African American Women against Racist abortions

[Jim Jenkins]

"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were
found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory
in Los Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were
observed to be black. Wake up America, and relive
Dr. Martin Luther King's dream! The way of abortion
is the way back into bondage!"

Erma Clardy Craver
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

"Planned parenthood started back in 1960 by
Margaret Sanger. If people would just study the
documentation they would find that Planned
Parenthood was rooted in racism and founded
by a white supremacist. She believed there were
disgenic groups of people who needed to be exterminated.
Most of Planned Parenthood's clinics are in minority
communities. The language has changed, but the
original intent is still the same-- to limit the births of minority
people, poor people, and people that are handicapped."

Akua Furlow
Executive Director for the Life Education and Resource Network
(LEARN)

Since 1973, 78% of abortion centers have been located in Black
and minority communities in an effort to prune those communities.

Dolores Grier
Psychologist and President of American Black Women
Against Abortion

Pro-choicers have convinced the public that legalized abortions
are an act of mercy toward low-income mothers. They argue
that government-funded abortions need to be more acessible
to the poor. However, this kind of argument defies all reason,
if you really think about it. The whole idea that poverty is an
acceptable reason for the murder of unborn babies has had
a devastating impact on the African-American community.
Let's consider the fact that there are at least thirty million poor
people in the U.S.A. About ten million of those poor people
are black. This means that only one out of nine white people
are poor, while a whopping one out of three African-Americans
are now living in poverty.
Therefore, if poverty can be used to justify the slaughter of
unborn babies, then African-Americans are the most likely
people to be endangered by legalized abortion on demand.
African-Americans, who are 12% of the population, received
at least 30% of the abortions in the 1980's. The number
of abortions may go even higher in the wake of government
efforts to halt the birth rate of welfare recipients.
Current Welfare reform proposals will allow states to put a cap
on births to mothers who receive public assistance.

Statistics like this do not indicate that abortion is really a help
for the poor. In reality, abortion is just another means for
wiping out the poor, especially if the poor person happens to be
black.

Ms. Fatimah Shabbazz
Blacks for Life

[Bruce Forest]

In article <331c97d5...@news.localaccess.com>,
jje...@localaccess.com (Jim Jenkins) wrote:

> "Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were
> found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory
> in Los Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were
> observed to be black. Wake up America, and relive
> Dr. Martin Luther King's dream! The way of abortion
> is the way back into bondage!"
>
> Erma Clardy Craver
> Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

Though the image is nauseating, let's analyze it a bit for accuracy. If
they were the products of suction curettage, they would not go into a
dumpster, and be unrecognizable as 'babies.' So let's say we have 17,000
200 gram second trimester fetuses, ok? Add another 200 grams each for the
remaining products of conception and you have a dumpster weighing in at
around 20,000 pounds. According to American Waste Disposal of Norwalk, CT
they said that unless you are talking about a full length, truck sized
waste disposal bin 22 feet long, you couldn't begin to get even 15,000
pounds into it. And if it involved liquids, the truck would roll over on
the first turn. Even blocks of concrete of that weight? The truck could
never get the bin off the ground. So, what we have here, apparently, is
impossible. Perhaps the author got her numbers confused. In addition, what
facility would have 17,000 illegally disposed, decomposing medical
specimens sitting around?

Just for the sake of of argument, or course.

[....]

> Statistics like this do not indicate that abortion is really a help
> for the poor. In reality, abortion is just another means for
> wiping out the poor, especially if the poor person happens to be
> black.

Lies like the dumpster statement do little to bolster Ms Shabbazz's credibility.

>
> Ms. Fatimah Shabbazz
> Blacks for Life

--
Bruce Forest
bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.net
flexifoil@aol
'So, 10 pounds of pizza dough is a pizza the moment you beging to fashion
it into one?

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
<snipped for length>

>Though the image is nauseating, let's analyze it a bit for accuracy. If
>they were the products of suction curettage, they would not go into a
>dumpster, and be unrecognizable as 'babies.' So let's say we have 17,000
>200 gram second trimester fetuses, ok? Add another 200 grams each for the
>remaining products of conception and you have a dumpster weighing in at
>around 20,000 pounds. According to American Waste Disposal of Norwalk, CT
>they said that unless you are talking about a full length, truck sized
>waste disposal bin 22 feet long, you couldn't begin to get even 15,000
>pounds into it. And if it involved liquids, the truck would roll over on
>the first turn. Even blocks of concrete of that weight? The truck could
>never get the bin off the ground. So, what we have here, apparently, is
>impossible. Perhaps the author got her numbers confused. In addition, what
>facility would have 17,000 illegally disposed, decomposing medical
>specimens sitting around?

<snipped for length.

>
>Lies like the dumpster statement do little to bolster Ms Shabbazz's
credibility.

Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was
well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses. My recollection is
that they were mostly second trimester and that the so-called "dumpster" was
more like a railroad cargo container. But, to be sure, I will try to locate
the article.

█е-

S.

"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."
-- Thomas Sowell

  

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5fn677$1a8$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> <snipped for length>
> >Though the image is nauseating, let's analyze it a bit for accuracy. If
> >they were the products of suction curettage, they would not go into a
> >dumpster, and be unrecognizable as 'babies.' So let's say we have 17,000
> >200 gram second trimester fetuses, ok? Add another 200 grams each for the
> >remaining products of conception and you have a dumpster weighing in at
> >around 20,000 pounds. According to American Waste Disposal of Norwalk, CT
> >they said that unless you are talking about a full length, truck sized
> >waste disposal bin 22 feet long, you couldn't begin to get even 15,000
> >pounds into it. And if it involved liquids, the truck would roll over on
> >the first turn. Even blocks of concrete of that weight? The truck could
> >never get the bin off the ground. So, what we have here, apparently, is
> >impossible. Perhaps the author got her numbers confused. In addition, what
> >facility would have 17,000 illegally disposed, decomposing medical
> >specimens sitting around?
> <snipped for length.
> >
> >Lies like the dumpster statement do little to bolster Ms Shabbazz's
> credibility.
>
> Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie."

I've never heard of the incident, and a railroad car is not a dumpster.
'Dumpster' is a trademark for a certain sized waste disposal system. Most
people think of about a 6x6x6 green cubelike metal container with a fetid
odor and suspicious liquid dripping from it. Not a railroad car.

> well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
> obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses. My recollection is
> that they were mostly second trimester and that the so-called "dumpster" was
> more like a railroad cargo container. But, to be sure, I will try to locate
> the article.

Ok, I'd like to see it. BTW, as promised, I posted your article. I think it
gave a much different view of the

--
Bruce Forest...

bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.net
flex...@aol.com

Insert pizza analogy here...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui

iQCVAgUBMkIIyrTTUY7wnHzhAQH1bwP/QzOGbW1jGiiSaVw1Ci2MMbW52a36GPzi
/9wDPEpBgrYfgtqttgCwFRRiun7VHvJTmsjKzw6ZH/qpO27dnWvR29fhcQ143WaX
Q5esvLc+EvwA/Fz4cSbCH6Jmgc6lxk2FBL3pvXthLEYzVs8YYXXSC3NDftJvlDov
PNAJhuHUK2E=
=vZri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ray Fischer]

sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was

>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.

You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
string of "pro-life" lies.

--
Ray Fischer The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the
r...@netcom.com blood of tyrants. -- Bertrand Barere.

[Papa Jack]

Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This
> > inciednt was well reported -- though I believe it was back a few
> > years. I will try to obtain the documentation for you on the
> > 17,000 fetuses.

=============================================================

> Ray Fischer wrote:
> You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
> string of "pro-life" lies.

=============================================================
Papa Jack replies:
Now that's an unfriendly attitude, Ray.

Have you noticed Cal Thomas column which documents PAR lies? Just
a few excerpts:

ABORTION LIES AND OTHER SHADINGS OF THE TRUTH

The admission by a prominent abortion advocate that he lied
about the number of babies killed during the procedure called
"partial-birth abortion" is surprising only in its candor.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition
of Abortion Providers, said he misled the public because he
feared the truth would damage the abortion rights cause.

Recalling a November 1995 appearance on ABC's "Nightline,"
Fitzsimmons said, "I lied through my teeth" when claiming the
procedure was rarely used and that only women who sought such
abortions were those whose lives were in danger, or whose
unborn children were severely damaged. President Clinton used
nearly identical language in explaining his veto of a bill
that would have outlawed the procedure.

Legal abortion was conceived in a lie. Norma McCorvey, "Jane
Roe," claimed to have been raped. She later admitted lying in
order to make her case more compelling to the Supreme Court.
The justices who made abortion legal believed testimony that
thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions, a "fact"
asserted by the National Abortion Rights Action League, but
later acknowledged to be false by top NARAL official Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, who was at the time operating the nation's largest
abortion clinic in New York.

Sandra Cano, the "Mary Doe" in Roe's companion case, Doe vs.
Bolton, stated that she never wanted an abortion and signed
paperwork she thought was related to a divorce she sought from
an abusive husband. The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer
that Cano believed was helping with her divorce claimed that her
client applied for an abortion but was turned down. Cano says
she was lied to and that the lawyers handling the case did
not explain to her what was happening and why.

On Dec. 11, 1993, NARAL's Kate Michelman was quoted in the
Philadelphia Inquirer as saying, "We think abortion is a bad
thing. No woman wants to have an abortion." Five days later a
NARAL statement claimed that Michelman "has never said--and
would never say--that `abortion is a bad thing.' " But reporter
Jodi Enda taped the interview and stood by the quote.

There is more, but you get the idea.

Have a nice day.

--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson

[sabutigo]

In article <rayE6n...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was
>>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.
>

>You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
>string of "pro-life" lies.
>

[Ray, with his open mind showing -- again.]

Bruce,
On the issue of the 17,000 fetuses. It appears that only some of them
were 20 weeks and over. The first report I can find is in LA Times 2-26-82,
Pt. I, pg. 5, "Legality of State Abortion Law Doubted; Discovery of 2,000
Fetuses Raises Issue of Validity of Prohibitions."
Now, don't get too excited about the 2,000 figure mentioned in the
story as this was the first guess-timate. Later stories in other papers give
the correct count.
Not all the stories are quoted in their entirety (my typing being
very slow). I have noted where they are cut. If you want copies, I can arrange
to send them as I did with the Patriot Ledger article.
BTW. I see you got and posted the Patriot Ledger article. Thanks.
However, you never responded to my quotes from Deuteronomy about there
being ten rather than eleven commandments. Comments?

Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1982

Reagan urges 'funeral' for fetuses

Los Angeles -- President Reagan is supporting opponents in their plans to
conduct a memorial service for thousands of discarded fetuses recovered from
the home of a man who owned a medical laboratory, the White House said
Wednesday.
No exact count has been made of the fetuses, removed in February from
the Woodland Hills residence of Melvin Weisberg, whose laboratory has gone out
of business.
Investigators now believe the total far exceeds the 2,000 fetuses
recently estimated to have been stored inside a large cargo container.
[ . . . ]
"There may be as many as 17,000," Albergate [spokesman for the
district
attorney's office] said. "Most of them are very small."
[ . . .]

American Medical News, September, 2, 1983

1982 abortion cases won't be prosecuted

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has decided not to
proceed with prosecutions in the case of some 17,000 fetuses and embryos found
improperly disposed of last year.
DA Robert Philabosian said he had decided not to seek charges against
physicians who perform abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy because of
recent court rulings striking down California's previous abortion laws.
Philibosian said, however, that he would press for a "dignified and legal
burial" of the fetuses.
The 16,431 fetuses and embryos were found in February 1982, in a
repossessed shipping container. The remains were preserved in
formaldehyde-filled jars tagged with the mother's names. Apparently, they had
been sent by hospitals in California to the laboratory in Santa Monica for
tests. The laboratory no longer is a business.
Some 193 of the fetuses were thought to be past the 20th week of
development.

New York Times, October 8, 1985

Aborted Fetuses Buried on Coast; Eulogy by the President Read at Nonreligious
Service as 3-Year Dispute Ends

Los Angeles, Oct. 7 (AP) -- A three-year legal dispute over how to dispose of
16,433 aborted fetuses found in a steel bin ended Sunday as the fetuses were
given a nonreligious burial with a eulogy written by President Reagan.
[ . . . ]
The Feminists Women's Health Center had filed a suit to stop the
county from giving the fetuses to the Catholic League for religious burial.
The women's group, represnrted by the American Civil Liberties Union, also
argued for cremation, saying burial would violate the privacy of the women
who had undergone the abortions.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in March that the fetuses could
not be handed over to any group for religious services because it would
violate the separation of church and state [last line of article cut off in
FAX transmission].

[Papa Jack]

Papa Jack comments:
Sabutigo, I was impressed with your research of a 15 year old story.
Been there, done that -- it is far more difficult and time consuming
than the average reader appreciates. =

You clearly shot Bruce and Ray down in flames. Ray owes you an
apology. Bruce owes Erma Clardy Craver, Social Worker and Civil =

Rights Leader an apology for publically ridiculing her statement.

The story obviously brings back scenes of Auschwitz to one's mind.
At least to those of us old enough to remember the total horror of
such times.

When I got to the last part about the ACLU arguing against religious
burial for these 17,000 discarded human bodies -- and the Supreme
Court agreeing, I got a tear in my eye and rage in my heart. That
is exactly the sort of terrible misuse this whole abortion debate is
all about. So much for "CHOICE."

Again, thanks for the good work. =

Have a great weekend.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
sabutigo wrote:
> =

> In article <rayE6n...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wro=
te:
> >sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This incied=
nt was
> >>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try=

to
> >>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.
> >
> >You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
> >string of "pro-life" lies.
> >
> [Ray, with his open mind showing -- again.]

> =

> Bruce,
> On the issue of the 17,000 fetuses. It appears that only some o=
f them
> were 20 weeks and over. The first report I can find is in LA Times 2-26=
-82,
> Pt. I, pg. 5, "Legality of State Abortion Law Doubted; Discovery of 2,0=
00

> Fetuses Raises Issue of Validity of Prohibitions."

> Now, don't get too excited about the 2,000 figure mentioned in =
the
> story as this was the first guess-timate. Later stories in other papers=
give
> the correct count.
> Not all the stories are quoted in their entirety (my typing bei=
ng
> very slow). I have noted where they are cut. If you want copies, I can =

arrange
> to send them as I did with the Patriot Ledger article.

> BTW. I see you got and posted the Patriot Ledger article. Than=
ks.
> However, you never responded to my quotes from Deuteronomy abou=

t there
> being ten rather than eleven commandments. Comments?

> =

> Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1982

> =

> Reagan urges 'funeral' for fetuses

> =

> Los Angeles -- President Reagan is supporting opponents in their plans =
to
> conduct a memorial service for thousands of discarded fetuses recovered=

from
> the home of a man who owned a medical laboratory, the White House said
> Wednesday.

> No exact count has been made of the fetuses, removed in Februar=
y from
> the Woodland Hills residence of Melvin Weisberg, whose laboratory has g=
one out
> of business.
> Investigators now believe the total far exceeds the 2,000 fetus=
es

> recently estimated to have been stored inside a large cargo container.
> [ . . . ]
> "There may be as many as 17,000," Albergate [spokesman for the
> district
> attorney's office] said. "Most of them are very small."
> [ . . .]

