Posted on 12/19/2011 1:34:47 PM PST by surroundedbyblue
This is the season of the year when Salvation Army volunteers are on the streets and outside stores ringing their bells to encourage donors to fill their red kettles with money for the poor. The longtime Christian organization provides food, shelter, elderly services, disaster relief, prisoner rehabilitation and many other forms of aid.
But it also has adopted a position statement that is a step toward abortion, and pro-life leaders are expressing alarm at what they see developing.
In its statement on abortion, the Salvation Army says: "A number of biblical and theological principles underpin The Salvation Army's position on abortion. …
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Has the irony about having less restrictive rules when it comes to killing Jews started to sink in yet?
No it does not. It makes abortion something other than a capital offense (which is what it becomes after this period). Furthermore, abortion laws in re non-Jews are much stricter than for Jews. For Jews abortion is not a capital offense until the baby's head has emerged. Abortion is mandatory only if the mother's life is actually in danger and ensoulment has not occurred. Otherwise it is strictly forbidden (a capital offense after ensoulment, a sin but not a capital offense before ensoulment).
So, extremely late-term abortion is okay for Jews?
Only if the mother's life is in danger, at which point it is mandatory. Otherwise it is strictly forbidden, though less than a capital offense. After the baby's head has emerged it is a capital offense and may not be done for any reason whatsoever (for non-Jews this is so after the third month).
So, rejection of abortion is somehow a "revolt" against Judaism?
I said no such thing, as you well know. I said that the Catholic position is based on rationalistic "natural law." The Jewish position is based on the dictates of Divine law in any and all situations whatsoever--ie, there is no "natural law," only Divine law.
So, ensoulment happens at different times for Jews and non-Jews? WHERE is this specifically in Scripture?
A Catholic asking where something is found in Scripture. Hilarious.
OK, we need to work on what we share in common. Your reference of "rodef" apparently comes from the the Babylonian Talmud:
Obviously, this does not apply to an innocent unborn baby, especially when direct abortion is NEVER medically indicated in this day and age.A rodef (Hebrew רודף, lit. "pursuer"; pl. רודפים, rodfim), in traditional Jewish law, is one who is "pursuing" another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing. The source for this law is the Tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud, page 73a, which begins:
And these are the ones whom one must save even with their lives [i.e., killing the wrongdoer]: one who pursues his fellow to kill him [rodef achar chavero le-horgo], and after a male or a bethrothed maiden [to rape them]; but one who pursues an animal, or desecrates the Sabbath, or commits idolatry are not saved with their lives.
This law, the din rodef ("law of the pursuer"), is significant as one of the few provisions in Jewish law permitting extrajudicial killings.
The allowance to kill the rodef does not apply, however, in a case where lesser means would prevent the innocent's murder.[1] Furthermore, according to the Rambam, killing a rodef who may have been stopped by lesser means constitutes murder, though the punishment for a murderer in this case is not dealt out by Beit din.
Furthermore, the Babylonian Talmud is not part of the Old Testament scriptures (i.e., "G-d's Law") shared in common between Christians and their Elder Brothers, but a tradition of men that was written at the same time New Testament Christianity was developing its own "orthodoxy" on moral theology:
The Talmud Bavli consists of documents compiled over the period of Late Antiquity (3rd to 5th centuries).[9] The most important of the Jewish centres in Mesopotamia during this time were Nehardea, Nisibis, Mahoza, Pumbeditha and the Sura Academy.
Talmud Bavli (the "Babylonian Talmud") comprises the Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara, the latter representing the culmination of more than 300 years of analysis of the Mishnah in the Babylonian Academies. The foundations of this process of analysis were laid by Rab, a disciple of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina. Rav Ashi was president of the Sura Academy from 375 to 427 CE. The work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina’s death in 499 CE is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited the Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period, known as the Saboraim or Rabbanan Savora'e (meaning "reasoners" or "considerers").
The question as to when the Gemara was finally put into its present form is not settled among modern scholars. Some, like Louis Jacobs, argue that the main body of the Gemara is not simple reportage of conversations, as it purports to be, but a highly elaborate structure contrived by the Saboraim, who must therefore be regarded as the real authors. On this view the text did not reach its final form until around 700. Some modern scholars use the term Stammaim (from the Hebrew Stam, meaning "closed", "vague" or "unattributed") for the authors of unattributed statements in the Gemara. (See eras within Jewish law.)
I can no more accept these late rabbinic traditions of the 400 to 700 AD era as binding and authoritative than you can accept Christian moral theology as binding and authoritive.
So you'll need to come up with some Old Testament texts or Old Testament era rabbinic tradition to defend this novel idea of din rodef if you want to convince orthodox Christians that your view actually reflects "G-d's law."
Thou shalt not ever point out hypocrisy within Jewish tradition, lest thou be labelled anti-semitic.
So basically, you’re making a case that abortion is ok at different points throughout gestation for different people??
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abortion is never "ok." Never. It is either (in the vast majority of cases) strictly and absolutely forbidden or (in a tiny minority of cases where the baby qualifies as a rodef, someone "pursuing" someone to murder him) mandatory. Humanistic "choice" never has anything to do with it.
Divine law forbids taking a human life in most circumstances, but in a few cases makes it mandatory (capital punishment, war, extermination of the Canaanites and `Amaleqites, killing a "pursuer" who is about to murder someone). To oppose all killing at all times is based on secular, humanistic logic and not on Divine Law.
On the contrary, it is based on Talmudic traditions whose link to actual scripture is obviously tenuous, at best.
