of stoning in Judaism, let’s discuss it: that's obviously the intent here, since the references are not to "God" and "the Bible," but to "Yahweh" and "the Torah."

What difference? OT and NT are both considered part of the Bible. If you prefer, we can just as easily say "the Lord" and "the Law." Smokescreen.

("God of Love" doesn't fit in that context, by the way - that's not a characteristically Jewish expression nor a commonly prescribed element of Jewish belief.)

The OT and NT are not two Bibles. St. Paul said "All scripture is inspired and beneficial." Jesus quoted extensively from the OT. The Lord declares himself "the Same" yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Irrelevant dodge.

The facts: Capital punishment, in any form, was effectively abolished in Jewish law at least two thousand years ago (at some time prior to 30 CE), and was extraordinarily rare long before that.

That just means they became disobedient to part of the "God-given" Law but kept up practices just as ancient as stoning.

Stonings under Sharia law, of course, are being carried out as we speak, in the present day. A discussion of stoning in general, including these facts, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The imams apparently do not support bizarrely equating this brutal form of execution with abortion, though - they have “mercifully� spared a woman from the punishment until immediately after she gives birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm

One wonders why the prehistoric origins of stoning, which are entirely obscure, are particularly relevant anyway. Stoning was a common punishment all over the ancient world, and apparently predated Mosaic law and developed in cultures which had no contact with it.


One wonders, again, what the point of this post was, though "blame the Jews" does seem to be a recurrent theme in many areas.

My post is addressed mainly to the Bible literalists. They believe that all the ancient barbarisms in the Law were given to Israel by the Lord through Moses at Mt. Sinai, including stoning. Sharia may allow for a woman to give birth first, but the "Law" did not. Those who claim moral and religious superiority, AKA "pro-Life," thus cannot point to the Bible as their authority for their radical views. The point of the post is restored.

[cnorman18]

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.

If we’re going to discuss the practice of stoning in Judaism, let’s discuss it: that's obviously the intent here, since the references are not to "God" and "the Bible," but to "Yahweh" and "the Torah."

What difference? OT and NT are both considered part of the Bible. If you prefer, we can just as easily say "the Lord" and "the Law." Smokescreen.

Smokescreen for what? I’m trying to figure out why you’re addressing fundamentalist Christians in terms used specifically by Jews, and what the unknown prehistoric origins of stoning have to do with oil, capitalism, and the evil Israelis.

("God of Love" doesn't fit in that context, by the way - that's not a characteristically Jewish expression nor a commonly prescribed element of Jewish belief.)

The OT and NT are not two Bibles.

Uh, sorry, but when you’re talking to Jews, yes, they are two Bibles. The OT is the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh; the NT is not a part of the Jewish Bible at all. It’s a non sequitur. Again; if your message is for fundamentalist Christians, why are you talking to Jews in Jewish terms?

St. Paul said "All scripture is inspired and beneficial." Jesus quoted extensively from the OT.

So what? Jews do not recognize the authority of either Paul or Jesus. They’re not in our Bible, and appealing to the NT to a Jew is like appealing to the Bhagavad-Gita to a Muslim. Few of us read even the Hebrew Bible literally or hold that we must mindlessly and unreflectively obey its dictates.

Again, if you’re talking to Christian fundamentalists and literalists, why are you couching your argument in terms that relate primarily to Judaism? From my experience, most Christians think that “Torah� is just the Jewish word for the Old Testament, and in fact know very little about modern Jewish beliefs.

The Lord declares himself "the Same" yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Irrelevant dodge.

Dodging what? If you’re talking about Jewish law, which you clearly are, the NT is the irrelevancy here.

The facts: Capital punishment, in any form, was effectively abolished in Jewish law at least two thousand years ago (at some time prior to 30 CE), and was extraordinarily rare long before that.

That just means they became disobedient to part of the "God-given" Law but kept up practices just as ancient as stoning.

Let the record show that I have explained the actual history of Jewish capital punishment; to which you responded by presuming to dictate the proper beliefs of a religion that is not your own.

Sorry. In Jewish understanding, the Law is to be interpreted by men, through rational debate and consensus. NO ONE, not even the ultra-Orthodox, says that the Law must be understood, interpreted, practiced and enforced in the same way that it was in Moses’s day; and you don’t get to condemn Jews as collectively “disobedient� because we don’t subscribe to a view of Scripture THAT YOU DON‘T EVEN HOLD YOURSELF.

I find this surprising; I’m more used to being instructed in the proper beliefs of Judaism by people who actually believe those things, not by those who disagree with them. One would think that the historical FACT of the Jewish people collectively and explicitly overruling and rejecting the prescribed brutalities of the Torah, out of thoroughly moral and ethical concerns, would be something you’d applaud and endorse - not sneer at as “disobedient.�

I mentioned the origins of the humane treatment of animals being in the Torah too. That wasn’t mindlessly swallowed either; it was, and continues to be, reexamined and reaffirmed (and often extended) in every generation. Where do we place blame and credit when primitive ethical compasses are either replaced or reaffirmed? Does not the responsibility, good or bad, belong to those who actually apply their chosen moral compass today?

