# Does the Bible teach life begins at birth?



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

So asserted one poster in the thread regarding the horrible murder of a doctor who performed late term abortions quite recently. Does the Bible teach life begins at birth, as the poster proclaimed, or at conception, as many Bible believers believe. Here are a few verses from the Bible on this subject:


_Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; *from my mother's womb you have been my God* (Psalm 22:9-10)._
_For you created my inmost being; *you knit me together in my mother's womb.* I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, *your eyes saw my unformed body.* All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)._
_This is what the LORD sayshe who made you, who *formed you in the womb*, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2)._
_Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom *I have upheld since you were conceived,* and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4)._
_And now the LORD says*he who formed me in the womb* to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5)._
_The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "*Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,* *before you were born I set you apart;* I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)._
_When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, *the baby leaped in her womb,* and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44)._


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

I can't quote chapter and verse without researching it but I was taught in my Christian youth that when it comes to abortion, as with homosexuality, the Bible makes the clear case that both are wrong {also masturbation (which if there really is a God and a Hell must cause all kinds of post-passing disappointments }.


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I can't quote chapter and verse without researching it but I was taught in my Christian youth that when it comes to abortion, as with homosexuality, the Bible makes the clear case that both are wrong {also masturbation (which if there really is a God and a Hell must cause all kinds of post-passing disappointments }.


 
One poster made the assertion that the Bible teaches life begins at birth. If so, than it doesn't begin at conception. I think the verses I have posted make it clear that the Bible teaches life begins at conception. Homosexuality and masturbation are for a different thread, I don't want to get side tracked on this thread.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

Well, in a way they are all interlinked because they are all focussed on increasing the 'tribe' but I apologise for the slight tangent.

I don't pretend to have a coherent view on this subject because of the inherent schism between 'Life' and 'Cognisant Life'.  

I know that it can be argued that all non-dead organic matter is 'life' but I don't think this is a particularly useful definition when it comes to the topic of abortion.

As soon as an egg is fertilised and makes its first division, it is on it's was to being a unique individual.  That particular mix of genes has never happened before.  It is, in a very real sense, the blue-print of the person to come.  It is 'alive'.

However, it is not an individual consciousness at this point, no more than the cells I'm losing typing this are.

When the brain has formed and synaptic patterns begin to be forged by the sensations of the baby inside it's mother, that's when it is no longer an 'it' but a human-in-waiting.

As far as the Bible is concerned, tho', I don't think that any of that reasoning matters.  If the woman is pregnant, then the baby is 'alive' and abortion is forbidden.  The only counter to that that I can think of is the injunction against suicide i.e. if the mother knows she will die giving birth then it is a breach of her faith to do so.  But that runs afoul of the laudible attitude towards self sacrifice for others.

See how complicated things can quickly get when you deal in moral absolutes?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> One poster made the assertion that the Bible teaches life begins at birth. If so, than it doesn't begin at conception. I think the verses I have posted make it clear that the Bible teaches life begins at conception. Homosexuality and masturbation are for a different thread, I don't want to get side tracked on this thread.


 

 One Old Testament law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the _woman_ dies, however, the man will be killed.



> "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."_--*Ex. 21:22-25*_


 
The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." _Jewish law traditionally considers that* personhood begins at birth*._

Moses and the Ten Commandments, Jesus, Paul and all the Gospels virtually ignore the topic of "abortion" or "miscarriage."

 More to the point, in the Old Testament God Himself orders the murder of babies-not fetuses, but already birthed children-no less than 15 times, and probably many more.

Early Christians apparently did not view abortion as murder. In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and abortion before the time of _ensoulment_ was not considered a mortal sin. _The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that abortion at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication._

Here's something from Jewish Talmudic law:



> The Talmud considers treating the fetus as a _rodef _- specifically, "an aggressor against its mother," and making that the reason why abortion to save the mother's life is permitted." But the Talmud proceeds to reject that reasoning on the obvious grounds that the fetus is not yet of responsible age to deliberately forfeit its protection against being murdered [i.e., by consciously choosing to act as an aggressor, and thereby loosing its protection against killing]. The only valid grounds for permitting even therapeutic abortion is that murder is not involved because the fetus is not yet a human person Killing is admittedly involved, but not murder. Killing is the taking of life of, say, an animal or a chicken, or of a human who forfeits his protection by an act of aggression.The abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, _ubbar yerekh immo_, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin _pars viscerum matris._ That is, the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity.
> This designation says nothing about the _morality _of abortion; rather, it defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased animal. As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition; gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide. *David Feldman Birth Control in Jewish Law (New York: New York University Press, 1968), chaps. 14 and 15*




All I have time for right now, but there's more. Fact is, thousands of years of Biblical study and Jewish law say it's not a baby until it breathes its first air. You can argue-or _believe_ life begins at conception all you like, but that's not what those versus _say_, is it? What they say is what the people who said them believed,in very pretty language,  or, in some cases, another metaphor for God, who, of course, "_knows ye before ye were conceived,_" since He should technically know each and every one of us "before we were conceived"-it could also be said that He knows which _fetuses_ will be aborted "_before they art miscarried_", but He doesn't seem to be doing very much about it, does he? 
I'm sorry. That was facetious, and disrespectful. It was, of course, _also *true.*_


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks *Elder*. I knew we could count on you for an erudite insight on this issue.


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

elder999 said:


> One Old Testament law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the _woman_ dies, however, the man will be killed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, that depends upon whether or not you consider the Bible to be divinely inspired by God or not. This thread is rather specifically regarding whether or not the Bible teaches life begins at birth. All of your arguements point to the fact that, yes indeed, the Bible does teach that life begins at conception. If you don't believe the Biblethat is your right, the point is the Bbile clearly teaches that life begins at conception even if the punishment for killing a fetus is not the same for someone who has been born. And yes, elder999 was the poster I was referring too, I din't want to call him out by name when I couldn't find his post on the thread that inspired this one. Thanks again, elder999, I appreciate your contribution to this thread.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." _Jewish law traditionally considers that* personhood begins at birth*._
> 
> Here's something from Jewish Talmudic law:
> 
> ...


