Re: Venomous Hate at McCain-Palin Rallies is Frightening
guardian Snow
wrote:
> National Organization of British Radical American Intelligence
> Networks In America. (NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw
Ironic that Canada is part of the American continent Qadosh. Maybe
it's the country of the United States your hate so much. You're
friends lives in that country.. What does that say about them?
How do you help? By contributing more hate?
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
To be a man is... to be responsible. It is to feel shame at the sight
of what seems to be unmerited misery. It is to take pride in a victory
won by one's comrades. It is to feel, when setting one's stone, that
one is contributing to the building of the world.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
Linda Lee
>
<snip the false prophet's garbage>
You're harassing both Qadosh and myself and you accuse him of hate.
You're full of hate, you false prophet.
Here, for you:
You are wholly in the dark, Snowjob/Dark Man, and there is no light in
you, which is why you feel free to ignore the Messiah's own words
explicitly stating he was the Father (John 14:9 - see below).
Look Snowjob/Dark Man, as long as you continue to deliberately ignore
scriptures that plainly show the Messiah was worshipped during his
incarnation and especially his statement saying explicitly he WAS the
Father incarnate, I have nothing more to say to you except perhaps to
point out what a double-minded, secretive, manipulative fraud and
hypocrite you are.
And since you explained your double-mindedness as 'growth', why don't
you do everyone a favor and finish 'growing' and read the Scriptures
and learn something before you begin preaching?
Are you drinking or what? Having a little nip and pretending to be a
prophet? What FUN.
Your mercurial nature and ignorance and contentiousness is making you
look more and more simply like a TROLL.
Here again, hypocrite, are the scriptures you choose to ignore. I can
post them endless times - if you would like them shoved down your
throat, keep posting your garbage to me.
Matt. 2:11 "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young
child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and WORSHIPPED him".
Matt. 9:18 "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came
a certain ruler, and WORSHIPPED him, saying, My daughter is even now
dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live."
Matt. 8:2 "And, behold, there came a leper and WORSHIPPED him, saying,
Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean".
Matt. 28:9 "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met
them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and
WORSHIPPED him."
Matt. 14:33 "Then they that were in the ship came and WORSHIPPED him,
saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."
Claiming equality with God was the reason he was killed: In John 5:18
John says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his
Father, making himself EQUAL with God."
John 14:9 "JESUS SAITH unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN
THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"
The nic you sometimes use, "Dark Man", is a really appropriate nic for
you as you're filled with darkness, i.e. ignorance and evil. I don't
know whether you're a troll, or just double-minded, i.e. unstable, and
keep changing your beliefs, but I really don't care anymore.
Snowjob the hypocrite wrote: "Isn't it amazing how you put scriptures
right in front of there eyes and they still run around in denial? " -
from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/ea943ac0940523ed
Description of Snowjob/"Dark Man":
James 1:6 "he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the
wind and tossed.
James 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing
of the Lord.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways".
guardian Snow
> On Oct 12, 7:02 pm, guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
> <snip the false prophet's garbage>
>
> You're harassing both Qadosh and myself and you accuse him of hate.
> You're full of hate, you false prophet.
>
> Here, for you:
So what country do you live in? Ironic that you sit back and watch
him spit on your own home and care choose to ignore it. So, is he
right? No brains in America?
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus.
Linda Lee
guardian Snow
> On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip false prophets garbage
Afraid to answer, I knew it.. Afraid of alienating somebody that spits
on you and your country. I respect Qadosh but making blanket
statements about the United States is just sad when he's not looking
in his own backyard.
Take care and be blessed.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
To be a man is... to be responsible. It is to feel shame at the sight
of what seems to be unmerited misery. It is to take pride in a victory
won by one's comrades. It is to feel, when setting one's stone, that
one is contributing to the building of the world.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> On Oct 13, 11:11 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
> > <snip false prophets garbage
>
> Afraid to answer, I knew it.. Afraid of alienating somebody that spits
> on you and your country. I respect Qadosh
LOL. SURE you do.
Hey! What about that fraudulent post you posted at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/6709fb6266db0582
trying to make it look like Qadosh admires your phony revelations and
supports your new message denying the Messiah was God incarnate as our
Saviour???? What a pathetic fraud and false prophet you are.
guardian Snow
> On Oct 12, 8:22 pm, guardian Snow <mr_snow_pheo...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 11:11 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > <snip false prophets garbage
>
> > Afraid to answer, I knew it.. Afraid of alienating somebody that spits
> > on you and your country. I respect Qadosh
>
> LOL. SURE you do.
>
> Hey! What about that fraudulent post you posted at
> supports your new message denying the Messiah was God incarnate as our
> Saviour???? What a pathetic fraud and false prophet you are.
Why do you keep making wrong claims? Why do you insist on keeping
false traditions? Where is the contradiction?
Joh 8:38 “I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you
have heard from your father.”
Exo 20:2 “I am יהוה your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of
Mitsrayim, out of the house of slavery.
Exo 20:3 “You have no other mighty ones against My face.
Exo 20:4 “You do not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness
of that which is in the heavens above, or which is in the earth
beneath, or which is in the waters under the earth,
Exo 20:5 you do not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, יהוה your
Elohim am a jealous Ěl, visiting the crookedness of the fathers on the
children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exo 20:6 but showing kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and
guard My commands.
How do you demonstrate your knowledge of the Command?
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Will you not keep the Command?
Joh 15:12 “This is My command, that you love one another, as I have
loved you.1 Footnote: 1See 13:34, 15:17.
Joh 15:13 “No one has greater love than this: that one should lay down
his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Controversy equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Linda Lee
wrote:
Why did you lie to me about the change in your belief when Mark T
convinced you the Messiah was not God incarnate and you were thanking
him 'for what he would know'? Rhetorical question. You LIED because
you wanted to make it appear that I and Qadosh supported your new
false teachings, the same reason you falsified that post from Qadosh
today in the Signs and Seals in Revelation thread, trying to make it
look as if he ADMIRED you. LOL. Qadosh was always suspicious of your
false compliments and manipulations. Liars like you are despicable.
(And by the way, speaking of that fraudulent post, anyone with access
to the Strong's correlated to the KJV Bible can see Rev. 13:18
references chi xi stigma in relation to 666, the mark of the beast.)
And I only put up with your annoying personality as long as I have
because I thought you believed in the Messiah and had been made aware
Paul was a false apostle, but it turns out you jumped on that
information because you were never a believer or follower of Yahashua`
the Messiah, God incarnate; you came here with the intention of
harassing Christians and thought I would help you because I reject
Paul.
You're unstable, uneducated, and wholly ignorant of the entire
Scriptures and the teachings of the Messiah. You remind me a lot of
Paul, as you're a lying, aggressive false prophet, and had allied
yourself with believers for a short time, all the while deceiving
them, and left because you were never of us. You've joined yourself to
Mark T's alleged beliefs for the same reason he claims to accept
Yahweh, but rejects the belief that the Messiah was not God incarnate,
solely to use that claim to harass believers and followers of the
Messiah. You're no 'brother' and you're no prophet. You'll pay come
Judgment Day.
Here's your info again:
Great Sage Itchy
<73475103-45da-419b...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 3:16 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > National Organization of British Radical American Intelligence
> > Networks In America. (NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw
>
> Ironic that Canada is part of the American continent Qadosh. Maybe
> it's the country of the United States your hate so much. You're
> friends lives in that country.. What does that say about them?
>
> How do you help? By contributing more hate?
>
> Did you make a difference in the world today?
>
> Shalom,
Q's YouTube link is fine by me, Snow, and I live in the USA.
I enjoyed it!
guardian Snow
wrote:
> In article
> <73475103-45da-419b-90d8-354e80ca8...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 3:16 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > > National Organization of British Radical American Intelligence
> > > Networks In America. (NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw
>
> > Ironic that Canada is part of the American continent Qadosh. Maybe
> > it's the country of the United States your hate so much. You're
> > friends lives in that country.. What does that say about them?
>
> > How do you help? By contributing more hate?
>
> > Did you make a difference in the world today?
>
> > Shalom,
>
> Q's YouTube link is fine by me, Snow, and I live in the USA.
> I enjoyed it!
I never look at downloads (security)... It wasn't the link... it was
the "(NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)" bit. I don't think it's useful to
demean people no matter who it is. It could no brains in Poland or
wherever... I do not see myself as somebody who wants to heap coals.
Rom 12:20 “Instead, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts,
give him a drink, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
head.”
Instead.. I'll just feed and give a drink.. after that it's in
Elohim's hands and not mine to worry.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
It not knowing what to do, it's doing what you know.
Tony Robbins
Great Sage Itchy
<4f87c7d1-e11b-47a3...@42g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:23 pm, Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <73475103-45da-419b-90d8-354e80ca8...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 3:16 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > National Organization of British Radical American Intelligence
> > > > Networks In America. (NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw
> >
> > > Ironic that Canada is part of the American continent Qadosh. Maybe
> > > it's the country of the United States your hate so much. You're
> > > friends lives in that country.. What does that say about them?
> >
> > > How do you help? By contributing more hate?
> >
> > > Did you make a difference in the world today?
> >
> > > Shalom,
> >
> > Q's YouTube link is fine by me, Snow, and I live in the USA.
> > I enjoyed it!
>
> I never look at downloads (security)... It wasn't the link... it was
> the "(NOBRAINSINAMERICA.org)" bit. I don't think it's useful to
> demean people no matter who it is. It could no brains in Poland or
> wherever... I do not see myself as somebody who wants to heap coals.
Quackman is not a nasty type and he's a Canuck from Vancouver, I
believe. Most Canadians think Americans are dumb. There is alot of
evidence to support the idea, too. Canadians have a much better
educational system.
You should have no security problem with YouTube. All the vids are
re-encoded by YouTube. I'm sure no malware could get through.
Qadosh Stephanos
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>Rom 12:20 “Instead, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts,
>give him a drink, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
>head.”
Oh here we go again, you preaching hate for Paul, and then posting
Paul scripture. You remind me of a clown. Two-faced hypocritical's.
You forgot Romans 12:21:
"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
You owe me your clown costume!
Qadosh Stephanos
<it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>Canadians have a much better educational system.
I don't live in Vancouver. But we got $54 health.
And pension plan, and workers compensation, and
low cost electricity, and lot's of oil and coal.
Canadians speak perfect English. ;-)
Qadosh Stephanos
I remember years ago when I watched a film about Canada in Seattle.
It was hilarious.
Great Sage Itchy
Stephanos <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:48:24 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
> >Canadians have a much better educational system.
>
> I don't live in Vancouver. But we got $54 health.
How about 10 or so miles SW of Vancouver?
Qadosh Stephanos
<it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>How about 10 or so miles SW of Vancouver?
Any west of Vancouver is a fish.
Qadosh Stephanos
<it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>How about 10 or so miles SW of Vancouver?
Are you an American homeland security agent?
Great Sage Itchy
Stephanos <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Sorry, I meant SE.
Great Sage Itchy
Stephanos <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
No. I'm completely harmless. From SoCal coast north of Santa Monica.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:33:49 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>
> >Rom 12:20 “Instead, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts,
> >give him a drink, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
> >head.”
>
> Oh here we go again, you preaching hate for Paul, and then posting
> Paul scripture. You remind me of a clown. Two-faced hypocritical's.
>
> You forgot Romans 12:21:
>
> "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
>
> You owe me your clown costume!
He's doubled-tongued and double-minded, a 'Mark of the beast', Mark
being Snowjob's real first name. Look how the subtly revealing way
he's signing off in his provoking post to me above ("Controversy
equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it. Oliver Wendell
Holmes" from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/d66e60180a770bb5
)
guardian Snow
wrote:
> Quackman is not a nasty type and he's a Canuck from Vancouver, I
> believe. Most Canadians think Americans are dumb. There is alot of
> evidence to support the idea, too. Canadians have a much better
> educational system.
I actually have a lot of respect for Qadosh even if he doesn't like
me. He rebukes me more often then naught but I admire that he stands
for what he believes and is steadfast besides the fact he thinks I'm
not.
I wouldn't be in a rush to say the Canadian system of education is
better my friend. I've been around places.. I can tell you from first
hand experience that all systems are down and nobody has a monopoly on
intelligence. The fact that the United States still has home
schooling, means we are still producing people that are capable of
independent and critical thoughts.
To be certain, we have our problems but don't believe for a moment
that all the other countries in this world don't suffer from the same
and worse. I won't berate other systems but we can acknowledge that
many of the best thinkers are MADE IN AMERICA.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men
purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Shephdd
There is NO greater hypocrisy then to say: " I'm a christian and then vote
for the " abortion monger " Barack Husein Obama. Which team are
you on anyway ? ? ? Im on Jesus's team. It is clear to me that you are a
" Demo-rat. "
Yakov
"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:4895aea2-82d6-4f69...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
guardian Snow
wrote:
> >Rom 12:20 “Instead, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts,
> >give him a drink, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
> >head.”
>
> Oh here we go again, you preaching hate for Paul, and then posting
> Paul scripture. You remind me of a clown. Two-faced hypocritical's.
>
> You forgot Romans 12:21:
>
> "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
> You owe me your clown costume!
"I do not see myself as somebody who wants to heap coals."
Actually, dear Qadosh, I believe with my comment that proceeds, I was
making it clear this is not something I preach. i was waiting for you
to call me on it:) See, the reason that I find this particular verse
wrong is the motivation. We shouldn't love our enemies because it,
"heaps coals of fire" on other people. We should be doing it out of
sincere love because our enemies act the way they do out of
ignorance. I don't think we should be motivated in such a fashion...
I can imaging somebody out there pretending to love enemies
thinking... "Yeah, here is another coal #$#@$!" and it doesn't seem
like motivation from our heavenly Father. Notice what the Messiah
says:
Luk 23:34 And יהושע said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know
what they do.” And they divided His garments and cast lots.
This is agreeable from the prophets:
Hos 4:6 “My people have perished for lack of knowledge. Because you
have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being priest for Me. Since
you have forgotten the Torah of your Elohim, I also forget your
children.
