The OP was about the bible and that is what I am addressing, not Jewish tradition. If you would care to back up your statements with a cite from the Christian mythology text “The Bible”, then I will address that. Written and oral torah are not what the OP referred to and do not apply here. Sorry. I don’t know any Christians who hold those other texts (and spoken words) as sacred, nor do I know any Jews who hold the NT sacred.
Interpretation? Yeah, I suppose if you wanted to you could say that it really means that god is a giant frog, but that damn sure aint what it says. Either way it’s a primitive and often disgusting piece of mythology. There is plenty more in there along those lines. Deuteronomy makes me want to spit. Even if no ever did anything written in that book, it doesn’t make those words any less repulsive. Whoever wrote them was a real evil sombitch in my book, god or no.
Actually, I thought RedNaxela’s response was pretty valid. She accepted that not everyone will accept Maimonides’ interpretation. But “uninterpreted” doesn’t mean “without context.” RedNaxela’s parenthetical explanation provides a very succinct (and to my mind very reasonable) description of what the “boble” (:)) says in context, without long contorted rationalizing.
On re-reading your post, you seem to be making an assumption that the OP meant only the NT when referring to the “bible.” The OP even makes a reverence to the Torah (OT) as being the only reference that was found. Do your or the anti-abortionists not believe in the OT? (It seems to me that’s where they get some of their worst fundie attitudes.) I should also say that I’ve met many Christians of various denominations that do believe that the OT was the the word of G-d.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PosterChild *
**She
**
Red’s a he.
**
Just to carry your statement one step further, Orthodox Jews always interpret the written Torah through the oral traditions that have accompanied them throughout the centuries. There are just too many places where the commandments, as written, make no sense or are just too ambiguous without the details provided by the oral traditions.
As an aside, there is a Talmudical teaching (Sanhedrin 57b) about abortion that does come directly from the OT.
Genesis 9:6, on the surface, states that a murder faces the death penalty. However, the original Hebrew reads shofech dam ha’adam, ba’adam damo yishafech. Literally this means “whoever spills a man’s blood [murder], by man his blood will be spilled.” However, the Hebrew is a bit more flexible than that. The fourth word in the verse ba’adam can also be read as “in a man” (the prefix ‘b’ in Hebrew means in. B’New York means "In New York). The verse could also be read as shofech dam ha-adam ba’adam, damo yishafech (Literally: "One who spills a man’s blood in a man [abortion], his blood will be spilled).
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks Zev
On re-re-reading DLDJ’s post I think he may not have known that the Torah and OT were the same thing. In which I take back the stuff about that, but I still think you need context even to take it “literally.”
Mais non.
When I happily started this whole satisfying mess,
by “the Bible” I meant both the Old and New Testaments,
as they/it are usually sold, bound in one handy volume for your safety and enjoyment.
Totally agree w/ you on the worst “fundie” attitudes coming from the OT…
OK, you’re off my hook. I can get worked up about this point because I hear it so often and in my opinion it constitutes a dangerous misunderstanding of the source of rights.
I guess the underlined passage means that you disagree with what seems to be the position of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas et al. Unfortunately they are on the Court.
I gather that your point was that just because abortion isn’t specifically prohibited in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. This equates not mentioning something that you can do with not mentioning prohibited acts. It seems to me that in order for something to be prohibited it has to be specifically described, while the right to do something not otherwise prohibited is innate.
In addition the religious antiabortionists make quite a specific point that it is against “God’s word” don’t they? And they can find no support for this in the Bible other than the general “thou shall not kill” which, in my view, is well watered down in several placed in the Bible by God’s specific instructions to kill. I think this was what the OP was getting at.
The same people that enjoy mocking Christians who take a strict interpretation of the Bible, are taking a strict interpretation to somehow show that the Bible is for (or, at least, ambivalent towards) abortion.
The vast majority of the Christians in the world, of all denominations, do not take all of the Bible literally. We are bright enough to be able to interpret the Bible ourselves, something some of you do not seem capable of doing.