 
And traditionally, Orthodox Jews do not sit shiva if a baby dies in the first 30 days of life. 

It was alive but not quite 'a person'.

The practice likely stems from high infantile mortality rates in the early days of Judaism.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> All of your arguements point to the fact that, yes indeed, the Bible does teach that life begins at conception. If you don't believe the Biblethat is your right, the point is the Bbile clearly teaches that life begins at conception even if the punishment for killing a fetus is not the same for someone who has been born..


 

Maybe they do, on the planet of _cognititve dissonance._, on the shores of _Denial river._


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> So asserted one poster in the thread regarding the horrible murder of a doctor who performed late term abortions quite recently. Does the Bible teach life begins at birth, as the poster proclaimed, or at conception, as many Bible believers believe. Here are a few verses from the Bible on this subject:
> 
> 
> _Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; *from my mother's womb you have been my God* (Psalm 22:9-10)._
> ...


 
Nothing is Psalms points to life begining before birth.

Both Isaiahs' writtings talk about Israel's (the nation) and G-d's relationship as parent-child.

Ditto for Jeremiah

I won't even attempt to comment on Luke.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, that depends upon whether or not you consider the Bible to be divinely inspired by God or not. This thread is rather specifically regarding whether or not the Bible teaches life begins at birth. All of your arguements point to the fact that, yes indeed, the Bible does teach that life begins at conception. If you don't believe the Biblethat is your right, the point is the Bbile clearly teaches that life begins at conception even if the punishment for killing a fetus is not the same for someone who has been born. And yes, elder999 was the poster I was referring too, I din't want to call him out by name when I couldn't find his post on the thread that inspired this one. Thanks again, elder999, I appreciate your contribution to this thread.


 
I believe the Torah to be the literal word of G-d given to Moses at Sinai.

I can read Torah and the rest of Tanach in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Nowhere does it support your contention.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Nothing is Psalms points to life begining before birth.
> 
> Both Isaiahs' writtings talk about Israel's (the nation) and G-d's relationship as parent-child.
> 
> ...


 
I'd have gotten there, but thanks-_most_ evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have a limited concept of _metaphor_, sadly....


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'd have gotten there, but thanks-_most_ evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have a limited concept of _metaphor_, sadly....


 
There is also a lack of historicity. Most Prophets wrote during the Exiles. Their imagery was one of hope. That G-d has not forsaken them and will heed their calls. 

I also find that _most_ fundamentalists have an issue with context :idunno:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> I believe the Torah to be the literal word of G-d given to Moses at Sinai.


 
And I *don't* believe it to be the literal word of G-d given to Moses at Sinai, but, it's,....._ehhh, close enough._:lol:




CanuckMA said:


> I can read Torah and the rest of Tanach in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Nowhere does it support your contention.


 
And I can also read it in original Hebrew, Aramaic and _koine_ Greek. I concur that it does not support your contention-just the opposite, in fact, *it supports mine,* for the most part. Infant mortality being what it probably was in the ancient world, I think they mostly just didn't give a ****.....


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And I *don't* believe it to be the literal word of G-d given to Moses at Sinai, but, it's,....._ehhh, close enough._:lol:
> 
> 
> Joab: How close is close enough?
> ...


 
Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek eh? Well, I can read it in the English...you've got me linguistically out gunned to be sure. Its too bad you can't seem to counter any of my points at all in English. Have a good night.


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Nothing is Psalms points to life begining before birth.
> 
> Joab: Actually it does just that, in minute detail.
> 
> ...


 
Well, thanks for your input, always good to read different interpretations.


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> And traditionally, Orthodox Jews do not sit shiva if a baby dies in the first 30 days of life.
> 
> It was alive but not quite 'a person'.
> 
> ...


 
Where do you come up with this assertion?


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> I believe the Torah to be the literal word of G-d given to Moses at Sinai.
> 
> I can read Torah and the rest of Tanach in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Nowhere does it support your contention.


 
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement of my contention. Shalom.


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> There is also a lack of historicity. Most Prophets wrote during the Exiles. Their imagery was one of hope. That G-d has not forsaken them and will heed their calls.
> 
> I also find that _most_ fundamentalists have an issue with context :idunno:


 
I think the words are very clear, but thanks for your input.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> Where do you come up with this assertion?


 
Oh, I don't know, maybe, just maybe, because I'm an Orthodox Jew...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, thanks for your input, always good to read different interpretations.


 
The thing is, It's text written in my language, by and for my people. More likely than not, Jewish interpretation of those text is correct. 

All too often, Xtian interpretation is politically driven and out of context.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> I think the words are very clear, but thanks for your input.


 

Context, young grasshoper, context.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

Joab said:


> Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek eh? Well, I can read it in the English...you've got me linguistically out gunned to be sure. Its too bad you can't seem to counter any of my points at all in English. Have a good night.


 

Joab, reading a text in it's original language gives you insights that reading a translation cannot.

I regularly study Torah using an English text because it appeals to a greater audience. We do have to refer to the Hebrew text to ascertain meaning. Most often it's because similar Hebrew words can translate to a single word in English, but convey a slightly different meaning.


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> The thing is, It's text written in my language, by and for my people. More likely than not, Jewish interpretation of those text is correct.
> 
> All too often, Xtian interpretation is politically driven and out of context.


So, are you contending that all Jews interpret the text the same way you do? "Xtian" is a rather offensive term, we are not followers of "x" Thanks for your input, shalom.


