Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
FYI- According to the Bible, abortion is NOT murder.
Re: FYI- According to the Bible, abortion is NOT murder.
Your an orthodox jew?????
OHMYGOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm messianic and VERY proud to know my messiah!!!!! I don't live in israel nor am I a perfect jew who practices all mitzvot.....
I will wear my cute dresses because I def. don't see me causing the sin of anyone else by bearing my shoulders! Walking around in a bikini may be a different story...
It may not have EXPERIANCED life yet but it is still ALIVE!!!!
I'll get back to you further when I have done more studying since I don't just say things helter skelter..... i watch my words and curve my tounge....
Something a "orthodox" like you should try practicing...... Now that is Torah honey.... ou give Orthodoxs' a horrible name... They are peaceful and completly religious people...call yourself something else for their sake! ?
HAHA!!! Good point birth control is free...... use it and avoid the conflict completly!!!!!?
Responsibility is a CHOICE!!!!! ?
So.....why is the OP's translation the correct one?
I have said many times that I am not a Christian. ?My point is simply that when Christians use parts of the Bible to say that something is right or wrong (as in your example above) they are telling you what their religious beliefs are. ?I am saying that is it offensive to tell someone of another religion that you know what their religions really believes after only reading half of their religious text and after quoting one verse. ?That is preposterous and offensive. ?It's not right to do that with any religion. ?If you want to discuss abortion as it pertains to Christian beliefs, this is a very offensive way to go about it.?
And no one's pointed out that for a pregnancy to be expelled doesn't mean the baby died? Really?
expel: to force out
My girlfriend's pregnancy was expelled early after she had a car-accident last April. Her daughter's just fine. She was only two pounds at birth but she's alive and kickin' today and doing just great. No fatality there just like it says in Exodus.
Your Hebrew might not be too bad but your English sucks.
I'm not saying it is. There isn't one, and can't possibly be, because even the ancient texts contradict each other.
Its an interesting academic exercise but nothing more. Hence my continued assertion that basing legislation on religious texts is a pointless.
forgive me if this had already been said, I haven't read through all 5 pages of responses yet.
But the "fatality" that is described here is that of the woman's, not the unborn child. These verses have nothing to do with abortion.
Thank you. You have explained everything.
The mission of the link you provided above:
"Stand to Reason equips Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character. An effective ambassador has three essential skills:
Knowledge - an accurate grasp of the foundational precepts of the Kingdom
Wisdom - skillful, tactical, fair, and diplomatic use of knowledge
Character - a mature expression of virtue, warmth, and personal depth."
We are not principally an evangelistic organization, though we expect our efforts to aid in fulfilling the Great Commission. We are plowers and sowers, not harvesters.
We don't do public advocacy, as in debates. Our principal goal is not to be the spokesperson of Christianity. Instead, we want to train many in the Body of Christ to be spokespersons. Our public advocacy (as opposed to our public training) is principally for the purpose of modeling.
In other words, the link you provided is directly aimed at converting others to Christianity. FYI.
As for what the website actually says, it bases it's premise that "all of the Rabbis and Jewish thinkers consulted" were wrong on the following:
The relevant phrase in the passage, ?...she has a miscarriage...,? reads w?yase ? ye lad?h? in the Hebrew. It?s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means ?the child comes forth.? The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.
Which is simply not true. The root of the word "think" and "computer" in modern Hebrew is the same. And yet, the two are different.
Trying to make your case by arguing that the word "yeled" and "yasa" apply here isn't even grasping at straws; it's inventing, pure and simple. The words used are v'yatz'u yeladeia; the context of the words together provide their meaning. When Sarah gives birth to Isaac, a living child, the verb is "teled." While all three words in question have the same root (just like the word "think" and "computer" in modern Hebrew), they are not the same. Surely, that is within your comprehension?
As the rest of the link is premised on believing, mistakenly, that words are other than what they are, there's no need to address it. If only STR could get some yeshivish rabbis on board with their mission, they might have better luck!
The law that you mentioned is 100% irrelevant to modern day Christians and bringing up a misguided interpretation of it to get a rise out of Christians on a message board is asinine and childish. I don't think anyone agreed with you on here, even after over 100 replies were posted to your message. I'm sorry, but you aren't going to find a lot of people in America who agree with you on this interpretation. We know and worship the same God, and arguing about what He thinks by quoting the laws given to Moses in Exodus is pointless. You can ask Him today through prayer. Go ask. End of discussion.
And I highly doubt this Orthodox rabbi would either (from www.theyeshivaworld.com
Oldest Rabbinic Group in U.S. Bans Voting for Anti-Family Values Candidates
February 4, 2008
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada issued the following statement:
?It is very important for our community to demonstrate its appreciation for our wonderful country by exercising our civic obligation to vote. However, it is even more important that we do not support any candidate whose position is in any way antithetical to our Torah based morality. Candidates who support abortion on demand, the ?toeiva? agenda, liberal attitudes towards pornography of any sort - are antithetical to our way of life and it is forbidden to support or vote for them.
?Our former president, internationally acknowledged as the premier legal decisor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstien was most vigorous in condemning abortion on demand and the ?toeiva? agenda and we take his legacy as our guide.
?If one has to vote in an election or primary where both candidates are anti-Biblical family values, G-d forbid, that they use the ?lesser of two evils? approach. Rather, let the voter cast a write-in protest vote, but do not compromise by voting for the ?lesser evil?. If we value the purity and holiness of our children and grandchildren, we dare not compromise.
?It is our sincere hope that not only our own Jewish community, but our fellow citizens of all faiths, and their leaders, will draw a line in the sand and institute policies forbidding voting for anti-traditional family- values candidates. We are confident that were this policy instituted, within one or two election cycles, we would find many more pro-family candidates on every level of government.?
That's special that you're offended. Point to me to the rule that says you have the right not to be offended.
And point me to the passage that talks about abortion in the New Testament. Point to me where you don't have to listen to the Old Testament when it's convenient to you.