> =

> American Medical News, September, 2, 1983

> =

> 1982 abortion cases won't be prosecuted

> =

> The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has decided n=
ot to
> proceed with prosecutions in the case of some 17,000 fetuses and embryo=

s found
> improperly disposed of last year.

> DA Robert Philabosian said he had decided not to seek charges a=
gainst
> physicians who perform abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy becau=
se of
> recent court rulings striking down California's previous abortion laws.=

> Philibosian said, however, that he would press for a "dignified and leg=
al
> burial" of the fetuses.
> The 16,431 fetuses and embryos were found in February 1982, in =

a
> repossessed shipping container. The remains were preserved in

> formaldehyde-filled jars tagged with the mother's names. Apparently, th=
ey had
> been sent by hospitals in California to the laboratory in Santa Monica =

for
> tests. The laboratory no longer is a business.

> Some 193 of the fetuses were thought to be past the 20th week o=
f
> development.
> =

> New York Times, October 8, 1985

> =

> Aborted Fetuses Buried on Coast; Eulogy by the President Read at Nonrel=
igious

> Service as 3-Year Dispute Ends

> =

> Los Angeles, Oct. 7 (AP) -- A three-year legal dispute over how to disp=
ose of
> 16,433 aborted fetuses found in a steel bin ended Sunday as the fetuses=

were
> given a nonreligious burial with a eulogy written by President Reagan.
> [ . . . ]

> The Feminists Women's Health Center had filed a suit to stop th=
e
> county from giving the fetuses to the Catholic League for religious bur=
ial.
> The women's group, represnrted by the American Civil Liberties Union, a=
lso
> argued for cremation, saying burial would violate the privacy of the wo=
men

> who had undergone the abortions.

> The United States Supreme Court ruled in March that the fetuses=
could
> not be handed over to any group for religious services because it would=

> violate the separation of church and state [last line of article cut of=
f in
> FAX transmission].
> =

> =DB=A5-
> =

> S.
> =

> "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated.=
"
> -- Thomas Sowell
> =

> =02=FF=FF

-- =

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5fpsfg$sv1$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <rayE6n...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
[.....]

>
> Bruce,
> On the issue of the 17,000 fetuses. It appears that only some of them
> were 20 weeks and over. The first report I can find is in LA Times 2-26-82,
> Pt. I, pg. 5, "Legality of State Abortion Law Doubted; Discovery of 2,000

> Fetuses Raises Issue of Validity of Prohibitions."

> Now, don't get too excited about the 2,000 figure mentioned in the
> story as this was the first guess-timate. Later stories in other papers give
> the correct count.

But 17,000? That's the entire aborted embryo/fetus population for the US
for almost a week! And considering over 90% are too small to be seen, that
represent an enormous quantity of abortions!

> Not all the stories are quoted in their entirety (my typing being

> very slow). I have noted where they are cut. If you want copies, I can

arrange
> to send them as I did with the Patriot Ledger article.
>

BTW. I see you got and posted the Patriot Ledger article. Thanks.

My pleasure. As I said, I seek the truth, not just 'to be right.'

> However, you never responded to my quotes from Deuteronomy about

there
> being ten rather than eleven commandments. Comments?

Didn't see it. Please repost it?

Ah, now I get it. As I suspected, a research lab went out of business, and
had to dispose of it's specimens. Most fetal remains are obtained from
stillbirths, not abortions, where ther emany be anatomical damage.

The issue here is naivete. If we are to cure disease, we musthave tests
for those cures. What should we use, trial and error on living babies?

[....]

--
Bruce Forest....

bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.net
flex...@aol.com

Insert Pizza analogy here.

[Jim Jenkins]

On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 21:18:58 -0500, bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce
Forest) wrote:

>In article <5fn677$1a8$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com

>(sabutigo) wrote:
>
>> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> bfo...@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>> <snipped for length>
>> >Though the image is nauseating, let's analyze it a bit for accuracy. If
>> >they were the products of suction curettage, they would not go into a
>> >dumpster, and be unrecognizable as 'babies. So let's say we have 17,000

Bruce,

Babies is a term that many Pro-lifers use to refer to unborn life
at any stage of development. Therefore people knowing what they are
looking for would be able to find terminated unborn smaller than
200 grams and still refer to it as babies.

>> >200 gram second trimester fetuses, ok? Add another 200 grams each for the
>> >remaining products of conception and you have a dumpster weighing in at

To keep down the high cost of dumping fees it would only make sense
to a business person to drain as much liquid off as possible before
putting the terminated unborn into a garbage container especially
when the sink is so cheap and available.

>> >around 20,000 pounds. According to American Waste Disposal of Norwalk, Con

>> >they said that unless you are talking about a full length, truck sized
>> >waste disposal bin 22 feet long, you couldn't begin to get even 15,000
>> >pounds into it. And if it involved liquids, the truck would roll over on
>> >the first turn. Even blocks of concrete of that weight? The truck could

So in the event of my more likely scenario we could easily be
talking 7,000 to 9,000 pounds of mostly solid material. Very
workable numbers.

>> >never get the bin off the ground. So, what we have here, apparently, is
>> >impossible. Perhaps the author got her numbers confused. In addition, what
>> >facility would have 17,000 illegally disposed, decomposing medical

I believe we have all heard about abortion clinics having to lock
their garbage containers because "fanatic" Pro-lifers were
burying the fetuses. That fact, coupled with dumping restrictions
so much more lenient then, makes it likely that the garbage container
was the disposal method of choice. I use the words garbage container
because people throw around the word dumpster without thinking.
You would know that of course and were nitpicking on her use of the
term as an act of sophism.

Jim Jenkins
JJe...@localaccess.com

>> >specimens sitting around?
>> <snipped for length.
>> >
>> >Lies like the dumpster statement do little to bolster Ms Shabbazz's
>> credibility.
>>

>> Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie."
>
>

> I've never heard of the incident, and a railroad car is not a dumpster.
>'Dumpster' is a trademark for a certain sized waste disposal system. Most
>people think of about a 6x6x6 green cubelike metal container with a fetid
>odor and suspicious liquid dripping from it. Not a railroad car.
>
>
>> well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>> obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses. My recollection is
>> that they were mostly second trimester and that the so-called "dumpster" was
>> more like a railroad cargo container. But, to be sure, I will try to locate
>> the article.
>
>Ok, I'd like to see it. BTW, as promised, I posted your article. I think it
>gave a much different view of the
>
>--
>Bruce Forest...
>
>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com
>
>Insert pizza analogy here...
>

[John Savard]

r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was

>>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.

>You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
>string of "pro-life" lies.

I remember seeing the railroad cargo container on TV...

John Savard

[Jim Jenkins]

Bruce,

>> Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie."
>
>

> I've never heard of the incident, and a railroad car is not a dumpster.
>'Dumpster' is a trademark for a certain sized waste disposal system. Most
>people think of about a 6x6x6 green cubelike metal container with a fetid
>odor and suspicious liquid dripping from it. Not a railroad car.
>
>

>> well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to

[Ray Fischer]

John Savard <sew...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:

>>>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was

>>>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>>>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.
>

>>You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
>>string of "pro-life" lies.
>
>I remember seeing the railroad cargo container on TV...

I see railroad cargo containers when I drive over the rail yard
on my way to work.

[Jim Jenkins]

Bruce,

Look halfway down.

On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 17:18:24 -0500, bfo...@mindspring.comXYZ (Bruce
Forest) wrote:

>In article <5fpsfg$sv1$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
>(sabutigo) wrote:

>
>> In article <rayE6n...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:

This sentence is pure speculation on your part as pertains to this
specific incident.

>stillbirths, not abortions, where ther emany be anatomical damage.
>
>The issue here is naivete. If we are to cure disease, we musthave tests
>for those cures. What should we use, trial and error on living babies?
>
>
>[....]
>
>--
>Bruce Forest....
>
>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com
>
>Insert Pizza analogy here.
>

[Jim Jenkins]

Sabutigo,

Great job!

Jim Jenkins
JJe...@localaccess.com

On Fri, 07 Mar 97 18:16:31 GMT, sabu...@teleport.com (sabutigo)
wrote:

>In article <rayE6n...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:

>>>Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This inciednt was
>>>well reported -- though I believe it was back a few years. I will try to
>>>obtain the documentation for you on the 17,000 fetuses.
>>
>>You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
>>string of "pro-life" lies.
>>

>[Ray, with his open mind showing -- again.]
>

>Bruce,
> On the issue of the 17,000 fetuses. It appears that only some of them
>were 20 weeks and over. The first report I can find is in LA Times 2-26-82,
>Pt. I, pg. 5, "Legality of State Abortion Law Doubted; Discovery of 2,000
>Fetuses Raises Issue of Validity of Prohibitions."
> Now, don't get too excited about the 2,000 figure mentioned in the
>story as this was the first guess-timate. Later stories in other papers give
>the correct count.

> Not all the stories are quoted in their entirety (my typing being
>very slow). I have noted where they are cut. If you want copies, I can arrange
>to send them as I did with the Patriot Ledger article.
> BTW. I see you got and posted the Patriot Ledger article. Thanks.

> However, you never responded to my quotes from Deuteronomy about there
>being ten rather than eleven commandments. Comments?
>

>Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1982
>

>Reagan urges 'funeral' for fetuses
>

>Los Angeles -- President Reagan is supporting opponents in their plans to
>conduct a memorial service for thousands of discarded fetuses recovered from

>the home of a man who owned a medical laboratory, the White House said
>Wednesday.

> No exact count has been made of the fetuses, removed in February from
>the Woodland Hills residence of Melvin Weisberg, whose laboratory has gone out
>of business.
> Investigators now believe the total far exceeds the 2,000 fetuses

>recently estimated to have been stored inside a large cargo container.
>[ . . . ]
> "There may be as many as 17,000," Albergate [spokesman for the
>district
>attorney's office] said. "Most of them are very small."
>[ . . .]
>

>American Medical News, September, 2, 1983
>

>1982 abortion cases won't be prosecuted
>

> The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has decided not to
>proceed with prosecutions in the case of some 17,000 fetuses and embryos found

>improperly disposed of last year.

> DA Robert Philabosian said he had decided not to seek charges against
>physicians who perform abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy because of

>recent court rulings striking down California's previous abortion laws.

>Philibosian said, however, that he would press for a "dignified and legal
>burial" of the fetuses.
> The 16,431 fetuses and embryos were found in February 1982, in a

>repossessed shipping container. The remains were preserved in

>formaldehyde-filled jars tagged with the mother's names. Apparently, they had
>been sent by hospitals in California to the laboratory in Santa Monica for

>tests. The laboratory no longer is a business.

> Some 193 of the fetuses were thought to be past the 20th week of
>development.

>
>New York Times, October 8, 1985
>

>Aborted Fetuses Buried on Coast; Eulogy by the President Read at Nonreligious

>Service as 3-Year Dispute Ends
>

>Los Angeles, Oct. 7 (AP) -- A three-year legal dispute over how to dispose of
>16,433 aborted fetuses found in a steel bin ended Sunday as the fetuses were

>given a nonreligious burial with a eulogy written by President Reagan.
>[ . . . ]

> The Feminists Women's Health Center had filed a suit to stop the
>county from giving the fetuses to the Catholic League for religious burial.
>The women's group, represnrted by the American Civil Liberties Union, also
>argued for cremation, saying burial would violate the privacy of the women

>who had undergone the abortions.

> The United States Supreme Court ruled in March that the fetuses could

>not be handed over to any group for religious services because it would

>violate the separation of church and state [last line of article cut off in
>FAX transmission].
>
>

>ÛĨ-
>
>
>S.

>
>"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."

>-- Thomas Sowell
>
>
>
>
>
>ĸĸ

[Jim Jenkins]

Bruce,

I'm sure that you have heard the term dumpster applied widely.
Everyone has. Here's a nit, there's a nit, everywhere a nit-nit.

Jim Jenkins
JJe...@localaccess.com

On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:18:23 -0500, bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce
Forest) wrote:

>In article <33209...@express-news.net>, papa...@express-news.net wrote:
>
>> Papa Jack comments:
>> Sabutigo, I was impressed with your research of a 15 year old story.
>> Been there, done that -- it is far more difficult and time consuming
>> than the average reader appreciates.
>>

>> You clearly shot Bruce and Ray down in flames. Ray owes you an
>> apology. Bruce owes Erma Clardy Craver, Social Worker and Civil

>> Rights Leader an apology for publically ridiculing her statement.
>
>

>No one owes any apologies. In the context of Mr DeParrie's post, it seemed
>that Mr DeParrie claimed 17,000 fetuses were once found in a Dumpster.(A
>trademark, BTW that has become common use, such as xerox, kleenex, ketchup.
>No one would call Grey Poupon mustard 'ketchup; no one would call a bed
>sheet a 'kleenex' and no one would call a shovel a 'xerox. SO, why should
>we accept 'railroad car' as 'dumpster?) My opposition to the statement was
>pure physics.
>
>Answer this question as if you were a sworn court witness with no other
>information....
>
>"According to your knowledge of the size of a railroad boxcar and the
>common understanding of the trademark 'Dumpster' do you know of any cases
>where 17,000 fetuses were found in a Dumpster?"

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,

bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>In article <33209...@express-news.net>, papa...@express-news.net wrote:
>

>> Papa Jack comments:
>> Sabutigo, I was impressed with your research of a 15 year old story.
>> Been there, done that -- it is far more difficult and time consuming
>> than the average reader appreciates.
>>

>> You clearly shot Bruce and Ray down in flames. Ray owes you an
>> apology. Bruce owes Erma Clardy Craver, Social Worker and Civil

>> Rights Leader an apology for publically ridiculing her statement.
>
>

>No one owes any apologies.

Bruce you don't owe me an apology, but I think you should reconsider the speed
with which you label something a lie.

In the context of Mr DeParrie's post, it seemed
>that Mr DeParrie claimed 17,000 fetuses were once found in a Dumpster.

I did no such thing. The original poster said "dumpster" but I stated up fron
that I believed it was a cargo container. It turns out, from my info that it
was a 20 foot one. It was I who supplied the stories which confirmed the
original post (with the exception of calling a cargo container a dumpster).
The error in the original post was relatively minor, Bruce. It was not worthy
of being made a big deal. The story was in the number of unborn contained in
the container.

(A
>trademark, BTW that has become common use, such as xerox, kleenex, ketchup.
>No one would call Grey Poupon mustard 'ketchup; no one would call a bed
>sheet a 'kleenex' and no one would call a shovel a 'xerox. SO, why should
>we accept 'railroad car' as 'dumpster?) My opposition to the statement was
>pure physics.
>
>Answer this question as if you were a sworn court witness with no other
>information....
>
>"According to your knowledge of the size of a railroad boxcar and the
>common understanding of the trademark 'Dumpster' do you know of any cases
>where 17,000 fetuses were found in a Dumpster?"
>

This point is correct. The original poster used the wrong description. I
doubt, though, that there was any knowledge or intent to deceive. In either
event, the 17,000 unborn were in the container. Isn't that weird enough?

█е-

S.

"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."

-- Thomas Sowell

  

[Bruce Forest]

In article <3321c5d4...@news.localaccess.com>,
jje...@localaccess.com (Jim Jenkins) wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> I'm sure that you have heard the term dumpster applied widely.
> Everyone has. Here's a nit, there's a nit, everywhere a nit-nit.

I've never said, "no, I'm not flying, we're traveling by dumpster," or
"watch out, there's a dumpster crossing ahead," or "Billy, don't go
anywhere near the dumpster tracks."