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Joab, reading a text in it's original language gives you insights that reading a translation cannot.
> 
> I regularly study Torah using an English text because it appeals to a greater audience. We do have to refer to the Hebrew text to ascertain meaning. Most often it's because similar Hebrew words can translate to a single word in English, but convey a slightly different meaning.


 
Did you really think I didn't know that? I was merely acknowledging elder999 was farther advanced than I am regarding original languages. I'm getting a bit tired of your condescending attitude. Do you think that nobody who knows the original languages agrees with my interpretation?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> So, are you contending that all Jews interpret the text the same way you do? "Xtian" is a rather offensive term, we are not followers of "x" Thanks for your input, shalom.


 
None interpret it the way you do because you read it completely out of context.

You may want to reseach why I spell it that way.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> Did you really think I didn't know that? I was merely acknowledging elder999 was farther advanced than I am regarding original languages. I'm getting a bit tired of your condescending attitude. Do you think that nobody who knows the original languages agrees with my interpretation?


 
No Jews will agree with your interpretation. Xtians do, but they are merely following their agenda.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> "Xtian" is a rather offensive term,


 
Speak for yourself Kemosabe, not for the tribe.  I'm ok with that term.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Speak for yourself Kemosabe, not for the tribe. I'm ok with that term.


 
His knowledge of history and the greek alphabet is lacking.


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2009)

You might want to wait a bit before explaining that there are more than 10 mitzvahs....er...I mean...commandments.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2009)

Steady gentlemen.  The discussion is always better served if the contributors can steer away from roughly addressing each other.  When posters know each other well, it is sometimes not so bad to have a small personal 'dig' here and there, if done with a sense of humour.   

But generally it is recommended that people refrain from directly criticising an individual if at all possible.  It helps keep the number of RTM's down and means that the staff can get on with enjoying the forum rather than debating 'administrative' matters.


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> None interpret it the way you do because you read it completely out of context.
> 
> Joab: So, no Jew interprets it "my way" because I take it out of context. So you are asserting you know every last Jew's interpretation of these verses, you must be close to G-d to know that...
> 
> You may want to reseach why I spell it that way.


 
I don't want to research it, I want you to stop typing it, it is offensive.


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Steady gentlemen. The discussion is always better served if the contributors can steer away from roughly addressing each other. When posters know each other well, it is sometimes not so bad to have a small personal 'dig' here and there, if done with a sense of humour.
> 
> But generally it is recommended that people refrain from directly criticising an individual if at all possible. It helps keep the number of RTM's down and means that the staff can get on with enjoying the forum rather than debating 'administrative' matters.


 
Thanks, I was getting tired of Canuck's patronizing attitude. I freely admit that I don't know the original languages, their are those who do that agree with "my interpretation". I have enlisted the help of a former professor who taught the Koine Greek and has a Phd, presumably some Hebrew as well, he has not arrived yet, waiting for the calvary to arrive...you can agree to disagree agreeably without resorting to patronizing words. And the use of the term "xtian" is offensive to me, please quit writing it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> I don't want to research it, I want you to stop typing it, it is offensive.


 
Yeah, I think _South Park_ is offensive, but damned if they don't keep showing it on television....

What he's telling you is that it's *not* offensive, if you understood its origins.

Greeks used X as the symbol for Chi, Christo or Xristo. *X is the Greek symbol for Christ*. In early Christian times, X was used as the symbol for Christ himself.


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, I think _South Park_ is offensive, but damned if they don't keep showing it on television....
> 
> What he's telling you is that it's *not* offensive, if you understood its origins.
> 
> Greeks used X as the symbol for Chi, Christo or Xristo. *X is the Greek symbol for Christ*. In early Christian times, X was used as the symbol for Christ himself.


 
I don't care, I don't like it, quit writing it. Sort of like "xmas" instead of Christmas.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> I don't care, I don't like it, quit writing it. Sort of like "xmas" instead of Christmas.


 

Actually, it's exactly the same.Writing "Xmas" is a long, longstanding _Christian_ tradition. Commercial enterprises may think that they're taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas" by writing it "Xmas," but they're actually the same thing.......

......and you need to get some of _Dr. Jedediah Blacklove's Skin Thickening Cream,_ and *get over it*. He's not going to quit writing it, because he's an Orthodox Jew, for the same reasons that he writes "God", "G-d." Think of it as his way of respecting his religion, *and* yours.

_"I don't care. I don't like it." _Want some cheese to go with that whine???? :lfao:


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, it's exactly the same.Writing "Xmas" is a long, longstanding _Christian_ tradition. Commercial enterprises may think that they're taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas" by writing it "Xmas," but they're actually the same thing.......
> 
> ......and you need to get some of _Dr. Jedediah Blacklove's Skin Thickening Cream,_ and *get over it*. He's not going to quit writing it, because he's an Orthodox Jew, for the same reasons that he writes "God", "G-d." Think of it as his way of respecting his religion, *and* yours.
> 
> _"I don't care. I don't like it." _Want some cheese to go with that whine???? :lfao:


 
elder999, Lets try to be a little respectful of others shall we? "Want some cheese to go with that whine"...come on now, you can do better than that.; I started typing G_d to not offend him, I merely asked him to exhibit the same courtesy. And I don't buy your x out of Christmas arguement at all.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> elder999, Lets try to be a little respectful of others shall we? "Want some cheese to go with that whine"...come on now, you
> can do better than that


 
I dunno, I thought it was pretty good. :lol:

In all seriousness, respect is earned, and, around here,from me, comments that are-dare I say it?-somewhat _snarky_ are to be expected, from time to time.



Joab said:


> And I don't buy your x out of Christmas arguement at all.