Unless you're able to cite the scriptural foundations that underpin your position, of course. Claiming your position to be "G-d's Law" or "Divine law" doesn't make it so.
“A Catholic asking where something is found in Scripture. Hilarious.”
I see you can’t answer the question, so you resort to taking a swipe at Catholics; an unfounded, fictitous swipe, I might add.
Um, so on the one hand abortion is “never ok”, but then you say there are times when it’s “mandatory”?
Sure. Whatever.
I suppose the irony of a Catholic rejecting sacred Oral Tradition and demanding that something be found in a written "old testament" text is completely lost on you. Can one point out the hypocrisy in Catholic tradition without being accused of anti-Catholicism?
This anti-Talmudic polemic is precisely where Protestants picked up sola scriptura. The Talmud is the distillation into written form at a particular time of immemorial Sinaitic Oral Law. Before it was written down it was passed down from father to son and from master to disciple.
Do I have to justify Oral Tradition to you, a Catholic?
Sure. Whatever.
"Ok" implies that it is a matter of choice. It is never a matter of choice. It is the mother's obligation to acquiesce to Divine Law in all cases.
You reject Catholic Oral Tradition. I reject post-Christian Talmudic Oral Tradition.
Therefore I’m looking for common ground, just like I do when I’m debating Mormons. I do not accept Mormon “scripture,” and they do not accept orthodox Christian Tradition, thus I can only debate Mormons using the scriptures we share in common.
I do not accept your post-Christian Oral Traditions, thus I must debate with you using scripture we both share in common.
That’s just common sense ecumenical work.
If you cannot or will not debate on those terms, its not my problem.
Talmudic Oral Tradition is pre-chr*stian, not post-chr*stian. It was given at Mt. Sinai and passed on from father to son, from master to disciple, from that point onward. The only reason it assumed a frozen written form was that it faced extinction in the days of Hadrian (rot his bones). To attribute these traditions to the Talmudic rabbis who preserved them is dishonest. I suppose you have a flaming fit when Protestants reject Catholic tradition as being apostolic in origin?
Therefore I’m looking for common ground, just like I do when I’m debating Mormons. I do not accept Mormon “scripture,” and they do not accept orthodox Christian Tradition, thus I can only debate Mormons using the scriptures we share in common.
There is no "common ground." You either accept the Oral Torah or you do not. Period.
I do not accept your post-Christian Oral Traditions, thus I must debate with you using scripture we both share in common.
Again, Jewish Oral Tradition is "post chr*stian" only in the imaginations of chr*stians who like to pretend that their novel innovation is somehow more "Bibical" than the Torah given to Moses and Israel at Mt. Sinai. To label these traditions "post chr*stian" is especially hypocritical coming from a Catholic who regularly claims that Catholic oral traditions are of "apostolic" origins and who expresses astonishment that anyone could possibly believe they are of later origin.
That’s just common sense ecumenical work.
Ecumenism is false. One either accepts the True G-d and His Laws or one does not.
If you cannot or will not debate on those terms, its not my problem.
There is nothing to debate. I was merely stating, to the best of my poor ability and knowledge, the Halakhic position on abortion as opposed to the Catholic position. Judaism/Noachism is the One True Religion and all other religions (including ever form of chr*stianity) is false and it is objectively forbidden to follow them. I can understand that you don't accept this, but "this is not my problem." I merely state facts.
Have a nice day.
You put forth the premise. Give where it is supported in Scripture.
I do not accept the Babylonian Talmudic concept of "rodef," developed in the 400 to 700AD period, as representative of Orthodox Judaism. I do not accept the whole idea of "rodef" as being applicable in any way, shape, or form, to an unborn, innocent child.
I completely reject your attempt to claim this concept of "rodef" as applicable to "mandatory abortion," and furthermore I see it as grave apostasy, and downright evil.
If you want to claim that which is intrinsically evil is somehow "mandatory," that's between you and your god.
But don't try to come on this forum and claim your personal opinion in this regard somehow reflects "G-d's laws."
Nonsense.
As a Catholic, I engage in scriptural proof texting every day on this forum and elsewhere.
To run across someone claiming to propound "G-d's Laws" yet be unwilling to share the scriptural foundations of those "laws" is unheard of, and calls into question anything you write on this forum.
A Catholic asking where something is found in Scripture. Hilarious.
You put forth the premise. Give where it is supported in Scripture.
I was giving forth (to the best of my poor ability) the Halakhah on the subject. This is expounded at length in the Oral Torah, without which the Written Torah would not have survived beyond the first generation.
You give where rosary beads are supported in scripture.
ZC, this is just beyond the pale. WHO, in your mind, could possibly prove what WAS, centuries past, Oral Hebrew Tradition? Anyone who says they can is way too full of himself. Notice, I said HEBREW because up until long after Moses, there were no Jews...or “Judaism”.
If you have never heard of the HEBREW Tradition of Dual Paternity, I suggest you check it out. Each and every child has TWO ‘fathers’. Abba in Heaven and Abba on earth. A spiritual Father and a flesh and blood father. No child is ever conceived without this. Therefore a child receives his/her soul at the exact nanosecond of conception. To deny this is to deny G-d AND humanity...as if a child could become human by fertilizing a human egg with a donkey sperm.
Abortion is anti-G-d. To say that Jewish babies could be aborted before they are three months in the womb is the most irrational thing I have ever heard.
Oral Torah? Riiiiight.
Thanks, MM.
What does that have to do with this issue? You’re off subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.