Ask a Jew Part Too; Commentary

I don't understand the question in relation to what G-d Commands us to do in His Torah.

 

Indeed.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that an embryo is a multicellular human life. It is mutticellular - it is human life. Put those together.

Still wrong, and I told you so.

 

I don't believe in blind obedience without a morals test.

 

Moishe, do you guys still was your hands the way they did a few thousand years ago ?

 

In my opinion, if all Iron Age morals are still not practiced in the same Traditional manners, then why should any other Iron Age morals be required to be practiced in modern times.

 

While I may be in agreement with their political view in exposing Zionist hijacking of Judaism to further Herzl's ideology for a "DER JUDENSTAAT " - + protesting abt Zionists Jews criminal activities , I see no reason to subscribe - whatever other beliefs which they share with you.


Frankly I wouldnt like to place a bet on which are the worse/more deranged bunch of Loonies out of the lot of you.

As you claim to know what yr Gid commands and wants you to do , , have you ever thought of asking your Gid to sort the whole inter-religious/political - mess out ?

(wink)

 

No, but it does take knowing the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective.

Just because something is "human life" (note the adjective as opposed to the noun) does not make it a living human.

God commands abortion. You have not provided any refutation to the examples of God commanding abortion.

 

It makes it 'A' human life. It's an 'individual's beginning' .. You terminate an individual's beginning,you terminate that individual's life.

You failed to show scriptural support for God commanding abortion and you threw a bad translation at an orthodox Jew, which I found amusing.

 

"Was" that a thousand years ago? I presume you mean "wash."

I'm not sure. According to our mesorah; our tradition, yes we do.

Unless you mean do we still wash our hands in a ritual manner?
In that case - yes, every morning when we wake up; every time we use the bathroom; and every time before we eat bread. They are all different "ways" of washing and, they are for different purposes but yes, we do wash.
Washing our hands before eating bread is one of the 613 Commandments in the Torah.

 

If it is not "A human" it can not be A human life.

I agree that if you terminate the process of creating a human, that human will not be created.

What was amusing that the orthodox Jew utterly failed to rebut my claim. Further never did the fellow claim that the process did not involve abortion.

Second, the fellow had no response to the complete disregard of God in relation to killing living fetuses killed when pregnant women were ordered killed.

 

If it is the beginning of 'A' human life then it is 'A' human life in the beginning.

Do you believe if You terminate an individual's beginning,you terminate that individual's life ?

He did refute the ridiculous translation that you offered up for the 'test of the unfaithful wife' and he showed you that it had nothing to do with abortion and you didn't acknowledged that your "miscarriage" version was incorrect.

Plus, are just reaching with equating killing [ possibly pregnant ? ] woman with abortion. "What if she was pregnant?" etc.. Ridiculous.

 

Ha! Yes, I meant wash ..

The reason I ask is because I vaguely remember there being something about washing the palms of the hand with the fist.(something like that)

 

No, the washing is done by pouring water, usually from a two handled cup, over each hand. There are two primary methods of washing - one is two pour twice over the right hand and then twice over the left hand. This is done before eating bread.
The other is pouring once over each hand, alternating hands, three times. This is done upon waking up.
The object is to wet the entire hand from at the wrist to the tips of the fingers so, some people might turn their palms face up...
There are different traditions for different groups of Orthodox Jews where one might wash differently but, I've never heard of the palm/fist thing.
Doesn't mean that that is not a tradition somewhere - I've just never heard of it.

 

The beginning of a heart is a single human heart cell. If you kill that cell the process of the creation of a human heart will not proceed and the human heart will never exist.

A single human heart cell is not a heart and a single human cell is not a human.

If you terminate the process of creating a human that human will never exists.

You can not terminate the life of a human that does not exist. When you terminate the life of the entity that is creating the human you stop the process of the creation of the human.

Your flawed assumption is that the beginning of the process of creation = a living human. If you think this is the case then make an argument that supports your claim.

"assuming the premise" is a logical fallacy and that is all you have done thus far.

If the woman was pregnant the Sotah resulted in a miscarriage = a process that results in the aborting the pregnancy = abortion get a grip

If you kill a pregnant woman = a process that resultes in aborting the pregnancy = abortion ... intentional or otherwise. What ??? are you claiming that God did not know that killing a pregnant woman would result in the death of the fetus.

Give me a break.

 

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass every time they jumped in the air...
There's your break...

 

A real polished and educated answer from our resident expert in denial.

Denial of the obvious fact that when men and women have sex a pregnancy can result.

Do you also think that when God commanded the killing of pregnant women he did not know the fetus would die as well ?

 

*Sigh* You missed the mark .

1. I repeat - "If it is the beginning of 'A' human life then it is 'A' human life in the beginning. "

That is problematic to you so you dismissed it.

My question: (again, and it's not a faulty question)

Do you believe if You terminate an individual's beginning,you terminate that individual's life ? Yes or no please.

You are looking for a break that I cannot give you.

Let me break it down for you. You might as well say that when God flooded the earth, he killed all the people on it and some of those women had to be pregnant ======= Abortion ..LOL

Have you ever heard of the word INCIDENTAL ??? !!! This is why Moishe said,

"This is not a useful analogy. Your scenario has nothing to do with abortion." and in your argumentative state, you did not really perceive those words.

 

Killing a pregnant woman is not the definition of an abortion.. Of course you are assuming pregnancy in the first place and I know why.