Railroad cars hold tons of cargo; dumpsters are small receptacles, and I
believe the intent was to defraud. 17,000 fetuses in a dumpster indeed.

>[snippus maximus]

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5fsn55$26v$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

>[....]

> >trademark, BTW that has become common use, such as xerox, kleenex, ketchup.
> >No one would call Grey Poupon mustard 'ketchup; no one would call a bed
> >sheet a 'kleenex' and no one would call a shovel a 'xerox. SO, why should
> >we accept 'railroad car' as 'dumpster?) My opposition to the statement was
> >pure physics.
> >
> >Answer this question as if you were a sworn court witness with no other
> >information....
> >
> >"According to your knowledge of the size of a railroad boxcar and the
> >common understanding of the trademark 'Dumpster' do you know of any cases
> >where 17,000 fetuses were found in a Dumpster?"
> >
> This point is correct. The original poster used the wrong description. I
> doubt, though, that there was any knowledge or intent to deceive. In either
> event, the 17,000 unborn were in the container. Isn't that weird enough?
>

Not if a research lab was closing, and divesting itself of its specimen
collection. I once spent a summer counting an anchovie migration, and ended
up with 200,000 anchovies.

What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

<snip>

>What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?

Both the New York Times article and two Chicago Tribune article (May
27, 1982 and October 7, 1985) identified them as aborted. The DA's office
identified the fetuses as aborted. The names of the clinic or hopital as well
as the mother's name and gestation at abortion was listed on each container.
In most cases, it is relatively simple to discern between aborted and
stillborn or miscarried children because of the tissue damage done by almost
all abortion methods (except prostiglandin abortions which are usually done in
the latter half of second trimester or in early third trimester).
>

█е-

S.

"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."

-- Thomas Sowell

  

[Pat Winstanley]

In article <5fsn55$26v$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabutigo
<sabu...@teleport.com> writes

>This point is correct. The original poster used the wrong description. I
>doubt, though, that there was any knowledge or intent to deceive. In either
>event, the 17,000 unborn were in the container. Isn't that weird enough?

Am I correct in thinking these '17,000' specimens were 'pickled' in jars
and stored in the container labelled with their origin etc, rather than
the original implication of thousands of little scraps of embryo/foetus
tossed in chopped up bits anyhow as in a trash can with the leavings of
the uneaten meals...?

Am I also correct in understanding that they were in the possession of
the clinic/doctor having been sent there (bottled and labelled) for
research purposes, and that the destination location had no involvement
in the initial specimen abstraction from the women involved (like a
blood transfusion centre would receive and store blood collected by
others rather than the staff in the storage centre)?

If I have misunderstood, please show me where I have done so.
--
Pat Winstanley

[Jim Jenkins]

Bruce,

All of the pertinent facts were in order. The misapplying of
the term dumpster was a relatively minor point and probably
accidental to boot.

Jim Jenkins
JJe...@localaccess.com

On Sat, 08 Mar 1997 17:08:50 -0500, bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce
Forest) wrote:

>In article <3321c5d4...@news.localaccess.com>,
>jje...@localaccess.com (Jim Jenkins) wrote:
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> I'm sure that you have heard the term dumpster applied widely.
>> Everyone has. Here's a nit, there's a nit, everywhere a nit-nit.
>
>
>I've never said, "no, I'm not flying, we're traveling by dumpster," or
>"watch out, there's a dumpster crossing ahead," or "Billy, don't go
>anywhere near the dumpster tracks."
>
>Railroad cars hold tons of cargo; dumpsters are small receptacles, and I
>believe the intent was to defraud. 17,000 fetuses in a dumpster indeed.
>
>
>
>
>>[snippus maximus]
>

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> <snip>
> >What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?
>
> Both the New York Times article and two Chicago Tribune article (May
> 27, 1982 and October 7, 1985) identified them as aborted. The DA's office
> identified the fetuses as aborted. The names of the clinic or hopital as well
> as the mother's name and gestation at abortion was listed on each container.
> In most cases, it is relatively simple to discern between aborted and
> stillborn or miscarried children because of the tissue damage done by almost
> all abortion methods (except prostiglandin abortions which are usually
done in
> the latter half of second trimester or in early third trimester).

Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
instead of studied and possibly used for research?

[Bruce Forest]

In article <3322f67...@news.localaccess.com>, jje...@localaccess.com
(Jim Jenkins) wrote:

> Bruce,
>

> All of the pertinent facts were in order. The misapplying of
> the term dumpster was a relatively minor point and probably
> accidental to boot.
>

Come on, who uses 'dumpster' when one means a MUCH larger container?
Besides, dumpsters imply a certain thing and railroad car another.
Whatever, I'll gett eh original articles and see what we can find.

[Melanie]

Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
> (sabutigo) wrote:
>
> > In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?
> >
> > Both the New York Times article and two Chicago Tribune article (May
> > 27, 1982 and October 7, 1985) identified them as aborted. The DA's office
> > identified the fetuses as aborted. The names of the clinic or hopital as well
> > as the mother's name and gestation at abortion was listed on each container.
> > In most cases, it is relatively simple to discern between aborted and
> > stillborn or miscarried children because of the tissue damage done by almost
> > all abortion methods (except prostiglandin abortions which are usually
> done in
> > the latter half of second trimester or in early third trimester).
>
> Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
> instead of studied and possibly used for research?
>

> --
> Bruce Forest....
>
> bfo...@mindspring.com
> bfo...@snet.net
> flex...@aol.com

Bruce, I think that most who would oppose "studying" aborted fetuses do
so on the same premise that one might object to the studies done on
Jews in Germany. The studies themselves lead to an increased pressure
and demand for abortion. Fetal tissue can be a rather lucrative
business once government grants become involved (which happened with the
Clinton administration.) A decent burial or cremation comes to my mind.

--Melanie

[Leo Mauler]

Papa Jack wrote:

>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > > sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > Bruce, please check before pronouncing something a "lie." This
> > > inciednt was well reported -- though I believe it was back a few
> > > years. I will try to obtain the documentation for you on the
> > > 17,000 fetuses.
>

> =============================================================

> > Ray Fischer wrote:
> > You do that. Until then, we'll assume it to be another in a long
> > string of "pro-life" lies.
>

> =============================================================
> Papa Jack replies:
> Now that's an unfriendly attitude, Ray.
>
> Have you noticed Cal Thomas column which documents PAR lies? Just
> a few excerpts:
>
> ABORTION LIES AND OTHER SHADINGS OF THE TRUTH

[snip!]

> Legal abortion was conceived in a lie. Norma McCorvey, "Jane
> Roe," claimed to have been raped. She later admitted lying in
> order to make her case more compelling to the Supreme Court.
> The justices who made abortion legal believed testimony that
> thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions, a "fact"
> asserted by the National Abortion Rights Action League, but
> later acknowledged to be false by top NARAL official Dr. Bernard
> Nathanson, who was at the time operating the nation's largest
> abortion clinic in New York.

Actually, illegal abortions were killing off hundreds of women, except
that no provider was doing them. Women were dying from hemorhaging
after giving themselves a "coathanger" abortion. The fact that a doctor
didn't make the "oops" doesn't discount the fact that a self-inflicted
illegal abortion was killing these women.

> On Dec. 11, 1993, NARAL's Kate Michelman was quoted in the
> Philadelphia Inquirer as saying, "We think abortion is a bad
> thing. No woman wants to have an abortion." Five days later a
> NARAL statement claimed that Michelman "has never said--and
> would never say--that `abortion is a bad thing.' " But reporter
> Jodi Enda taped the interview and stood by the quote.

Sounds more like someone misquoting the NARAL on their so-called
"retraction". Pro-choicers have repeatedly stated that abortion is not
a great thing and no woman wants to have an abortion, and they aren't
saying anything against their stated position that abortion should be
safe, legal, and rare.

As Mario Cuomo and I have said (I said it differently, and someone else
discovered the MArio Cuomo quote for me), "a woman does not want an
abortion like she wants a fancy car. a woman wants an abortion like a
wolf wants to gnaw its own leg off after being caught in a trap."

Abortions should be legal because birth control isn't perfect and no
woman currently needs to be required to raise a child, nor do we
particularly need another drain on the government child care services.

[sabutigo]

In article <33234B...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>
>> In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
>> (sabutigo) wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
>> instead of studied and possibly used for research?
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Forest....

Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.

█е-

S.

"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."

-- Thomas Sowell

  

[Christine A. Owens]

> Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
> know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
> dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.

All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes the appendix that
just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with RESPECT. What constitutes
respectful usage varies between the different branches of Judaism.

Chris Owens

[Jim Jenkins]

Bruce,

Please do, I would enjoy seeing you use that much time
on the most insignificant part of the article.
Inefficiency in the opposing side is a joy to behold.

Jim Jenkins
JJe...@localaccess.com

On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 17:03:19 -0500, bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce
Forest) wrote:

>In article <3322f67...@news.localaccess.com>, jje...@localaccess.com
>(Jim Jenkins) wrote:
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> All of the pertinent facts were in order. The misapplying of
>> the term dumpster was a relatively minor point and probably
>> accidental to boot.
>>
>
>
>Come on, who uses 'dumpster' when one means a MUCH larger container?
>Besides, dumpsters imply a certain thing and railroad car another.
>Whatever, I'll gett eh original articles and see what we can find.
>

>--
>Bruce Forest....
>
>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com
>

[Matt Pillsbury]

Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....

______________________________________________________________________
Matt Pillsbury "It is impossible to distinguish
Matthew_...@brown.edu historical accident from the axiomatic
basis of the universe"-T.H. Huxley

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5g053m$dd6$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <33234B...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
> >Bruce Forest wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
> >> (sabutigo) wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >> Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
> >> instead of studied and possibly used for research?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bruce Forest....
>

> Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
> know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
> dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.
>

I am a Reform Jew. In Talmud it is written that it is sacred to save
another's life using the body of another. And you are correct about the
Orthodox. The idea is to 'return to the Earth' as soon as possible. Most
Jews are buried in plain pine coffins with 1" holes drilled in the bottom,
the next day.

[Ray Fischer]

Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:

>Bruce, I think that most who would oppose "studying" aborted fetuses do
>so on the same premise that one might object to the studies done on
>Jews in Germany.

Notice that the Jews were alive, and that aborted fetuses are dead.

Think that that's at all relevant? Did you choose to ignore that just
so you could slip in another sleazy Nazi reference?

500 years ago Da Vinci had to be secretive about his studies of human
anatomy because it was considered abuse of the dead to be cutting them
open and studying their bodies. As you know, the knowledge thus
gained has saved countless lives. But to some people, ideology is
more important than people's lives.

And yes, that _is_ a dig.

[Pat Winstanley]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
Bruce Forest <bfo...@mindspring.comTVR> writes

>
>I am a Reform Jew. In Talmud it is written that it is sacred to save
>another's life using the body of another. And you are correct about the
>Orthodox. The idea is to 'return to the Earth' as soon as possible. Most
>Jews are buried in plain pine coffins with 1" holes drilled in the bottom,
>the next day.

How do they drill the holes in the bottom after the burial? :-)

--
Pat Winstanley

[mpa...@pacbell.com]

jje...@localaccess.com (Jim Jenkins) wrote:

JJ>Bruce,

JJ>Please do, I would enjoy seeing you use that much time
JJ>on the most insignificant part of the article.
JJ>Inefficiency in the opposing side is a joy to behold.

"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş It always helps if you know what you're talking about.

>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED

[CyberPilgrim]

Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
> (sabutigo) wrote:
>

> > In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?
> >
> > Both the New York Times article and two Chicago Tribune article (May
> > 27, 1982 and October 7, 1985) identified them as aborted. The DA's office
> > identified the fetuses as aborted. The names of the clinic or hopital as well
> > as the mother's name and gestation at abortion was listed on each container.
> > In most cases, it is relatively simple to discern between aborted and
> > stillborn or miscarried children because of the tissue damage done by almost
> > all abortion methods (except prostiglandin abortions which are usually
> done in
> > the latter half of second trimester or in early third trimester).
>

> Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
> instead of studied and possibly used for research?

Most of what we know about the effects of extreme cold on human
physiology is the result of sadistic experiments performed on
Jews by Nazi doctors. The lost cross country skier plucked from
some snow-filled crevass and resuscitated owes his survival to
some German sadist with a walk-in freezer and hundreds of Jews
at his disposal.

I'm glad we know what we know about saving freezing victims. But
were I able to turn back the clock, I would want to stop these
"life-saving" experiments. And if I couldn't do that, I would
want their dead bodies treated with respect -- no sending their
gold teeth off to a numbered Swiss bank account, no shaving their
heads to make wigs for German women, no flaying their skins to
make lampshades.

And, your previous statement aside, I believe you would want the
same thing too.

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================
The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
surely I have a delightful inheritance. -- Psalm 16:6
=========================================================

[CyberPilgrim]

Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 07:56:23 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
> <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>

> >> Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
> >> know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
> >> dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.
> >

> >All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes the appendix that
> >just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with RESPECT. What constitutes
> >respectful usage varies between the different branches of Judaism.
>
> Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
> fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....

You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-ness
of PL Christians, you've got a problem.

Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
gentiles are expected to keep. Damn pushy Jews... trying to
force their religion on the rest of us...

-------------- BEGIN RE-POST -------------------
MURDER.

1. The commandment prohibiting murder is explicitly stated to
Noah by G-d, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
his blood be shed, for He made man in the image of G-d."
(Genesis 9:6)

2. A Noahide who kills a human being, even a baby in the womb
of its mother, receives the death penalty. This means that
one who strikes a pregnant women thereby killing the fetus,
incurs the death penalty. The fetus must be 40 days after
conception. Before 40 days, the act is in the category of
destruction of man's seed and he is liable for punishment
from Heaven, not by a court on earth.

3. Men and women are equally responsible to observe the
prohibition against murder, and any act for which a man is
held liable, a woman is equally held liable.

4. If a person kills one who is terminally ill or is falling
from the top of a cliff or is certain to die even momentarily
for any other reason, he transgresses the prohibition against
murder and is liable for punishment by the courts. This
places the idea of mercy killing or euthanasia squarely in
the category of murder.

5. If one pushes a person onto a subway track and a train
subsequently comes and kills him, or if one leaves a person
in a situation where he will surely starve to death, although
the action only indirectly causes the person's death, it is
murder and the act is punishable by the courts.

6. If a person sees someone pursuing another for the obvious or
suspected intent of committing murder or with the intent of
causing the pursued to commit a sin, and the observer is able
to stop the pursuer by wounding him, but kills him instead,
he transgresses this commandment and receives the death
penalty. If, however, the person himself is being pursued,
he is free to take any action necessary to save his own life.

7. Authorities are in disagreement about the permissibility of a
Noahide killing a fetus in order to save the life of the
mother. But all agree that taking the mother's life to save
the fetus is murder and punishable by the courts.

8. If a Noahide kills someone through a messenger, both the
messenger and the one who sent him are liable for punishment
as murderers.

9. A person is commanded to allow himself or herself to be
killed rather than kill. This means that if a person is
threatened on pain of death to kill someone, he must not
commit murder regardless of the consequences.

------------------ END RE-POST ---------------------

It appears as though the disagreement noted in #7, above,
arises from how one balances the right to kill ones' own
pursuer (#6) and the requirement that one give up one's
own life rather than murder another (#9).

