Abortion derail from the Active Shooter thread

[Tassman]

What Moron makes a case based on what Jesus did NOT refute? When was this matter ever presented to him for His input? When did He ever mention this in a sermon or teaching? Jesus blasted many of the things the Jewish leaders did and taught.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

And, interesting that you go to "traditional" view, because Jesus really blasted the "traditions" of men.

So the Holy Scripture of the Jews would have been seen by Jesus as "the tradition of men", rather than of God, in your view? I agree but I doubt Jesus saw it that way.

Seriously - you're making JimL look like a freakin' genius! If you want to support your fiendish fascination with the murder of innocent babies, I don't believe Jesus is going to be in your corner.

Your need to resort to personal abuse in lieu of rational argument is telling and re the bolded...seriously!!!

[Cow Poke]

It's a really dumb argument. I mean -- profoundly ignorant.

A) You're arguing that Jesus must have agreed with something simply on the basis that there is no record that he specifically refuted it. Dumb.
2) The Bible doesn't record everything Jesus said and did, as attested by John in his Gospel.
C) Based on Jesus' "probable" understanding? Sheeeeesh......

Again, you're making JimL look smart.

[Tassman]

I wonder when they're going to actually follow through on their logic, and accuse women, abortion doctors, etc. of murder (or at least as being accesories to murder). And I'm pretty sure that if I thought someone was in daner of being unjustly murdered, I'd take quite a number of steps to prevent said murder. I might call the police or physically try to prevent the murder (if, for example,, a loved one were to be the potential murder victim). I wonder what steps some pro-choice people would be willing to take, if those pro-choice people really thought abortion was murder.

Well we've already seen what some pro-choice people take, they harass patients and murder service providers...all the while being egged on by the hysterical language of the so-called pro-lifers, e.g. CP's extraordinary reference above to: the "fiendish fascination with the murder of innocent babies".

[Cow Poke]

I wonder when they're going to actually follow through on their logic, and accuse women, abortion doctors, etc. of murder (or at least as being accesories to murder). And I'm pretty sure that if I thought someone was in daner of being unjustly murdered, I'd take quite a number of steps to prevent said murder. I might call the police or physically try to prevent the murder (if, for example,, a loved one were to be the potential murder victim). I wonder what steps some pro-choice people would be willing to take, if those pro-choice people really thought abortion was murder.

Well we've already seen what some pro-choice people take, they harass patients and murder service providers...all the while being egged on by the hysterical language of the so-called pro-lifers, e.g. CP's extraordinary reference above to: the "fiendish fascination with the murder of innocent babies".

You guys deserve each other.

[Jichard]

So Jesus neverhttp://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Personally, I think the Jews got it right. But, of course, you can interpret scripture to support the view held by Catholics and Evangelicals if you wish...provided you don't try to foist it on the rest of the population or incite lunatics to murder health-care providers in the name of your interpretation of scripture.

Numbers 5:24-28:

[b]

Matthew 5:18:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

But, of course, you know that Cow Poke will make sure to intepret this in a way that does not condone aborting a child conceived of adultery, or such that said Law does not apply to current times. Of course, he'll likely sure to apply other Old Testament passages to modern days, such as the 10 commandments and condemnations of homosexuality. It's amazing how certain Christians can make sure to cherrypick the Bible, in accordance with their preferred personal morality.

[Tassman]

It's a really dumb argument. I mean -- profoundly ignorant. .

[Cow Poke]

Lemme get this straight, Jimmy.... You want me to refute an argument that you made that there's no proof that Jesus did NOT refute a matter that was never presented to Him, and which He never addressed in any manner.....

wow

[Tassman]

Lemme get this straight, Jimmy.... You want me to refute an argument that you made that there's no proof that Jesus did NOT refute a matter that was never presented to Him, and which He never addressed in any manner.....

wow

[Cow Poke]

You've yet to provide a reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion.

[Tassman]

You've yet to provide a reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion

[Cow Poke]

You've yet to provide a reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion

Wow, you're a blockhead. I think it's official - you're dumber than JimL.

[Tassman]

Wow, you're a blockhead. I think it's official - you're dumber than JimL.

So you have no reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion other than he sometimes disagreed with his fellow Jews. Gotcha!

[Jichard]

You've yet to provide a reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion

Wow, you're a blockhead. I think it's official - you're dumber than JimL.

I think you have got to be BY FAR the dumbest poster Tweb has ever had.

Are you being an insolent lying jackass again, Jimmy?

[...]

You're taking those stupid pills in bulk now, eh?

A further illustration of why it often seems pointless to take you seriously. Throwing out substance-free insults and obscenities isn't a productive way to debate, if the person you're responding to has yet to descend to insults and obscenities in their discussion with you (as Tassman has yet to).


Anyway, Tassman's point stands. Jesus came from a Jewish tradition (especially in terms of Law) that had certain views on abortion and unborn fetuses. These views are reflected in the Old Testament. For instance:

So Jesus neverhttp://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Personally, I think the Jews got it right. But, of course, you can interpret scripture to support the view held by Catholics and Evangelicals if you wish...provided you don't try to foist it on the rest of the population or incite lunatics to murder health-care providers in the name of your interpretation of scripture.

Numbers 5:24-28:

[b]

You have failed to point out anywhere in Scripture where Jesus renounced those views. And there are biblical passages where Jesus endorses the Law and says the Law will not pass away until all things are fulfilled. For instance, Matthew 5:18:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

And given how important abortion and the status of the unborn is (especially if people think, like you, that abortion is murder), one would have expected Jesus to have commented on this issue if he had gone against the traditional Jewish position on such an important topic. And given how novel and interesting it would have been for his contemporaries if Jesus went against Jewish Law in this way, then you would have expected people to have recorded Jesus' renunciation of the traditional Jewish position. This is especially the case for people who wanted to emphasize the non-traiditionally-Jewish aspects of Jesus. And yet, we don't have record of Jesus doing this in the Scriptures.

[Yes, this is [in part] argument from silence, and thus should be used very carefully in order for it not be fallacious But it's also an argument from what Jesus says in terms of endorsing the Law.]

Given this, why think Jesus was opposed to the traditional Jewish position on abortion and fetuses, and instead endorsed the pro-life position you want him to have?
On the balance of the evidence available, what is more likely: that Jesus accepted a traditional Jewish legal position on this, or that he did not?

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Sorry, but that is a modern definition. My Jewish Learning is not peopled by early Jewish scholars. T.I. Frazier explained the early church's stance on abortion

Relatively close Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, like Philo and Josephus, were of the belief that abortion was forbidden because "Exodus 21:22-23 LXX treats the foetus as a human being" (Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality by William Loader, p.334)

Jesus was Jewish was he not?

So was Josephus.

Consistent with his concern for procreation and population, Josephus declares that the Law outlaws infanticide and abortion because a woman doing so "destroys a soul and diminishes the race" (Ap. 2.202)
(Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality by William Loader, p.331)



So, please don't act like you have even an inkling about what Jesus would have expected as a Jew.

[Cow Poke]

So you have no reason why Jesus would not have held the same view as his fellow Jews regarding abortion other than he sometimes disagreed with his fellow Jews. Gotcha!

I gave reasons. You're just too buttdumb stupid to understand.