Most people act irrationally because they don't know any better and
thats why society on a whole is being dumbed down and taught to adore
images. It's also why I don't bother with U-tube and the like.. I
didn't come to a text format to view images. Take care and be well.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.
William Blake
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> Odd Lin that you would call someone a hypocrite and post N.T. scripture !
> There is NO greater hypocrisy then to say: " I'm a christian and then vote
> for the " abortion monger " Barack Husein Obama. Which team are
> you on anyway ? ? ? Im on Jesus's team. It is clear to me that you are a
> " Demo-rat. "
> Yakov
Job 17:8 - Upright men shall be astonied at this,
and the innocent shall stir up himself
against the hypocrite.
Shalom,
Jim
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
Linda Lee
> On Oct 13, 4:18 pm, "Shephdd" <Shep...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Odd Lin that you would call someone a hypocrite and post N.T. scripture !
> > There is NO greater hypocrisy then to say: " I'm a christian and then vote
> > for the " abortion monger " Barack Husein Obama. Which team are
> > you on anyway ? ? ? Im on Jesus's team. It is clear to me that you are a
> > " Demo-rat. "
> > Yakov
>
> Job 17:8 - Upright men shall be astonied at this,
> and the innocent shall stir up himself
> against the hypocrite.
>
> Shalom,
>
> Jim
>
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4895aea2-82d6-4f69...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:33:49 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>
> > > <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> > > >Rom 12:20 “Instead, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts,
> > > >give him a drink, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
> > > >head.”
>
> > > Oh here we go again, you preaching hate for Paul, and then posting
> > > Paul scripture. You remind me of a clown. Two-faced hypocritical's.
>
> > > You forgot Romans 12:21:
>
> > > "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
>
> > > You owe me your clown costume!
>
> > He's doubled-tongued and double-minded, a 'Mark of the beast', Mark
> > being Snowjob's real first name. Look how the subtly revealing way
> > he's signing off in his provoking post to me above ("Controversy
> > equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it. Oliver Wendell
> > Holmes" fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/d66e60180a770bb5
> > )
"Pro-Life Catholics For Obama - Should abortion be the litmus test
for political support?
In an election cycle filled with its share of quirks, oddities, and
surprises, the emergence of Roman Catholic pro-lifers as leading
supporters of Sen. Barack Obama—himself a favorite of the National
Reproductive Rights Action League—must rank as one of the strangest of
twists and turns. Whatever its effect on the election, this unexpected
development may also portend a new hardening of the battle lines
within the Catholic Church, no matter who is inaugurated president in
January.
The most visible of the pro-Obama Catholic pro-lifers has been
Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, formerly dean of
the law school at the Catholic University of America and a minor
official in the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush. Kmiec began the 2008 cycle as co-chairman of Mitt Romney's
campaign, but recently told the Chicago Tribune that, as the campaign
unfolded, "I kept discovering that Obama was sounding more Catholic
than most Catholics I know" on issues like the family wages, health-
care costs and the war in Iraq. With Romney out of the race, Kmiec
announced his support for Obama on Easter Sunday, arguing that
"Senator Obama comes reasonably close" to embodying "an alternative
way to be pro-life." Kmiec develops that arresting claim in a new
book, "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions About
Barack Obama," published in mid-September.
Other pro-Obama Catholic intellectuals include Notre Dame professor M.
Cathleen Kaveny, whose Obamapologetics are frequently found on the
Commonweal blog, and Duquesne University law professor Nicholas
Cafardi, one of the original members of the U.S. bishops' National
Review Board to study problems of clerical sexual abuse. In a recent
statement, "Senator Obama: A Moral Choice for Catholics," Cafardi
summarized the three most frequently deployed arguments of self-
declared pro-life Catholics who support Barack Obama for president."
Linda Lee
guardian Snow
> "Pro-Life Catholics For Obama - Should abortion be the litmus test
> for political support?
> In an election cycle filled with its share of quirks, oddities, and
> surprises, the emergence of Roman Catholic pro-lifers as leading
> supporters of Sen. Barack Obama—himself a favorite of the National
> Reproductive Rights Action League—must rank as one of the strangest of
> twists and turns. Whatever its effect on the election, this unexpected
> development may also portend a new hardening of the battle lines
> within the Catholic Church, no matter who is inaugurated president in
> January.
We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
he made mention of my name.
Exo 20:13 “You do not murder.
Num 35:16 ‘But if he has smitten him with an instrument of iron, so
that he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall certainly be put to
death.
Isa 1:21 How the steadfast city has become a whore! I have filled it
with right-ruling; righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
'Men have forgotten this truth,' said the fox. 'But you must not
forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.'
You are responsible for your rose.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 4:03 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Pro-Life Catholics For Obama - Should abortion be the litmus test
>> for political support?
>> In an election cycle filled with its share of quirks, oddities, and
>> surprises, the emergence of Roman Catholic pro-lifers as leading
>> supporters of Sen. Barack Obama—himself a favorite of the National
>> Reproductive Rights Action League—must rank as one of the strangest of
>> twists and turns. Whatever its effect on the election, this unexpected
>> development may also portend a new hardening of the battle lines
>> within the Catholic Church, no matter who is inaugurated president in
>> January.
>
>We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
"Murder"???
She was talking about abortion, not murder.
According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
to force our religious opinions on others.
>
>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>he made mention of my name.
So???
The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
Abortion cannot be a sin.
>
>Exo 20:13 “You do not murder.
Murder is not warfare, execution of criminals, self defence, of
abortion.
Exodus 21:22 defines a fetus as the personal property of the woman's
husband, not as a human life.
>
>Num 35:16 ‘But if he has smitten him with an instrument of iron, so
>that he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall certainly be put to
>death.
>
>Isa 1:21 How the steadfast city has become a whore! I have filled it
>with right-ruling; righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers.
>
Snow, you cannot use the bible to justify Nazism. Just like McCain
and Palin, Hitler promised to ban abortion. We see how that ended up.
Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
form another Muslim terrorist nation.
guardian Snow
> >Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
> >YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
> >he made mention of my name.
>
> So???
> The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
> bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
> abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
> Abortion cannot be a sin.
Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he
die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
I just did.. I see the wickedness of your heart Aaron. You who think
that your so wise and clever are not hiding your works in the dark.
How do you know a million prophets weren't murdered? In the United
states alone 45 million documented murders by abortion have been
allowed since 1972 Row Vs Wade. His name isn't HaShem either... but
thank goodness on this set apart day you wouldn't dare promote murder
and use his name in the same sentence. Just because the commands of
men make it legal my lost friend, doesn't mean (Ani Adonoi rofecha) I
am YHVH that healeth thee, doesn't judge the wicked!
No wonder your in darkness. In the future.. don't even speak to me of
Torah, you know nothing:
Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and
reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
A WAY OF LIFE. No wonder simple ideas are hidden from you.
Psa 101:1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O YHVH, will I
sing.
Psa 101:2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt
thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
Psa 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work
of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
Psa 101:4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a
wicked person.
Psa 101:5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off:
him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
Psa 101:6 Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they
may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve
me.
Psa 101:7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he
that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
Psa 101:8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may
cut off all wicked doers from the city of YHVH.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
Leo Sgouros
news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
> to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
> form another Muslim terrorist nation.
>
Do you have a cite for that?
I found this, but not anything more specific.
"Palin’s position on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is unknown. She has not publicly indicated whether she believes the
United States should negotiate with Hamas."
http://www.cfr.org/bios/14564/#7
Linda Lee
> On Oct 15, 4:03 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > "Pro-Life Catholics For Obama - Should abortion be the litmus test
> > for political support?
> > In an election cycle filled with its share of quirks, oddities, and
> > surprises, the emergence of Roman Catholic pro-lifers as leading
> > supporters of Sen. Barack Obama—himself a favorite of the National
> > Reproductive Rights Action League—must rank as one of the strangest of
> > twists and turns. Whatever its effect on the election, this unexpected
> > development may also portend a new hardening of the battle lines
> > within the Catholic Church, no matter who is inaugurated president in
> > January.
>
> We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>
> Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
> YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
> he made mention of my name.
>
> Exo 20:13 “You do not murder.
>
> Num 35:16 ‘But if he has smitten him with an instrument of iron, so
> that he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall certainly be put to
> death.
>
> Isa 1:21 How the steadfast city has become a whore! I have filled it
> with right-ruling; righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers.
McCain's a crazy warmonger. My vote was already done and was AGAINST
the WARMONGERING McCAIN.
*I* don't murder and don't believe in abortion unless the mother's
life is definitely threatened.
You're as ignorant in this area as you are concerning the teachings of
the Messiah.
You're such a lying HYPOCRITE, whining I'm harassing you while you
focus on harassing me because I refuse to reject the Messiah and
instead follow YOUR false teachings.
Get lost, you harassing creep.
Linda Lee
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>
He doesn't care what evil plans they have for Israel.
And he's simply harassing you because you happened to say the same
thing I did, that to use the word "God" is simply good communication
so people will understand who is meant. He doesn't care who
understands what. He's here to spread confusion. He's a TROLL.
And I LOVE his hypocritical posts where he whines others he's
harassing at the moment should 'love their enemies' (meaning HIM)
while he acts as the enemy of the Messiah.
Linda Lee
> "Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
Hi Leo, how have you been lately?
You would think "Barracuda" (a nickname she actually likes and applies
to herself) Palin would openly take a stand against the evil
organization Hamas. She doesn't because she doesn't plan to oppose
them. Likely, the "Barracuda" wants to bring about Armageddon by
assisting in Israel being surrounded by murderous enemies.
Do we all know what barracudas DO? They eat their prey alive in a
very short time.
Leo Sgouros
On Oct 16, 10:28 am, "Leo Sgouros" <hanaram...@archangels.mil> wrote:
> "Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
> > Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
> > to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
> > form another Muslim terrorist nation.
>
> Do you have a cite for that?
> I found this, but not anything more specific.
>
> "Palin’s position on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict is unknown. She has not publicly indicated whether she believes
> the
> United States should negotiate with
> Hamas."http://www.cfr.org/bios/14564/#7
Hi Leo, how have you been lately?
Good.
You would think "Barracuda" (a nickname she actually likes and applies
to herself) Palin would openly take a stand against the evil
organization Hamas. She doesn't because she doesn't plan to oppose
them.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761008&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I was thinking more along the lines of "what on earth do they have to
negotiate about"?
They can get fu**ed.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3eeefdba-fc35-47d2...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 10:28 am, "Leo Sgouros" <hanaram...@archangels.mil> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
> > <snip>
>
> > > Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
> > > to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
> > > form another Muslim terrorist nation.
>
> > Do you have a cite for that?
> > I found this, but not anything more specific.
>
> > "Palin’s position on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
> > conflict is unknown. She has not publicly indicated whether she believes
> > the
> > United States should negotiate with
> > Hamas."http://www.cfr.org/bios/14564/#7
>
> Hi Leo, how have you been lately?
>
> Good.
>
> You would think "Barracuda" (a nickname she actually likes and applies
> to herself) Palin would openly take a stand against the evil
> organization Hamas. She doesn't because she doesn't plan to oppose
> them.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of "what on earth do they have to
> negotiate about"?
Really; that was my point as well.
Firefly
> On Oct 15, 4:03 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Pro-Life Catholics For Obama - Should abortion be the litmus test
>> for political support?
>> In an election cycle filled with its share of quirks, oddities, and
>> surprises, the emergence of Roman Catholic pro-lifers as leading
>> supporters of Sen. Barack Obama—himself a favorite of the National
>> Reproductive Rights Action League—must rank as one of the strangest of
>> twists and turns. Whatever its effect on the election, this unexpected
>> development may also portend a new hardening of the battle lines
>> within the Catholic Church, no matter who is inaugurated president in
>> January.
>
> We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>
I don't say this lightly, but I feel I have to say it. The babies
nervous system is under development at 3 months old, when cartilage
begins to harden in his spine. In the case of a mother who's life is in
danger due to child birth, there is the alternative of c section. But
to meet this head on; yes..abortion is killing, but you have to remember
that allowing a mother to die KNOWING that birthing the child will kill
her is ALSO murder...just as cold blooded and premeditated as an
abortion, so what are you going to do ? Well, for Christians I would
say you should have been praying all along for the welfare of this
unborn child, but that doesn't always happen. So, what are we going to
do ? Give the mother the preference. Why ? Mom was here first; she may
have other children to care for, as both parents are vital for the
upbringing of children. And another reason; the unborn has no knowledge
that it is endangering it's mother and potential care giver, and is
unable to make a choice itself, so we take the responsibility for the
decision to abort. We save an unborn from the guilt of killing his
mother in birth, and we save the mothers life.
It's a trade off; if you kill other than to spare a life, it's murder,
so not all abortions are murder, and not all those opposing abortions
to spare the lives of mothers know and understand the difference between
murder and rescue at a high price..
No, abortion to spare a life is not murder..
A bug.
Linda Lee
Since Snowjob has actually gone so far as to insinuate I am pro-murder
in this thread, here is my personal opinion on abortion (which issue I
think has nothing to do with whether or not the murderous,
warmongering McCain should be President):
Personally, I could never abort my unborn child unless both of us were
almost certain to die anyway, but I can't decide for everyone; many
would prefer continuing to live themselves, and I think that is their
own 'right to life'.
I know it would ruin the rest of my life anyway to kill my baby, so
that would make the choice easier if the case was the baby would live,
but I would die if I carried it to full-term.
In some cases, abortion is simply murder of the most vulnerable and a
convenience for selfish people. To call the baby a "fetus" is just
to depersonalize it in order to ease the conscience; a fetus is a
baby, a person, if it is left un-attacked and has the same 'right to
life' as anyone else.
The abortion laws should have a LOT of controls added to it, and I
think it should be federally controlled and not left up to the
individual states.
Yes, I know Obama feels the states should each decide their own
abortion laws, but I disagree with him on this point.
Obama is still BY FAR the best candidate for President, and the evil
McCain shows his real lying nature every time he appears on TV.