[Amazon]

Cyberpilgrim posts (naively, I might add):

>
> Matt Pillsbury wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 07:56:23 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
> > <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
> > >> know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
> > >> dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.
> > >
> > >All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes the appendix that
> > >just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with RESPECT. What constitutes
> > >respectful usage varies between the different branches of Judaism.
> >
> > Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
> > fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....
>
> You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
> http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
> Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-ness
> of PL Christians, you've got a problem.

Ignorance is bliss. You need to walk the walk before you talk
the talk, Cyberboy.

The Lubavitch are a sect of Judaism that often considers itself
the only true Jews. They live, like Jehovah's Witnesses, by the
letter of the Torah and that is all they do. Those of us Jews that
are of the Conservative, Reformed and even Contemporary Orthodox,
are not considered true Jews in their eyes.

It is a sad truth that, like the various sects of Christianity,
that this sect sees itself above all others. They are no less or no
more Jewish than myself or Bruce BUT they see themselves as such.
This creates a rift that is not often seen but felt.

In order to understand this you must know the beliefs and peoples
well - your example is naively ignorant.

>
> Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
> below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
> gentiles are expected to keep.

Please, show us the part that says - "All you Gentiles better
keep these laws or else God will strike you down"

Please, I would really like to see that....

Damn pushy Jews... trying to
> force their religion on the rest of us...

Pissed off by a Jew lately?

>
> -------------- BEGIN RE-POST -------------------
> MURDER.
>
> 1. The commandment prohibiting murder is explicitly stated to
> Noah by G-d, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
> his blood be shed, for He made man in the image of G-d."
> (Genesis 9:6)
>
> 2. A Noahide who kills a human being, even a baby in the womb
> of its mother, receives the death penalty. This means that
> one who strikes a pregnant women thereby killing the fetus,
> incurs the death penalty. The fetus must be 40 days after
> conception. Before 40 days, the act is in the category of
> destruction of man's seed and he is liable for punishment
> from Heaven, not by a court on earth.
>
> 3. Men and women are equally responsible to observe the
> prohibition against murder, and any act for which a man is
> held liable, a woman is equally held liable.

Such is the reason for creating contemporary forms of Judaism.
Much of what is stated in the old Testament has been modernised
with each sect of Judaism - just as Catholics change the New
Testament to suit their sects and times. I guess this is the pot
calling the kettle black, Cyberboy.

>
> 4. If a person kills one who is terminally ill or is falling
> from the top of a cliff or is certain to die even momentarily
> for any other reason, he transgresses the prohibition against
> murder and is liable for punishment by the courts. This
> places the idea of mercy killing or euthanasia squarely in
> the category of murder.

Interesting......

>
> 5. If one pushes a person onto a subway track and a train
> subsequently comes and kills him, or if one leaves a person
> in a situation where he will surely starve to death, although
> the action only indirectly causes the person's death, it is
> murder and the act is punishable by the courts.

Wow, they had subways in the ancient Middle East? Those clever
Hebrews......

>
> 6. If a person sees someone pursuing another for the obvious or
> suspected intent of committing murder or with the intent of
> causing the pursued to commit a sin, and the observer is able
> to stop the pursuer by wounding him, but kills him instead,
> he transgresses this commandment and receives the death
> penalty. If, however, the person himself is being pursued,
> he is free to take any action necessary to save his own life.

> 7. Authorities are in disagreement about the permissibility of a
> Noahide killing a fetus in order to save the life of the
> mother. But all agree that taking the mother's life to save
> the fetus is murder and punishable by the courts.

As is done today.

>
> 8. If a Noahide kills someone through a messenger, both the
> messenger and the one who sent him are liable for punishment
> as murderers.

As is the law today - Example: Fred Tokars.

>
> 9. A person is commanded to allow himself or herself to be
> killed rather than kill. This means that if a person is
> threatened on pain of death to kill someone, he must not
> commit murder regardless of the consequences.

This is a conscience thing - I guess I would have to be under
the circumstances......

>
> ------------------ END RE-POST ---------------------
>
> It appears as though the disagreement noted in #7, above,
> arises from how one balances the right to kill ones' own
> pursuer (#6) and the requirement that one give up one's
> own life rather than murder another (#9).

Judaic Law allows for an uncountable amounts of interpretations.

And your point being what?

That Jews are pushy? Being that Judaism was Jesus' own religion
and that of many but not all peoples of the time the Testaments were
written......

That to have an abortion has what to do with the Noahide?

Is this just a point of discussion?

Jews are not prostelytizers by nature - the New Testament is an
extension of the Old. In what way are Jews pushy?

Bible thumping, religious zealots aren't?

[CyberPilgrim]

As I suspected, the Lubavitcher's Jewishness -- or their view of
someone else's Jewishness -- and not the substance of their
exegisis on the Noachide laws, forms the core of the PC
response...

I am well-versed in the various movements within Judaism, read
frequently on subjects that could be broadly called "Jewish
ethics," am an avid student of the Tanakh, own and occasionally
use a Jewish prayer book, participate regularly in a discussion
group centered around the Jewish ideal of ethical monotheism, and
am probably the biggest Christian judophile you know.

But, the running debate that dominates soc.culture.jewish about
who is a true Jew is irrelevant to what I originally posted.
Whether you and Bruce are "true Jews" does not particularly
concern me, although whether or not your pronouncements measure
up to what the best of Judaism offers (and has historically
offerred) is fair game.

Matt Pillsbury presumed, as so many other PCs have, including
Christine Owens who is also part of this thread, that the "Jewish
position" on abortion falls out on the pro-choice side. It
doesn't, according to the folks at Chabad. And until you've
demonstrated that their exposition on the Noachidic laws is wrong
or the result of some narrow, cultic interpretation, it is the
best piece of evidence currently sitting on the table.

> >
> > Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
> > below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
> > gentiles are expected to keep.
>
> Please, show us the part that says - "All you Gentiles better
> keep these laws or else God will strike you down"
>
> Please, I would really like to see that....

Actually, the civil authority is supposed to strike you down if
you are a murderer.

The Seven Noachide laws are the Jewish formulation of those laws
given to man before Sinai that apply to all men -- not just Jews.
With Torah (and the subsequent codification of the Oral Law),
Jews have 613 commandments to obey -- gentiles but seven:

1. BELIEF IN G-D - DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS

2. RESPECT G-D AND PRAISE HIM - DO NOT BLASPHEME HIS NAME

3. RESPECT HUMAN LIFE - DO NOT MURDER

4. RESPECT THE FAMILY - DO NOT COMMIT IMMORAL SEXUAL ACTS

5. RESPECT FOR OTHERS' RIGHTS AND PROPERTY - DO NOT STEAL

6. CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM - PURSUE JUSTICE

7. RESPECT ALL CREATURES - DO NOT EAT THE FLESH OF AN ANIMAL
WHILE IT IS STILL ALIVE

The judicial system required in #6 is to carry out civil
punishments where required. That is where "God will strike you
down."

Hyam Maccoby makes an interesting case that the restrictions
imposed on gentile Christians at the Jerusalem council at the
behest of the Jewish church (described in Acts 15), has its roots
in a contemporary version of the Noachide code. If so, it provides
an interesting insight into early Christianity.

The essence of ethical monotheism is not simply "One God," but
"Only One God for All." That does not dictate forced conversion
but it does mean that all people in varying degrees are addressed
by the one truth. The Seven Noachide laws are Judaism's attempt
to explain to world -- to be a light to the gentiles -- what God
requires of all.

> Damn pushy Jews... trying to
> > force their religion on the rest of us...
>
> Pissed off by a Jew lately?

Nice try #1.

> >
> > -------------- BEGIN RE-POST -------------------
> > MURDER.
> >
> > 1. The commandment prohibiting murder is explicitly stated to
> > Noah by G-d, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
> > his blood be shed, for He made man in the image of G-d."
> > (Genesis 9:6)
> >
> > 2. A Noahide who kills a human being, even a baby in the womb
> > of its mother, receives the death penalty. This means that
> > one who strikes a pregnant women thereby killing the fetus,
> > incurs the death penalty. The fetus must be 40 days after
> > conception. Before 40 days, the act is in the category of
> > destruction of man's seed and he is liable for punishment
> > from Heaven, not by a court on earth.
> >
> > 3. Men and women are equally responsible to observe the
> > prohibition against murder, and any act for which a man is
> > held liable, a woman is equally held liable.
>
> Such is the reason for creating contemporary forms of Judaism.
> Much of what is stated in the old Testament has been modernised
> with each sect of Judaism - just as Catholics change the New
> Testament to suit their sects and times. I guess this is the pot
> calling the kettle black, Cyberboy.

I have no idea what your complaint is, here. And I am not, nor
have I ever been, nor shall I ever likely be, Catholic.

Try again.

> >
> > 4. If a person kills one who is terminally ill or is falling
> > from the top of a cliff or is certain to die even momentarily
> > for any other reason, he transgresses the prohibition against
> > murder and is liable for punishment by the courts. This
> > places the idea of mercy killing or euthanasia squarely in
> > the category of murder.
>
> Interesting......
>
> >
> > 5. If one pushes a person onto a subway track and a train
> > subsequently comes and kills him, or if one leaves a person
> > in a situation where he will surely starve to death, although
> > the action only indirectly causes the person's death, it is
> > murder and the act is punishable by the courts.
>
> Wow, they had subways in the ancient Middle East? Those clever
> Hebrews......

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train
filled the temple."
-- Isaiah 6:1

I guess they did!

> >
> > 6. If a person sees someone pursuing another for the obvious or
> > suspected intent of committing murder or with the intent of
> > causing the pursued to commit a sin, and the observer is able
> > to stop the pursuer by wounding him, but kills him instead,
> > he transgresses this commandment and receives the death
> > penalty. If, however, the person himself is being pursued,
> > he is free to take any action necessary to save his own life.
>
>
> > 7. Authorities are in disagreement about the permissibility of a
> > Noahide killing a fetus in order to save the life of the
> > mother. But all agree that taking the mother's life to save
> > the fetus is murder and punishable by the courts.
>
> As is done today.

More correctly, the current law precludes it from happening.

> >
> > 8. If a Noahide kills someone through a messenger, both the
> > messenger and the one who sent him are liable for punishment
> > as murderers.
>
> As is the law today - Example: Fred Tokars.

This is a good thing...

>
> >
> > 9. A person is commanded to allow himself or herself to be
> > killed rather than kill. This means that if a person is
> > threatened on pain of death to kill someone, he must not
> > commit murder regardless of the consequences.
>
> This is a conscience thing - I guess I would have to be under
> the circumstances......
>
> >
> > ------------------ END RE-POST ---------------------
> >
> > It appears as though the disagreement noted in #7, above,
> > arises from how one balances the right to kill ones' own
> > pursuer (#6) and the requirement that one give up one's
> > own life rather than murder another (#9).
>
> Judaic Law allows for an uncountable amounts of interpretations.

Where there is doubt or the data permits a multitude of opinions,
true. But Jewish Law would never present itself as being so
pandemic that its specific rulings lack moral authority. Here,
your job is to demonstrate that the Lubavitchers' exposition of
the Noachide laws are contrary to the prevailing rabbinic
opinion.

> And your point being what?

My point being that even heavily codified Jewish law has to
struggle with gray areas -- here, whether it is permitted to kill
a fetus to save a mother's life. I am speculating, correctly I
believe, that the struggle is between the requirements 6 and 9,
above. Whichever way it gets resolved, it will not be because
"abortion is a woman's choice." "Choice," as a self-authenticating
justification, is contrary to every presupposition of Jewish law.

>
> That Jews are pushy? Being that Judaism was Jesus' own religion
> and that of many but not all peoples of the time the Testaments were
> written......

Nice try #2. And I can't follow your point regarding Jesus...

> That to have an abortion has what to do with the Noahide?

Well, seems straight forward to me... A Noachide is forbidden to
murder. Abortion is classified as murder. Murder, ergo abortion,
is punishable by the death penalty. Or, at least, should be.

> Is this just a point of discussion?

As I can't follow your _point_, I'm not sure there's a _point_ of
discussion.

> Jews are not prostelytizers by nature - the New Testament is an
> extension of the Old. In what way are Jews pushy?

They once were. And nice try #3.

> Bible thumping, religious zealots aren't?

Almost by definition...

[Amazon]

Cyberpilgrim posts:

> As I suspected, the Lubavitcher's Jewishness -- or their view of
> someone else's Jewishness -- and not the substance of their
> exegisis on the Noachide laws, forms the core of the PC
> response...

(Are all PC's Jewish, wow, I am amazed....)

So, I am supposed to believe as the Lubavitcher do?

You say that you are not Jewish - do you believe as the most
strict of Christians?

SO what if in some arcane law there are bits about some interpretation
you choose to make referring to a mother and her womb.... as I have
said to all the extremists, I will believe what I choose to believe.
It is not belief out of what you would refer to as convenience but a
belief that gives me piece of mind,heart and soul.

Also, though Bruce and I are Jewish there are differences between the
Judaic religion and Judaic Heritage. I am of a very strong Judaic
heritage but not of the Judaic religion. I cannot speak for Bruce.
Though I was raised in a conservative/orthodox home, I spent many, many
years searching for spiritual meaning. I found that meaning far outside
the religious writings of men and looked deep within.

If you feel the need, as do many others, to look to the written word to
define who you are and what the nature of your thoughts must be, than
so be it. If it is so important to throw these words about, as do many
bible thumpers, then so be it. But it would be nice to see an opinion
that stands alone, without some religious overtone.

Amazon

[CyberPilgrim]

Amazon wrote:
>
> Cyberpilgrim posts:

>
> > As I suspected, the Lubavitcher's Jewishness -- or their view of
> > someone else's Jewishness -- and not the substance of their
> > exegisis on the Noachide laws, forms the core of the PC
> > response...
>

> (Are all PC's Jewish, wow, I am amazed....)

No, but all non sequitors are inane...

> So, I am supposed to believe as the Lubavitcher do?
>
> You say that you are not Jewish - do you believe as the most
> strict of Christians?

I am not holding the Lubavitchers up as THE Jewish standard. Their
strong pro-life position merely puts the lie to the notion that THE
Jewish position is PC. That stated, neither you nor anyone else
has demonstrated that the Lubavitchers position on abortion/murder
viz a viz the Noachide laws is inconsistant with historic Judaism.
IMO, that is THE task before you. Otherwise, PLs are going to be
pulling this source out of the archives on a regular basis.

> SO what if in some arcane law there are bits about some interpretation
> you choose to make referring to a mother and her womb.... as I have
> said to all the extremists, I will believe what I choose to believe.
> It is not belief out of what you would refer to as convenience but a
> belief that gives me piece of mind,heart and soul.

Setting yourself up as the determiner of truth and using your own
peace of mind, heart and soul as the filter by which you select
your beliefs will not keep you from becoming an extremist.

And you have presented nothing that evidences the Lubavitchers'
understanding that abortion=murder as being "arcane." Why? Because
it rests on ancient sources? Write down your own beliefs that you
have convinced yourself are true and wait 3500 years. When we
pull them out of the time capsule will they be less true simply
because they are old?

> Also, though Bruce and I are Jewish there are differences between the
> Judaic religion and Judaic Heritage. I am of a very strong Judaic
> heritage but not of the Judaic religion. I cannot speak for Bruce.
> Though I was raised in a conservative/orthodox home, I spent many, many
> years searching for spiritual meaning. I found that meaning far outside
> the religious writings of men and looked deep within.