 
And yet:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas :



> Usage of X for Christ in ancient languages
> _For the article about the "&#935;&#929;" symbol see Chi Rho._ The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "XP" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as AD 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters &#967; and &#961; used in ancient abbreviations for &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; (Greek for "Christ"), and are still widely seen in many Eastern Orthodox icons depicting Jesus Christ. The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as &#9767;, is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches.[8]
> 
> 
> ...


 
and:



> The Oxford English Dictionary and OED Supplement have cited usages of "X-" or "Xp-" for "Christ-" in 1485 ("Xpian"), 1598 ("Xpian"), and "Xtian" in 1845, 1915 and 1940. It cites "Xtianity" usage in 1634, 1811 and 1966. "Most of the evidence for these words comes from educated Englishmen who knew their Greek," according to _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_, referring to the OED citations


 
And, turning once more to the very excellent _Merriam-Webster's Online English Language Technical Manual_ (that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" :lfao:-see? _snarky_):



> Main Entry: Xmas
> 
> 
> 
> Pronunciation: \&#712;kris-m&#601;s _also_ &#712;eks-m&#601;s\ Function: _noun_ *Etymology: **X (symbol for Christ, from the Greek letter chi (X), initial of Christos Christ) + -mas (in Christmas) **Date: **1551 *


 
I mean-he told you to do the research, and you're sitting in front of a great research tool, and you don't even bother?


----------



## Joab (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I dunno, I thought it was pretty good. :lol:
> 
> In all seriousness, respect is earned, and, around here,from me, comments that are-dare I say it?-somewhat _snarky_ are to be expected, from time to time.
> 
> ...


 
What don't you understand about the words "I don't care" and "I find it offensive". And quite frankly, I'm getting rather tired of your boorish behaviour.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> What don't you understand about the words "I don't care" and "I find it offensive". And quite frankly, I'm getting rather tired of your boorish behaviour.


 

Hey, Joab, didja know that I own a winery? I do.

You've inspired me-this years pinot will be labeled: _Joab's Xmas Piss, Moan and *Whine*_ in your honor.

And here's your sign:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> Its too bad you can't seem to counter any of my points at all in English. Have a good night.


 

Actually , your arguments are _weak_ in any language:

_Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; _*from my mother's womb you have been my God*_ (Psalm 22:9-10)._

In this verse, David is singing to God , and using some rather nice metaphor and hyperbole to do so. In actuality, David, (or whoever wrote the Psalms) like the rest of us, has no idea what went on when he was &#8220;in his mother&#8217;s womb.&#8221;

_For you created my inmost being; _*you knit me together in my mother's womb.*_ I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, _*your eyes saw my unformed body.*_ All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)._

See above, in re: David, singing to God, unknowing in the womb, yada yada yada, blah, blah, blh.

_This is_ what the LORD says&#8212;he who made you, who *formed you in the womb*, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).

This is Isaiah (or the writer of Isaiah) talking to Israel about their relationship with God. Metaphor again, and pretty good&#8230;.

_Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom _*I have upheld since you were conceived,*_ and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4)._

See above, in re: Relationship, Israel, God, metaphor, yada yada, etc. 


_And now the LORD says&#8212;_*he who formed me in the womb*_ to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5)._

See above, in re: Isaiah and/or &#8220;writer of Isaiah&#8221;

_The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "_*Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,**before you were born I set you apart;*_ I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)._

Everything I said about Isaiah? Just double it for Jeremiah, mmmmkay?

_When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, _*the baby leaped in her womb,*_ and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44)._

Women talking to each other, with the &#8220;baby kicking&#8221; as anyone who&#8217;s been around for a pregnancy knows that they do. 

Whenever we use out of context verses to support doctrine and dogma, we can run into trouble. For instance:



> "Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?"* Psalm 10*:*1 *"
> How long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide Thy face from me?" *Psalm 13:1*
> "O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us. *Psalm 60:1*


 
Do you really believe that David is saying here that he's been abandoned by God? That God has forsaken him?

You quoted Jeremiah, but not the whole passage:



> "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant." *Jeremiah 1:4-10 *


 
So this is a big deal, the awakening of a prophet-the moment God speaks to him.

_We're_ (most of us) *not* prophets. These verses don't apply to "human beings," but to Jeremiah, and, through metaphor, the nation of Israel.

It also doesn't work for you because God says "_before_ I formed thee in the womb[/i]" God isn't speaking of Jeremiah the fetus; he's speaking of Jeremiah *before* the fetus-Jeremiah the spiritual being.

As for the verse from Luke, we have John the Baptist, the fetus, reacting to the approach of Jesus the Son of God, the fetus-a prophet again, and a supernatural being.


In counterpoint, though, and in full context, Solomon says in Ecclesiates:



> "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, _`Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'_"*Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 *


 
and yet:



> Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. _But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun_." *Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 *


 
So the wise king Solomon says that sometimes it's better *not* to be born. In addition to Job, these are two instances where the Bible points to quality of life, and says that without it, sometimes _*a baby is better off not being born.*_

Furthermore, we have several instances that clearly support the idea of minimal value for the Biblical fetus.In _Leviticus 27:6_ a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in _Numbers 3:15_ a census was commanded, but the Hebrews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In _Ezekiel 37:8-10_ we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that _they were not alive as persons until their first breath_. No human life (soul) till first breath at birth. This is the clear biblical view as well as the Jewish view from biblical times and today. .In Hebrew the word _nephesh_ means both "person" *and* "_breath"_. Only* after* a person is born is _nephesh_ used. In James it was said "for just as the body without breath is dead, so faith without works is dead." Likewise, until birth there is no breath and no spirit.Likewise, in _Genesis 2:7,_ Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in _Genesis 38:24_, we read about* a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration*. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says abortion is wrong. The Bible declares the death penalty for murdering another person but not when a fetus dies since it is not equated with a human person. If indeed the Hebrews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple: As far as the Bible is concerned, a fetus is *not* a human person, and its destruction is *not* a murder. 
*Period.*


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> I started typing G_d to not offend him, I merely asked him to exhibit the same courtesy. And I don't buy your x out of Christmas arguement at all.