Do you actually condemn the Jews for abandoning brutal and inhumane punishment? It’s hard to read your words any other way.

Stonings under Sharia law, of course, are being carried out as we speak, in the present day. A discussion of stoning in general, including these facts, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The imams apparently do not support bizarrely equating this brutal form of execution with abortion, though - they have “mercifully� spared a woman from the punishment until immediately after she gives birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm

One wonders why the prehistoric origins of stoning, which are entirely obscure, are particularly relevant anyway. Stoning was a common punishment all over the ancient world, and apparently predated Mosaic law and developed in cultures which had no contact with it.

One wonders, again, what the point of this post was, though "blame the Jews" does seem to be a recurrent theme in many areas.

My post is addressed mainly to the Bible literalists. They believe that all the ancient barbarisms in the Law were given to Israel by the Lord through Moses at Mt. Sinai, including stoning. Sharia may allow for a woman to give birth first, but the "Law" did not. Those who claim moral and religious superiority, AKA "pro-Life," thus cannot point to the Bible as their authority for their radical views. The point of the post is restored.

And so are my questions. If, as you claim, you are addressing Biblical literalists, why do you talk about Jews so much? We don’t hold the views you object to, and Christian fundamentalists don’t distinguish between the Torah and the rest of the Bible; to them, it’s all the literal Word of God. The overwhelming majority of non-Orthodox Jews are pro-choice, non-literalists, and very much in sympathy with your views on this issue.

I’m also wondering, still, what all this about stoning has to do with oil, capitalism, and the evil Israelis. As I say, it’s a very peculiar way to make the political points (your term) that you claim you intended to make.

[ChaosBorders]

Smokescreen for what? I’m trying to figure out why you’re addressing fundamentalist Christians in terms used specifically by Jews, and what the unknown prehistoric origins of stoning have to do with oil, capitalism, and the evil Israelis.

Some Christians use those terms on occasion. Some Christian Bibles even use Yahweh. Some very minority literalist sects look down on people who do not use terminology like that because they view it as more accurate. I really think you're reading too much into his use of those terms.

[cnorman18]

Smokescreen for what? I’m trying to figure out why you’re addressing fundamentalist Christians in terms used specifically by Jews, and what the unknown prehistoric origins of stoning have to do with oil, capitalism, and the evil Israelis.

Some Christians use those terms on occasion. Some Christian Bibles even use Yahweh. Some very minority literalist sects look down on people who do not use terminology like that because they view it as more accurate. I really think you're reading too much into his use of those terms.

Maybe; but I'd note that I'm not being accused of misunderstanding, but of dodging and putting up a smokescreen. I'm trying to make sense of these weird posts - Stoning? Oil? Capitalism? Apartheid? - and I'm being accused of bad faith for my trouble, never mind a reason.

Jews are obligated to enforce Mosaic law in its original form, and should be condemned as "disobedient" when we abolished the brutal and inhuman punishments prescribed by the Torah? Sharia law is less immoral than Jewish law - and both are equally worthy of condemnation, even if the latter has not imposed capital punishment at all for more than two thousand years?

Does all this make sense to YOU? If so, please explain it to me. I don't get it.

[DeBunkem]

Note the title. Your faux-scholarly supposed confusion seems to me just an attempt to derail a simple point. I could easily disprove your red herring on the Law's treatment of animals by pointing out the massive slaughter of animals involved in daily sacrifices at the "Temple."

God killed many fetuses when he killed their mother, as has been noted on this forum many times. The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, plagues on Egypt and the Hebrews themselves, and yes, stoning adulteresses are all pregnant woman-killing examples that show "God" as no "Pro-Lifer."

No need to branch off on archeological wild goose chases about flood mythology or ancient animal husbandry practices of the ME. Nor will I list and describe how many Xtian religions rely heavily on the OT, since they believe it foretells their Messiah, and even practice strictures of Judaism, i.e., the 7th day Adventists.

Apply Occam's Razor and cut the Krappe.

[cnorman18]

Note the title. Your faux-scholarly supposed confusion seems to me just an attempt to derail a simple point.

What simple point is that? Why can’t you just state it straight out? Your “simple point,� according to you, is political, and apparently has something to do with “apartheid,� the evils of capitalism, oil, and so on. Forgive me, but it still isn’t clear to me.

“Faux-scholarly supposed confusion� was an insult. Once again you are plainly accusing me of dishonesty and arguing in bad faith without a hint of justification for that charge.

I could easily disprove your red herring on the Law's treatment of animals by pointing out the massive slaughter of animals involved in daily sacrifices at the "Temple."

Uh, no, I don’t think you could. Animal slaughter is not synonymous with animal cruelty, and Jewish law is quite explicit; animals must be killed painlessly. If you can “disprove� my “red herring,� perhaps you can explain the prohibition - not in Talmudic lore, but in the Torah itself - against killing a lamb or kid in the presence of its mother. If there is some reason for that prohibition other than concern for the animal’s feelings, I’d like to know what it might be.