You dismiss the Lubavitchers' position without offering one
iota of counter evidence. All you offer against them is a
group ad hominum and all you offer as a substitute is mysticism
and/or self-actualization. What is it about your spiritual
journey that has made you demand so much of them and so little
from yourself?

> If you feel the need, as do many others, to look to the written word to
> define who you are and what the nature of your thoughts must be, than
> so be it. If it is so important to throw these words about, as do many
> bible thumpers, then so be it. But it would be nice to see an opinion
> that stands alone, without some religious overtone.

I seriously doubt that you are _homo tabula rasa_ or that the spiritual
identity you have adopted does not rest on assumptions that are
ultimately religious in nature and as determinative of your subsequent
thoughts and actions as are the ones of those who follow Torah.

> Amazon

[Matt Pillsbury]

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:24:34 -0800, CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net>
wrote:

>Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 07:56:23 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
>> <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Bruce, you seem to claim that you are Jewish from time to time, don't you
>> >> know that the Jewish religion has strong objections to other "uses" for the
>> >> dead human body than burial? In the Orthodox, even autopsies are forbidden.
>> >
>> >All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes the appendix that
>> >just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with RESPECT. What constitutes
>> >respectful usage varies between the different branches of Judaism.
>>
>> Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
>> fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....
>
>You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
>http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
>Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-ness
>of PL Christians, you've got a problem.

The vast majority of Jews are not Lubavitchers. I won't deny their
Judaism, but I don't feel to bad if I miss out on them on a general
statemnet like that. I'll also say that Jews keep kosher, even if many
Reform Jews don't. I'll also say that Christians believe in the
Trinity, even if not all of them do.

>Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
>below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that

>gentiles are expected to keep. Damn pushy Jews... trying to

>force their religion on the rest of us...

[snip]

Hmm. This is hardly the position of most Jews, and most Jews are not
known for trying to get their relisgious laws passed (except in
Israel). Of course, if I lived in Israel, I'd probably be bitching
about the Jews who want to make me follow their religious laws through
legislation....

[Chris Lyman]

CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
# Matt Pillsbury wrote:
# > "Christine A. Owens" <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:

# > >All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes
# > >the appendix that just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with
# > >RESPECT. What constitutes respectful usage varies between the
# > >different branches of Judaism.

# > Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
# > fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....

# You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
# http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
# Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-ness
# of PL Christians, you've got a problem.

# Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
# below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
# gentiles are expected to keep. Damn pushy Jews... trying to
# force their religion on the rest of us...

So what? Matt's point was about what Judaism teaches about the
*beginning* of a human life, not about what it teaches about causing
a human death. The tradition says that a human life begins when the
baby draws its first breath. Your point about the Lubavitch's
extremely broad definition of murder is a red herring.

Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They
are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as
the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and
definitive word.

[...]

--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, sure to take "NO_SPAM" out my address.
Remember, life is like an analogy.

[Amazon]

Cyberpilgrim posts and I respond:

> Amazon wrote:
> >
> > Cyberpilgrim posts:

> >
> > > As I suspected, the Lubavitcher's Jewishness -- or their view of
> > > someone else's Jewishness -- and not the substance of their
> > > exegisis on the Noachide laws, forms the core of the PC
> > > response...
> >

> > (Are all PC's Jewish, wow, I am amazed....)
>
> No, but all non sequitors are inane...
>
> > So, I am supposed to believe as the Lubavitcher do?
> >
> > You say that you are not Jewish - do you believe as the most
> > strict of Christians?
>
> I am not holding the Lubavitchers up as THE Jewish standard. Their
> strong pro-life position merely puts the lie to the notion that THE
> Jewish position is PC. That stated, neither you nor anyone else
> has demonstrated that the Lubavitchers position on abortion/murder
> viz a viz the Noachide laws is inconsistant with historic Judaism.
> IMO, that is THE task before you. Otherwise, PLs are going to be
> pulling this source out of the archives on a regular basis.

Inconsistent. You ARE holding up the Lubavitchers beliefs as the
standards
and you are asking me to refute them. My response 2 postings ago was
that
as is with Christianity, there are many sects that interpret
differently.

You are saying that the Lubavitcher beliefs are THE Jewish position. I
say
that you are being naive to think that all Jews think that just because
the Law is old that it is true. We all interpret things our own ways.
That is why there are umpteen sects of Judaism and there are umpteen
sects
of Christianity.

>
> > SO what if in some arcane law there are bits about some interpretation
> > you choose to make referring to a mother and her womb.... as I have
> > said to all the extremists, I will believe what I choose to believe.
> > It is not belief out of what you would refer to as convenience but a
> > belief that gives me piece of mind,heart and soul.
>
> Setting yourself up as the determiner of truth and using your own
> peace of mind, heart and soul as the filter by which you select
> your beliefs will not keep you from becoming an extremist.

That is not what I said but interpret as you will.

>
> And you have presented nothing that evidences the Lubavitchers'
> understanding that abortion=murder as being "arcane." Why? Because
> it rests on ancient sources? Write down your own beliefs that you
> have convinced yourself are true and wait 3500 years. When we
> pull them out of the time capsule will they be less true simply
> because they are old?

No, they are not less "true" but they are old. Written in a time of
sexism, bigotry and prejudice. I choose not to believe the letter of
the Talmud, as do many Jews, due to the fact it can only marginally be
related to contemporary life.

>
> > Also, though Bruce and I are Jewish there are differences between the
> > Judaic religion and Judaic Heritage. I am of a very strong Judaic
> > heritage but not of the Judaic religion. I cannot speak for Bruce.
> > Though I was raised in a conservative/orthodox home, I spent many, many
> > years searching for spiritual meaning. I found that meaning far outside
> > the religious writings of men and looked deep within.
>
> You dismiss the Lubavitchers' position without offering one
> iota of counter evidence.

I did NOT dismiss the position, I recognize it as what THEY believe
but not what I believe. You are freely interpretting what is not being
said.

All you offer against them is a
> group ad hominum and all you offer as a substitute is mysticism
> and/or self-actualization.

So you would rather belittle my beliefs than face that facts of that,
as in interpretations of the New Testament, that the Lubavitcher are
but interpretting the Old and that I have chosen not to believe as they
do.

What is it about your spiritual
> journey that has made you demand so much of them and so little
> from yourself?

Again, attacking my belief system - I asked that they show me where
women
are equal and permitted to see all of the Holy Texts - I was denied this
and
until the last decade so were many women. I found that when I, at last
read the "unreadable" it was nothing so important that I could not find
within myself. I demand much of myself everyday, no, every minute of my
life.

>
> > If you feel the need, as do many others, to look to the written word to
> > define who you are and what the nature of your thoughts must be, than
> > so be it. If it is so important to throw these words about, as do many
> > bible thumpers, then so be it. But it would be nice to see an opinion
> > that stands alone, without some religious overtone.
>
> I seriously doubt that you are _homo tabula rasa_ or that the spiritual
> identity you have adopted does not rest on assumptions that are
> ultimately religious in nature and as determinative of your subsequent
> thoughts and actions as are the ones of those who follow Torah.

No, I am not a human blank slate BUT I have read and studied much of the
Torah, there is much of interest and much not worth reading. THis is not
a
slam, an opinion. Judaism is a rich culture - alive with stories and
mysteries, ways to live and ways to die, so is Hinduism, Buddism and the
Native American ways. All have played a part in my search. It is sad to
think that you would close yourself to only the words of the Lubavitch,
read further and grow -

Amazon

[parina lab user]

CyberPilgrim wrote:
> 2. A Noahide who kills a human being, even a baby in the womb
> of its mother, receives the death penalty. This means that
> one who strikes a pregnant women thereby killing the fetus,
> incurs the death penalty.

Not in the Bible.
According to Exodus 21:22, a man who causes a woman to
miscarry (dead fetus) is given a FINE.

If the woman miscarries (dead fetus) AND the woman is
also harmed, it's an eye for an eye.

> The fetus must be 40 days after
> conception. Before 40 days, the act is in the category of
> destruction of man's seed and he is liable for punishment
> from Heaven, not by a court on earth.

That 40 day crap is from St Augustine, who got it from
a PAGAN Greek.

It ain't in the Bible.

babble snipped

> 7. Authorities are in disagreement about the permissibility of a
> Noahide killing a fetus in order to save the life of the
> mother. But all agree that taking the mother's life to save
> the fetus is murder and punishable by the courts.

What the smeg are you talking about?

And what do the "noahides" have to do with anyone?

eaf

[Bruce Forest]

Are you kidding? There are 30 million Jews in the world. Fewer than 25,000
are Lubavitcher. Why not claim Moonies are 'true Christians?' I am Reform,
but I am also Cohenim, 20th generation. I did not revere the Rebbe as
'leader of the Jews' since this is against Torah. Lubavitchers are members
of a cult as far as I'm concerned.

That's like saying Calvinists revere the Pope as their leader.

[Bruce Forest]

In article <332AD4...@jps.net>, CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:

> Bruce Forest wrote:
> >
> > In article <5funeo$mob$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
> > (sabutigo) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > > bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >What makes you think all the fetuses were the product of abortions?
> > >
> > > Both the New York Times article and two Chicago Tribune article (May
> > > 27, 1982 and October 7, 1985) identified them as aborted. The DA's office
> > > identified the fetuses as aborted. The names of the clinic or hopital
as well
> > > as the mother's name and gestation at abortion was listed on each
container.
> > > In most cases, it is relatively simple to discern between aborted and

> > > stillborn or miscarried children because of the tissue damage done by

almost
> > > all abortion methods (except prostiglandin abortions which are usually
> > done in
> > > the latter half of second trimester or in early third trimester).
> >
> > Probably true. Would you prefer the aborted fetuses just be discarded,
> > instead of studied and possibly used for research?
>
> Most of what we know about the effects of extreme cold on human
> physiology is the result of sadistic experiments performed on
> Jews by Nazi doctors. The lost cross country skier plucked from
> some snow-filled crevass and resuscitated owes his survival to
> some German sadist with a walk-in freezer and hundreds of Jews
> at his disposal.

I didn't know that. But then, we owe our success in the space race to a
bunch of ex-Nazi's too, don't we?

>
> I'm glad we know what we know about saving freezing victims. But
> were I able to turn back the clock, I would want to stop these
> "life-saving" experiments. And if I couldn't do that, I would
> want their dead bodies treated with respect -- no sending their
> gold teeth off to a numbered Swiss bank account, no shaving their
> heads to make wigs for German women,

The hair was not used for wigs but for socks for U-Boat crews. No heat down
there.

.no flaying their skins to
> make lampshades.

And book covers. I once saw and held a book bound in human skin.

>
> And, your previous statement aside, I believe you would want the
> same thing too.

Absolutely true.

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

>Are you kidding? There are 30 million Jews in the world. Fewer than 25,000
>are Lubavitcher. Why not claim Moonies are 'true Christians?' I am Reform,
>but I am also Cohenim, 20th generation. I did not revere the Rebbe as
>'leader of the Jews' since this is against Torah. Lubavitchers are members
>of a cult as far as I'm concerned.
>
>That's like saying Calvinists revere the Pope as their leader.
>

Bruce, I still question how much you could really know about the Jewish
religion (any variety) when you were the one who argued to me that the Ten
Commandments were actually Eleven Commandments. The laws Moses brought down
from Sinai would seem to be a pretty elementary thing for Jewish people who
believed in their religion to know.

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

In <chrisl-1603...@news.minn.net> chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net
(Chris Lyman) writes:

>So what? Matt's point was about what Judaism teaches about the
>*beginning* of a human life, not about what it teaches about causing
>a human death. The tradition says that a human life begins when the
>baby draws its first breath. Your point about the Lubavitch's
>extremely broad definition of murder is a red herring.

According to a discussion in Sanhedrin 91b, a fetus is alive from
the moment of conception. The reasoning is that if a fetus were dead
it would start rotting.

>Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They
>are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as
>the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and
>definitive word.

Isn't that like claiming the law of gravity only applies to those who
accept it?

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

In <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:

>Are you kidding? There are 30 million Jews in the world. Fewer than
>25,000 are Lubavitcher. Why not claim Moonies are 'true Christians?' I
>am Reform, but I am also Cohenim, 20th generation. I did not revere
>the Rebbe as 'leader of the Jews' since this is against Torah.
>Lubavitchers are members of a cult as far as I'm concerned.
>
>That's like saying Calvinists revere the Pope as their leader.

One problem with that is many Jewish pro-lifers think that Judaism
requires a PC opinion and thus convert to other religions. It won't
do for PCers to say that Judaism has a "big tent" in one context
and then claim it must be restricted to speculations written before
embryology was discovered in another context.

Recently on alt.messianic, someone who converted from Judaism to
Catholicism (because of abortion) was subject to an intense propaganda
campaign apparently designed to make her stay away. It worked. It
didn't occur to her that that's what they wanted. (I can usually stop
that by saying "Your attempt to convert me to Christianity did not
work." I recommend it to PL Jews.)

>Insert Pizza analogy here.

The box in my freezer says Three Cheese Pizzas. It does not say Three
Potential Cheese Pizzas.

[Amazon]

> >Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They
> >are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as
> >the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and
> >definitive word.
>
> Isn't that like claiming the law of gravity only applies to those who
> accept it?

No, Joseph, it is saying that the gentiles who have not converted but
accept the God of the Jews as the one true God should follow these
edicts.

You analogy is poor.

Amazon

P.S. The Messianic are better known as Jews for Jesus.

[Ray Fischer]

sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Bruce, I still question how much you could really know about the Jewish
>religion (any variety) when you were the one who argued to me that the Ten
>Commandments were actually Eleven Commandments. The laws Moses brought down
>from Sinai would seem to be a pretty elementary thing for Jewish people who
>believed in their religion to know.

Maybe Bruce knows some things that you don't.

Could be?

[Bruce Forest]

Jews for Jesus. That's like saying Buddhists fo Bal'lahlulah. If someone
believes that Jesus is Mosiach, he is not Jewish.

[CyberPilgrim]

bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>
> In article <332AD4...@jps.net>, CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
>

.....

> >no flaying their skins to
> > make lampshades.
>
> And book covers. I once saw and held a book bound in human skin.

I saw similar items at Yad Vashem several years ago

--
CyberPilgrim

========================================
The boundary lines have fallen for me
in pleasant places;

Surely, I have a delightful inheritance.
-- Ps 16:6
========================================

.

[sabutigo]

In article <rayE77...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>Bruce, I still question how much you could really know about the Jewish
>>religion (any variety) when you were the one who argued to me that the Ten
>>Commandments were actually Eleven Commandments. The laws Moses brought down
>>from Sinai would seem to be a pretty elementary thing for Jewish people who
>>believed in their religion to know.
>
>Maybe Bruce knows some things that you don't.
>
>Could be?
>

No. I gave Bruce the quotes from his own covenant in Deuteronomy and Exodus
which expilitly call them TEN commandments. He has yet to respond to what I
posted. On last count, he was still insiting on eleven, but since I posted the
actual verses, he has had nothing to say on the issue. Unless the Hebrew word
for ten also means eleven or Moses himself couldn't count, Bruce is just out
to lunch on this.

[Amazon]

> Jews for Jesus. That's like saying Buddhists fo Bal'lahlulah. If someone
> believes that Jesus is Mosiach, he is not Jewish.

