|
Author
|
Message
|
|
davesearles
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
 Posted:
15 Jul 2007 11:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
I have been on this board when it comes to comparing
Christianity with Judaism. There is a huge difference and I do feel that
those in Judaism are very sincere and know what is what.
http://p069.ezboard.com/bmessiahtruth
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
21 Feb 2008 01:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
Considering what I have been learning from Judaism is
that people of religious persuasion would find it difficult to join
Leftist organizations due to having a different moral perspective. Not
that they don't believe people have civil rights or liberties but would
object to same sex marriages and abortions citing their beliefs. I
personally don't care what another person's sexual orientation is since
it is their choice and responsibility but I am not so sure about abortion
even though I know it is about choice and responsibility of those
involved. What I am writing here is not about changing anyone's mind nor
an effort to change anyone's mind.
Abortion or taking the life of an infant or toddler
was very common in ancient times with Gentiles. Abortion as to "Hey,
we already have too many kids," to actual infanticide due to a
physical defect right down to offering the infant to the fires of an idol
to be roasted alive. Along comes the Jews, before Xianity, and declares
all these practices to be immoral. They give a proper burial for those
infants and children who were put to death. According to what I read that
a proper burial of what was considered a "thing" was now being
presented as a human being. This would really piss off those people of
that culture and guess what they did? Attack those who have a different
moral world view.
I believe the Capitalist class know who to side
with in order to maintain their authority and has presented themselves,
through politics, as people who defend morals. In other words, the
political Right uses moral issues to topple the political Left stand on
what would be considered as controversial issues. Many Americans are
religious and it seems as though the Left has put their head in the sand
rather than admit to it. It is good to see the SP believes each
individual has a right to religious freedom and to practice it with
others. However, where is the middle ground? Is the Left too radical
being more of a turn off to workers as a whole? This is why I concentrate
on the economic side because moral issues will be argued about even in a
Socialist society. I would rather do it then.
John T.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
21 Feb 2008 11:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
I don't think the real problem is the left being too
radical, where radical means tending toward more drastic changes -- from
the Latin word "radix", which means "root". I think
the problem with the left is they substitute what seems radical-sounding
for what actually digs to the root. To the left it seems radical-sounding
to condemn anything the U.S. does while praising Castro -- but that's not
not reaching for the root, it's just having a childish tantrum against
Mom and Dad as personified by social conventions. How about the
anarchists who identify "authority" as the enemy -- to say
there shouldn't be any laws at all because having laws means there's some
"authority", and that is supposedly a bad thing -- is there
anything more babyish than that? To be truly radical means to study the
fundamentals about what people truly need -- it doesn't mean
burn-down-America. The left has to much anger and not enough
thoughtfulness.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2008 03:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
I don't think
the real problem is the left being too radical, where radical means
tending toward more drastic changes -- from the Latin word
"radix", which means "root".
|
As always thank you for correcting me on that. But
you are right. Too many on the Left will stand on the opposite side of
the spectrum whether it be about morals, some policy or anything they can
think of to condemn without putting any thought into it. I think most of
the Left is not actually down to earth on what they want to do. Whatever
the U.S does has to be opposed. You are right about those who oppose laws
and make out that any authority is the enemy. I figured there is always
going to be boundaries and limits and that there are going to be rules to
follow to maintain a social structure.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
26 Feb 2008 10:42 am Post subject:
|
|
Does anyone here have an opinion about the controversy
that's sometimes called "teaching evolution" versus
"teaching creationism" in biology class? I think it would be
good to spend about five minutes on creationism. The fact that it has has
been a part of the history of discovery shouldn't be censored. In many
science topics the historical controversies are part of lessons.
Aristotle and Ptolemy believed that the earth is the center of the
universe, but Copernicus and Galileo disagreed. Newton and Huygens argued
about whether light is a particle or a wave. Newton and Descartes disagreed
about what colors are. Supporters of the phlogiston theory argued with
supporters of the kinetic theory about what heat is. If the controversies
are part of the lesson in so many topics, I don't see any basis for
objecting to some coverage of the creation idea. I can foresee an
argument taking place about exactly what to say, but it's wrong to insist
that no mention of it shall be permitted.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
26 Feb 2008 02:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
That is one of those topics that never really bothered
me. The Jewish website I frequent says there is creation and there is
evolution. I never bothered to go deeper into that subject with them. It
not a pressing need to know topic with me.
John T.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
01 Jul 2008 04:35 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
Abortion or
taking the life of an infant or toddler was very common in ancient
times with Gentiles. Abortion as to "Hey, we already have too many
kids," to actual infanticide due to a physical defect right down
to offering the infant to the fires of an idol to be roasted alive.
Along comes the Jews, before Xianity, and declares all these practices
to be immoral. They give a proper burial for those infants and children
who were put to death. According to what I read that a proper burial of
what was considered a "thing" was now being presented as a
human being. This would really piss off those people of that culture
and guess what they did? Attack those who have a different moral world
view.
|
As much as I "hate" to break it to you,
but halachically speaking a fetus isn't "fully human" until
it's completely out of the womb. Yeah, I know it's absurd that the rabbis
ruled that partially born infants aren't "fully human," but the
proper Bible (Jewish) does say that abortion is OK.
I think where the Jewish objections (I'm not
Jewish, but at least I appreciate Jewish honesty regarding Biblical
context against the Xians and their zealous missionaries) come in is in
regards to the McAbortion phenomenon, as if it abortion were a commodity.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
01 Jul 2008 10:49 am Post subject:
|
|
It's spelled Halikha
And if you are asserting that Halikha is
unequivocal on this point don't you think that you ought to provide proof
of it, especially when you come on with the tone of "I hate to break
it to you" ?
Also as a non-Jew are you attempting to define
Jewish religion as practiced by only those who strictly follow Halikha?
Seems at least a bit presumptuous, no?
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
01 Jul 2008 03:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html
|
My point is that whatever Jewish opposition to
abortion there is, it is NOT to be found in those Exodus passages that
Xians keep citing as part of their "OMG! Abortion is murder!"
stuff.
And yes, the first two paragraphs of that site say
exactly what I've said. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
|
Quote:
|
|
Under Jewish
Biblical exegesis, this law forbids aborting an embryo whether
intentionally or not, but such abortion is not deemed murder.
Instead, the abortion is a form of damages subject to monetary
compensation. Conversely, the killing of the mother -- the other damage
(ason) -- is murder.
|
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
01 Jul 2008 04:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
JR:
but halachically speaking a fetus isn't "fully
human" until it's completely out of the womb.
DAS:
if you are asserting that Halikha is unequivocal on
this point don't you think that you ought to provide proof of it
JR:
My point is that whatever Jewish opposition to
abortion there is, it is NOT to be found in those Exodus passages that
Xians keep citing
DAS:
Then you've changed your point.
"It follows from this simple approach, that as
a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a
direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or
through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is
considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the
intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna (Oholos
7:6), if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus,
such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the
classification of the fetus as a persuer, once the baby's head has been
delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we
may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though
they are both pursuing each other. "
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html
|
|
|