McCain's constant lies reveal his true 'father' is the Devil, not God
like he's attempted to manipulate us into believing by choosing the
equally nutty self-professed Christian, Sarah "Barracuda" Palin as his
running mate:
John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not
in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it".
guardian Snow
> It's a trade off; if you kill other than to spare a life, it's murder,
> so not all abortions are murder, and not all those opposing abortions
> to spare the lives of mothers know and understand the difference between
> murder and rescue at a high price..
>
> No, abortion to spare a life is not murder..
Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which YHVH thy
Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
Who are we that we should dare to presume the will of YHVH? Oh Ye of
little faith. Murder is always murder. Messiah gave his life for
you, will you never take up your stake? You who dare spill innocent
blood have broken the Torah and in need of repentance. Can blood be
more innocent that that of the unborn? Innocent blood is shed by you
this day, repent!
Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
he made mention of my name.
Do you presume that a little one named by YHVH in the womb,
unprotected is now worthy of death? Your reasoning doesn't stand a
chance against the word of the heavenly Father:
Isa 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not
have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will
I not forget thee.
Isa 49:16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy
walls are continually before me.
Isa 49:17 Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that
made thee waste shall go forth of thee.
Isa 49:18 Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather
themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith YHVH, thou
shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind
them on thee, as a bride doeth.
Isa 49:19 For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy
destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the
inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away.
Isa 49:20 The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the
other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me:
give place to me that I may dwell.
Isa 49:21 Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me
these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and
removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left
alone; these, where had they been?
Isa 49:22 Thus saith the Master YHVH, Behold, I will lift up mine hand
to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall
bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon
their shoulders.
Isa 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy
nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward
the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that
I am YHVH: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
Isa 49:24 Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful
captive delivered?
Isa 49:25 But thus saith YHVH, Even the captives of the mighty shall
be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I
will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy
children.
Isa 49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh;
and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine:
and all flesh shall know that I YHVH am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer,
the mighty One of Jacob.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children.
William Makepeace Thackeray
Firefly
> On Oct 17, 4:23 am, Firefly <Firefly200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a trade off; if you kill other than to spare a life, it's murder,
>> so not all abortions are murder, and not all those opposing abortions
>> to spare the lives of mothers know and understand the difference between
>> murder and rescue at a high price..
>>
>> No, abortion to spare a life is not murder..
>
> Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which YHVH thy
> Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
And the context of Deu 19:10 is below, which you quoted OUT of
context, which is the same as misapplying the words of El;
Deu 19:1 When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the
LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in
their cities, and in their houses;
Deu 19:2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy
land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.
Deu 19:3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy
land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts,
that every slayer may flee thither.
Deu 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither,
that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated
not in time past;
Deu 19:5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew
wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree,
and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour,
that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
Deu 19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his
heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him;
whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time
past.
Deu 19:7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three
cities for thee.
Deu 19:8 And if the LORD thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn
unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give
unto thy fathers;
Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I
command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his
ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
>
> Who are we that we should dare to presume the will of YHVH?
We ? Don't you mean who am I ? I'm a guy that can tell
an accident and circumstances beyond our control from premeditation,
it's known as thinking in most circles.
The context of the verse plainly stipulates hate being the motivation
behind the murder. Such as it is, you've completely misapplied the
verse in this situation.
But since you brought it up, who is to say that El forbids the sparing
of a life in such a situation ? Clearly, though the verse you quoted
plainly states that hate is required for a killing to be murder, it only
addresses accidents as described in the verse. Perhaps you'd like to
rewrite the verse to fit the situation ? Or maybe alter the
interpretation of it to fit your needs ? The previous verses set the
context for Deu 19:10, and thus the correct meaning..
A bug.
Firefly
> Do you presume that a little one named by YHVH in the womb,
> unprotected is now worthy of death? Your reasoning doesn't stand a
> chance against the word of the heavenly Father:
Your reasoning isn't REASONING, it's smoke and mirrors at it's best,
as once again you have avoided using the verses below IN CONTEXT,
so for your edification I've included them below;
Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
he made mention of my name.
Isa 49:2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of
his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver
hath he hid me;
Isa 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I
will be glorified.
Isa 49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength
for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my
work with my God.
Isa 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his
servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet
shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my
strength.
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my
servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of
Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One,
to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a
servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall
worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of
Israel, and he shall choose thee.
Isa 49:8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee,
and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee,
and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to
cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
Isa 49:9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that
are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their
pastures shall be in all high places.
Isa 49:10 They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor
sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by
the springs of water shall he guide them.
Isa 49:11 And I will make all my mountains a way, and my highways shall
be exalted.
Isa 49:12 Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the
north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim.
Isa 49:13 Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into
singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will
have mercy upon his afflicted.
Isa 49:14 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath
forgotten me.
The context is set in the preceeding verses, which you ever so slying
omitted. isn't that known as "sins of omission" ?? I do believe it is,
something that Yeshua referred to about the deception of the pharisees..
In CONTEXT, El is speaking about Zion, NOT addressing physical
problems or violent acts of any kind. Am I a literalist ? Yes, in
cases where literalism reveals the intent, as it prevents me from
committing the same errors you have been making.
a bug..
guardian Snow
I don't reject the Messiah.
Psa 106:21 They forgat El their saviour, which had done great things
in Egypt;
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto YHVH of
hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto YHVH because of
the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and
he shall deliver them.
I vote INDEPENDENT!
NEW YORK – Former members of Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga's
Orange Democratic Movement party have told WND when Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Kenya on a "fact-finding"
trip in 2006, he was carrying out part of a secret election strategy
that also included exploiting divisive tribal tensions and ultimately
taking advantage of rioting that left 1,000 dead.
The strategy document outlining the campaign earlier was referenced in
"The Obama Nation" but could not be fully authenticated at the time of
publication.
Now, however, research conducted in Kenya by WND has confirmed the
authenticity of the strategy memo, which was prepared by a five-person
Odinga "core strategy team" led by Peter A. Nyongo, the secretary
general of Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement party, with the
assistance of four key Odinga ODM strategists, including Odinga
speechwriter Adams Oloo.
It was reported to have been smuggled out of ODM offices by Christian
former-ODM officials.
WND's sources in Kenya included several top ex-ODM officials who
played key roles in Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign, only to turn
on Odinga when the candidate's memorandum of understanding with Sheik
Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum,
proved to be real.
In that Aug. 27, 2007, document, Odinga promises within six months of
becoming president he would "rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to
recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran
for Muslim declared religions."
Raila Odinga
The former ODM sources in Kenya supported the authenticity of the
campaign strategy by noting Odinga did conduct a campaign against
President Mwai Kibaki by charging his administration with corruption,
advancing anti-Kibaki sentiments aimed at inciting Kenyan youth to
vote for Odinga and ultimately calling for protest by Odinga's fellow
Luo tribal members. Kibaki is of the majority Kikuyu tribe.
The "protests" turned violent, and in January and February a brutal
wave of Odinga-supporting, machete-wielding Luo mobs killed an
estimated 1,000 members of the Kikuyu tribe, displaced over 350,000
Kenyans from their homes and destroyed some 800 Christian churches,
all without a single mosque being damaged.
The sources reported Odinga simply was following the script his policy
strategists laid out for him in the Nyongo strategy document.
The strategy document remains available at this link.
Obama's involvement amounted to a coordination with Odinga on the
campaign, according to the sources.
The general tone of the strategy was to encourage the Odinga campaign
to claim to be leading in the presidential race regardless of the
actual numbers and be prepared to proclaim victory even if Odinga
lost.
The officials poll results showed he lost to the incumbent by about
250,000 votes.
The plan called for "opportunities" for Odinga to pursue, including
efforts to "exploit anti-Kikuyu statements," with a determination to
"leverage the vulnerability of the Kibaki administration responses to
corruption" and confront Kibaki with "a powerful anti-corruption
message."
The final strategy the document calls for is exploiting ethnic
tensions and using "violence as a last resort" to gain power. Among
the 1,000 killed, reports say, were several dozen women and children
who died when the Christian church in which they had sought refuge
from marauding Muslim gangs was burned down around them.
The ex-ODM sources said Odinga followed the strategy script exactly,
including his ultimate use of tribal conflict to gain power.
While Odinga never had explicitly demanded violence, the former ODM
sources said Odinga used "code language" to his Luo backers to convey
the instructions to burn Kikuyu homes, rape women and kill men.
Obama's part in the strategy was to openly attack the Kibaki
administration in meetings where Odinga was in a very public
attendance at Obama's side, the sources said.
WND previously reported a news report by a Chicago WBBM-TV news team
of Obama's 2006 trip to Kenya. The report showed the senator
undermining the Kibaki government in a speech delivered to the
editorial staff at the Nairobi offices of the Standard, a prominent
Nairobi newspaper, and at a separate appearance in which Obama
delivered a public speech at Nairobi University of Nairobi, two hours
after the appearance at the Standard.
The ex-ODM sources argued Obama and Odinga together were implementing
in a coordinated fashion the strategy the Nyongo-led policy advisers
had crafted in the internal strategy document.
The two politicians remained in touch through that time period, as WND
also has published a report referencing a copy of a private Dec. 22,
2006, e-mail in which Obama personally informed Odinga that "all our
correspondence [be] handled by Mr. Mark Lippert."
Lippert, at that time, was serving as a foreign policy advisor in
Obama’s U.S. Senate office in Washington, D.C.
The Washington Times also reported Odinga visited Obama during three
trips the Kenyan politician made to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
The Times also reported Obama sent his Senate office foreign policy
adviser, Lippert, to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate and arrange for
Obama's Senate "fact-finding" visit to Kenya later that year.
As further evidence that Obama and Odinga were coordinating to
implement the campaign strategy outlined in the Nyongo-authored
document, the ex-ODM sources in Kenya argued that Obama maintained
almost daily cell phone contact with Odinga as the post-election
tribal violence was unfolding in Kenya, even as Obama was campaigning
in the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, as
has been reported by the BBC.
The ex-ODM sources said Obama worked after the election with former
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to argue a position should be created to allow Odinga
to share head of state as a compromise to end the violence.
The ex-ODM sources said during the post-election violence Obama did
not call on Odinga to drop his charges of voter fraud or to withdraw
completely from his efforts to become head of state as a strategy to
calm his Luo tribe supporters and bring a halt to the violence.
WND confirmed in Kenya that at one point Annan and Rice actually
pressured Kenyan Vice President Kolonzo to step down from his position
to bring the Luo-mob protest violence to an end by appointing Odinga
vice president so he could assume the nation's second highest
political office.
When Kolonzo refused to step down, Annan and Rice proposed the Odinga-
inspired plan to appoint him as prime minister, effectively allowing
Odinga to share the head-of-state position with Kibaki, a solution
that was adopted.
Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation,"
personally autographed – for only $4.95, available today, but only
from WND!
WND also reported on the authenticity of an Odinga campaign internal
finance memorandum documenting that Obama arranged for Odinga to
receive in his U.S. trips nearly $1 million in campaign contributions
from Obama fund-raisers and donors to assist Odinga in his 2007
presidential campaign in Africa.
The finance memo, prepared by Shakeel Shabbir, the head of Odinga's
campaign finance accounting section, also detailed that among the 72
individuals and organizations that contributed money to Odinga's 2007
presidential run in Kenya was Saif el-Islam Gadhafi, the second oldest
sun of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, who also was listed as
contributing nearly $1 million to Odinga's campaign.
The Shabbir document lists the Obama-generated campaign contributions
from the U.S. as having been donated by "Friends of Senator B.O."
Obama's campaign "Fight the Smears" website and a posting by Ben Smith
at Politico.com have questioned the authenticity of the Obama-to-
Odinga Dec. 22, 2006, e-mail by arguing the e-mails "appear not to
have been written by a native English speaker," without addressing a
second similar e-mail WND published, that should not occasion any
linguistic quibbles.
Moreover, neither "Fight the Smears" nor the Smith posting disputed
the substantive point made in the e-mails, namely that Lippert served
to coordinate between Obama and Odinga while Lippert held a staff
position in Obama's U.S. Senate office in Washington.
WND was unable to get a response from Obama with calls to his
Washington office and Chicago campaign headquarters.
guardian Snow
> But since you brought it up, who is to say that El forbids the sparing
> of a life in such a situation ? Clearly, though the verse you quoted
> plainly states that hate is required for a killing to be murder, it only
> addresses accidents as described in the verse. Perhaps you'd like to
> rewrite the verse to fit the situation ? Or maybe alter the
> interpretation of it to fit your needs ? The previous verses set the
> context for Deu 19:10, and thus the correct meaning..
Psa 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee,
which frameth mischief by a law?
Psa 94:21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the
righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
Psa 94:22 But YHVH is my defence; and my Elohim is the rock of my
refuge.
Psa 94:23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall
cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, YHVH our Elohim shall cut
them off.
You life is in your hands.
Linda Lee
LOL. That's 'big' of you ...and unusual.
Linda Lee
Yes you do. The Messiah taught that he was the Father incarnate as our
Saviour.
guardian Snow
> > I don't reject the Messiah.
>
> Yes you do. The Messiah taught that he was the Father incarnate as our
> Saviour.
In a version that has the real names of our Father.. show me the
money.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of YHVH: and they
that hear shall live.
Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father which hath sent me.
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto YHVH of
hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto YHVH because of
the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and
he shall deliver them.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am YHVH; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel
together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it
from that time? have not I YHVH? and there is no Elohim else beside
me; a just El and a Saviour; there is none besides me.
Messiah taught he was SENT by the Father.
Linda Lee
> On Oct 17, 11:29 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't reject the Messiah.
>
> > Yes you do. The Messiah taught that he was the Father incarnate as our
> > Saviour.
>
<snip>
It's not up for debate with me; talk to yourself.
guardian Snow
I'm pretty good at that.. didn't you notice? I happen to think I'm a
pretty nice guy after all. You know, unless you actually love
yourself first, you can't love others.
Think about that for a while...
Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as
one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were
strangers in the land of Egypt: I am YHVH your Elohim.
Is there anything evil about using a restored name of your Father as
recorded in scriptures?
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/RNKJV%282%29.zip
download for free:)
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
Zev
news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
>>We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>
> "Murder"???
> She was talking about abortion, not murder.
> According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
Try Genesis 9:6.
Ask yourself what the apparently
redundant word "b'adam" means there.