Bruce,

I know that! :-)

But you know that if I went in depth on the topic some RR person would
start in and, frankly, I am not in the mood for the "If a Jew believes
in Jesus are they still a Jew....." argument/discussion.

Amazon

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gin67$t...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
jher...@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) wrote:

[...]

>
> The box in my freezer says Three Cheese Pizzas. It does not say Three
> Potential Cheese Pizzas.

Ah, a newbie. If I take 5 pounds of pizza dough and drop it on my marble
baking slab, at what point does it become a pizza? When I begin to knead
the dough? When I add the tomato sauce? Or when it comes out of the oven?

Frozen pizza? I'd rather eat bugs.

[Chris Lyman]

xan...@sbt.net wrote:
# bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

# > It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King
# > James that ten commandments became standard. Modern Jews who
# > are educated in a proper Hebrew school know there are eleven
# > commandments.

# I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather
# than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are
# wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,
# and...
#
# (1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version
# of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate
# translations." It's my understanding that the
# translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny
# for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)

The King James translators tried to be meticulous, but the text they
used as a source wasn't all that authorative. For example, I believe
they worked from a Greek translation of what Christians call the
Old Testament, not the Hebrew originals.

If I'm not mistaken, the KJV came out during the Church's pogrom
against witches, which is how one passage (can't remember chapter
and verse) got translated "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It
seems that even the well-meaning KJV translators could not avoid
having political agendas affect their work.

[Chris Lyman]

jher...@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) wrote:
# chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) writes:

# >So what? Matt's point was about what Judaism teaches about the
# >*beginning* of a human life, not about what it teaches about causing
# >a human death. The tradition says that a human life begins when the
# >baby draws its first breath. Your point about the Lubavitch's
# >extremely broad definition of murder is a red herring.

# According to a discussion in Sanhedrin 91b, a fetus is alive from
# the moment of conception. The reasoning is that if a fetus were dead
# it would start rotting.

Yes, the fetus is physically alive, but does not become human/ensouled/
whatever until it draws its first breath. If I remember correctly, this
is in accordance with the image of G-d breathing life to His first human
creatures, Adam and Eve.

# >Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They
# >are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as
# >the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and
# >definitive word.

# Isn't that like claiming the law of gravity only applies to those who
# accept it?

Not really. Take it up with the Jews who shared the above with me.

[CyberPilgrim]

chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote

>
> CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
> # Matt Pillsbury wrote:
> # > "Christine A. Owens" <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>
> # > >All branches of Judaism insist that human remains [and that includes
> # > >the appendix that just ruptured, and almost killed you] be treated with
> # > >RESPECT. What constitutes respectful usage varies between the
> # > >different branches of Judaism.
>
> # > Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
> # > fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....
>
> # You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
> # http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
> # Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-ness
> # of PL Christians, you've got a problem.
>
> # Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
> # below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
> # gentiles are expected to keep. Damn pushy Jews... trying to
> # force their religion on the rest of us...
>

> So what? Matt's point was about what Judaism teaches about the

> *beginning* of a human life, not about what it teaches about causing

> a human death. The tradition says that a human life begins when the

> baby draws its first breath. Your point about the Lubavitch's

> extremely broad definition of murder is a red herring.

Rather than "So what?", I would say that the Lubavitchers'
view of the proscription against murder being inclusive of
abortion implies that there may be a variant Jewish view
about when life begins. Bears a little more looking.
Nonetheless, the fact that it was not directly responsive to
Matt's original point is not the reason the PCs have failed
to engage it.

> Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They

> are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as

> the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and

> definitive word.

Here, I believe you are incorrect. In the Jewish
theological/sociological construct, if you are not a Jew,
you are a Noachide.

It is not a racial/ethnic concept -- it is a covenantal one.
As we all descend from Noah following the earth's
destruction by flood, all men are Ben Noachs -- Sons of
Noah. The Only True God created all men but chose the Jews
for a special role, hence the second category, and joined
himself to them by covenant. The prophets referred to Israel
and its role as "a nation of priests" -- the implication
being that viz a viz the Noachides and God, they occupy a
mediating position like priests do. Since the loss of the
cultus in A.D. 70, the Jewish mediating role is primarily
carried out in the arena of ethics. Jews, to fulfill their
mission to be "a light to the gentiles," fulfill the laws
given to Moses at Sinai. This includes the written law and
the oral law as developed and codified in the second and
third century. According to rabbinic reckoning, there are
613 laws God has given Jews to obey.

And according to rabbinic reasoning, there are seven laws
that God gave to gentiles or to the pre-covenantal ancestors
of the Jews. These are the Noachide laws. All Noachides are
obligated to keep them in the same sense all Jews are
obligated to keep the 613 laws -- they are the revealed law
and the appropriate response of grateful creatures to their
Creator. As the first of the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah
prohibits idol worship, there is no sense in which the
Noachide construct is contingent on whether one believes in
the same God. There is a growing movement of Ben Noach
groups today and they are stimulating a discussion within the
Jewish community regarding Ben Noach as a model for
proselytism by Jews. The "god-fearers" found in the NT book
of Acts (e.g. Cornelius in Acts 10) seem to have seen
themselves as a type of Ben Noach -- gentiles attracted to
the Jewish faith but not willing to fulfill the requirements of
kashrut or circumcision. They were the bridge by which
the gospel of Jesus passed from the Jewish to the gentile
world.

Students of the NT or Jewish/Christian relations will
recognize here the irreconcilables between the two faiths
-- differing views as to the role (and content) of the Law,
competing claims to be the covenant people of God, competing
claims to the role of "nation of priests," etc. And we
haven't even dealt with the issues of the incarnation or
substitutionary atonement, yet...

Note -- there is no presumption of coercion by Jews on
Noachides to accept the laws. The formulation is the Jewish
message to non-Jews of what God requires of men to be
ethical. In a practical/political sense, it is idealized (so
all you "Don't force your religion on me"-types can cool
your jets). But it is an unapologetic statement of "what
should be."

Additionally, while it is common for Jews to say that
Noachides only have to obey the seven laws and they are
not required to obey the 613 commandments, the latter are
clearly referenced when it comes time to interpret what the
Noachidic statutes require. So, despite the conceptual
distinction between the two, there's a great deal of
overlap in the particulars.

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================

The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
Surely, I have a delightful inheritance.
-- Ps 16:6

=========================================================

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gkuve$3...@usenet78.supernews.com>, xan...@sbt.net wrote:

>bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>
>> It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King James
that ten
>> commandments became standard. Modern Jews who are educated in a proper
>> Hebrew school know there are eleven commandments.
>
>Hi, Bruce --

>
> I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather

>than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are

>wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,

>and...

>
> (1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version

> of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate

> translations." It's my understanding that the

> translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny

> for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)

If you read a Torah scroll,(if you can read Hebrew) you will find the very
many differences, as in all languages. Torah scrolls are written in formal
Hebrew, which is very difficult to read compared to modern Hebrew. There
are many words in Hebrew that do not translate to English. Take the famous
'If men strive...' verse. The word in formal Hebrew has nothing to do with
the English word 'strive,' nor fight. My own opinion would be 'disagree
about commerce in a pugilistic manner.'

>
> (2) ...wonder what the 11th Commandment IS, if indeed
> there were 11 given on the mountain, instead of 10.

1) I am the Lord thy God who brought you forth from Egypt."
2) You shall have no other gods before me.
3) You will not worship graven images....

etc.. Most modern people combine 1 and 2.

> As for the other several hundred laws, I'm aware of those,
>too, but that's another story altogether.

Were you aware that they are Torah, and were considered as sacred
Commandments no less important just like the others? As soon as they became
Mishnah and essentially Talmudic, people started with the 'Ten
Commandments' stuff.

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gkpqb$54k$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <rayE77...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >sabutigo <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Bruce, I still question how much you could really know about the Jewish
> >>religion (any variety) when you were the one who argued to me that the Ten
> >>Commandments were actually Eleven Commandments. The laws Moses brought down
> >>from Sinai would seem to be a pretty elementary thing for Jewish people who
> >>believed in their religion to know.
> >
> >Maybe Bruce knows some things that you don't.
> >
> >Could be?
> >
> No. I gave Bruce the quotes from his own covenant in Deuteronomy and Exodus
> which expilitly call them TEN commandments.

You gave me a poor English translation. My Torah is not a translation from
the Middle Ages, three thousand years after it was written. It is in formal
Hebrew. When you learn formal Hebrew, go read a scroll.

He has yet to respond to what I
> posted.

Oh please, I've done this ten commandment thing for weeks.

> On last count, he was still insiting on eleven, but since I posted the
> actual verses,

You posted an English translation that had no resemblence to the pertinent
Torah verse.

> he has had nothing to say on the issue. Unless the Hebrew word
> for ten also means eleven or Moses himself couldn't count, Bruce is just out
> to lunch on this.

There are not10 commandments There are not 11 commandments. There are 613
commandments all of equal importance. Why do you pretend to understand
Judaism?

But in modern Jewish law there are 11 commandments.

[Bruce Forest]

Doh! Sorry bout that.

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gil93$q0m$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

> >Are you kidding? There are 30 million Jews in the world. Fewer than 25,000
> >are Lubavitcher. Why not claim Moonies are 'true Christians?' I am Reform,
> >but I am also Cohenim, 20th generation. I did not revere the Rebbe as
> >'leader of the Jews' since this is against Torah. Lubavitchers are members
> >of a cult as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> >That's like saying Calvinists revere the Pope as their leader.
> >

> Bruce, I still question how much you could really know about the Jewish
> religion (any variety) when you were the one who argued to me that the Ten
> Commandments were actually Eleven Commandments. The laws Moses brought down
> from Sinai would seem to be a pretty elementary thing for Jewish people who
> believed in their religion to know.

According to my rabbi, Rabbi Orkand at my Temple in Westport, I am
absolutely correct. In actual fact, there are 613 Commandments in
Torah,(that was before Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi committed them to Talmud) not
merely eleven, and I am NOT discussing Mishnah. It was not until the by and

large inaccurate translations of King James that ten commandments became
standard. Modern Jews who are educated in a proper Hebrew school know there

are eleven commandments. Where are you getting these ridiculous
interpretations of Judaism? You obviously haven't a clue as to Talmud, or
Torah. Do you know what a Minyan is? Do you understand Kashruth? Do you
know the significance of the Western Wall? Which variety of Hebrew do you
speak? Are you even Jewish? You know nothing of Judaism.

Besides being 20th generation Cohanim (do you even know what that is?) I am
Jewish by tradition, but I am not religious, since I feel organized
religion is, as Groucho ;-) said..'The opiate of the masses.' Only the weak
of mind need to rely on incense and mummery to get through the day.

I suggest you read Asimov's Foundation series and you will get a clue as to
my feelings on organized religion.

Until then, keep your kindergarten knowledge of Judaism to yourself.

[Craig Chilton]

bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

> It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King James that ten
> commandments became standard. Modern Jews who are educated in a proper
> Hebrew school know there are eleven commandments.

Hi, Bruce --

I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather
than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are
wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,
and...

(1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version
of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate
translations." It's my understanding that the
translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny
for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)

(2) ...wonder what the 11th Commandment IS, if indeed

there were 11 given on the mountain, instead of 10.

As for the other several hundred laws, I'm aware of those,
too, but that's another story altogether. If you can share with
us your insights on the above two points, that'll be much
appreciated.

Thanks!!

-- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net

>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com

[Craig Chilton]

chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:

Thanks, Chris. And if you happen to run across the CORRECT
meaning (from the Hebrew) of that verse about witches, please
e-mail me. You have me curious about that!

>--
>Chris Lyman
>If you email me, sure to take "NO_SPAM" out my address.
>Remember, life is like an analogy.

-- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net

[Craig Chilton]

bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

>In article <5gkuve$3...@usenet78.supernews.com>, xan...@sbt.net wrote:

>>bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>>
>>> It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King James
>that ten
>>> commandments became standard. Modern Jews who are educated in a proper
>>> Hebrew school know there are eleven commandments.
>>
>>Hi, Bruce --

>>
>> I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather

>>than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are

>>wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,

>>and...

>>
>> (1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version

>> of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate

>> translations." It's my understanding that the

>> translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny

>> for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)

>If you read a Torah scroll,(if you can read Hebrew) you will find the very
>many differences, as in all languages. Torah scrolls are written in formal
>Hebrew, which is very difficult to read compared to modern Hebrew. There
>are many words in Hebrew that do not translate to English. Take the famous
>'If men strive...' verse. The word in formal Hebrew has nothing to do with
>the English word 'strive,' nor fight. My own opinion would be 'disagree
>about commerce in a pugilistic manner.'

>>

>> (2) ...wonder what the 11th Commandment IS, if indeed
>> there were 11 given on the mountain, instead of 10.

>1) I am the Lord thy God who brought you forth from Egypt."

>2) You shall have no other gods before me.
>3) You will not worship graven images....

>etc.. Most modern people combine 1 and 2.

Thanks, Bruce. I wonder this, though, since the original
texts were not broken down into verses, wouldn't it be both
logical and proper to group #1 and #2, as you showed them. After
all, without #2, #1 stands as a statement of fact, and tells who
God is. #2 is the commandment. So would it not seem that in
this list, we still have only 10 actual commandments?

>> As for the other several hundred laws, I'm aware of those,
>>too, but that's another story altogether.

>Were you aware that they are Torah, and were considered as sacred

>Commandments no less important just like the others? As soon as they became
>Mishnah and essentially Talmudic, people started with the 'Ten
>Commandments' stuff.

Yes, I was aware of their original import as law. But wonder
if those laws are meant to apply to gentiles, or only to Jews.
(?) I'm only a lay Christian, and not a scholar, but it seems
to me that there are verses in the New Testament which indicate
that only the Jews are still entirely under the law... and then
only those Jews who do not accept Christ as being the Son of
God/Messiah/Lord/Savior/Redeemer. Christians, whether from the
ranks of gentiles or from Jews, are released to a large extent
from the former "legalism," as many Christian leaders call it.

I'm in over my head with much of this, so please bear with
me, but this is the impression I have.

>--
>Bruce Forest....

>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com

-- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net

[Amazon]

Cyberboy posts again:

> Rather than "So what?", I would say that the Lubavitchers'
> view of the proscription against murder being inclusive of
> abortion implies that there may be a variant Jewish view
> about when life begins.

(Nice backpedaling after you made your original statement that this
was the absolute belief.....)

Bears a little more looking.
> Nonetheless, the fact that it was not directly responsive to
> Matt's original point is not the reason the PCs have failed
> to engage it.

No, you refuse to face the fact that not all Jews believe as
the Luvabitcher. You are trying to make a sweeping generalization
that because it is written therefore it is true and believed by all.

I have responded directly at least three times.

You obviously are not reading correctly.

BTW, with what group are you studying with? Could it be the
Lubavitcher? What is your faith?

Amazon

[elizabeth frantes]

> No, Joseph, it is saying that the gentiles who have not converted but
> accept the God of the Jews as the one true God should follow these
> edicts.

Would that be a Righteous Gentile?

> You analogy is poor.
> Amazon
> P.S. The Messianic are better known as Jews for Jesus.

Really?