 

I don't truly care how you write G-d. The prohibition is incumbent on Jews. Same as the prohibition on writing the name of other gods. There are practices in Xtianity that are arguably idolatrous from a Jewish perspective, and that only re-enforces the prohibition.

Just where do you think the fish symbol for Xtianity comes from?

It's a stylized form of the Greek letter. 

Kind word of advice for you, as you seem quite new around here. If you are going to venture in a religious debate, especially one that involves interpretation of someone else's religious text, grow a thicker skin and don the asbestos underwear. A lot of us have been at this for a while. While we are agreeing and supporting each other here, you can find a few threads where elder and I go at it. Nature of the beast. At the end of the day, I'd still sit down with elder over a beer. I think it would be a fascinating evening.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

Joab said:


> What don't you understand about the words "I don't care" and "I find it offensive". And quite frankly, I'm getting rather tired of your boorish behaviour.


 

And I find offensive the way out of context quotes are used to support a religion that has caused my people so much suffering. But hey, I live with it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Kind word of advice for you, as you seem quite new around here. If you are going to venture in a religious debate, especially one that involves interpretation of someone else's religious text, grow a thicker skin and don the asbestos underwear. A lot of us have been at this for a while. While we are agreeing and supporting each other here, you can find a few threads where elder and I go at it. Nature of the beast. At the end of the day, I'd still sit down with elder over a beer. I think it would be a fascinating evening.


 
Yeah, I'm sure it would. But I'm going to disagree here, just a little, because:



CanuckMA said:


> Just where do you think the fish symbol for Xtianity comes from?
> 
> It's a stylized form of the Greek letter.


 
The entire _icthys _thing is ridiculously fascinating.

Astrologically, those events took place in the Age of Pisces.

Jesus caused the disciples to catch 153 fish, in John. Remember that number, 153, because the icthys is seen by some as a whole sacred geometry thing related to the _vesica piscis_, the shqape caused by the intersection of two circles of the same radius. Interestingly, the mathematical ratio of its width to its height is 265:*153*, or a close approximation of the square root of three.

And, of course, there's the whole "fisherman/fishers of men" aspect of Christ's ministry.

_&#921;&#935;&#920;&#933;&#931;_,_*Icthys*_, the Greek word for fish, was used as a symbol of _all_ of these things by ancient Christians, depending upon which_ kind_ of ancient Christian they were. It's also an acronym, though, for "Jesus, Christ (anointed one), God's Son, Savior"

*&#921;&#935;&#920;&#933;&#931;: **I*ota *C*hi *T*heta *U*psilon *S*igma, or ,  *&#7992;*&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962; *&#935;*&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962;, *&#920;*&#949;&#959;&#8166; *&#933;&#7985;*&#972;&#962;, *&#931;*&#969;&#964;&#942;&#961;: "*J*esus, *C*hrist, *G*od's *S*on, *S*avior


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 3, 2009)

elder, that was realy interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 3, 2009)

*Luke 1:14-16 (King James Version)*




> 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
> 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


That doesn't seem to indicate life beginning at birth


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Oh, I don't know, maybe, just maybe, because I'm an Orthodox Jew...


 
I haven't posted because Canuck has said everything for me and yes that will be me.. the Orthodox Jew too.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I haven't posted because Canuck has said everything for me and yes that will be me.. the Orthodox Jew too.


 
Or Orthodox Jew 2?

Elder thanks for posting about the Xtian bits, new to me and interesting!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 4, 2009)

I read about the Xtian thing a couple of years ago, VERY interesting.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *Luke 1:14-16 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem to indicate life beginning at birth


 

Yeah, these are the words spoken by the archangel Gabriel in the temple to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. So we again have a supernatural being speaking to, in this case, the _father_ of a prophet in supernatural terms, i.e., "filled with the Holy Spirit,even in his mother's womb." More to the point,the verse is again taken out of context. The chapter goes on to say:



> *23*When his time of service was completed, he returned home. *24After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant* and for five months remained in seclusion. *25*"The Lord has done this for me," she said. "In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people."


 
So, following the sequence of events in the chapter, Gabriel wasn't speaking of a fetus, he was speaking about John before he was even conceived.

It's important to consider that the writers of the Gospels-and the "Old Testament" as well-were very careful in writing what was the "literal word of God," and what was the "literal word of God in _supernatural terms_." They understood that some things......_aren't meant to be understood,_ or are incomprehensible, and, in their attempts to record such things, often resorted to language that can be confusing-couple this with mistranslations and remistranslations-like the excrable King James Version-and you are open to all sorts of befuddling interpretations. This one is a very good example of this, and follows a theme I've used throughout this thread. The Greek words used-and I'll spare you them-for "filled with the Holy Spirit"are entirely the same as the Greek words for _breathing,_ or to be *inspired*. In this case, what the angel Gabriel is saying to Zechariah is almost quite literally that the baby will _breathe,_ even in its mothers womb. It's an attempt to explain the supernatural nature of the coming child's prophecy,in the idiom and metaphor of the time, in terms that are both understandable and incomprehensible.

It's also one of those things that's pretty much like what I jokingly say to fundamentalist Christians about homosexuality-that I follow everything Jesus said about it, which is, of course, _nothing._ In the reality, though, we can examine the culture and Hebrew teaching of the time, and have a pretty good idea of what a pious Hebrew like Jesus would have thought of homosexuality.