If you don't know Hebrew,
you may consider asking a friend who does.
guardian Snow
> "Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
Gen 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood is shed, for in
the image of Elohim has He made man.
Excellent reference.
Gen 9:7 “As for you, bear fruit and increase, bring forth teemingly in
the earth and increase in it.”
Let's not forget the Torah commands we bear fruit and increase. Great
reference. I'm blessed to learn from my brothers and you show
yourself to be truly a man of understanding Zev.
Psa 105:1 Give thanks to יהוה! Call upon His Name, Make known His
deeds among the peoples.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
Emma
>
>>
>"Murder"???
>She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
>It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
>biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
>to force our religious opinions on others.
What do you mean by "forcing our religious opinions on others"?
Everyone has the right to argue their case and we all either
accept it or reject it. We can argue religious reasons if we
want to. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can argue
on whatever basis they wish.
That's democracy.
>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>he made mention of my name.
>
>So???
>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>Abortion cannot be a sin.
God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
mean that we can murder each other.
--
*****Emma*****
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
http://www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 17, 12:38 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> >Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>> >YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>> >he made mention of my name.
>>
>> So???
>> The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>> bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>> abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>> Abortion cannot be a sin.
>
>Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he
>die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
That passage refers to a person killing a living human being, not a
fetus.
>
>I just did.. I see the wickedness of your heart Aaron. You who think
>that your so wise and clever are not hiding your works in the dark.
You seem to think that God is wicked since all I did was state that
God never sins.
>
>How do you know a million prophets weren't murdered?
Because, by BIBLICAL definition no one was ever murdered by abortion.
Also because the fetuses were aborted. If God had intended for one of
them to be a prophet, he would have survived.
Murder is not warfare, execution of criminals, self defence, of
abortion.
Exodus 21:22 defines a fetus as the personal property of the woman's
husband, not as a human life.
>In the United
>states alone 45 million documented murders by abortion have been
>allowed since 1972 Row Vs Wade. His name isn't HaShem either... but
>thank goodness on this set apart day you wouldn't dare promote murder
>and use his name in the same sentence. Just because the commands of
>men make it legal my lost friend, doesn't mean (Ani Adonoi rofecha) I
>am YHVH that healeth thee, doesn't judge the wicked!
Snow, you are allowing your Buddhist religious beliefs to cause you to
bear false witness.
>
>No wonder your in darkness. In the future.. don't even speak to me of
>Torah, you know nothing:
Snow, you are a liar, an anti semite and now you publically declare
that you believe that you know right from wrong better than haShem and
you accuse HIM of evil because HE Chose not to forbid abortion.
>
>Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and
>reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
>
>A WAY OF LIFE. No wonder simple ideas are hidden from you.
>
>Psa 101:1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O YHVH, will I
>sing.
>Psa 101:2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt
>thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
>Psa 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work
>of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
>Psa 101:4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a
>wicked person.
>Psa 101:5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off:
>him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
>Psa 101:6 Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they
>may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve
>me.
>Psa 101:7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he
>that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
>Psa 101:8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may
>cut off all wicked doers from the city of YHVH.
Snow, you cannot use the bible to justify Nazism. Just like McCain
and Palin, Hitler promised to ban abortion. We see how that ended up.
Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
form another Muslim terrorist nation.
>
Aaron
Vice-presidential debate. Biden did not say weather he would support
a "two state solution," but palin specifically stated that she does.
Aaron
Snow makes a lot of antisemitic statements. I do not know if he means
to be antisemitic or if he has been indoctrinated into corrupt
Christian doctrines such as Armstrongism and/or Calvinism, both of
which are antisemitic. The ISR version is heavily influenced by
Armstrongism, and he seems to love that even when is is provable wrong
even to people who don't read Hebrew.
>
>And I LOVE his hypocritical posts where he whines others he's
>harassing at the moment should 'love their enemies' (meaning HIM)
>while he acts as the enemy of the Messiah.
He seems to want to be Messianic, but is too mired in antisemitism to
actually accept what the Bible says.
Aaron
wrote:
It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
Snow believes the Pope. Orthodox Jews believe the Torah, that is why
fetuses and newborns cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetary in Israel.
I understand that a few years ago, the Reformed Jews were trying to
either get permission to bury newborns or establish new cemetaries for
that purpose. I do not know if they have established their own
cemetaries so that they can ignore the Torah.
Aaron
>In article <vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>>
>>"Murder"???
>>She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>>According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>
>I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
No, it does not. Abortion was a common practice in Egypt when the
Jewish people lived there prior to the exodus. HaShem never mentions
this practice in the Torah.
Exodus 21:22 defines a fetus as the personal property of the woman's
husband, not as a human life. So no prohibition against murder or
even killing is applicable to abortion.
>
>
>>It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
>>biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
>>to force our religious opinions on others.
>
>What do you mean by "forcing our religious opinions on others"?
>Everyone has the right to argue their case and we all either
>accept it or reject it. We can argue religious reasons if we
>want to. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can argue
>on whatever basis they wish.
>That's democracy.
Emma, I am not talking about people's opinion on UseNet.
Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
forcing one group's religious opinions on others. When the religious
belief in an extra-biblical belief such as the myth that abortion is a
sin, the sin of the oppressor becomes even worse than it would be if
the oppressor imposed a correct application of Torah.
>
>
>
>>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>>he made mention of my name.
>>
>>So???
>>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>>Abortion cannot be a sin.
>
>God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
>mean that we can murder each other.
It does mean that we can end another person's life under certain
circumstances
Murder is forbidden, but murder is not warfare, execution of
criminals, self defence, or abortion.
Aaron
Actually the "baracuda" analogy is more apt that you may realize.
Baracudas don't kill their prey outright; they bite off pieces and let
them drop until they have carved off enough for a meal ot enough to
kill their prey. Palin wants to cut pieces off of Israel just like a
baracuda killing its prey.
Emma
>
>On 17 Oct 2008 05:20:16 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>"Murder"???
>>>She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>>>According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>>
>>I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
>
>No, it does not. Abortion was a common practice in Egypt when the
>Jewish people lived there prior to the exodus. HaShem never mentions
>this practice in the Torah.
Where's your proof that Jews in Egypt were
enthusiastic abortionists?
>>>It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
>>>biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
>>>to force our religious opinions on others.
>>
>>What do you mean by "forcing our religious opinions on others"?
>>Everyone has the right to argue their case and we all either
>>accept it or reject it. We can argue religious reasons if we
>>want to. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can argue
>>on whatever basis they wish.
>>That's democracy.
>
>Emma, I am not talking about people's opinion on UseNet.
Well how convenient, since you are here trying to persuade
everyone else of your beliefs.
Why do you feel you are *not* forbidden to do that btw?
What's the difference?
>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
>>>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>>>he made mention of my name.
>>>
>>>So???
>>>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>>>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>>>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>>>Abortion cannot be a sin.
>>
>>God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
>>mean that we can murder each other.
>
>It does mean that we can end another person's life under certain
>circumstances
>Murder is forbidden, but murder is not warfare, execution of
>criminals, self defence, or abortion.
Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
guardian Snow
> >Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he
> >die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
>
> That passage refers to a person killing a living human being, not a
> fetus.
EL formed us, he is creator of all life and you my extremely arrogant
antagonist, demonstrate that you really have no knowledge of anything
at all.
> >I just did.. I see the wickedness of your heart Aaron. You who think
> >that your so wise and clever are not hiding your works in the dark.
>
> You seem to think that God is wicked since all I did was state that
> God never sins.
Show me in the Hebrew Torah one mention of "God". Your the wicked one
calling for the murder of innocent blood. You are so lost and
confused you have no idea what I'm talking about and wrongly assume
everything in your confusion.
You are the one that sins.
> >How do you know a million prophets weren't murdered?
>
> Because, by BIBLICAL definition no one was ever murdered by abortion.
> Also because the fetuses were aborted. If God had intended for one of
> them to be a prophet, he would have survived.
No, thats your Talmud and Pharisee speaking not scriptures of the
Torah, you can't even keep doctrine straight.
Jdg 13:7 “And He said to me, ‘See, you are conceiving and bearing a
son. And now, drink no wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean food,
for the youth is a Nazirite to Elohim from the womb to the day of his
death.’ ”
Here we see a clear example of another Nazirite being declared from
the womb to death. Just because you are ignorant of truth doesn't
mean the world is.
> Murder is not warfare, execution of criminals, self defence, of
> abortion.
>
> Exodus 21:22 defines a fetus as the personal property of the woman's
> husband, not as a human life.
Exo 21:22 “And when men strive and they shall smite a pregnant woman,
and her children come out, yet there is no injury, he shall certainly
be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband lays upon him. And he
shall give through the judges.
What a load of garbage. This speak specifically if there is NO
INJURY.
Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
It goes on to say... Mr. liar Pharisee that an eye for an eye is the
result.. LIFE FOR LIFE. Murder the unborn child will end up in your
own death.
> >In the United
> >states alone 45 million documented murders by abortion have been
> >allowed since 1972 Row Vs Wade. His name isn't HaShem either... but
> >thank goodness on this set apart day you wouldn't dare promote murder
> >and use his name in the same sentence. Just because the commands of
> >men make it legal my lost friend, doesn't mean (Ani Adonoi rofecha) I
> >am YHVH that healeth thee, doesn't judge the wicked!
>
> Snow, you are allowing your Buddhist religious beliefs to cause you to
> bear false witness.
Buddhist?? I'm a Messianic and that means I keep the Covenant of
Moses, you know, that one you deny is the Ten Words written on two
stone tablets. How ignorant and blind are you? Don't answer that.. I
already know.
Isa 29:13 And יהוה says, “Because this people has drawn near with its
mouth, and with its lips they have esteemed Me, and it has kept its
heart far from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of men
that is taught1! Footnote: 1Mt. 15:8-9, Mk. 7:6-7.
Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
be hidden.”
Isa 29:15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from
יהוה, and their works are in the dark; they say, “Who sees us?” and,
“Who knows us?”
Isa 29:16 How perverse of you! Should the potter be reckoned as the
clay? Should what is made say of its Maker, “He did not make me”? And
what is formed say of Him who formed it, “He did not understand”?
Yep... Pharisee. The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing.
Zev
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Zev <zev_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>>> <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>>>>We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>>>
>>> "Murder"???
>>> She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>>> According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>>
>>Try Genesis 9:6.
>>Ask yourself what the apparently
>>redundant word "b'adam" means there.
>>If you don't know Hebrew,
>>you may consider asking a friend who does.
>
> It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
> when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
You said: "According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.".
> Snow believes the Pope. Orthodox Jews believe the Torah, that is why
> fetuses and newborns cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetary in Israel.
> I understand that a few years ago, the Reformed Jews were trying to
> either get permission to bury newborns or establish new cemetaries for
> that purpose. I do not know if they have established their own
> cemetaries so that they can ignore the Torah.
Yes, I saw that translation and it's the one
Snow used in his response.
It's a kind of play on words because
it can also be understood as "in man".
Your way doesn't solve the redundancy problem.
"Yumat" all over the Bible means more than
"He will be made to die", somehow.
Why is "by man" required here and not everyone else?
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 12:50 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> >Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he
>> >die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
>>
>> That passage refers to a person killing a living human being, not a
>> fetus.
>
>EL formed us, he is creator of all life and you my extremely arrogant
>antagonist, demonstrate that you really have no knowledge of anything
>at all.
Snow, your antisemitism blinds you to the Word of God. The main point
of this entire discussion is that you reject the Word of God in favor
of Buddhist philosophy.
>
>> >I just did.. I see the wickedness of your heart Aaron. You who think
>> >that your so wise and clever are not hiding your works in the dark.
>>
>> You seem to think that God is wicked since all I did was state that
>> God never sins.
>
>Show me in the Hebrew Torah one mention of "God". Your the wicked one
>calling for the murder of innocent blood. You are so lost and
>confused you have no idea what I'm talking about and wrongly assume
>everything in your confusion.
YHVH is responcible for most abortions in the world since most human
pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
Your claim that God/HaShem/YHVH/Adonai is not God is just Armstrongist
bigotry.
>
>You are the one that sins.
>
>> >How do you know a million prophets weren't murdered?
>>
>> Because, by BIBLICAL definition no one was ever murdered by abortion.
>> Also because the fetuses were aborted. If God had intended for one of
>> them to be a prophet, he would have survived.
>
>No, thats your Talmud and Pharisee speaking not scriptures of the
>Torah, you can't even keep doctrine straight.
More blind antisemitism
EXODUS in in the BIBLE not the Talmud.
>
>Jdg 13:7 “And He said to me, ‘See, you are conceiving and bearing a
>son. And now, drink no wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean food,
>for the youth is a Nazirite to Elohim from the womb to the day of his
>death.’ ”
>
>
>Here we see a clear example of another Nazirite being declared from
>the womb to death. Just because you are ignorant of truth doesn't
>mean the world is.
That has no bearing on the definition of "tritzach."
It is an obviously special case, and HaShem's ability to know the
future makes all such claims meaningless and dishonest.
>
>> Murder is not warfare, execution of criminals, self defence, of
>> abortion.
>>
>> Exodus 21:22 defines a fetus as the personal property of the woman's
>> husband, not as a human life.
>
>Exo 21:22 “And when men strive and they shall smite a pregnant woman,
>and her children come out, yet there is no injury, he shall certainly
>be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband lays upon him. And he
>shall give through the judges.
>
>What a load of garbage. This speak specifically if there is NO
>INJURY.
You chaged the verse!
You actually decided that the Word of God was wrong and you changed to
to support your Buddhism!
The Hebrew "vyatzu yladeyh" means to miscarry; "yaldah zabar" means
"to give birth to a male," and "yaldah nkevah" means "to give birth to
a female." "Teled Ben" is also used for "bearing a son."
No injury to the woman. If there were no injury at all, there would
be no dammage and thus no payment of damages.
>
>Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
>Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
>Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
>
>It goes on to say... Mr. liar Pharisee that an eye for an eye is the
>result.. LIFE FOR LIFE. Murder the unborn child will end up in your
>own death.
