Well, I know of the section in the Talmud, and it presents no problem at all when the facts are understood. Unfortunately religioustolerance.org does not understand the facts or intentionally misrepresents them. And you have done it also.
Follow the logic here Steven, and do it honestly. I dismissed Orc's god as one who is worthless since this god countenances the murder of unborn kids. In response, you claimed that since the Talmud appears to allow for abortion up to 40 days after conception I am compelled to think Jews, like Orc, are atheists.
The flaw in your thinking and that of religioustolerance.org is that the Jewish God has never allowed abortion and neither has He ever claimed that the fetus is mere water up to 40 days after conception. Talmud, though traditionally authoritative and the most directly influential of Jewish writings, is not truly Jewish legal code. It is not Torah (written and oral). It is a collection of rabbinical wisdom and debates to which teachers have traditionally referred to help the faithful navigate life’s circumstances. Modern rabbis hardly refer to it today. It contains binding law, but can also become subject to other works. shamash.org. Indeed, the Orthodox Jewish tradition (the only real Jewish tradition in my opinion) essentially rejects the view that abortion is acceptable, despite other "Jewish" interpretations of Talmud.
The general Jewish position on abortion just does not fall in line with what you've claimed. The orthodox position in fact corresponds almost exactly with my position. Its view of Talmud is that the definition of the fetus contained therein does not permit the fetus to be aborted, but it does allow the assignment of hierarchy such that the fetus can be destroyed only in the case where the mother’s life is threatened. judaism.about.com.
You didn't reveal this fact as you aimed to make your case, Steven. Like a typical leftist, you simply stated your lies to promote more lies. I think you had no intention at all of getting at the truth, so entrenched is your gleeful dependence upon illegitimate sources.
Your overall point dies its well-deserved death because it treats Talmud as if it is some sort of rigid "Cannon Law" or as if it is Divine in origin such that every law therein is strictly binding upon all Jews. Not even Jews themselves treat it as such.
Additionally, your reliance upon religioustolerace.org destroys your credibility. The site’s pairing of the Talmudic passage with Exodus was revolting, quite intellectually dishonest-- a pure sham. It actually used the Talmudic passage to claim Exodus 21:22 approves abortion.
The fact is, the text does not even claim the child was "miscarried" in the sense we use the term. You and religioustolerance.org have just become confused by the usage of the word as it is used in the NASB translation of the text, wherein the word "yasa" is translated "miscarriage." The original texts give us no context allowing for the assumption that the miscarried child in this passage actually died. I actually read where a leftist claimed that the word "yasa" can mean either a live-birth or stillbirth. But he offered not a shred of evidence showing the word ever being used in the case of a stillborn.
That is because such evidence just doesn’t exist. The word "yasa" is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew texts, and each time it appears, even in connection with birth, it is translated in some form of simply "going forth" or "coming out." Death is never associated with the term. Only in this one Exodus passage did the NASB translate it as "miscarriage," creating the confusion from which you now suffer. But the real Hebrew word for "miscarriage" is sakal. See it used in Genesis 31:38, Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14 and Job 21:10. You will see that, contrary to leftists, the word does not simply mean "barrenness," but actually pinpoints the birthing of stillborn children. Of course sakal may be the cause of barrenness simply because a female keeps having stillborns (Hebrew noun: nepel). But even from the translations we see the word in itself obviously means stillborn, and is not necessarily to be associated with barrenness. Unlike these texts, the Hebrew in Exodus 21:22 affords us no room at all to assume that the child in question was "sakal" (stillborn). The word "miscarriage" may mean "death" to us in English, but the ancient Hebrew "yasa" used in Ex: 21 contains no such meaning.
Go on, Steven. Prove it to yourself. If you have a Hebrew text of the Exodus passage, look up the root word used there for "miscarriage" (yasa) in the NASB. Now look up the meaning of this word. You will find that the Exodus passage claims that if the "yeled" (the child) "goes forth" (yasa) as a result of the two men's struggle but that no injury is done, then the culprit is to be fined based upon the demands of the woman's husband. There is no mention here at all that the child died. Looking at the text plainly, we see that if the child 'came out' and no harm was done, the culprit is to be fined whatever the husband thinks is best. And by the way, the NASB puts in the word "further" in the verse, saying that if the child is miscarried and no "further" harm is done, then fine the culprit. The word "further" is not in the original text. The meaning is clear: If the baby comes forth and no harm is done, just fine the guy.
But, for kicks, let us play "Leftist Advocate" for a moment and just assume that Exodus actually claims the child mentioned in 21:22-25 died. Even if we assume this, there is just no logic here at all permitting us to deliberately murder the child in an abortion. In fact, even accepting that the child died here, the text nevertheless compels us to accept that the child is a child (just read it), and that killing it, even accidentally, is a crime worthy of punishment. And you must also allow for the distinct possibility that the culprit here was fined (whatever the husband thinks is best, I might add) because he killed the child by accident and not intentionally. So even with your own flawed leftist view of the text, you are logically compelled to accept that even the accidental death of the unborn child is wrong and that this text is no support for the leftist view on abortion. (You are blinded by heathen wishes, sir.)
Religioustolerance.org appears to have been done by some kid in MSFrontpage, using a stock Frontpage template, for crying out loud. It is not even a professional site and its abuse of authorities and authoritative texts is just as juvenile as the site itself. This site is manifestly false. That is why I reject it out-of-hand.
Your overall point dies for the reason previously mentioned, and also because it depends upon a confusion exploited by heathen charlatans at religioustolerance.org.
Dismissing that which challenges or contradicts what you believe as lies is a sign of a feeble mind. I don't see you that way.
Well then why did you say this? I think you are being dishonest yet again, and that you simply wished to insult me. That is just fine. I certainly don’t mind being insulted by leftists. I really don't. In fact, just do it next time instead of doing all this leftist lying. But you must surely know that I have dismissed your postings here not because they challenge what I believe (such delusions here). I dismiss them because they are just plain false and demonstrably so.
Atheism isn't a religion. It simply means without theism.
It is a faith-based religion the philosophy of which is naturalism (instead of theism), the god of which is the human person (instead of God Almighty). You may not call it a religion, but that is precisely what it is.
And evolution is a product of the scientific method.
Evolution is the creation story of the Atheist cult, the priests of which call themselves “scientists.”
So say what you mean: you don't want the schools teaching science that contradicts your faith based beliefs.
Schools may teach whatever they wish. But I do not think they have the right to steal other people’s money as they teach religious doctrine, including Atheism.
It's a legitimate position, a stupid one, but legitimate.
Very well then. Leftists obviously will continue to dismiss this legitimate position as stupid as they steal other people’s money to promote their Atheist faith. And the country will just continue to fracture and crumble. Ultimately, you cannot win here. |