But, to borrow from Kevin Smith, that would be an _"idea"_, not a "fact" and certainly not a "belief."


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> elder, that was realy interesting. Thanks.


 

You want interesting? Translate *&#921;&#935;&#920;&#933;&#931; *into Hebrew and do the gematria.....or just do the Greek gematria....weird, and what I meant by _ridiculously fascinating._


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> You want interesting? Translate *&#921;&#935;&#920;&#933;&#931; *into Hebrew and do the gematria.....or just do the Greek gematria....weird, and what I meant by _ridiculously fascinating._



What happens when you do that?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> What happens when you do that?


 
That'd be a pretty big thread drift, at this point.Basically, it comes back to the icthys also being the symbol for the Greek/Syrian Adonis cult before Christianity, the whole sacred geometry thing, and the vesica piscis.  There's a pretty good overview of the basics of the arithmetic of all that here, from 53 on, though the language is somewhat archaic, given the period....the implications, though,  are somewhat startling for some, theologically speaking..


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

Using biblical texts out of context as a pretext for abortion, pro-abortionists seek to retain some semblance of religiosity while at the same time espousing the radical planks of the pro-abortion movement. The most common argument in this area is that Scripture nowhere specifically condemns abortion or identifies it as the killing of an innocent human being. Such an argument, however, obscures the fact that the Bible depicts preborn children as living beings who are fully human (see, e.g., Ps. 139:13-16). Furthermore, Scripture clearly denounces the killing of an innocent human being as murder. Thus, abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exod. 20:13).
Ironically, one of the most commonly used biblical pretexts for abortion is found only one chapter after Gods explicit command, "Thou shall not murder": "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined...But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exod. 21:22-25; NASB). The argument goes something like this: If a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to have a spontaneous abortion, the penalty is merely a fine. However, if the woman dies, the penalty is death. Thus, no life was taken, according to Exodus 21, unless the woman died.
Thus interpreted, this passage is not being _used_ but _abused_ to support abortion. Lets take a closer look at what the Hebrew text (as correctly translated by the NIV) really says: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [the implication here is that _no _death is involved], the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life [in other words, if the woman _or_ child should die, the appropriate punishment is death]."
Another biblical pretext, typically referred to as the "argument from breath," involves Genesis 2:7: "The Lord God formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."
The "argument from breath" is frequently presented in the following manner: God did not consider Adam to be a "living soul" until He had breathed the "breath of life" into him. Thus a child does not become a human being until he or she begins to breathe.
Dispensing with this argument is a simple matter. Adam was inanimate before God breathed the breath of life into him. Conversely, as science demonstrates, the conceptus or preborn child is alive from the very moment of conception. It is important to note that the breath of life exists in the preborn child from the moment of conception. In reality, it is the _form_, not the _fact_, of oxygen transfer (breath) that changes at birth.
source: The Christian Research Institute www.equip.org


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

*Arguments Against Abortion*

*Kerby Anderson 
*

*Kerby Anderson* is the president of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including _Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope,_ and _Moral Dilemmas_. He also served as general editor for _Marriage, Family and Sexuality_.
He is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the _Dallas Morning News,_ the _Miami Herald,_ the _San Jose Mercury,_ and the _Houston Post._
He is the host of "Probe," and frequently serves as guest host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network).

​*Biblical Arguments Against Abortion*

In this essay we will be discussing arguments against abortion. The first set of arguments we will consider are biblical arguments. 
That being said, we must begin by acknowledging that the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion directly. Why the silence of the Bible on abortion? The answer is simple. Abortion was so unthinkable to an Israelite woman that there was no need to even mention it in the criminal code. Why was abortion an unthinkable act? First, children were viewed as a gift or heritage from the Lord. Second, the Scriptures state--and the Jews concurred--that God opens and closes the womb and is sovereign over conception. Third, childlessness was seen as a curse.
One of the key verses to understand in developing a biblical view of the sanctity of human life is Psalm 139. This psalm is the inspired record of David's praise for God's sovereignty in his life. He begins by acknowledging that God is omniscient and knows what David is doing at any given point in time. He goes on to acknowledge that God is aware of David's thoughts before he expresses them. David adds that wherever he might go, he cannot escape from God, whether he travels to heaven or ventures into Sheol. God is in the remotest part of the sea and even in the darkness. Finally David contemplates the origin of his life and confesses that God was there forming him in the womb.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (vv. 13-16).
Here David speaks of God's relationship with him while he was growing and developing before birth. Notice that the Bible doesn't speak of fetal life as mere biochemistry. The description here is not of a piece of protoplasm that becomes David: this is David already being cared for by God while in the womb.
In verse 13, we see that God is the Master Craftsman fashioning David into a living person. In verses 14 and 15, David reflects on the fact that he is a product of God's creative work within his mother's womb, and he praises God for how wonderfully God has woven him together.
David draws a parallel between his development in the womb and Adam's creation from the earth. Using figurative language in verse 15, he refers to his life before birth when "I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth." This poetic allusion harkens back to Genesis 2:7 which says that Adam was made from the dust of the earth.
David also notes that "Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance." This shows that God knew David even before he was known to others. The term translated _unformed substance_ is a noun derivative of a verb meaning "to roll up." When David was just forming as a fetus, God's care and compassion already extended to him. The reference to "God's eyes" is an Old Testament term used to connotate divine oversight of God in the life of an individual or group of people.
Next, we will consider additional Old Testament passages that provide a biblical argument against abortion.
*Additional Old Testament Arguments Against Abortion*