Again you mistake the text. Even in English it says "give" not
"take." "Giving" is the payment of the monetary value of the injury,
"taking" would be mutilation. Antisemites have been intentionally
misrepresenting this passage to accuse Jews of mutilation and to claim
that there is a huge difference between the Torah and the teachings of
Messiah. this is false and is only motivated by bigotry, and hatred
of the Jews.
You keep using that antisemitic translation instead of reading the
Bible (Hebrew), and you will never correct your theology.
It does seem that you are too emotionally invested in your Buddhist
beliefs to accept the Bible for what it actually says.
>
>> >In the United
>> >states alone 45 million documented murders by abortion have been
>> >allowed since 1972 Row Vs Wade. His name isn't HaShem either... but
>> >thank goodness on this set apart day you wouldn't dare promote murder
>> >and use his name in the same sentence. Just because the commands of
>> >men make it legal my lost friend, doesn't mean (Ani Adonoi rofecha) I
>> >am YHVH that healeth thee, doesn't judge the wicked!
>>
>> Snow, you are allowing your Buddhist religious beliefs to cause you to
>> bear false witness.
>Buddhist?? I'm a Messianic and that means I keep the Covenant of
>Moses, you know, that one you deny is the Ten Words written on two
>stone tablets. How ignorant and blind are you? Don't answer that.. I
>already know.
Snow, you are an Armstrongist. You post many antisemitic things. You
use an Armstrongist mistranslation (ISR). You ar obviously deeply
ignorant of the Bible, Judaism, the Messiah, and of simple compassion.
You are not a Messianic Ger or Messianic Jew.
Snow, the Bible says "Ten Utterances" and a buch of antisemites chose
to mistranslate it and you hate Jews so much that you take the nazi's
word for it. You hate anyone who loves haShem and you seek to make
yourself seem special be bearing false witness against anyone who
speaks English or Hebrew when speaking of HaShem.
>>Snow, you are a liar, an anti semite and now you publically declare
>>that you believe that you know right from wrong better than haShem and
>>you accuse HIM of evil because HE Chose not to forbid abortion.
>
>
>Isa 29:13 And ???? says, “Because this people has drawn near with its
>mouth, and with its lips they have esteemed Me, and it has kept its
>heart far from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of men
>that is taught1! Footnote: 1Mt. 15:8-9, Mk. 7:6-7.
>Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
>this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
>wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
>be hidden.”
>Isa 29:15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from
>????, and their works are in the dark; they say, “Who sees us?” and,
>“Who knows us?”
>Isa 29:16 How perverse of you! Should the potter be reckoned as the
>clay? Should what is made say of its Maker, “He did not make me”? And
>what is formed say of Him who formed it, “He did not understand”?
Snow, you cannot use the bible to justify Nazism. Just like McCain
and Palin, Hitler promised to ban abortion. We see how that ended up.
Palin may actually be more evil than Hitler. She has already promised
to reward terrorists by carving up israel and giving Israeli land to
form another Muslim terrorist nation.
>
>Yep... Pharisee. The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing.
Antisemitic again.
We both know that yshu`a, the messiah is a Pharisee, and you hate Jews
so much that you choose to use a word that applies to messiah as if it
was an insult.
Aaron
wrote:
>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:9i6hf4l86k8rqia7d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Zev <zev_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>>>> <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>>>We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>>>>
>>>> "Murder"???
>>>> She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>>>> According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>>>
>>>Try Genesis 9:6.
>>>Ask yourself what the apparently
>>>redundant word "b'adam" means there.
>>>If you don't know Hebrew,
>>>you may consider asking a friend who does.
>>
>> It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
>> when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
>
>You said: "According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.".
That is correct. According to the Torah, a fetus is not a human life.
>
>> Snow believes the Pope. Orthodox Jews believe the Torah, that is why
>> fetuses and newborns cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetary in Israel.
>> I understand that a few years ago, the Reformed Jews were trying to
>> either get permission to bury newborns or establish new cemetaries for
>> that purpose. I do not know if they have established their own
>> cemetaries so that they can ignore the Torah.
>
>Yes, I saw that translation and it's the one
>Snow used in his response.
>It's a kind of play on words because
>it can also be understood as "in man".
>Your way doesn't solve the redundancy problem.
>"Yumat" all over the Bible means more than
>"He will be made to die", somehow.
>Why is "by man" required here and not everyone else?
to rule out randon chance, accident, warfare, execution of criminals
et cetera. That still does not address the fact that afetus is not a
human life according to the Torah.
Aaron
>In article <ur6hf4doo6hgdm6gs...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>On 17 Oct 2008 05:20:16 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"Murder"???
>>>>She was talking about abortion, not murder.
>>>>According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>>>
>>>I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
>>
>>No, it does not. Abortion was a common practice in Egypt when the
>>Jewish people lived there prior to the exodus. HaShem never mentions
>>this practice in the Torah.
>
>Where's your proof that Jews in Egypt were
>enthusiastic abortionists?
>
Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
that nazis hate."
The Egyptians of the day made abortion a common practice. recipees
for abortion fluids have been found written on Egyptian artifacts of
that era and before.
>
>
>>>>It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
>>>>biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
>>>>to force our religious opinions on others.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "forcing our religious opinions on others"?
>>>Everyone has the right to argue their case and we all either
>>>accept it or reject it. We can argue religious reasons if we
>>>want to. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can argue
>>>on whatever basis they wish.
>>>That's democracy.
>>
>>Emma, I am not talking about people's opinion on UseNet.
>
>Well how convenient, since you are here trying to persuade
>everyone else of your beliefs.
>
>Why do you feel you are *not* forbidden to do that btw?
>What's the difference?
>
Because I am not FORCING you to obey my opinions of even FORCING you
to obey God. I have said this more than once. Why are you having
difficulty understanding the difference between a person saying what
that person beieves to be true, and a person forcing people to obey
him?
>
>>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
>
>No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
>wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
Wrong. It would be forcing everyone who does not believe it to obey
the outcome of the vote. Such a law, by definition, deprives people
of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
religious beliefs. Such an action isimmoral.
>
>
>>>>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>>>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>>>>he made mention of my name.
>>>>
>>>>So???
>>>>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>>>>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>>>>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>>>>Abortion cannot be a sin.
>>>
>>>God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
>>>mean that we can murder each other.
>>
>>It does mean that we can end another person's life under certain
>>circumstances
>>Murder is forbidden, but murder is not warfare, execution of
>>criminals, self defence, or abortion.
>
>Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
>That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
No, my arguement is that God decided what is forbidden and what is
permitted, and He never forbid abortion. God did not even forbid the
taking of human life; he forbid murder, which is one perticular case
of taking a human life, but not every case of taking a human life.
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
> >news:9i6hf4l86k8rqia7d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>"Aaron" <a...@home.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:vcgef4l60j9352ebd...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
> >>>> <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>We see what a strong stance against murder you take.
>
> >>>> "Murder"???
> >>>> She was talking about abortion, not murder.
> >>>> According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.
>
> >>>Try Genesis 9:6.
> >>>Ask yourself what the apparently
> >>>redundant word "b'adam" means there.
> >>>If you don't know Hebrew,
> >>>you may consider asking a friend who does.
>
> >> It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
> >> when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
>
> >You said: "According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.".
>
> That is correct. According to the Torah, a fetus is not a human life.
>
So are you also saying the body of the baby is simply considered part
of the mother's body until it is born and separated?
And you're saying when Isaiah said he was 'called from the womb' to be
a prophet, it was his spirit being 'called', and his body had nothing
to do with it other than being a vehicle for his spirit at that
particular time?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Snow believes the Pope. Orthodox Jews believe the Torah, that is why
> >> fetuses and newborns cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetary in Israel.
> >> I understand that a few years ago, the Reformed Jews were trying to
> >> either get permission to bury newborns or establish new cemetaries for
> >> that purpose. I do not know if they have established their own
> >> cemetaries so that they can ignore the Torah.
>
> >Yes, I saw that translation and it's the one
> >Snow used in his response.
> >It's a kind of play on words because
> >it can also be understood as "in man".
> >Your way doesn't solve the redundancy problem.
> >"Yumat" all over the Bible means more than
> >"He will be made to die", somehow.
> >Why is "by man" required here and not everyone else?
>
> to rule out randon chance, accident, warfare, execution of criminals
> et cetera. That still does not address the fact that afetus is not a
> human life according to the Torah.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Emma
>
>>>>>I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
>>>
>>>No, it does not. Abortion was a common practice in Egypt when the
>>>Jewish people lived there prior to the exodus. HaShem never mentions
>>>this practice in the Torah.
>>
>>Where's your proof that Jews in Egypt were
>>enthusiastic abortionists?
>>
>
>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>that nazis hate."
No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
>The Egyptians of the day made abortion a common practice. recipees
>for abortion fluids have been found written on Egyptian artifacts of
>that era and before.
>
I don't know if that's true because you haven't provided
any proof, but anyway, so what?
I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
>>
>>>>>It should also be noted that banning abortion is a violation of
>>>>>biblical law even if abortion were a sin, because we are not allowed
>>>>>to force our religious opinions on others.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "forcing our religious opinions on others"?
>>>>Everyone has the right to argue their case and we all either
>>>>accept it or reject it. We can argue religious reasons if we
>>>>want to. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can argue
>>>>on whatever basis they wish.
>>>>That's democracy.
>>>
>>>Emma, I am not talking about people's opinion on UseNet.
>>
>>Well how convenient, since you are here trying to persuade
>>everyone else of your beliefs.
>>
>>Why do you feel you are *not* forbidden to do that btw?
>>What's the difference?
>>
>
>Because I am not FORCING you to obey my opinions of even FORCING you
>to obey God. I have said this more than once. Why are you having
>difficulty understanding the difference between a person saying what
>that person beieves to be true, and a person forcing people to obey
>him?
You are trying to convince pro-life people to change
their opinions and thereby prevent laws against
abortion. So, by your reasoning, you are forcing your
religious opinions on the rest of us. You should keep
quiet and then you won't be in any danger of influencing
law-makers.
>>
>>>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>>>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
>>
>>No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
>>wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
>
>Wrong. It would be forcing everyone who does not believe it to obey
>the outcome of the vote. Such a law, by definition, deprives people
>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>religious beliefs. Such an action isimmoral.
>
No. There are all sorts of religious beliefs.
Some religions believe that we should practice child sacrifice.
Our laws forbid that, so are we forcing our own religious beliefs
on them? Should every religion be allowed to do whatever it likes?
I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
society.
Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
who are we to object?
Sorry, I think that's a rubbish argument.
>>>>>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>>>>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>>>>>he made mention of my name.
>>>>>
>>>>>So???
>>>>>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>>>>>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>>>>>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>>>>>Abortion cannot be a sin.
>>>>
>>>>God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
>>>>mean that we can murder each other.
>>>
>>>It does mean that we can end another person's life under certain
>>>circumstances
>>>Murder is forbidden, but murder is not warfare, execution of
>>>criminals, self defence, or abortion.
>>
>>Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
>>That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
>
>No, my arguement is that God decided what is forbidden and what is
>permitted, and He never forbid abortion.
That is your religious opinion which you are trying to force
on others.
> God did not even forbid the
>taking of human life; he forbid murder, which is one perticular case
>of taking a human life, but not every case of taking a human life.
>
But your argument was that whatever God does can't be
a sin, so we are permitted to do the same. Obviously that
isn't true, as you have demonstrated above. We can't take
life in the same way that God does. So just because God decides
to take a life in the womb, we can't assume that we can do
the same.
guardian Snow
> >Yep... Pharisee. The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing.
>
> Antisemitic again.
>
> We both know that yshu`a, the messiah is a Pharisee, and you hate Jews
> so much that you choose to use a word that applies to messiah as if it
> was an insult.
יהושע Messiah, the Son of Elohim was part of no such cult and you
can't provide evidence to the sort. The Pharisee taught the commands
of MEN as recorded in Matthew 15, just like you do Aaron and why I
keep demonstrating Isaiah 29 that was the prophesy of the Pharisees
that you fail to recognize because you are spiritually blind.
Mat 15:7 “Hypocrites! Yeshayahu rightly prophesied about you, saying,
Mat 15:8 ‘This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and respect Me
with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
Mat 15:9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the
commands of men.’ ”1 Footnote: 1Isa. 29:13, Mk. 7:7, 2 Ki. 17:19.
You're so blind to truth, you can't realize you are the very Pharisee
this teaching of Messiah is against.. YOU! Stop trying to teach the
commands of men.. You want to pretend to teach Torah but never
actually quote it.
Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
Considering I am a Messianic, your attempt to call me "antisemitic"
really is a big joke. You call anybody that disagrees with you and
points out your false teachings antisemitic because all you can do is
label people that who know better then to believe a word you speak.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
'Men have forgotten this truth,' said the fox. 'But you must not
forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.'
You are responsible for your rose.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
guardian Snow
> >> It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
> >> when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
>
> >You said: "According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.".
>
> That is correct. According to the Torah, a fetus is not a human life.
Lay down the quote Pharisee... Show us the direct chapter and verse
that says the fetus is not a human life, otherwise your showing the
world what a Pharisee is, teaching the commands of men.
To the contrary:
Gen 25:23 And יהוה said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two
peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
Nations were in the womb. Everytime you kill off a fetus, you may
just be killing off an entire NATION.
Gen 25:24 And when the days were filled for her to give birth, and
see, twins were in her womb!
Even Twin Nations. See if you can refute that wisdom Pharisee.
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 12:25 pm, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> >Yep... Pharisee. The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing.
>>
>> Antisemitic again.
>>
>> We both know that Yshu`a, the Messiah is a Pharisee, and you hate Jews
>> so much that you choose to use a word that applies to messiah as if it
>> was an insult.
>
> ????? Messiah, the Son of Elohim was part of no such cult and you
>can't provide evidence to the sort. The Pharisee taught the commands
>of MEN as recorded in Matthew 15, just like you do Aaron and why I
>keep demonstrating Isaiah 29 that was the prophesy of the Pharisees
>that you fail to recognize because you are spiritually blind.
Snow, you just proved that you hate Jews too much to understand the
Bible.