And I’d note, again, that there hasn’t been a “massive slaughter of animals� at the Temple in almost two thousand years - but that, again, doesn’t appear to be relevant to your thinking. Judaism hasn’t been a “Temple religion� since the Temple fell, and Jewish law has changed and developed and grown since then; but one wouldn’t know it to read your posts.

God killed many fetuses when he killed their mother, as has been noted on this forum many times. The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, plagues on Egypt and the Hebrews themselves, and yes, stoning adulteresses are all pregnant woman-killing examples that show "God" as no "Pro-Lifer."

It’s perfectly true that the Torah does not regard the death of a fetus as a death, but as an injury (Exodus 21:22). That seems to me to be a more direct and to-the-point reference. It strikes me as odd to claim that the chief significance of, say, the Flood, was that it caused the death of fetuses - aside from the fact that most modern Jews AND Christians regard those narratives as literature, not history. I'm not even sure that equating the death of the mother with abortion is a particularly sensible or valid idea in the first place. The concept of "abortion," in the current debate, rather rarely includes "kill the mother" as a way to perform that procedure.

As I said, it’s a very peculiar way to make that point, and it’s also still puzzling that you’re apparently still talking about Jews of ancient times and not Christian fundamentalists of the present day, which you claim are your concern.

No need to branch off on archeological wild goose chases about flood mythology or ancient animal husbandry practices of the ME.

So we are obligated to accept the assertions of Scripture as the only relevant "facts" in a debate about the origins and significance of stoning, and to ignore actual history and science as irrelevant - not to mention the enormous changes in Jewish law since the Torah was redacted. Why is that?

Nor will I list and describe how many Xtian religions rely heavily on the OT, since they believe it foretells their Messiah, and even practice strictures of Judaism, i.e., the 7th day Adventists.

And are Jews, or the Torah for that matter, responsible for the ways others have interpreted and perhaps distorted it? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to at least acknowledge the fact that those who produced those documents and traditions read and apply them differently in the present day?

Apply Occam's Razor and cut the Krappe.

Apply Occam’s razor to WHAT? What IS your point?

Is it “The Torah is Evil�? That seems to be a pretty consistent assertion on your part. I’m asking you, not telling you; is that, at bottom, your “simple point," or not?

Can you even prove that stoning as a form of execution originated with the Hebrews? That would seem to be essential, if your subsidiary point is that the responsibility for that brutality still belongs to the Jews even after it has been abolished for two millenia. Otherwise, what's the point of holding up the Torah as the root cause of that abominable practice? Your first post is unambiguous and very clear on that point.

If your point is that fundamentalists are unjustified in claiming the Bible as a basis for doctrinaire “pro-life� views, I’m OK with that; but why all the condemnation and vitriol? Where did capitalism and apartheid and oil and all that come in, and why? Where did that non sequitur about who is and isn’t “Semitic� come from? Why are you accusing me of deception and bad faith? Can you justify that charge, or not?

Making a simple point ought to be simple. Why you ring in all kinds of changes and try to connect it with everything you oppose is a mystery to me, and I suspect to you too, since you seem oddly unable to explain the connections.

MY simple points:

(1) Jewish law has changed and developed over the last several millenia, and it is no longer a brutal and primitive artifact of the Bronze Age. That is an overstatement of its nature and content, even as it was first written down.

(2) Jews are not responsible for what others have done with our Book.

(3) Present-day applications of the brutal and inhumane practice of stoning humans to death are more worthy of attention than instances of it that took place two or three thousand years ago, not to mention its entirely obscure origins in the ancient world.

(4) There are many cogent, moral, and logical arguments against extreme “pro-life� positions, but condemning the Torah as brutally “anti-life� because supposedly pregnant women supposedly died in supposedly historical supposed events isn’t one of them. Biblical literalism is wrong for all kinds of reasons, but this is one I haven’t heard before, and it strikes me as a very weird one indeed.

Here are a few more points you have failed to address and questions you have failed to answer:

Are those who produced the OT responsible for the NT as well? Are we Jews required to take the pronouncements of Paul and the practices of the Christian Church into account in the practices and beliefs of our own religion?

Is there NOTHING worthwhile or positive in the Hebrew Scriptures? You deny that they are the origin of the humane treatment of animals, which seems to be a matter of established fact to me; is there anything of value there at all? Or is their positive value trivial, and outweighed by the horrors and evil they have produced?

Why is Jewish Law, a benign and positive thing in the present day, still worthy of more attention and condemnation than Sharia law, which is a clear and present danger to currently living people?

Why is Jewish law, which left such brutality behind a hundred generations ago, still responsible for those present-day horrors?

Why was it, apparently, ONLY “disobedient� of the Jewish people to abolish those practices? Was that change not praiseworthy?

Your "simple point" is well taken; "pro-life" extremists cannot point to the Bible for justification of their extreme views. But the rest of your posts on this thread, and the way you worked your way around to that point through a half-dozen other unrelated issues, still puzzles me. You seem to have expressed it with more concern about the origins of brutal punishments and their connections with myths and legends, and some bizarre application of those legends to an essentially unrelated issue, than with any particular concern about their being practiced in the real world and in the present day. From your initial post, "Mark well where the practice started," is not about abortion or misuse, but about origins and placing blame.