That explains a lot.
Never did understand that group . . .

eaf

[Trisha Fusco]

In article <chrisl-1703...@news.minn.net>,

chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
:xan...@sbt.net wrote:
:# bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
:

:# > It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King
:# > James that ten commandments became standard. Modern Jews who
:# > are educated in a proper Hebrew school know there are eleven
:# > commandments.
:
:# I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather
:# than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are
:# wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,
:# and...
:#
:# (1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version
:# of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate
:# translations." It's my understanding that the
:# translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny
:# for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)
:
:The King James translators tried to be meticulous, but the text they

:used as a source wasn't all that authorative. For example, I believe
:they worked from a Greek translation of what Christians call the
:Old Testament, not the Hebrew originals.
:
:If I'm not mistaken, the KJV came out during the Church's pogrom
:against witches, which is how one passage (can't remember chapter
:and verse) got translated "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It
:seems that even the well-meaning KJV translators could not avoid
:having political agendas affect their work.

:
The original verse (which has been corrected in numerous other translations)
is 'Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live'. They've also corrected the
mistranslations (all over the Old Testament) of 'holy women' (correct) as
'temple prostitutes' (KJV).

Trisha Fusco
bf1...@binghamton.edu

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:

<snip>

>According to my rabbi, Rabbi Orkand at my Temple in Westport, I am
>absolutely correct. In actual fact, there are 613 Commandments in
>Torah,(that was before Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi committed them to Talmud) not
>merely eleven, and I am NOT discussing Mishnah. It was not until the by and
>large inaccurate translations of King James that ten commandments became
>standard. Modern Jews who are educated in a proper Hebrew school know there
>are eleven commandments. Where are you getting these ridiculous
>interpretations of Judaism? You obviously haven't a clue as to Talmud, or
>Torah. Do you know what a Minyan is? Do you understand Kashruth? Do you
>know the significance of the Western Wall? Which variety of Hebrew do you
>speak? Are you even Jewish? You know nothing of Judaism.
>
>Besides being 20th generation Cohanim (do you even know what that is?) I am
>Jewish by tradition, but I am not religious, since I feel organized
>religion is, as Groucho ;-) said..'The opiate of the masses.' Only the weak
>of mind need to rely on incense and mummery to get through the day.
>
>I suggest you read Asimov's Foundation series and you will get a clue as to
>my feelings on organized religion.
>
>Until then, keep your kindergarten knowledge of Judaism to yourself.
>

It would be just as easy for me tho throw a bunch of "Christianese" terms at
you and ask whether you understand them. This has little to do with the verses
I sent you. Ask this rabbi of yours what those verses say. 613 may be a total
in all the books, but the discussion was on the ones on Moses' tablets. Your
own books say TEN.
I know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity (on which you are so
gilb to comment most of the time).

[sabutigo]

In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
<snip>

>But in modern Jewish law there are 11 commandments.
>

Why do you pretend to believe the Torah when you deny that there are three
places where it specifically states there are TEN commandments on the tablets
Moses brought down. Yes, as I noted before, there are 613 commandments
recognized by the Rabbis, but the TEN are specifically distinguished in the
Torah. YOU go look it up. You will see that numerals are never mistranslated.
They don't have "shades of meaning" or differences between cultures as so may
other words do. I could care less what "modern" Jewish law says. THE Law
(Torah) says there are TEN.

[sabutigo]

In article <5gkuve$3...@usenet78.supernews.com>,
xan...@sbt.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:
<snip>

> As for the other several hundred laws, I'm aware of those,

>too, but that's another story altogether. If you can share with
>us your insights on the above two points, that'll be much
>appreciated.
>
> Thanks!!
>
> -- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net
>
>>bfo...@mindspring.com
>>bfo...@snet.net
>>flex...@aol.com
>

>Craig,
You will notice that Bruce tries to give you a song-and-dance about
the difficulty of translation and cultural differences, but numerals are not
subject to those kinds of problems. Bruce cannot or will not explain the
follwing verses:

Exodus 34:28
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did
neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of
the covenant, the ***ten*** commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:13
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to
perform, even ***ten*** commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of
stone.

Deuteronomy 10:4
4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ***ten
*** commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst
of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.

"Modern Jews may try to stretch them to eleven, but their own book states ten.

[CyberPilgrim]

elizabeth frantes wrote:
>
> > No, Joseph, it is saying that the gentiles who have not converted but
> > accept the God of the Jews as the one true God should follow these
> > edicts.
>
> Would that be a Righteous Gentile?

The title, "Righteous Gentile," may have a longer history
but it's current use is a conferred title of honor on
gentiles who went beyond normal expectations -- generally
at risk to their own lives -- to protect Jews during the
period of the holocaust.

See http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/RIGHT.HTM

--
CyberPilgrim

[CyberPilgrim]

Amazon wrote:
>
> Cyberboy posts again:

>
> > Rather than "So what?", I would say that the Lubavitchers'
> > view of the proscription against murder being inclusive of
> > abortion implies that there may be a variant Jewish view
> > about when life begins.
>

> (Nice backpedaling after you made your original statement that this
> was the absolute belief.....)

There's no backpedaling. I in no sense believe or assert that
the Lubavitcher's position on abortion=murder is the absolute
or even majority belief of Jews. I have merely deprived the
PCs of their constant claim that Judaism is PC. Here is a
variant that is not.

However, considering that the Lubavitchers have big families,
resist assimilation, are dedicated to educating their
children in their beliefs and passing on their heritage,
30-50 years from now theirs may be THE Jewish position.

> Bears a little more looking.
> > Nonetheless, the fact that it was not directly responsive to
> > Matt's original point is not the reason the PCs have failed
> > to engage it.
>

> No, you refuse to face the fact that not all Jews believe as
> the Luvabitcher. You are trying to make a sweeping generalization
> that because it is written therefore it is true and believed by all.

See above.

> I have responded directly at least three times.
>
> You obviously are not reading correctly.

See above.

> BTW, with what group are you studying with? Could it be the
> Lubavitcher? What is your faith?

Vere are your papers?

> Amazon

--
CyberPilgrim

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gmmb7$dhm$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:
[....]

> >
> It would be just as easy for me tho throw a bunch of "Christianese" terms at
> you and ask whether you understand them.

Unlikely. I studied comparative religion at St Johns in NYC.

>This has little to do with the verses
> I sent you. Ask this rabbi of yours what those verses say. 613 may be a total
> in all the books, but the discussion was on the ones on Moses' tablets. Your
> own books say TEN.

No, your crappy English translations say ten. Torah merely says, 'the laws.'

And the 613 Commandments are as important to us as the ten you keep harping
about.

The books? What books?

> I know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity (on which you
are so
> gilb to comment most of the time).

ROTFL! Do you speak Hebrew? I understand Latin, so that's one big
difference. Why did you not answer ONE of the terms I posted? Not one! Go
ahead..post a load of Christianese, and I'll probably tell you things about
them YOU don't know. You going to pull out Didache stuff? We've been around
a few THOUSAND years more than your worship of one of MY people.

Just answer this...what is the significance of the Dome of the Rock in all
three major religions.

Try answering something I pose to you and get a tiny bit of credibility
before you tell me I know less than you do.

--
Bruce Forest....

bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.net
flex...@aol.com

Insert Pizza analogy here.

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gmm91$dhm$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>,
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> <snip>
> >But in modern Jewish law there are 11 commandments.
> >
> Why do you pretend to believe the Torah when you deny that there are three
> places where it specifically states there are TEN commandments on the tablets
> Moses brought down.

They translated from the Greek, who had already mistranslated.

>Yes, as I noted before, there are 613 commandments
> recognized by the Rabbis,

The 'Rabbi's?' What 'Rabbi's?'A rabbi is no more a Jew than I am. He is a
teacher. We do not have that hierarchy system as Christians do.

> but the TEN are specifically distinguished in the
> Torah. YOU go look it up. You will see that numerals are never mistranslated.

Er, yes they are. In Deuteronomy the numeral 'ten' does not appear in the
original. (I just came from the Temple and read the scroll.) It merely
translates to 'the laws.' Why do you pretend to be reading a Hebrew
original? Do you read Hebrew?

> They don't have "shades of meaning" or differences between cultures as so may
> other words do. I could care less what "modern" Jewish law says. THE Law
> (Torah) says there are TEN.

At what Temple did you unroll a scroll and find that, or are you using some
English translation? What rabbi confirmed this for you, showing you the
scroll? What is your source? Publisher? Is it Torah or 'the Bible?'

Translations are not Torah. There isn't even a good translation of Talmud,
and it is impossible to read Qu'uran without learning Arabic. Why are you
claiming English translations as accurate?

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gmmba$dhm$3...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <5gkuve$3...@usenet78.supernews.com>,
> xan...@sbt.net (Craig Chilton) wrote:
> <snip>
> > As for the other several hundred laws, I'm aware of those,
> >too, but that's another story altogether. If you can share with
> >us your insights on the above two points, that'll be much
> >appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > -- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net
> >
> >>bfo...@mindspring.com
> >>bfo...@snet.net
> >>flex...@aol.com
> >
> >Craig,
> You will notice that Bruce tries to give you a song-and-dance about
> the difficulty of translation and cultural differences, but numerals are not
> subject to those kinds of problems. Bruce cannot or will not explain the
> follwing verses:
>
>
> Exodus 34:28
> 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did
> neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of
> the covenant, the ***ten*** commandments.

The word 'nun' means ten, and it is not in the verse in question. In Hebrew
the phrase is 'the laws' and it does not refer to the ten commandments but
the 613 laws.

>
> Deuteronomy 4:13
> 13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to
> perform, even ***ten*** commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of
> stone.

'he cast the law into tablets' Why do you pretend to understand Hebrew?

>
> Deuteronomy 10:4
> 4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the
***ten
> *** commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst
> of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.

Again......'with fire he cast the laws into tablets.' How can you prove
something that you cannot even read? I'll bet your using a Old/New
Testament translation for your source.

>
> "Modern Jews may try to stretch them to eleven, but their own book states ten.

Your source? What book are you using? I assume it's not in English.

[Chris Lyman]

sabu...@teleport.com (sabutigo) wrote to Bruce Forest:

# I know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity (on which you
# are so gilb to comment most of the time).

Paul, you're becoming a poster child for your own .sig.

# "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."
# -- Thomas Sowell

--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

In <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>
bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:

>Ah, a newbie.

I've made the comment about the pizza box not saying "potential
cheese pizzas" before.

>If I take 5 pounds of pizza dough and drop it on my marble
>baking slab, at what point does it become a pizza? When I begin to
>knead the dough? When I add the tomato sauce? Or when it comes out of
>the oven?

A container of pizza dough would not call the contents a pizza.
It's a pizza (the pizza is conceived) when the ingredients are all
there.

[Chris Lyman]

CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
# chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote
# > CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
# > # Matt Pillsbury wrote:

# > # > Also, as Judaism teaches that life begins at birth, the status of a
# > # > fetus as human remains would be sort of in limbo....

# > # You might want to check out the Lubavitchers' page at
# > # http://www.chabad.org. Unless you are going to dismiss their
# > # Jewishness the way many of your fellows dismiss the Christian-
# > # ness of PL Christians, you've got a problem.

# > # Further, the posted material on the laws concerning murder,
# > # below, is an explanation on the Noahide Laws -- laws that
# > # gentiles are expected to keep. Damn pushy Jews... trying to
# > # force their religion on the rest of us...

# > So what? Matt's point was about what Judaism teaches about the
# > *beginning* of a human life, not about what it teaches about causing
# > a human death. The tradition says that a human life begins when the
# > baby draws its first breath. Your point about the Lubavitch's
# > extremely broad definition of murder is a red herring.

# Rather than "So what?", I would say that the Lubavitchers'
# view of the proscription against murder being inclusive of
# abortion implies that there may be a variant Jewish view
# about when life begins. Bears a little more looking.

Again, follow your bliss, CP. I think you'll need more than the above
implication to prove your point. And I wonder if you would want to
argue your point so vigorously without reviewing all the implications
of your assertion.

You see, a lot of pro-life Christians don't think it's possible for one
to be both Christian and pro-choice. If you argue that the Lubavichers'
extremely broad definition of murder is a valid Jewish POV, you'll
have to admit that a pro-choice stance is a valid Christian POV.

[...]

[Chris Lyman]

jher...@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) wrote:
# chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) writes:

# >Yes, the fetus is physically alive, but does not become
# >human/ensouled/ whatever until it draws its first breath. If I
# >remember correctly, this is in accordance with the image of G-d
# >breathing life to His first human creatures, Adam and Eve.

# Does that mean people on respirators aren't alive?

They're breathing, aren't they?

# >Take it up with the Jews who shared the above with me.

# Been there. Done that. Abortion flame wars on soc.culture.jewish don't
# last that long and are usually superficial.

You deleted "the above", which wasn't the paragraph about a newborn
drawing its first breath. It was a Jewish explanation of who must
observe the Noachide Laws. Now, why would you go and misrepresent
the content of my post like that?

# As a general rule, the attempts at claiming Judaism is a PC religion
# are based either on the assumption that if abortion is ever allowed,
# a fetus cannot be human (never mind that there are similar exceptions
# after birth in war time etc.) or on the assumption that in the presence
# of a spread of opinion we must always accept the most PC view.
# (Catholics for a Free Choice are trying to do the same.)

Do you have evidence that such assumptions exist, or is this another
"been there, done that" type of deal?

[Richard Clayton]

Premise:

You walk into a Pizza Hut (or Papa Gino's, or Little Caesar, whatever)
and order a pizza. They bring a frozen slab of dough and drop it on your
table. Do you dig in and enjoy your pizza? Or do you shrewdly observe
that this is not yet a pizza? It has all the ingredients. With a little
work, one could make it into a pizza. But it's not pizza yet. That
happens somewhere between putting the pizza in the oven and taking it
out. Exactly WHEN it becomes pizza is anybody's guess.

--
============================================
= Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net) =
= "Life is a strange place." =
============================================

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

In <chrisl-1703...@news.minn.net> chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net
(Chris Lyman) writes:

>Yes, the fetus is physically alive, but does not become

>human/ensouled/ whatever until it draws its first breath. If I

>remember correctly, this is in accordance with the image of G-d

>breathing life to His first human creatures, Adam and Eve.

Does that mean people on respirators aren't alive?

>Take it up with the Jews who shared the above with me.

Been there. Done that. Abortion flame wars on soc.culture.jewish don't
last that long and are usually superficial. As a general rule, the
attempts at claiming Judaism is a PC religion are based either on the
assumption that if abortion is ever allowed, a fetus cannot be human
(never mind that there are similar exceptions after birth in war time
etc.) or on the assumption that in the presence of a spread of opinion
we must always accept the most PC view. (Catholics for a Free Choice

[CyberPilgrim]

Craig Chilton wrote:
>
> chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>
> >xan...@sbt.net wrote:
> ># bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>

> ># > It was not until the by and large inaccurate translations of King
> ># > James that ten commandments became standard. Modern Jews who
> ># > are educated in a proper Hebrew school know there are eleven

> ># > commandments.
>
> ># I haven't been following this thread, so am posting rather
> ># than merely e-mailing to you, because there may be others who are
> ># wondering the same things that I am. I'm a gentile Christian,
> ># and...
> >#
> ># (1) ...am puzzled that you consider the King James version
> ># of the Bible to be "by and large inaccurate
> ># translations." It's my understanding that the
> ># translation was done under VERY meticulous srcrutiny
> ># for the greatest possible accuracy. (??)
>
> >The King James translators tried to be meticulous, but the text they
> >used as a source wasn't all that authorative. For example, I believe
> >they worked from a Greek translation of what Christians call the
> >Old Testament, not the Hebrew originals.
>
> >If I'm not mistaken, the KJV came out during the Church's pogrom
> >against witches, which is how one passage (can't remember chapter
> >and verse) got translated "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It
> >seems that even the well-meaning KJV translators could not avoid
> >having political agendas affect their work.
>

> Thanks, Chris. And if you happen to run across the CORRECT
> meaning (from the Hebrew) of that verse about witches, please
> e-mail me. You have me curious about that!