Pharisaic Jews were all Jews who believed two theological doctrines: 1
That there is an afterlife (Heaven and Hell), 2 that each person is
responcible for obeying HaShem. Beyond that, different groups of
Pharisees disagreed on almost every possible matter of Halacha.
Yshu`a taught both of these points repeatedly. He even taught the
Golden Rule, invented by Paharisaic leader Rabbi Hillel, founder of
Beyt Hillel.
A large minority group, Beyt Shammai, did oppose Yshu`a, but the
majority group, Beyt Hillel did not oppose Him, In Acts, the Leader
of Beyt Hillel, Rabban Gamliel the Elder, makes a ruling in the
Sanhedrin that the Jews should not oppose Messianic Judaism because
Yshu`a might be the Messiah.
In Matti (Matthew) 23, Yshu`a accuses some of the Pharisees of
violating the Oral Law concerning the tying of tzitziyot and the
construction of tfillin. The specifics of this Oral law are recorded
in the Talmud. You have demonstrated that you hate the Talmud as much
as the Nazis did even though neither you nor them have any idea what
it is. You just spout you blind hatred of Judaism and of Messiah,
then you make a new fictional version to satisfy your fantsies.
Isiah 29 discusses false prophets. Some pharisees followed men who
claimed to be Messiah, but who were not. One, Bar Kokba, lead a
disaterous rebellion against Rome and HaShem allowed the Romans to be
victorious. Trying to expand this prophecy into a blanket
condemnation against all jews who believe in Heaven and in personal
responcibility is dishonest and racist.
>
>Mat 15:7 “Hypocrites! Yeshayahu rightly prophesied about you, saying,
>Mat 15:8 ‘This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and respect Me
>with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
>Mat 15:9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the
>commands of men.’ ”1 Footnote: 1Isa. 29:13, Mk. 7:7, 2 Ki. 17:19.
>
>You're so blind to truth, you can't realize you are the very Pharisee
>this teaching of Messiah is against.. YOU! Stop trying to teach the
>commands of men.. You want to pretend to teach Torah but never
>actually quote it.
Snow, how can you be such a hypocrite and not be hospitalized for it?
YOU rae making up a new "command" and you become outraged that it is
not in the Bible. When this is pointed out you accuse people of being
like Messiah and you think this is an insult.
>
>Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
>Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
>Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
>
>Considering I am a Messianic, your attempt to call me "antisemitic"
>really is a big joke. You call anybody that disagrees with you and
>points out your false teachings antisemitic because all you can do is
>label people that who know better then to believe a word you speak.
Snow, you are NOT Messianic, Snow, you are an Armstrongist. You post
many antisemitic things. You use an Armstrongist mistranslation
(ISR). Your misuse of the word "Pharisee" is antisemitic. You are
obviously deeply ignorant of the Bible, This is because you are too
antisemitic to attend a synagogue with an actual Messianic Rabbi. I
have seen your kind before, they usually go back to Church of God
(Armstrongism) or they stay alone too filled with hatred to congregate
with anyone else. I suspect from your fake-name usage that you are
one of the latter. Judaism, the Messiah, and of simple compassion.
You are not a Messianic Ger or Messianic Jew.
>
>
>
Aaron
I am saying that the Torah says that. Also, in English, if it has not
been born, it is an "embryo" then a "fetus," not a "baby."
>
>And you're saying when Isaiah said he was 'called from the womb' to be
>a prophet, it was his spirit being 'called', and his body had nothing
>to do with it other than being a vehicle for his spirit at that
>particular time?
That would agree with Messiah having been begotten thousands of years
before Miryam, the mother of His flesh, was even born. HaShem also
knows all events and things past, present, and future. So HaShem's
knowledge of the future is to be expected in all things including who
will be born.
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 1:25 pm, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> >> It means "by man." That has no bearing here, since the question of
>> >> when a fetus becomes a human life is the issue. I believe the Torah;
>>
>> >You said: "According to the Torah, Abortion is not a sin.".
>>
>> That is correct. According to the Torah, a fetus is not a human life.
>
>Lay down the quote Pharisee... Show us the direct chapter and verse
>that says the fetus is not a human life, otherwise your showing the
>world what a Pharisee is, teaching the commands of men.
Snow, I already showed you, and you lied about what the text says.
You claimed that a miscarriage was a live birth despite the fact that
the Hebrew disagrees with your nazi (ISR) book's claim. Then you
snipped out the entire exchange in your reply because you were so
obviously wrong.
You also made the false claim that "...an eye for an eye..." had
something to do with mutilating people and killing people when the
Hebrew of the passage clearly refers to paying damages.
>
>To the contrary:
>
>Gen 25:23 And ???? said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two
>peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
>stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
That only proves that haShem knows the future since there was not two
nations or any nations in her, but the fetuses that would become the
human beinggs who were the forefathers of two nations.
>
>Nations were in the womb. Everytime you kill off a fetus, you may
>just be killing off an entire NATION.
Wrong. A fetus is not a nation. A nation is a large group of people
acting in a certain way with common cause, et cetera.
>
>Gen 25:24 And when the days were filled for her to give birth, and
>see, twins were in her womb!
>
>Even Twin Nations. See if you can refute that wisdom Pharisee.
You have only proven that you lack wisdom. You dismiss HaShem's
knowledge of the future, and make obviously incorrect statements.
Snow here is the real challenge to prove that you are not just
attempting to impose Buddhist philosophy on others with a fake
"command.":
We know historically that Egyptians commonly practiced abortion at the
time that the Jews were in Egypt. If Abortion is a sin HaShem would
have specifically forbid it in the Torah. He forbid every type in
incest with descriptions. There is no Hebrew word for "homosexual
sex" so HaShem described it so that He could forbid it. He forbid to
"tirtzach (premeditatedly kill out of hatred)" He discussed the rules
of killing on impulse, killing through gross negligence, killing
through minor negligence. Certainly if abortion is forbidden there is
a passage in the Torah that either specifically forbids it or
describes it and forbids it.
The fact is that the burden of proof is on your claim that there is a
614th commandment that Rambam failed to count. He was not right about
all things, so I can be open minded. Find the book chapter and verse
in the Torah, or you are just another Nazi.
guardian Snow
> I am saying that the Torah says that. Also, in English, if it has not
> been born, it is an "embryo" then a "fetus," not a "baby."
You don't believe the Torah and you show proof of that everyday. Life
is in the BLOOD.
Lev 17:11 ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives, for it is
the blood that makes atonement for the life.’
> That would agree with Messiah having been begotten thousands of years
> before Miryam, the mother of His flesh, was even born. HaShem also
> knows all events and things past, present, and future. So HaShem's
> knowledge of the future is to be expected in all things including who
> will be born.
The Messiah wasn't "begotten" thousands of years before Miryam. You
hate the name of our Father יהוה Ěl Shaddai and you spend your every
post accusing me of being antisemitic when in fact I am circumcised
the eighth day.
Everything you say screams complete ignorance and hatred of Torah.
Nations were in the womb in Genesis:
Gen 25:23 And יהוה said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two
peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
You show that you have zero regard for Torah! You have no idea what
Pharisee teach and your can bury your head in lies and try to label me
but the truth and our Father יהוה Ěl Shaddai our on my side!
Praise our Father יהוה Ěl Shaddai!
Worship our Father יהוה Ěl Shaddai!
Life is in the womb! Our our Father יהוה Ěl Shaddai has said so.
Did you make a difference in the world today?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
'Men have forgotten this truth,' said the fox. 'But you must not
forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.'
You are responsible for your rose.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
Aaron
>In article <ul6lf45acvprutmkb...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>>>>>I think it does say that abortion is a sin.
>>>>
>>>>No, it does not. Abortion was a common practice in Egypt when the
>>>>Jewish people lived there prior to the exodus. HaShem never mentions
>>>>this practice in the Torah.
>>>
>>>Where's your proof that Jews in Egypt were
>>>enthusiastic abortionists?
>>>
>>
>>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>>that nazis hate."
>
>No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
Not in a real dictionary.
>
>
>
>>The Egyptians of the day made abortion a common practice. recipees
>>for abortion fluids have been found written on Egyptian artifacts of
>>that era and before.
>>
>
>I don't know if that's true because you haven't provided
>any proof, but anyway, so what?
It is a well documented fact.
The Ebers Papyrus of about 1550 BC is among the most important medical
papyri of ancient Egypt. This document gives a contraceptive recipee
and another for a chemical abortion.
>I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
>abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
Asdide from the fact that there is no such thing as an abortionist...
I said that it was a common practice in Egypt, not among Jews.
Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
but HaShem took the time to forbid it.
Emma, I am having dificulty understanding why you keep making that
false claim. No one can "force" you to do anything by typing about it
on the internet. It is not tha same as the police coming into your
home and taking you in handcuff to a medical facility where your
pregnancy is forcably aborted.
The only way for people NOT to be forced is if Abortion remains legal.
By the way, everyone is "prolife" unless they commit suicide.
there is "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Most Christans and Jews are
prochoice, and the prochoice opinion is growing among Christians. If
a person is "prolife," that person would choose not to have an
abortion. No one who is prochoice would complain. But the issue is
people who are antichoice attempoting to pervert the bible to serve
their antibiblical desires.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>>>>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
>>>
>>>No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
>>>wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
>>
>>Wrong. It would be forcing everyone who does not believe it to obey
>>the outcome of the vote. Such a law, by definition, deprives people
>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>religious beliefs. Such an action isimmoral.
>>
>
>No. There are all sorts of religious beliefs.
>Some religions believe that we should practice child sacrifice.
>Our laws forbid that, so are we forcing our own religious beliefs
>on them? Should every religion be allowed to do whatever it likes?
No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
allow a society to function.
>
>I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
>a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
>Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
>supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
>society.
According to the Bible, that is not true. Yshu`a, the Messiah
rejected political activism even though His following was great enough
to secure His followers ten seats on the Sanhedrin. Since Beyt Hillel
agreed with almost all of what Messiah taught, they would have been
able to form an alliance that had absolute authority over the Jewish
people, but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
others.
Banning abortion does not a benefit to society. Banning abortion only
make some people with buddhist views happy about how much better they
think they are to "those people." Whoever "those people" may be.
>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>who are we to object?
Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
secular, not religious reasons. The opression of other human beings
is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>Sorry, I think that's a rubbish argument.
It is YOUR argument, that YOU made up to object to.
>
>
>>>>>>>Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far;
>>>>>>>YHVH hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
>>>>>>>he made mention of my name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So???
>>>>>>The fact that HaShem intended for Isaiah to be a prophet has no
>>>>>>bearing on abortion. In fact most pregnancies end in spontaneous
>>>>>>abortion, or abortions done by HaShem Himself. Since he never sins,
>>>>>>Abortion cannot be a sin.
>>>>>
>>>>>God also decides when you or I will die, but that doesn't
>>>>>mean that we can murder each other.
>>>>
>>>>It does mean that we can end another person's life under certain
>>>>circumstances
>>>>Murder is forbidden, but murder is not warfare, execution of
>>>>criminals, self defence, or abortion.
>>>
>>>Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
>>>That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
>>
>>No, my arguement is that God decided what is forbidden and what is
>>permitted, and He never forbid abortion.
>
>That is your religious opinion which you are trying to force
>on others.
You can be Atheist if you want, but be honest about it.
I am not forcing anything on anyone. if you think that citing the
Bible is focing you to do anything, you really should make an
appointment with a psychiatrist. If mere words and opinions that
disagree with your antibiblical belliefs upsets you this much, you
might have a serious problem.
>
>> God did not even forbid the
>>taking of human life; he forbid murder, which is one perticular case
>>of taking a human life, but not every case of taking a human life.
>>
>
>But your argument was that whatever God does can't be
>a sin, so we are permitted to do the same. Obviously that
>isn't true, as you have demonstrated above. We can't take
>life in the same way that God does. So just because God decides
>to take a life in the womb, we can't assume that we can do
>the same.
My argument is that if HaShem (God) did not specifically forbid
abortion, then it is permitted. Over the years, Neo-Nazis have
attempted to expand the definition of "Tirtzach" to cover abortion,
but they have never come up with a single verse to support their
opposition to abortion. They come up with verses that show that
HaShem knows the future, or they intentionally mistranslate things,
but have never come up with a single verse to claim that there should
be a 614th Commandment.
guardian Snow
> My argument is that if HaShem (God) did not specifically forbid
> abortion, then it is permitted. Over the years, Neo-Nazis have
> attempted to expand the definition of "Tirtzach" to cover abortion,
> but they have never come up with a single verse to support their
> opposition to abortion. They come up with verses that show that
> HaShem knows the future, or they intentionally mistranslate things,
> but have never come up with a single verse to claim that there should
> be a 614th Commandment.
Isa 29:10 For יהוה has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep, and
has closed your eyes, the prophets. And He has covered your heads, the
seers.
Isa 29:11 And the entire vision is to you like the words of a book
that is sealed, which men give to one who knows books, saying, “Read
this, please.” And he said, “I am unable, for it is sealed.”
Isa 29:12 And the book is given to one who does not know books,
saying, “Read this, please.” And he said, “I have not known books.”
Isa 29:13 And יהוה says, “Because this people has drawn near with its
mouth, and with its lips they have esteemed Me, and it has kept its
heart far from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of men
that is taught1! Footnote: 1Mt. 15:8-9, Mk. 7:6-7.
Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
be hidden.”
Isa 29:15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from
יהוה, and their works are in the dark; they say, “Who sees us?” and,
“Who knows us?”
Isa 29:16 How perverse of you! Should the potter be reckoned as the
clay? Should what is made say of its Maker, “He did not make me”? And
what is formed say of Him who formed it, “He did not understand”?
Isa 29:17 Is it not yet a little while, and Leḇanon shall be turned
into garden land, and garden land be reckoned as a forest?
Isa 29:18 And in that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book,
and the eyes of the blind shall see out of gloom, and out of
darkness.
Isa 29:19 And the meek ones shall increase their joy in יהוה, and the
poor among men rejoice in the Set-apart One of Yisra’ĕl.
Isa 29:20 For the ruthless one is brought to naught, the scorner is
consumed, and all who watch for evil shall be cut off,
Isa 29:21 those who make a man to sin in word, and lay a snare for him
who reproves in the gate, and turn aside the righteous with empty
reasoning.