Now that we've looked at Psalm 139, the most popular argument against abortion, let's look at two other Old Testament passages. 
Another significant passage is Psalm 51. It was written by David after his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and records his repentance. David confesses that his sinful act demonstrated the original sin that was within him, "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 5l:5). David concludes that from his time of conception, he had a sin nature. This would imply that he carried the image of God from the moment of conception, including the marred image scarred from sin.
Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6). Bearing the image of God is the essence of humanness. And though God's image in man was marred at the Fall, it was not erased (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). Thus, the unborn baby is made in the image of God and therefore fully human in God's sight.
This verse also provides support for what is called the traducian view of the origin of the soul. According to this perspective, human beings were potentially in Adam (Rom. 5:12, Heb. 7:9-10) and thus participated in his original sin. The "soulish" part of humans is transferred through conception. Therefore, an unborn baby is morally accountable and thus fully human.
Another argument against abortion can be found in the Old Testament legal code, specifically Exodus 21:22-25.
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​The verses appear to teach that if a woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby is not injured, then only a fine is appropriate. However, if the child dies then the law of retaliation (lex talionis) should be applied. In other words, killing an unborn baby would carry the same penalty as killing a born baby. A baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb. 
Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.
There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for _miscarry_ is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

Joab, it's nice that you believe in something, I wish you good health and long life.
However, this is your belief not ours and while I'm sure we find it interesting we don't have to agree so lecturing us is probably a pointless though worthy exercise.
I've no wish to get iinvolved in a long discussion about what my ancestors did or didn't think, can't say I wish to be told what they thought by a goy either but there you are, I'm tired and cranky tonight. 

I'm completely dyslexic when it comes to numbers (is there a word for that?) so sadly Gematria is a sadly lost art for me! I find I get lost very easily as soon as numbers are involved, fascinating though I find it.


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Joab, it's nice that you believe in something, I wish you good health and long life.
> However, this is your belief not ours and while I'm sure we find it interesting we don't have to agree so lecturing us is probably a pointless though worthy exercise.
> I've no wish to get iinvolved in a long discussion about what my ancestors did or didn't think, can't say I wish to be told what they thought by a goy either but there you are, I'm tired and cranky tonight.
> 
> I'm completely dyslexic when it comes to numbers (is there a word for that?) so sadly Gematria is a sadly lost art for me! I find I get lost very easily as soon as numbers are involved, fascinating though I find it.


 
The thread is "Does the Bible teach life begins at birth" It is within "The Study" thread, which does allow such a thread to exist. Feel free to ignore if you so desire, no one is forcing you to read it, and dispute if you so desire, it is your right of course. The thread remains, there are threads I don't like, I choose to ignore them.


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

The link for the Kerby Anderson article entitled "Does the Bible teach life begins at birth is:www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/org-abor.html-27k

I apologize for not entering it on the initial post-Joab


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Joab, it's nice that you believe in something, I wish you good health and long life.
> However, this is your belief not ours and while I'm sure we find it interesting we don't have to agree so lecturing us is probably a pointless though worthy exercise.
> I've no wish to get iinvolved in a long discussion about what my ancestors did or didn't think, can't say I wish to be told what they thought by a goy either but there you are, I'm tired and cranky tonight.
> 
> I'm completely dyslexic when it comes to numbers (is there a word for that?) so sadly Gematria is a sadly lost art for me! I find I get lost very easily as soon as numbers are involved, fascinating though I find it.


 

*The Study* For the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums. Topics in here should stay focused on their topic, with new threads created where topics split


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

Joab said:


> *The Study* For the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums. Topics in here should stay focused on their topic, with new threads created where topics split


 

My dear, you are lecturing again.

The magic word here is *discussion.*


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 4, 2009)

I agree with Tez3, I don't need to be lectured by a Gentile as to what MY Holy text means. 

That article you quoted takes a couple of out of context verses from Psalms, and then uses Xtian text to justify the Xtian POV. Sort of circular.

Ancient Hebrews had no clue what happenned in the womb. In Judaism, and it's relevant because you cite Jewish text, life begins at birth (first breath) and 'personhood' at the 31st day, hence the no shiva for a baby who dies in the first 30 days.


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> My dear, you are lecturing again.
> 
> The magic word here is *discussion.*


 
Wouldn't "lecture" or "discussion" be up to someone's own interpretation, kind of like your view of when human life begins I suppose? And do you really think elder999 or Canuck MA never lectured me on this thread?


----------



## Joab (Jun 4, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> I agree with Tez3, I don't need to be lectured by a Gentile as to what MY Holy text means.
> 
> Joab: You don't have to read it, and it is considered to be a Holy book by Christians as well.
> 
> ...


 
I respectfully disagree. Shalom, have a good day, and feel free to lecture me all you want, as you have so many times in this thread, in a rather patronizing, condescending and out and out obnoxious way time and time again.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

Joab said:


> The thread is "Does the Bible teach life begins at birth"


 
Which is completely different from "does the Bible say abortion is okay?" It's pretty conclusive that the Bible, ancient Hebrew law and current Jewish law teach that life begins when the baby draws breath, and, more to the point, that even the baby's life is pretty much worthless until it's a month old. 

The interpretation of the various Bible verses, and the argument about who's misinterpreting them could go on forever, back and forth between the two of us, but, *unlike you*, I have no agenda in this, and I'm content in that my viewpoint is the correct one, based upon the evidence and scholarship. I'm not going to argue about the Psalms, or Exodus or any of it anymore. 

More to the point, just because the Bible holds the view that life begins when the baby draws breath (because it *does*, you know) _doesn't_
mean that it supports abortion-it is only logical, looking at the cultural milieu from which it arose, to conclude that Hebrews of all the generations of Biblical history would have been morally opposed to abortion.

