|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 31, 2023 12:29:35 GMT -5
The notion that abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother in Judaism comes from Talmudic Judaism, which was after the time of Christ. In ancient Judaism, the Old Testament law on miscarriages caused by a human was interpreted to require the execution of the person who caused the miscarriage. Its actually from that law relating to causing a miscarriage that the term “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” comes from in the Bible. In Talmudic Judaism, that law was reinterpreted to only require a fine for the miscarriage. Christ wouldn’t have needed to address it as the understanding of the law on it was clear during His time. Just as he never mentioned homosexuality either. That it was a sin was so obvious in the Hebrew scriptures that it need not have been addressed.That i You are correct in pointing out that the Talmud's position on abortion came after the fact, but I disagree strongly with your linking Exodus law to Christ being silent on the topic:
The Exodus passage is really speaking about two males fighting and resulting in a miscarriage and not at all about abortion, and using that misinterpretation as the basis of why Christ didn't speak about it is more than a stretch in my opinion.
The facts are Christ didn't really care about homosexuality and abortion nearly as much as those who think they are following his teachings when speaking out against such behavior.
The verse in Exodus is about two men fighting, hitting the woman, and the result being either an early birth but no harm done, or a miscarriage. If a miscarriage, the perpetrator was to be put to death as for any other murder. The implication for abortion is that a fetus is a human life or else killing one wouldn’t warrant the death penalty. Another argument by implication is that God was extremely disgusted by the practice of child sacrifice that was central to Canaanite (Phoenician) culture. Its not a leap to imagine that if God found it to be an abomination for the Canaanites to burn their babies and children alive to appease fake gods at best and demons at worst so as to obtain earthly blessings, killing babies for economic and personal well being today is the equivalent. Again, its an argument from inference. More importantly, if a person believes the Bible, they believe Christ is God, therefore everything the Bible says about homosexuality is Christ’s words. You’re trusting the Bible as a source of Jesus’ words. You can’t find it reliable only for the parts you like and unreliable for the parts you don’t. It sinks or swims in its entirety together.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 31, 2023 12:40:55 GMT -5
That's your implication, and not one supported by verse or practice.
I'm not going to touch on believing the Bible, as you clearly do (much less point out the contradictions in it), but I will ask this simple question: Where did Christ speak about homosexuality?
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 31, 2023 13:48:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Aug 1, 2023 1:11:23 GMT -5
16 fake electors under investigation in Georgia for taking part in a felony scheme to keep Trump in office in 2020, eight have accepted immunity deals from Fulton County District Attorney
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Aug 1, 2023 6:06:57 GMT -5
I don’t think Dobbs will have much to do with the election outcome. Its more about what’s more odious; a senile Biden or Trump being Trump. Besides, the politics of a legal decision should be irrelevant. Voter agreement or rage has nothing to do whether something is a Constitutional right or not based on the current Amendments. That the current Supreme Court decided to correct a long standing legal fiction because their judicial philosophy demands fidelity to the Constitution as written, is what it is. "Long standing legal fiction" or not, "Roe vs Wade" was the law of the land, and worked reasonably well. As for the "legal philosophy" of the Supreme Court majority, it's just as big, if not bigger, legal fiction. "Originalism" and "textualism" are just convenient excuses, plain and simple. They have one purpose, and one purpose only: preservation of the status-quo. As fine a document as it is, the Constitution was written 200 years ago. Women were chattel, slavery was legal, and native Americans weren't citizens. In addition, leaches were considered "good medical practice" ... . Would you ask your family doctor to treat your children with "originalism" medicine? Unfortunately, rural peasants demanding fealty to superstition are still allowed to vote. They want all contraception to be illegal, and "biblical punishment" for homosexuals. It's not going to happen, no matter how many "observant Catholics" are packed into the Court. Of course, many thought "president Trump" was a bad joke that would never happen. Did we get what we deserve? ... Probably. Will he get what he deserves? ... We can only hope. Probably the most ignorant interpretation of history, the constitution and human nature on this forum yet... and you are competing with Cyclist. I am shocked you left out Climate change and the acceptability of child trafficking and mutilation. You should consider weaning yourself off the left wing propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Aug 1, 2023 8:38:16 GMT -5