Isa 29:22 Therefore thus said יהוה, who ransomed Aḇraham, concerning
the house of Yaʽaqoḇ, “Yaʽaqoḇ is no longer put to shame, no longer
does his face grow pale.
Isa 29:23 “For when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his
midst, they shall set apart My Name, and set apart the Set-apart One
of Yaʽaqoḇ, and fear the Elohim of Yisra’ĕl.
Isa 29:24 “And those who went astray in spirit shall come to
understanding, and the grumblers accept instruction.”
Emma
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>>>that nazis hate."
>>
>>No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
>
>Not in a real dictionary.
>
So where is this "Dictionary that takes Aaron's Prejudices into Account"?
>>>The Egyptians of the day made abortion a common practice. recipees
>>>for abortion fluids have been found written on Egyptian artifacts of
>>>that era and before.
>>>
>>
>>I don't know if that's true because you haven't provided
>>any proof, but anyway, so what?
>
>It is a well documented fact.
>The Ebers Papyrus of about 1550 BC is among the most important medical
>papyri of ancient Egypt. This document gives a contraceptive recipee
>and another for a chemical abortion.
You still haven't provided proof of anything.
But anyway, I still say this is irrelevant.
>>I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
>>abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
>
>Asdide from the fact that there is no such thing as an abortionist...
>I said that it was a common practice in Egypt, not among Jews.
Why do you think it wasn't common among Jews?
>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
And how do you know that?
You make lots of statements and provide absolutely no
proof!
>but HaShem took the time to forbid it.
>
Well you may not be able to see abortion in the scriptures,
but many Jews and Christians can see it in the scriptures.
>>
>>You are trying to convince pro-life people to change
>>their opinions and thereby prevent laws against
>>abortion. So, by your reasoning, you are forcing your
>>religious opinions on the rest of us. You should keep
>>quiet and then you won't be in any danger of influencing
>>law-makers.
>
>Emma, I am having dificulty understanding why you keep making that
>false claim. No one can "force" you to do anything by typing about it
>on the internet. It is not tha same as the police coming into your
>home and taking you in handcuff to a medical facility where your
>pregnancy is forcably aborted.
>
>The only way for people NOT to be forced is if Abortion remains legal.
From my point of view it's taking another life, and I feel that I have
a duty to campaign against it.
You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
There are plenty of non-Christian pro-lifers btw.
Banning abortion is not a religious matter for them.
>By the way, everyone is "prolife" unless they commit suicide.
>there is "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Most Christans and Jews are
>prochoice, and the prochoice opinion is growing among Christians. If
>a person is "prolife," that person would choose not to have an
>abortion. No one who is prochoice would complain. But the issue is
>people who are antichoice attempoting to pervert the bible to serve
>their antibiblical desires.
I don't see it in terms of choice. I see it in terms of the
ending of another life and whether or not we have the right
to do that.
>>>>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>>>>>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
>>>>
>>>>No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
>>>>wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
>>>
>>>Wrong. It would be forcing everyone who does not believe it to obey
>>>the outcome of the vote. Such a law, by definition, deprives people
>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>>religious beliefs. Such an action isimmoral.
>>>
>>
>>No. There are all sorts of religious beliefs.
>>Some religions believe that we should practice child sacrifice.
>>Our laws forbid that, so are we forcing our own religious beliefs
>>on them? Should every religion be allowed to do whatever it likes?
>
>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>allow a society to function.
You were talking about religious freedom.
You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
religious beliefs."
So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
Law protected the child in the womb and America
adopted that law.
In any case, we're called to be salt and light in the world.
We shouldn't expect everyone to *convert* to our faith, but
if they like our values and want to adopt them, then that's
their choice and so much the better. But we have to
spread our values for them to be known.
Nobody needs to be a Christian to join us in objecting to abortion.
Christians have as much right as anyone else to join the
debate. You would like to silence religious voices, but
the purpose of religion is to make the world a better place.
>>I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
>>a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
>>Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
>>supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
>>society.
>
>According to the Bible, that is not true. Yshu`a, the Messiah
>rejected political activism even though His following was great enough
>to secure His followers ten seats on the Sanhedrin. Since Beyt Hillel
>agreed with almost all of what Messiah taught, they would have been
>able to form an alliance that had absolute authority over the Jewish
>people,
I don't agree with that at all. The religious leaders
of the time were corrupt and they were puppets of the
Romans.
>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>others.
I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
better.
We don't live in theocracies.
>
>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>who are we to object?
>
>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>secular, not religious reasons.
In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give up.
From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
> The opression of other human beings
>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
Kant spoke for himself.
So it depends on the secular ethics. Many people,
Christians and non-Christians, argued that slavery was
necessary.
>>>>
>>>>Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
>>>>That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
>>>
>>>No, my arguement is that God decided what is forbidden and what is
>>>permitted, and He never forbid abortion.
>>
>>That is your religious opinion which you are trying to force
>>on others.
>
>You can be Atheist if you want, but be honest about it.
>
>I am not forcing anything on anyone. if you think that citing the
>Bible is focing you to do anything, you really should make an
>appointment with a psychiatrist. If mere words and opinions that
>disagree with your antibiblical belliefs upsets you this much, you
>might have a serious problem.
But you object to Christians joining the debate about
abortion. Otoh, you want to make your own religious
opinions known and you want laws that reflect your own
religious beliefs. That just seems hypocritical to me!
You are arguing entirely from a religious point of view!
But you object to pro-lifers arguing from a religious
point of view.
>>> God did not even forbid the
>>>taking of human life; he forbid murder, which is one perticular case
>>>of taking a human life, but not every case of taking a human life.
>>>
>>
>>But your argument was that whatever God does can't be
>>a sin, so we are permitted to do the same. Obviously that
>>isn't true, as you have demonstrated above. We can't take
>>life in the same way that God does. So just because God decides
>>to take a life in the womb, we can't assume that we can do
>>the same.
>
>My argument is that if HaShem (God) did not specifically forbid
>abortion, then it is permitted.
>Over the years, Neo-Nazis have
>attempted to expand the definition of "Tirtzach" to cover abortion,
>but they have never come up with a single verse to support their
>opposition to abortion.
Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
You should use argument rather than insults.
> They come up with verses that show that
>HaShem knows the future, or they intentionally mistranslate things,
>but have never come up with a single verse to claim that there should
>be a 614th Commandment.
You should accept that many Christians and Jews
disagree with you and that doesn't make them Neo-Nazis.
guardian Snow
> You were talking about religious freedom.
> You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
> of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
> religious beliefs."
> So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>
> Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
> were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
> Law protected the child in the womb and America
> adopted that law.
>
> In any case, we're called to be salt and light in the world.
> We shouldn't expect everyone to *convert* to our faith, but
> if they like our values and want to adopt them, then that's
> their choice and so much the better. But we have to
> spread our values for them to be known.
> Nobody needs to be a Christian to join us in objecting to abortion.
Absolutely brilliant posting Emma. The spirit was truly working in
you sister! Bless you for standing up for those who have no voice
because they were not given that choice to be born.
More then 40 million Americans are dead because of Abortion! That's
more then the entire state of California, the 8th largest economy in
the world by itself. Economic reasons alone should wake people up,
abortion is killing our economy and our soul!
Gen 25:23 And YHWH said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two
manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one
people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall
serve the younger.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men
purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 11:09 pm, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> I am saying that the Torah says that. Also, in English, if it has not
>> been born, it is an "embryo" then a "fetus," not a "baby."
>
>You don't believe the Torah and you show proof of that everyday. Life
>is in the BLOOD.
>
>Lev 17:11 ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
>it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives, for it is
>the blood that makes atonement for the life.’
Snow, again you bear false witness. You keep relying on an
antisemitic translation rather than reading Hebrew; that is why you
know so little about the Torah. The verse in question reads, "Ki
nefesh habasar bdam..." Not that any of that addresses the fact that
in English, if it has not been born, it is an "embryo" then a "fetus,"
not a "baby."
You still have not come up with a passage from the Torah that says
that there is a 614th Commandment prohibiting abortion.
>
>> That would agree with Messiah having been begotten thousands of years
>> before Miryam, the mother of His flesh, was even born. HaShem also
>> knows all events and things past, present, and future. So HaShem's
>> knowledge of the future is to be expected in all things including who
>> will be born.
>
>The Messiah wasn't "begotten" thousands of years before Miryam. You
>hate the name of our Father ???? El Shaddai and you spend your every
>post accusing me of being antisemitic when in fact I am circumcised
>the eighth day.
>
>Everything you say screams complete ignorance and hatred of Torah.
>Nations were in the womb in Genesis:
>
>Gen 25:23 And ???? said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two
>peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
>stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
>
>You show that you have zero regard for Torah! You have no idea what
>Pharisee teach and your can bury your head in lies and try to label me
>but the truth and our Father ???? El Shaddai our on my side!
Snow you are telling lies again. Your entire argument is based on the
fact that you do not agree with the Torah. Genesis 25:23 demonstrates
that haShem knows the future. You have not come up with a single
verse where HaShem specifically forbids abortion, yet you claim that
anyone who believes the Torah has no regard for the Torah. You really
should seek psychiatric help.
>
>Praise our Father ???? El Shaddai!
>
>Worship our Father ???? El Shaddai!
>
>Life is in the womb! Our our Father ???? El Shaddai has said so.
No, you lied about what the Torah says.
guardian Snow
> You still have not come up with a passage from the Torah that says
> that there is a 614th Commandment prohibiting abortion.
Ecc 11:5 As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the
bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know
the works of Elohim who makes all.
Exo 20:13 “You do not murder.
> >Everything you say screams complete ignorance and hatred of Torah.
> >Nations were in the womb in Genesis:
Gen 25:23 And יהוה said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and
two peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
> Snow you are telling lies again. Your entire argument is based on the
> fact that you do not agree with the Torah. Genesis 25:23 demonstrates
> that haShem knows the future. You have not come up with a single
> verse where HaShem specifically forbids abortion, yet you claim that
> anyone who believes the Torah has no regard for the Torah. You really
> should seek psychiatric help.
No, I said you don't know Torah is a way of life:)
Gen 9:7 “As for you, bear fruit and increase, bring forth teemingly in
the earth and increase in it.”
Abortion breaks the command to bear fruit and increase!
> No, you lied about what the Torah says.
No, I quoted the Torah, you didn't:)
Gen 35:11 And Elohim said to him, “I am Ěl Shaddai. Bear fruit and
increase, a nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and
sovereigns come from your body.
Take care and learn the truth my poor lost friend. Stop thinking it's
antisemitism and realize your just ignorant and think your wise.
Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
be hidden.”
Take care.. hope you learn the truth, my prayers go with you.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human
beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives
and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally
save their lives.
Tony Robbins
Aaron
>In article <4kuof4t0r12fn3ib4...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>>>>that nazis hate."
>>>
>>>No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
>>
>>Not in a real dictionary.
>>
>
>
>So where is this "Dictionary that takes Aaron's Prejudices into Account"?
Webseter's Dcitionary takes the facts into account.
Your personal dictionary is meaningless bigorty.
>
>
>>>>The Egyptians of the day made abortion a common practice. recipees
>>>>for abortion fluids have been found written on Egyptian artifacts of
>>>>that era and before.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know if that's true because you haven't provided
>>>any proof, but anyway, so what?
>>
>>It is a well documented fact.
>>The Ebers Papyrus of about 1550 BC is among the most important medical
>>papyri of ancient Egypt. This document gives a contraceptive recipee
>>and another for a chemical abortion.
>
>
>You still haven't provided proof of anything.
>But anyway, I still say this is irrelevant.
Emma, you know that is a lie.
>
>
>>>I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
>>>abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
>>
>>Asdide from the fact that there is no such thing as an abortionist...
>>I said that it was a common practice in Egypt, not among Jews.
>
>
>Why do you think it wasn't common among Jews?
Because of the population explosion during the time in Egypt.
>
>
>>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
>
>
>Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
>And how do you know that?
You have absolutely no knowledge of history do you?
It was recorded in Mishneh Torah that Jews were free of homosexuality
up until that time (Middle Ages). The fact was used as evidence that
HaShem's Commandments were meant for all humanity, not just Jews.
>
>You make lots of statements and provide absolutely no
>proof!
>
You keep asking for proof for commonly known facts, and whem proof is
given, you claim that it is not proof.
>
>>but HaShem took the time to forbid it.
>>
>
>Well you may not be able to see abortion in the scriptures,
>but many Jews and Christians can see it in the scriptures.
>
Emma, that is not true. In Judaism the prohibition against abortion
is rabbinical, it was not even concidered valid enough to make it into
the Talmud. The prohibition was enacted because so many Jews were
being murdered by Christians.
In Christianity, the objection to abortion does not come from the
Bible but from Buddhist influences on Christianity, and from dishoest
pastors seeking something for Christians to get mad about, a rallying
cry to make money for the church. After deciding to oppose abortion,
corrupt pastors tried to find some sort of passage that justifies
their stand. They have not found one, but they trust that their
followers are too ignorant to tell the difference.
>
>
>>>
>>>You are trying to convince pro-life people to change
>>>their opinions and thereby prevent laws against
>>>abortion. So, by your reasoning, you are forcing your
>>>religious opinions on the rest of us. You should keep
>>>quiet and then you won't be in any danger of influencing
>>>law-makers.
>>
>>Emma, I am having dificulty understanding why you keep making that
>>false claim. No one can "force" you to do anything by typing about it
>>on the internet. It is not tha same as the police coming into your
>>home and taking you in handcuff to a medical facility where your
>>pregnancy is forcably aborted.
>>
>>The only way for people NOT to be forced is if Abortion remains legal.
>
>
>From my point of view it's taking another life, and I feel that I have
>a duty to campaign against it.
God never forbid taking another life; in fact, there are times when it
is commanded. In any case, your opinion opposes the Bible.
>
>You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
>because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
>I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
No, please don't lie about what i said.
The Bible forbids the legal imposition of your religious opinion.
You can tell people that you think abortion is morally wrong, but you
would be in sin if you tried to ban abortion.