You say God commanded abortion and then reach for the stars to make something out of nothing. Your logic is not even good deception.

 

of course you are aware that Muslims still enforce these OT based Laws under their own Sharia which is essentially the same as the Torah Laws about eliminating wayward girls from society by killing them.

The alternative to this was the Christianity that before the Renaissance, eliminated sexual promiscuooity from their societies and found that a scarlett letter was sufficient to stop these things.

But since the Renaissance, the Western Culture has steadily returned to that of the decadent Roman and Greek culture, and America kills the babies of the 1.2 million wayward girls who bear bastards out of marriage every year.

Which idea is better, of course, is Christianity, where girls want to get married before pregnancy and men accept the responsibility of fatherhood if a girl get pregnant by them.

Hence, societies must choose to kill a few wayward girls, (OT), or abort 1.2 million unborn babies, (Gentiles), or get married before sex, (NT).

 

Is it a good idea to take marriage advice from the Bible? Remember the rule that if a husband died without any kids his wife has to marry his other brothers so that they would have offspring for his brother. In Matthew 22:23-28 the example was a widow who ended up marrying her first husband's six brothers in sequence without having any kids. She could have been 80 by the time she married the last one.

Is that something people should follow today?

The way it worked seems to have been that the other younger brothers couldn't get married until the older brother got married and had a kid. They had to wait regardless of how long it took because if he died without having a kid the next one in line had to marry the widow and give it a try. So then the others had to wait to see if he had any kids. In the meantime they were doing without any love-lives of their own.
Or maybe the men had multiple wives? If they did the youngest brother could end up with a dozen wives if he had a lot of brothers.

And Jesus said that if a guy divorces his wife for cause other than sexual immorality and marries another he commits adultery. And the next guy who marries her who is divorced likewise commits adultery. The penalty for adultery is death by stoning.

Should people follow that rule? How many of your family members, friends, and neighbors would get stoned for having committed adultery by marrying a divorced person?

The Bible may have a few good points but marriage advice isn't one of them.-

 

Actually prostitution was tolerated in medieval Europe as a lesser evil. It was better for young men to frequent prostitutes than to seduce virgins and married women.

 

Now, we can just blame the Right for requiring an Iron Age work ethic in modern times instead of the timeless moral of true witness bearing to our own federal doctrine regarding employment at will.

 

No I wasn't aware. I really don't know what it's like in the ME.

 

i a true to the rule of jew, beyond the moshpit
what question say you?

 

Some muslims do , most AFAIK - - do not. _ there's also considerable differences amongst them how Sharia Law is interepreted>

Ah ! "Christianity - the Church + prostitution" - what an interesting subject (wink)

Apart from Priests/Vicars - sneaking off -incognito - to the next towns brothels or lusting after novice nuns., there's also this :
"

"Attitudes to prostitution have oscillated throughout the ages. Often they were determined by the immediate interests of the Church. Biblical passages which could be used or ignored according to taste: those who wanted to ignore it could claim that it applied only to married women, or only to Jewish women, or that the provision had been over-ridden by the New Testament. So it was that the Church could embrace prostitution when it suited, as it did for financial reasons.

At one time there was a successful church brothel in Avignon where the girls devoted part of their time to religious duties, and part of it attending to the needs of Christian customers — inheritors of the ancient practice of temple prostitution. Pope Julius II was said to have been so impressed by the one in Avignon that he founded a similar one in Rome1. Prostitution was regarded as a lesser evil than sodomy, so brothels were sometimes founded in order to encourage heterosexual sex. Following a series of clerical reports in 1415, an Office of Decorum was set up in Florence to reduce endemic homosexual activity. One of its tasks was to set up a municipal brothel.

The Church certainly leased property to brothel keepers. In the late Middle Ages the papacy netted 28,000 ducats a year from such property

2. The Church seems to have taken some pride in its promotion of prostitution, as for example at Lyons. When Pope Innocent IV left an extended Church Council there in the mid-thirteenth century, Cardinal Hugo made a farewell speech.
We have made great improvements since we have been here. When we arrived, we found three or four brothels. We are leaving only one behind us. We must add, however, that this one brothel stretches from the east to the west gate3
At the Council of Basle held between 1431 and 1449, some 1,500 prostitutes serviced the Fathers of the Council.

In England the Bishop of Winchester was so well known for his brothels (called "stews") in Southwark that prostitutes in his 22 licensed stews came to be known as Winchester Geese. To have been bitten by a Winchester Goose was to have contracted the great pox (i.e. syphilis).

Secularists recognised the scandal, even if ecclesiastics did not. Shakespeare makes mention of it in Henry VI when Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, reproaches the Bishop of Winchester, saying to him “Thou that giv’st whores indulgences to sin.” The indulgence did not extend to a Christian burial, another scandal now commemorated by the people of the Borough, in south London.

Rome as well as Avignon housed brothels. The following is an extract about Rome under Pope Alexander VI, written by the Pope's own master of ceremonies in 1501:
There is no longer any crime or shameful act that does not take place in public in Rome and in the house of the pontiff. [...] Who could fail to be horrified by the account of the terrible, monstrous acts of lechery that are committed openly in his house, with no respect for God or man? Rapes and acts of incest are countless, his sons and daughters are utterly depraved, great throngs of courtesans frequent Saint Peter’s Palace, pimps, brothels and whorehouses are to be found everywhere, a most shameful situation!
-----

What was it Jesus supposedly said abt casting the first stone ?

cheers. .....