Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Pastors Face Jail?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    AAAHHHH!!! The STUPID!!! It BURNS!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    if you want The Lord's view

    Proverbs 6:16-19
    16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

    17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and
    hands that shed innocent blood,

    18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

    19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


    (emphasis mine on the part relevant to the abortion question vis-a-vis Jesus)

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    From what I have seen they probably debated about it as much as we do today, for example Talmud Sanhedrin 57b regarding Gentile destruction of an embryo:

    Source: The Family, Medical Decision-Making, and Biotechnology

    On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. -Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    sounds more like what Jesus would accept, as it was based on Scripture (Genesis 9:6)

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Do you have reason to think that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have held a similar belief to the accepted Jewish view of the day regarding the status of a fetus - namely that it is not fully a ‘person’ until it is born? At no time does Jesus indicate otherwise.
    for goodness sakes

    did you not get it?

    Jesus REJECTED the "Jewish view of the day" PERIOD.


    For Jesus it was ALL ABOUT SCRIPTURE, if you want to determine what is right or what is wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyP
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Do you have reason to think that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have held a similar belief to the accepted Jewish view of the day regarding the status of a fetus - namely that it is not fully a ‘person’ until it is born? At no time does Jesus indicate otherwise.
    From what I have seen they probably debated about it as much as we do today, for example Talmud Sanhedrin 57b regarding Gentile destruction of an embryo:

    Source: The Family, Medical Decision-Making, and Biotechnology

    On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. -Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    if this "Judaism" was Jesus' "position, as a Jew" , then why did Jesus call Judaism's rules "traditions" and accuse the Jewish leaders of transgressing the commandment of God by those traditions, (Matthew 15:1-6)

    and if you think Jesus was simpatico with that Judaism 2,000 years ago, why did He call its leaders "hypocrites" and "serpents" and "vipers" and promise their generation "the damnation of hell" (Matthew 23:27-36)

    and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" because He will deny knowing them, and shut the door on them and when they see the Kingdom of God they will be thrust out (Luke 13:22-28)

    and His wrathful prophecy, that Judea will flee to the mountains, and they better pray its not winter and woe unto them that are with child or nursing when the judgment He promises comes (Matthew 24:16-20)

    I don't think that was "Jesus' position, as a Jew"
    Do you have reason to think that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have held a similar belief to the accepted Jewish view of the day regarding the status of a fetus - namely that it is not fully a ‘person’ until it is born? At no time does Jesus indicate otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Maybe not you, but many people would claim to be pro-life while actually practicing the opposite when they think it is convenient for them. Consider the death penalty. We know that the justice system is imperfect and innocent people are sometimes convicted and put to death. While we might never know who these people are, we are willing to kill them for the sake of punishing the others. Is that ethical killing?

    I would say that if you are pro-life you should also be against the death penalty and against conscription into the armed forces.

    Clearly, the ethics of abortion are extremely complicated. It was legalised in the UK in 1967 because back street abortions were maiming and killing women. The logic is that if it’s going to happen anyway, it is better to bring it under proper medical supervision. If you ban abortion in clinics you are also promoting back street abortion and it is unethical to pretend to wash your hands of that consequence.

    http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9407/myths.html

    “a majority of Americans support and want access to legal abortions. Interestingly, 35.6% of the abortions performed in the U.S. involve evangelical Christian women.”
    so, are you anti capital punishment

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    What a stupid comment.

    Are you saying that fathers do not matter in the lives of their children?
    No. Come on LPOT, I know your reading skills are a bit better than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Nobody’s suggesting abortion on demand. Nevertheless:

    “In Judaism a foetus 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'.

    From an ethical point of view, then:

    • a foetus is not a person
    • but a foetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood
    • so a foetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...ortion_1.shtml

    This would have been Jesus’ position, as a Jew. Thus, although abortion is not to be undertaken lightly, rigid objection in all instances would not have been Jesus’ position either.
    if this "Judaism" was Jesus' "position, as a Jew" , then why did Jesus call Judaism's rules "traditions" and accuse the Jewish leaders of transgressing the commandment of God by those traditions, (Matthew 15:1-6)

    and if you think Jesus was simpatico with that Judaism 2,000 years ago, why did He call its leaders "hypocrites" and "serpents" and "vipers" and promise their generation "the damnation of hell" (Matthew 23:27-36)

    and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" because He will deny knowing them, and shut the door on them and when they see the Kingdom of God they will be thrust out (Luke 13:22-28)

    and His wrathful prophecy, that Judea will flee to the mountains, and they better pray its not winter and woe unto them that are with child or nursing when the judgment He promises comes (Matthew 24:16-20)

    I don't think that was "Jesus' position, as a Jew"
    Last edited by jordanriver; 11-12-2014, 02:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Life is life, FF. If men got pregnant, I'd be just as vehemently pro-life.
    Maybe not you, but many people would claim to be pro-life while actually practicing the opposite when they think it is convenient for them. Consider the death penalty. We know that the justice system is imperfect and innocent people are sometimes convicted and put to death. While we might never know who these people are, we are willing to kill them for the sake of punishing the others. Is that ethical killing?

    I would say that if you are pro-life you should also be against the death penalty and against conscription into the armed forces.

    Clearly, the ethics of abortion are extremely complicated. It was legalised in the UK in 1967 because back street abortions were maiming and killing women. The logic is that if it’s going to happen anyway, it is better to bring it under proper medical supervision. If you ban abortion in clinics you are also promoting back street abortion and it is unethical to pretend to wash your hands of that consequence.

    http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9407/myths.html

    “a majority of Americans support and want access to legal abortions. Interestingly, 35.6% of the abortions performed in the U.S. involve evangelical Christian women.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Jesus didn't think much of the Halacha. Not that the article you linked to contradicts the pro-life position much.
    Nobody’s suggesting abortion on demand. Nevertheless:

    “In Judaism a foetus 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'.

    From an ethical point of view, then:

    • a foetus is not a person
    • but a foetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood
    • so a foetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...ortion_1.shtml

    This would have been Jesus’ position, as a Jew. Thus, although abortion is not to be undertaken lightly, rigid objection in all instances would not have been Jesus’ position either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Well with the wisdom of firstfloor and Tassman helping out here, I will leave. I have expressed my opinion so play with dumb and dumber.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    But the fetus is not the woman's body, so your objection is a red herring.
    And I think it is a rather dumb claim for FF to make to begin with. As though father's don't play and active part in the lives of their children. I've been on a Star Trek marathon for the past year in an attempt to watch every episode, ever made, in a year's time frame. That's mainly due to my dad's influence since that was one of my excuses to get to stay up late. What is the point of this? Well, fathers do play a role in the lives of their children too. It is just insanity to claim that father's can't have any opinion on the lives of their children. They are important...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    No, they just don’t count. Unless you are invited by the woman in question to give your opinion, women’s bodies are an issue between them and their doctors.
    But the fetus is not the woman's body, so your objection is a red herring.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    With this sort of issue it helps to imagine how you would feel if men got pregnant. I doubt if you and star wars fan have that much imagination so don’t worry about it.
    Life is life, FF. If men got pregnant, I'd be just as vehemently pro-life.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
155 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X