The KJV passage in question is Exodus 22:18 -- "Do not
suffer a witch to live." The Hebrew transliteration of
the word translated "witch" is "kasaph." In more
recent translations, it is rendered as "sorcerer/sorceress."
It can also mean "sorcery."

Below, are all the verses in the OT/Tanakh using "kashaph":

Ex 7:11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers,
and the Egyptian magicians also did the same
things by their secret arts:

Ex 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Dt 18:10-11 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices
his son or daughter in the fire, who practices
divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages
in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium
or spiritist or who consults the dead.

2 Chr 33:6 He sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of
Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and
witchcraft,
and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil
in
the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.

Dan 2:2 So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers
and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they
came in and stood before the king,

Mal 3:5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick
to
testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers,
against
those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the
widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice,
but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.

Ex 22:18 is fairly simple and direct -- Don't permit a
witch/sorcerer/sorceress
to live. No evidence of tweaking the text to fulfill a political agenda
here...

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================

The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;

surely I have a delightful inheritance. -- Psalm 16:6
=========================================================

[Amazon]

> > BTW, with what group are you studying with? Could it be the
> > Lubavitcher? What is your faith?

Answer the question Cyberboy.

Amazon

[Craig Chilton]

CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:

I agree. God didn't care much for witches, as we saw with
the Witch of Endor episode. Seems pretty cut and dried. In
fact, in yet another verse (I know not which one), God seems
amazed that people seek out the soothsayers, and asks why people
don't simply come to HIM with their questions...

Interestingly, there are several Protestant fundamentalist
ministers now who are saying that sorcery can be
interpreted/translated as being associated with drug abuse. Do
you see anything in the literal translation of old Hebrew that
might bear that out?

And -- thanks for your reply!!

>--
>CyberPilgrim
>=========================================================
>The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
> surely I have a delightful inheritance. -- Psalm 16:6
>=========================================================

-- Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net

[ko...@vnet.ibm.com]

Bruce replied to (reality challanged) Siegen:
>Why are you claiming english translations as accurate?
Well.....cause Pat Robertson says so! And its not like he has any monetary
stake in this :)
Nick K. "Stupidity has a certain charm.......
ni...@us.ibmmail.com ignorance does not" - FZ

[sabutigo]

In article <chrisl-1903...@news.minn.net>,

chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>sabu...@teleport.com (sabutigo) wrote to Bruce Forest:
>
># I know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity (on which you
># are so gilb to comment most of the time).
>
>Paul, you're becoming a poster child for your own .sig.
>
># "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."
># -- Thomas Sowell
>

How dare you accuse me of being educated! :-)

█е-

S.

"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."

-- Thomas Sowell

  

[Melanie]

Well, a pizza is not a slab of dough, but I buy frozen pizzas that are
not yet cooked all the time. Of course, I wouldn't eat them that way,
but they are still considered pizzas. Still, a pizza cannot grow and
develop so there will be major holes in the analogy, anyway. The dough
has external ingredients added until it is a pizza. The preborn child
just develops, his/her make-up already being determined and
self-contained.

--Melanie

[CyberPilgrim]

xan...@sbt.net (Craig Chilton) asked:

>CyberPilgrim <pur...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>>Craig Chilton wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisl@NO_SPAMminn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>>>

...

In the NT, the Greek word translated "witch,", "sorcery,"
"sorcerer," or "witchcraft" is pharmakeia -- the word
from which we get pharmacy. Considering the state of
medicine at the time and the fact that it fell within
the domain of shamanism rather than science, the potions
that were used were prescribed with a certain amount
of magic.

The dispensers of this magic were generally sorcerers/witches.
Hence the witchcraft/drug abuse connection.

While there is an argument to be made that the
culture and the experience associated with drug
use puts one in a more occultic frame of mind
(there are religious groups that use drugs as
part of their religious experience), a more
interesting area to speculate upon is whether
part of the biblical hostility towards witchcraft
is driven by the preparation of potions to induce
abortion -- abortifacients.

I do not have a copy of the Septuagint -- the
Greek version of the OT/Tanakh produced by
Jews approximately 200 BC. It would be interesting
to see if they translated the Hebrew "kasaph" with
the Greek "pharmakeia" and thus had the same
conceptual understanding of witchcraft as the
NT writers. As the Septuagint was well known and
used throughout the Greek/Roman world in which
early Christianity flourished, I suspect the
usage is the same.

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================
The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;

surely, I have a delightful inheritance. -- Ps 16:6
=========================================================

.

[elizabeth frantes]

CyberPilgrim wrote:

> elizabeth frantes wrote:
> > Would that be a Righteous Gentile?
> The title, "Righteous Gentile," may have a longer history
> but it's current use is a conferred title of honor on
> gentiles who went beyond normal expectations -- generally
> at risk to their own lives -- to protect Jews during the
> period of the holocaust.

You mean the title
"Righteous Among Nations", the title
taht was conferred on the Japanese diplomat who
signed exit visas for Jews during WWII?

I read about him for my presentation on
Yom Ha Shoah.

There is also a mark of atonement (sorry I don't have my notes handy)
that can be granted to a Gentile for trying to redress the injustices
caused by the Shoah.

(My school was the first Jesuit/Catholic university to
offer a Judaic Studies program [now widely copied].
This fall will be the 20th aniversary. It's something
USF can take great pride in.)

From the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (1997)
"Righteousness is not limited to the Jews, and the righteous
among Gentiles (hasidei ummot ha-'olam) will also have a place
in the world to come."

According to -The Vocabulary of Jewish Life-
(Abraham Mayer Heller, Hebrew Publishing Co 1967)

Goy can mean Gentile or Nation. That may be were the confusion
started. Hey, I'm starting Hebrew next semester! gimme a break!)

Hasiday Umot Ha-Olam
The Pious in the Gentile World. According to Jewish teaching,
jews ahve no monopoly on salvation. It is not necessay to be
formally converted to Judaism to be deserving of a share in the
wolrd to come. All beings, irrespective of national origin, race,
or creed, through the practices of decent human relations gain
God's mercy and love. Judaism recognizes that there are many
highways to God. The differences in beleifs, ritual and ceremonial
should not deprive one of salvation. All that is required of the
Gentile is to observe the seven basic laws given to the descendants
of Noah, known as the Sheva Mitzvos B'nai Noach.
1) To establish courst of justice
2) To refrain from idol worship
3) To avoid blasphemy
4) To abstain from human bloodshed
5) To commit no immoral act
6) To desist from robbery
7) To refrain from eating the flesh of a limb of a living animal

There is a title of Oheb Yisrael, or
Friend of the Jews.

But I guess if there is a Gentile equivalent of a Hasid
Shoteh you'd be it!

eaf

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5go3rr$a...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
jher...@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) wrote:

> In <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:
>
> >Ah, a newbie.
>
> I've made the comment about the pizza box not saying "potential
> cheese pizzas" before.
>
> >If I take 5 pounds of pizza dough and drop it on my marble
> >baking slab, at what point does it become a pizza? When I begin to
> >knead the dough? When I add the tomato sauce? Or when it comes out of
> >the oven?
>
> A container of pizza dough would not call the contents a pizza.
> It's a pizza (the pizza is conceived) when the ingredients are all
> there.

You would go to a pizzeria and eat uncooked pizza? The beauty of this
analogy is that both babies and pizzas are not created 'at the moment of
conception/kneading, but take TIME to become pizzas or babies.

[Bruce Forest]

In article <5gpes7$8o8$2...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
(sabutigo) wrote:

> In article <chrisl-1903...@news.minn.net>,
> chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
> >sabu...@teleport.com (sabutigo) wrote to Bruce Forest:
> >
> ># I know as much about Judaism as you do about Christianity (on which you
> ># are so gilb to comment most of the time).
> >
> >Paul, you're becoming a poster child for your own .sig.
> >
> ># "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated."
> ># -- Thomas Sowell
> >
> How dare you accuse me of being educated! :-)
>

Is that kind of saying 'this here's my wife, and sister,' and only having
your arms around one woman?

[CyberPilgrim]

elizabeth frantes wrote:
>
> CyberPilgrim wrote:
> > elizabeth frantes wrote:
> > > Would that be a Righteous Gentile?
> > The title, "Righteous Gentile," may have a longer history
> > but it's current use is a conferred title of honor on
> > gentiles who went beyond normal expectations -- generally
> > at risk to their own lives -- to protect Jews during the
> > period of the holocaust.
>
> You mean the title
> "Righteous Among Nations", the title
> taht was conferred on the Japanese diplomat who
> signed exit visas for Jews during WWII?

Correct. As you noted, Goiim=Gentiles=Nations

> I read about him for my presentation on
> Yom Ha Shoah.
>
> There is also a mark of atonement (sorry I don't have my notes handy)
> that can be granted to a Gentile for trying to redress the injustices
> caused by the Shoah.

If you have additional information on this, I
would be interested in receiving it. It sounds
like an interesting approach to reconciliation
and restitution.

--
CyberPilgrim

========================================
The boundary lines have fallen for me
in pleasant places;

Surely, I have a delightful inheritance.

[Melanie]

Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>
> In <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>
> bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:
>
> >Ah, a newbie.
>
> I've made the comment about the pizza box not saying "potential
> cheese pizzas" before.
>
> >If I take 5 pounds of pizza dough and drop it on my marble
> >baking slab, at what point does it become a pizza? When I begin to
> >knead the dough? When I add the tomato sauce? Or when it comes out of
> >the oven?
>
> A container of pizza dough would not call the contents a pizza.
> It's a pizza (the pizza is conceived) when the ingredients are all
> there.

I agree, and it would simply be an uncooked pizza if it is not baked
yet.

--Melanie

[Galen Hekhuis]

Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:

>Well, a pizza is not a slab of dough, but I buy frozen pizzas that are
>not yet cooked all the time. Of course, I wouldn't eat them that way,
>but they are still considered pizzas. Still, a pizza cannot grow and
>develop so there will be major holes in the analogy, anyway. The dough
>has external ingredients added until it is a pizza. The preborn child
>just develops, his/her make-up already being determined and
>self-contained.

Actually, pizzas do develop. They are very highly evloved life forms that
command (telepathicly) humans to buy and prepare them. Some have chosen to
evolve as "homemade" pizzas, some have gone the route where they have to
depend on human society (you'll see them clustered around a Domino's or Pizza
Hut if you're quick enough), and others have gone the frozen food route. In
any case, pizzas always have crumbs, which eventually turn into (you guessed
it) new pizzas.

Yes, everyone is wrong. It is pizza long before the dough is even conceived
of. The only thing we really need to consider is which came first: the pizza
or the pan?

Galen Hekhuis ghek...@ix.netcom.com
Up a creek without a backbone to stand on

[Katy Yanda]

In article ya02308000170...@news.mindspring.com, bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:
>In article <332D3A...@mindspring.com>, Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> > >Btw, your representation of the Noachide Laws is a little off. They
>> > >are not for all gentiles, just those who believe in the same God as
>> > >the Jews and who accept the Torah as God's authorative and
>> > >definitive word.
>> >
>> > Isn't that like claiming the law of gravity only applies to those who
>> > accept it?

>>
>> No, Joseph, it is saying that the gentiles who have not converted but
>> accept the God of the Jews as the one true God should follow these
>> edicts.
>>

>> You analogy is poor.
>>
>> Amazon
>>
>> P.S. The Messianic are better known as Jews for Jesus.
>
>
>Jews for Jesus. That's like saying Buddhists fo Bal'lahlulah. If someone
>believes that Jesus is Mosiach, he is not Jewish.

>
>--
>Bruce Forest....
>
>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.net
>flex...@aol.com
>
>Insert Pizza analogy here.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6ui
>
>iQCVAgUBMkIIyrTTUY7wnHzhAQH1bwP/QzOGbW1jGiiSaVw1Ci2MMbW52a36GPzi
>/9wDPEpBgrYfgtqttgCwFRRiun7VHvJTmsjKzw6ZH/qpO27dnWvR29fhcQ143WaX
>Q5esvLc+EvwA/Fz4cSbCH6Jmgc6lxk2FBL3pvXthLEYzVs8YYXXSC3NDftJvlDov
>PNAJhuHUK2E=
>=vZri
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

No Bruce that would be more like Muslims for Ba'halulah. Since Ba'hai
is considered a cult offspring of Islam, according to those I read on
s.r.i ...(yeah, call me crazy). Interesting about all these messiah-wannabes...

Katy

[Pat Winstanley]

In article <333052...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> writes

>> A container of pizza dough would not call the contents a pizza.
>> It's a pizza (the pizza is conceived) when the ingredients are all
>> there.
>
>I agree, and it would simply be an uncooked pizza if it is not baked
>yet.

Ah, but is it a pizza being?

--
Pat Winstanley

[CyberPilgrim]

Solve that one, and you've only just begun...

Is it possible for PCs and PLs to agree that "Every pizza should
be a wanted and loved pizza? And if so, by whom?

When the reality is that pizzas that are not wanted are thrown
into the garbage and those that are wanted are devoured in a
cruel and inhumane fashion, is it vacuous posturing to proclaim
that you are pro-pizza. Don't we need a less emotive term?

If a double-cheese-sausage-and-pinapple-family-size-hold-the-anchovies
is occupying my wasteline, don't I have the right to liposuction the
intruder that is enslaving me? If a bunch of fat-acceptance types are
blocking the doors to Jenny Craig's, shouldn't they be arrested
and prosecuted under the F.A.C.E. bill?

If the guy from Dominoes mixes up the delivery and you eat the
wrong pizza and only discover it a year later, is it best to
contact the guy who ate your pizza and arrange a switch or
is it best for the continued development of the pizzas that
they stay where they are?

If you're interviewed by Barbara Walters on 20/20 about your
years of pizza abuse, will she be able to make you cry?

Is a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pizza a preemmie.

And what about calzone?

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================

The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;

surely I have a delightful inheritance. -- Psalm 16:6
=========================================================

[CyberPilgrim]

Melanie wrote:
>
> Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> >
> > In <bforest-ya0230800...@news.mindspring.com>
> > bfo...@mindspring.comTVR (Bruce Forest) writes:
> >
> > >Ah, a newbie.
> >
> > I've made the comment about the pizza box not saying "potential
> > cheese pizzas" before.
> >
> > >If I take 5 pounds of pizza dough and drop it on my marble
> > >baking slab, at what point does it become a pizza? When I begin to
> > >knead the dough? When I add the tomato sauce? Or when it comes out of
> > >the oven?
> >

> > A container of pizza dough would not call the contents a pizza.
> > It's a pizza (the pizza is conceived) when the ingredients are all
> > there.
>
> I agree, and it would simply be an uncooked pizza if it is not baked
> yet.
>

> --Melanie

I prefer the term, "pre-pizza."

--
CyberPilgrim
=========================================================
The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
surely I have a delightful inheritance. -- Psalm 16:6
=========================================================

.