_The Hebrew *men*, anyway._ 

This is a logical anthropological and sociological conclusion. However, we also know for a fact-anthropologically and sociologically-that methods for abortion existed and were used during those times, and were, of course, the province of _women_ and, principally, midwives. _Men wouldn't have known, so there would have been little, if any, opposition._

Lastly, Joab, and I say this as a friend, as gently as I'm capable of-_you can *believe* what you want._ Just because "Christianity," or your form of Christianity, or Judaism or whatever it is that you practice, teaches that abortion is wrong, _doesn't _mean that the Bible doesn't teach that life begins with breathing. And, more to the point, vice versa: just because the Bible teaches one thing,_ doesn't_ mean your church (or whatever)_ is "wrong" for teaching that abortion is wr_ong-or teaching that it's (abortion being "wrong") supported by scripture, though that one is a bit of a stretch;*I'd* certainly say that they're _mistinterpreting_ scripture, but I say that about everyone, _and what do I know? _:lfao:

So, yes-the Bible teaches that life begins with birth and the first breath. It has several prominent verses that demonstrate that the fetus, while not "worthless", is also not valued the same as human life, and, in fact, neither are babies under a month old. I've also demonstrated that several of the verses used as "anti-abortion" simply are not, though they certainly all qualify as praises of the _value of life_, something that *all* religions have-the ancient ones that have survived to this date, anyway.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 4, 2009)

Joab said:


> I respectfully disagree. Shalom, have a good day, and feel free to lecture me all you want, as you have so many times in this thread, in a rather patronizing, condescending and out and out obnoxious way time and time again.


 

Please enlighten me as when Judaism believes life begins.

You try to put yourself in my, and Tez's, shoes where a majority keeps telling us what OUR text means according to a translation and when we point out that it is not so, get told that we are wrong because they say so, and you'll get an idea why we get fed up and short,


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Joab, we have got our knickers in a twist, come down off your high horse and make a friendly discussion of this not a strop fest.

Discussions start 'I think, I believe or in my view' they don't state as fact things which aren't facts.
I do have a view on when life begins, it works for me it may not for you BUT the problem comes when my basis for believing is quoted by you to mean something different as you've changed the words!!


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So, yes-the Bible teaches that life begins with birth and the first breath. It has several prominent verses that demonstrate that the fetus, while not "worthless", is also not valued the same as human life, and, in fact, neither are babies under a month old. I've also demonstrated that several of the verses used as "anti-abortion" simply are not, though they certainly all qualify as praises of the _value of life_, something that *all* religions have-the ancient ones that have survived to this date, anyway.


 
And life is valued high enough that there are only 3 commandments (out of 613) that I may not break to save a life.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm completely dyslexic when it comes to numbers (is there a word for that?) so sadly Gematria is a sadly lost art for me! I find I get lost very easily as soon as numbers are involved, fascinating though I find it.


 
The word for numerical dyslexia is _dyscalculia_...or, just "numerical dyslexia."

I'm an engineer, though, so naturally things like Gematria fascinate the crap out of me.........


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The word for numerical dyslexia is _dyscalculia_...or, just "numerical dyslexia."
> 
> I'm an engineer, though, so naturally things like Gematria fascinate the crap out of me.........


 

Thank you! My father used to tell me off for not being able to do arithmetic etc when I could obviously do English and anything with words. he'd never believe me it was very hard for me to do, he thought I was skiving and being Jewish and education being so important, well it didn't make for an easy relationship at times.
I agree Gematria is interesting but frustrating. I've had little to do with it though, I've found it's mostly the Chasidic community who use it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 4, 2009)

It is mostly a Chasid thing. It's cool, fascinating and a good intelectual exercise. It is, however, useless.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> It is mostly a Chasid thing. It's cool, fascinating and a good intelectual exercise. It is, however, useless.


 
If one examines the implications of their repeated occurance in the Gospels, the conclusions one has to reach are a bit unsettling for some.....


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 5, 2009)

But if you look hard enough for any pattern, you'll find one.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> But if you look hard enough for any pattern, you'll find one.


 
I don't know that that's necessarily true, but in this case, _the patterns all existed in cults that predated Christianity._ This could be evidence of later influence by those existing Greek mystery cults, or it could be _evidence that Christianity was, from the start, a Greek mystery cult._


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2009)

I find it interesting the way the Ancients from all cultures found ways to explain life and what they saw around them. It's curious how many 'stories' are similiar such as the Flood. I think we tend to forget these days how little if any scientific knowledge was available to explain things we find so simple small children know it. Imagine the mystery of the sun and not actually knowing it would come up everyday, on a cloudy day where did it go? why did the sea 'come and go' etc. Many cultures knew obviously how to have sex but many didn't connect it with the woman getting pregnant. Childbirth itself could be a huge mystery (still is in some places!)
I imagine the Ancients were wise in the ways of human nature but I find it amazing that they managed to live in a world where there was little knowledge of nature etc it must have been a scary place, no wonder they were so supersitious! And how brave were the first 'scientists'!


----------



## Joab (Jun 5, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Please enlighten me as when Judaism believes life begins.
> 
> You try to put yourself in my, and Tez's, shoes where a majority keeps telling us what OUR text means according to a translation and when we point out that it is not so, get told that we are wrong because they say so, and you'll get an idea why we get fed up and short,


 
I was thinking about this before I read your post. And it certainly was never my intention to tick off the Orthodox Jews or Conservative or Reform for that matter. I never imagined my post would go this direction quite honestly. And I do apologize for ticking you guys off. I'm sure you realize that there are some 1.5 billion or so Christians around the world that hold that the Jewish Bible, or what we call the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. Interpretations are bound to not always be the same, if they were you would become Christians. Some of them do know the Hebrew. Some even know the Aramaic. Again, I never saw this thread going the direction it did, and I really don't like to engage in this kind of debate that really goes nowhere due to different interpretations which neither side will ever change. You have your interpretations , I have mine, we can live in peace together anyway. Shalom, have a nice day, and again it was not my intention to tick you guys off.


----------

