Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Starlight]

Quite honestly, I don't give a flyin' flip what you think or say.

But you think I'm worth 'poking'?

[Cow Poke]

But you think I'm worth 'poking'?

That was quite obviously aimed at Tassman - you just took the bait.

[Jedidiah]

Correct, an anti-abortion position isn't in scripture.

What is NOT in scripture is kiwimac's ensoulment nonsense.

[Starlight]

What is NOT in scripture is kiwimac's ensoulment nonsense.

Hmm, it's the social context of scripture, which needs to be kept in mind for an accurate interpretation of what the writers meant.

[Tassman]

I just did that to poke the libs. Looks like it worked.

An unsubstantiated, one word rebuttal (i.e. "WRONG") is not an argument...although sadly it's typical of what passes as an argument in Cow Pole land.

[Tassman]

What is NOT in scripture is kiwimac's ensoulment nonsense.

[Mountain Man]

...the traditional Hebrew position has been that a fetus only becomes fully human with full human rights as it takes its first breath, as it did for Adam and Eve, not at conception. The Bible reflects the former viewpoint, not the latter.

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."

[Adrift]

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."

Yeah, the Jewish concept of ensoulment was covered in post #734. It isn't the first time we've explained this to him either, but you know how he is, once he's clamped down on a stick, he won't drop it, and will continue to act as though the subject has never been broached.

[Cow Poke]

An unsubstantiated, one word rebuttal (i.e. "WRONG") is not an argument...

Nor was it intended to be.

although sadly it's typical of what passes as an argument in Cow Pole land.

"Typical" must have a very different meaning in Tassman land, as I have volumes of responses to you in the ILGA topic. At least I don't make incredibly WRONG posts (like your nutty accusation that a gay man - Rosendall - was a NAMBLA defender) then double down on it when called out. That's how things are done in Tassman land.

You couldn't even get my name right!

[Jedidiah]

I am an evangelical and I do not believe that. My argument against abortion is that it is killing an innocent human being for the sins of the mother or father.

[Zymologist]

The only time I've ever heard this argument against abortion is when you bring it up. You could try, you know, listening to the people who disagree with you instead of telling them what they believe (again).

[Sparko]

Jesus usually just corrected the Jews on things they did wrong or believed wrong: like the purpose of divorce. Why would he lecture them on something they did not have wrong? The Jews all believed that abortion was wrong. Why would Jesus have to say it?

[One Bad Pig]

I am an evangelical and I do not believe that. My argument against abortion is that it is killing an innocent human being for the sins of the mother or father.

While I agree your argument against abortion is the typical evangelical one (and agree with it), Tassman is not wholly wrong:

Source: Daniel Schiff, Abortion in Judaism, pp. 40-41

One of the challenges to which these two religious systems reacted with considerable variance concerned the inculcation and fate of the soul. As early as the time of Tertullian in the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected by Augustine in favor of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fetus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward. Writing from the Roman Catholic perspective, John Connery observes that:

Abortion was wrong to the early Christians, and this was what concerned them, not what penalty it deserved. They were not interested in comparing one abortion with another for penal purposes. Abortion was wrong whether the fetus was formed or not. One finds in the early Church, then, simple, clear condemnations of abortion without any attempt to distinguish or classify.

During the greater part of Christian history this Augustinian approach was dominant, though there were periods when the earlier view prevailed. In 1869, however, Pope Pius IX affirmed that abortion was murder from the moment of conception, since it was at that moment that the soul infused the body. Pope Pius' stance was the culmination of arguments put by two medical experts, Thomas Fienus and Paolo Zacchia, in the early seventeenth century. Each of them was individually of the view that the soul was infused at or about conception. Over time their outlook came to be accepted , and formed the foundation of Pope Pius' position. It has remained Catholic doctrine ever since. While Christian views can hardly be said to be unanimous either on the moment of ensoulment or on viewing abortion as murder from conception onward, it is reasonable to assert that the early Greek approach to ensoulment at conception not only became a central idea within Christianity, but later came to be widely understood as the definition of life's onset.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

Jesus usually just corrected the Jews on things they did wrong or believed wrong: like the purpose of divorce. Why would he lecture them on something they did not have wrong? The Jews all believed that abortion was wrong. Why would Jesus have to say it?

http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/tea...in-jewish-view

There is no reason to think that Jesus, as a Jew, didn't hold to the same view.

[One Bad Pig]

http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/tea...in-jewish-view

There is no reason to think that Jesus, as a Jew, didn't hold to the same view.

Note that your link says A Jewish view, the site has a rather liberal slant to it, and Judaism evolved fairly significantly from the time of Jesus (when there were several different camps) to the first writings of nascent Judaism. There is no reason beyond your fervent wish that Jesus didn't hold to the same view. In any case, the first-century Jewish-Christian Didache clearly condemns abortion along with murder and infanticide.