"Long standing legal fiction" or not, "Roe vs Wade" was the law of the land, and worked reasonably well. As for the "legal philosophy" of the Supreme Court majority, it's just as big, if not bigger, legal fiction. "Originalism" and "textualism" are just convenient excuses, plain and simple. They have one purpose, and one purpose only: preservation of the status-quo. As fine a document as it is, the Constitution was written 200 years ago. Women were chattel, slavery was legal, and native Americans weren't citizens. In addition, leaches were considered "good medical practice" ... . Would you ask your family doctor to treat your children with "originalism" medicine? Unfortunately, rural peasants demanding fealty to superstition are still allowed to vote. They want all contraception to be illegal, and "biblical punishment" for homosexuals. It's not going to happen, no matter how many "observant Catholics" are packed into the Court. Of course, many thought "president Trump" was a bad joke that would never happen. Did we get what we deserve? ... Probably. Will he get what he deserves? ... We can only hope. Probably the most ignorant interpretation of history, the constitution and human nature on this forum yet... and you are competing with Cyclist. I am shocked you left out Climate change and the acceptability of child trafficking and mutilation. You should consider weaning yourself off the left wing propaganda. You read the script quite well. You are more guilty of using the same dribble over and over again than Bimini ever has. You both need new material.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Aug 1, 2023 9:11:37 GMT -5
16 fake electors under investigation in Georgia for taking part in a felony scheme to keep Trump in office in 2020, eight have accepted immunity deals from Fulton County District Attorney Can you say RICO?
|
|
|
Post by One Man Gang on Aug 1, 2023 10:03:10 GMT -5
I'm that skeptic who had been waiting for things to flesh out a little before bludgeoning. The problem with being a skeptic, though, is that I can't quite figger out who is lying more so I'm not sure the meat is just tainted or just plain rotten...
Most (not all) of you clowns seem to have your predetermined talking points lined up nicely to suit your wishful thinking, but still really don't know shit.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 1, 2023 10:35:47 GMT -5
"Long standing legal fiction" or not, "Roe vs Wade" was the law of the land, and worked reasonably well. As for the "legal philosophy" of the Supreme Court majority, it's just as big, if not bigger, legal fiction. "Originalism" and "textualism" are just convenient excuses, plain and simple. They have one purpose, and one purpose only: preservation of the status-quo. As fine a document as it is, the Constitution was written 200 years ago. Women were chattel, slavery was legal, and native Americans weren't citizens. In addition, leaches were considered "good medical practice" ... . Would you ask your family doctor to treat your children with "originalism" medicine? Unfortunately, rural peasants demanding fealty to superstition are still allowed to vote. They want all contraception to be illegal, and "biblical punishment" for homosexuals. It's not going to happen, no matter how many "observant Catholics" are packed into the Court. Of course, many thought "president Trump" was a bad joke that would never happen. Did we get what we deserve? ... Probably. Will he get what he deserves? ... We can only hope. Probably the most ignorant interpretation of history, the constitution and human nature on this forum yet... and you are competing with Cyclist. I am shocked you left out Climate change and the acceptability of child trafficking and mutilation. You should consider weaning yourself off the left wing propaganda. Nope...he's pretty spot on, not surprised you are clueless as to the facts...I think that is the definition of christofascists. But I disagree with one thing, with certain transplants...leeches do help.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Aug 1, 2023 16:08:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dragonbait on Aug 1, 2023 16:10:53 GMT -5
BREAKING: dishes and ketchup bottles at maralardo
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Aug 1, 2023 16:32:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Aug 1, 2023 16:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Aug 1, 2023 16:39:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Aug 1, 2023 16:52:30 GMT -5
Jan 6, 4th indictment of Trump?
|
|