If someone here feels that the Bible, OT or NT, in some way, shape, or form, condones abortion, I suggest you reread it. Or actually read it once, all the way through. I really doubt that Jesus would have been happy and all with the concept of Abortion, much less the scale that it is carried out with in the world today.
And isn’t it curious the number of different conclusions and actions resulting from those home grown interpretations?
Where did any of the above posters say that the Bible condones abortion. Beating up strawmen is irrelevant to the OP.
vDarlin disavowed his cites as necessarily being his opinion. If the cite Why Abortion is Biblical is your target it would be better to refute the points in it rather than make an unspecific condemnation of generalized “hypocrisy.”
2.) If you believe, as you seem to say, that it’s the un-mockable right of Christians to strictly-interpret the Bible, then why isn’t it ok for OTHERS to use strict Bible-interpretation to prove a different point?
3.) That the Bible–if OT included–IS in fact “ambivalent towards abortion”
has been amply demonstrated
by intelligent arguments and valid Biblical quotes
throughout this debate.
I suggest YOU actually read it [this thread] once, all the way through…
BTW i HAVE “…actually read it once, all the way through” (meaning the Bible this time) and that is what gave me the idea to start up this question in the first place.
4.) The opening premise wasn’t about the moods of Mr. Jesus. Not even concerned with what would make him happy.
5.) Jesus was a Jew.
Jewish belief follows the idea that life starts with breath.
Hence, most modern Jews are tolerant of abortion, at least in its early stages.
More tolerant than your fundamentalist Christians, at any rate.
So please don’t go second-guessing the man who was wiser than you (what you “doubt” about what “would” or would not make Jesus happy is no more than your own personal conjecture.)
6.)I have no problem with “…the vast majority of Christians”. Just the ones parading in front of the abortion clinics, using the Bible as their justification.
The ones I’ve seen have all been men. Harassing very young, scared, unwillingly pregnant girls.
I once approached one of these men and asked what he was doing to promote better birth control. He looked shocked at the very idea.
Subject to rabbinical interpretation (i.e., he must marry her, if she’ll have him, but the obligation doesn’t necessarily hold the other way around), as discussed above.
Well, it depends on which group of anti-abortion Christians one is mocking. Socially conservative Protestants of a fundamentalist bent tend to claim that their social policies can be derived from the Bible alone, so it seems appropriate to point out to them places where their Scriptures don’t, in fact, seem to support the political positions they proclaim them to support. Catholics, of course, don’t hold to the classical Protestant view of the Scriptures as self-sufficient, but also maintain the importance of Church tradition, so it doesn’t really make sense to throw in their face that the Bible does or does not specifically support this or that social policy position.
In a sense, pointing out that the Bible doesn’t really say anything about abortion (or doesn’t say something else politically conservative American evangelicals want it to say), and pointing out evident contradictions in the Bible, are two sides of the same coin. In both cases, the idea is to show the inadequacy of the Bible as the inerrant and self-sufficient Word of God which should rule in all things. This is not just a philosophical exercise (or an unwarranted intrusion into someone else’s religious convictions) when religious sectarians support making laws which are applicable to everyone based on their interpretations of their Scripture.
Technically, under Jewish law, an adult Jewish woman cannot be forced into a marriage. However, as a matter of practice, I’m sure her family had some influence over her marriage.
Sorry for no citation, but I don’t even own a Bible…:eek:
Assuming that I am remembering my Bible readings accurately: In the OT, God commanded the Israelites to return to their land, which, unfortunately for them, was inhabited by Canaanites. God told the Isralites to kill the Canaanites: men, women, children and pregnant women. While this isn’t a direct reference to abortion, why would God condone and demand that ostensibly innocent children and babies be killed? In this case, it was acceptable to kill a mother, knowing she was pregnant. If this standard applied only for the Canaanites, it raises some questions about guilt and punishment.
This may shock an surprise you, but here in the Age of the Internet, it is possible to go to a web page and read a copy of a public-domain book – even a book as obscure and unknown as the Bible. bible.gospelcom.net is one such place.
While we’re at it, could someone please explain Numbers 5 to me?
A taste…
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the Lord cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [1]
(1. 5:21 Or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness)