>
>There are plenty of non-Christian pro-lifers btw.
>Banning abortion is not a religious matter for them.
That is because it is not a religious issue at all. It is Nazism.
These people with their Buddhist philosophy, and no understanding of
Buddhism, want to make themselves seem beter than other people by
passing judgement on others and banning a medical procedure.
>
>
>>By the way, everyone is "prolife" unless they commit suicide.
>>there is "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Most Christans and Jews are
>>prochoice, and the prochoice opinion is growing among Christians. If
>>a person is "prolife," that person would choose not to have an
>>abortion. No one who is prochoice would complain. But the issue is
>>people who are antichoice attempoting to pervert the bible to serve
>>their antibiblical desires.
>
>
>I don't see it in terms of choice. I see it in terms of the
>ending of another life and whether or not we have the right
>to do that.
Well that is extremely bigoted, especially since you are using an
anti-biblical definition of life.
>
>
>>>>>Passing a law banning abortion based on religious beliefs would be
>>>>>>forcing one group's religious opinions on others.
>>>>>
>>>>>No it wouldn't. If it was voted on democratically then it
>>>>>wouldn't matter who proposed it or for what reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. It would be forcing everyone who does not believe it to obey
>>>>the outcome of the vote. Such a law, by definition, deprives people
>>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>>>religious beliefs. Such an action isimmoral.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. There are all sorts of religious beliefs.
>>>Some religions believe that we should practice child sacrifice.
>>>Our laws forbid that, so are we forcing our own religious beliefs
>>>on them? Should every religion be allowed to do whatever it likes?
>>
>>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>>allow a society to function.
>
>
>You were talking about religious freedom.
>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>religious beliefs."
>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>
>Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>Law protected the child in the womb and America
>adopted that law.
No, America did not. abortion was banned later in the US.
BTW: there are NO "children in the womb." It is not a child until it
is born.
>
>In any case, we're called to be salt and light in the world.
>We shouldn't expect everyone to *convert* to our faith, but
>if they like our values and want to adopt them, then that's
>their choice and so much the better. But we have to
>spread our values for them to be known.
>Nobody needs to be a Christian to join us in objecting to abortion.
No Bible believer, Jew or Christian, wants to ban abortion.
Banning abortion is nothing more than bigotry and self-worship.
>
>Christians have as much right as anyone else to join the
>debate. You would like to silence religious voices, but
>the purpose of religion is to make the world a better place.
Emma, please don't tell such obvious lies. I have no problem with
religious vioces. I have a problem with people opposing the Bible and
claiming that they are speaking for God.
>
>
>>>I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
>>>a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
>>>Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
>>>supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
>>>society.
>>
>>According to the Bible, that is not true. Yshu`a, the Messiah
>>rejected political activism even though His following was great enough
>>to secure His followers ten seats on the Sanhedrin. Since Beyt Hillel
>>agreed with almost all of what Messiah taught, they would have been
>>able to form an alliance that had absolute authority over the Jewish
>>people,
>
>
>I don't agree with that at all. The religious leaders
>of the time were corrupt and they were puppets of the
>Romans.
You agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. The Bible records the
fact that Messiah did not exercise His political rights, and records
the fact that the majority of the Sanhedrin were not corrupt. You are
just spouting antisemitism as an excuse to disregard the example of
Messiah.
>
>
>>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>>others.
>
>I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
>I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
>better.
>We don't live in theocracies.
Emma. banning abortion on religious grounds is a theocratic act.
Dominionists in the US (maybe in the UK too) have been pushing for a
Christian theocracy. Banning abortion is imposing your beliefs on
others. if you really want to convince others that your values are
better than other values, you can only do so by reaching individuals
and convincing them to make the choices that your values would
support. Forcing people to obey you is not convincing them that you
are right. Attempting to ban abortion only convinces people that you
are so wrong that you feel a need to force others to comply with your
ideas; they will believe that this is because you doubt those ideas.
>
>
>>
>>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>>who are we to object?
>>
>>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>>secular, not religious reasons.
>
>In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
>Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give up.
>
>From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
>he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
Emma, please don't lie.
You can clearly read below that I disagree with the fake opinion that
you try to attribute to me.
>
>
>> The opression of other human beings
>>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>
>Kant spoke for himself.
???
That statement does not even make sence. Obviously, you have not read
the work in question. The entire work is an attempt to prove not only
that deontology is the superior form of secular ethics, but that his
methodology is the correct way to formulate a deontological system.
>So it depends on the secular ethics. Many people,
>Christians and non-Christians, argued that slavery was
>necessary.
History has proven them wrong about that as well. Slavery slowed down
the development of technology. In the US, Slavery has had, and still
has social ramifications that have harmed the country. This does not
refer to the Civil War, which was about unfair taxation and unfair
voting processes. Much of the racism in the US today stems from
ending slavery in a way that offended most Christians in the US. Had
there not been slavery in the first place, the Christians would see
the africans as people in need of their help, not as people invading
their country. Yes, I know the racist opinion makes no sense, but I
have heard these morons pushing their brand of bigotry.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your argument was that if God can do something, then so can we.
>>>>>That's not true. I can't decide when you die.
>>>>
>>>>No, my arguement is that God decided what is forbidden and what is
>>>>permitted, and He never forbid abortion.
>>>
>>>That is your religious opinion which you are trying to force
>>>on others.
>>
>>You can be Atheist if you want, but be honest about it.
>>
>>I am not forcing anything on anyone. if you think that citing the
>>Bible is focing you to do anything, you really should make an
>>appointment with a psychiatrist. If mere words and opinions that
>>disagree with your antibiblical belliefs upsets you this much, you
>>might have a serious problem.
>
>But you object to Christians joining the debate about
>abortion. Otoh, you want to make your own religious
>opinions known and you want laws that reflect your own
>religious beliefs. That just seems hypocritical to me!
Emma, are you being intentionally perverse, or are you mentally
deficient?
We are not talking about a debate as to whether or not abortion is
ethical or moral; we are talking about a debate on whether a religious
group should be allowed to impose their beliefs on others through
legislation of a moral belief, one that defies the Bible. I have
tried to explain the difference between discussion what the Bible
says, and forcing people to do what you think the Bible says.
You act as if you can't understand this difference. I do not know if
you really are that stupid (I would hope not), or if you are that
dishonest (I would hope not).
>
>You are arguing entirely from a religious point of view!
>But you object to pro-lifers arguing from a religious
>point of view.
Emma, you k now that is a lie.
I have told you this several time.
Discussion to convince others of what choice they should make is
completely different from making a law that takes a person's choice
from them.
>
>
>
>>>> God did not even forbid the
>>>>taking of human life; he forbid murder, which is one perticular case
>>>>of taking a human life, but not every case of taking a human life.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But your argument was that whatever God does can't be
>>>a sin, so we are permitted to do the same. Obviously that
>>>isn't true, as you have demonstrated above. We can't take
>>>life in the same way that God does. So just because God decides
>>>to take a life in the womb, we can't assume that we can do
>>>the same.
>>
>>My argument is that if HaShem (God) did not specifically forbid
>>abortion, then it is permitted.
>>Over the years, Neo-Nazis have
>>attempted to expand the definition of "Tirtzach" to cover abortion,
>>but they have never come up with a single verse to support their
>>opposition to abortion.
>
>Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
Fine "Nazi."
>
>You should use argument rather than insults.
It is not an insult, Hitler, the Christian candidate for chancellor of
Germany ran for office promising to ban abortion, which he did.
On this issue, there is no moral difference between the antiabortion
people and the Nazis. Both want(ed) to establish a "Christian
government." The Nazis succeded and thus demonstrated why theocracies
are wrong even when you start with a theology that you believe.
>
>
>> They come up with verses that show that
>>HaShem knows the future, or they intentionally mistranslate things,
>>but have never come up with a single verse to claim that there should
>>be a 614th Commandment.
>
>You should accept that many Christians and Jews
>disagree with you and that doesn't make them Neo-Nazis.
You should accept that the Binle disagrees with you, and condemns your
poltical activism as evil.
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 12:12 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> My argument is that if HaShem (God) did not specifically forbid
>> abortion, then it is permitted. Over the years, Neo-Nazis have
>> attempted to expand the definition of "Tirtzach" to cover abortion,
>> but they have never come up with a single verse to support their
>> opposition to abortion. They come up with verses that show that
>> HaShem knows the future, or they intentionally mistranslate things,
>> but have never come up with a single verse to claim that there should
>> be a 614th Commandment.
>
>Isa 29:10 For ???? has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep, and
>has closed your eyes, the prophets. And He has covered your heads, the
>seers.
>Isa 29:11 And the entire vision is to you like the words of a book
>that is sealed, which men give to one who knows books, saying, “Read
>this, please.” And he said, “I am unable, for it is sealed.”
>Isa 29:12 And the book is given to one who does not know books,
>saying, “Read this, please.” And he said, “I have not known books.”
>Isa 29:13 And ???? says, “Because this people has drawn near with its
>mouth, and with its lips they have esteemed Me, and it has kept its
>heart far from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of men
>that is taught1! Footnote: 1Mt. 15:8-9, Mk. 7:6-7.
>Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
>this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
>wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
>be hidden.”
>Isa 29:15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from
>????, and their works are in the dark; they say, “Who sees us?” and,
>“Who knows us?”
>Isa 29:16 How perverse of you! Should the potter be reckoned as the
>clay? Should what is made say of its Maker, “He did not make me”? And
>what is formed say of Him who formed it, “He did not understand”?
>Isa 29:17 Is it not yet a little while, and Leb_anon shall be turned
>into garden land, and garden land be reckoned as a forest?
>Isa 29:18 And in that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book,
>and the eyes of the blind shall see out of gloom, and out of
>darkness.
>Isa 29:19 And the meek ones shall increase their joy in ????, and the
>poor among men rejoice in the Set-apart One of Yisra’el.
>Isa 29:20 For the ruthless one is brought to naught, the scorner is
>consumed, and all who watch for evil shall be cut off,
>Isa 29:21 those who make a man to sin in word, and lay a snare for him
>who reproves in the gate, and turn aside the righteous with empty
>reasoning.
>Isa 29:22 Therefore thus said ????, who ransomed Ab_raham, concerning
>the house of Ya?aqob_, “Ya?aqob_ is no longer put to shame, no longer
>does his face grow pale.
>Isa 29:23 “For when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his
>midst, they shall set apart My Name, and set apart the Set-apart One
>of Ya?aqob_, and fear the Elohim of Yisra’el.
>Isa 29:24 “And those who went astray in spirit shall come to
>understanding, and the grumblers accept instruction.”
Snow, you still have not come up with a passage from the Torah that
establishes a 614th Commandment by explicitly forbidding abortion.
The burden of proof is on you.
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 3:23 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> You were talking about religious freedom.
>> You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>> of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>> religious beliefs."
>> So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>>
>> Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>> were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>> Law protected the child in the womb and America
>> adopted that law.
>>
>> In any case, we're called to be salt and light in the world.
>> We shouldn't expect everyone to *convert* to our faith, but
>> if they like our values and want to adopt them, then that's
>> their choice and so much the better. But we have to
>> spread our values for them to be known.
>> Nobody needs to be a Christian to join us in objecting to abortion.
>
>Absolutely brilliant posting Emma. The spirit was truly working in
>you sister! Bless you for standing up for those who have no voice
>because they were not given that choice to be born.
Brilliant???
Are you even literate?
She has is trying to justify defying HaShem's Word and establishing a
theocracy, but when called upon that she attempts to switch gears.
>
>More then 40 million Americans are dead because of Abortion! That's
>more then the entire state of California, the 8th largest economy in
>the world by itself. Economic reasons alone should wake people up,
>abortion is killing our economy and our soul!
Snow, that is pure fiction.
Conservatives used to support Government funded abortion because is
was more economically viable than denying poor women abortions.
>
>Gen 25:23 And YHWH said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two
>manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one
>people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall
>serve the younger.
HaShem knows the future. That has no bearing on this topic.
You repeated attempts to misguide people with that verse are
ridiculous and immoral. Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids making additional
commandments. You are attemoting to violate this Commandment.
Snow, you still have not come up with a passage from the Torah that
establishes a 614th Commandment by explicitly forbidding abortion.
The burden of proof is on you.
>
Emma
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>>>>>that nazis hate."
>>>>
>>>>No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
>>>
>>>Not in a real dictionary.
>>>
>>
>>
>>So where is this "Dictionary that takes Aaron's Prejudices into Account"?
>
>Webseter's Dcitionary takes the facts into account.
>Your personal dictionary is meaningless bigorty.
>
The word "abortionist" is in Webster's Dictionary too.
>>>>I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
>>>>abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
>>>
>>>Asdide from the fact that there is no such thing as an abortionist...
>>>I said that it was a common practice in Egypt, not among Jews.
>>
>>
>>Why do you think it wasn't common among Jews?
>
>Because of the population explosion during the time in Egypt.
>
So maybe Jews didn't practice abortion because they had
moral objections to it?
eg.
quote:
"That an Israelite parent might consider intentionally aborting
a foetus seems almost beyond the moral horizon of the Torah's
original audience. For in the moral environment where the
law was first received, the memory of genocide and infanticide
was still fresh [and] every birth was precious."
Lenn E. Goodman, Judaism, Human Rights, and Human Values,
end quote
>>
>>>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
>>
>>
>>Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
>>And how do you know that?
>
>You have absolutely no knowledge of history do you?
I'm not an expert on homosexual history, no.
So you'll have to give me some references for all
these statements.
>It was recorded in Mishneh Torah that Jews were free of homosexuality
>up until that time (Middle Ages). The fact was used as evidence that
>HaShem's Commandments were meant for all humanity, not just Jews.
In which case you're quoting a rabbinical source, but you
dismiss rabbinical sources for abortion. Why?
>
>>
>>You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
>>because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
>>I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
>
>No, please don't lie about what i said.
>
>The Bible forbids the legal imposition of your religious opinion.
>You can tell people that you think abortion is morally wrong, but you
>would be in sin if you tried to ban abortion.
What if I tell others that I think abortion is morally wrong
and they agree with me and want to pass a law to ban it?
What then?
>>>
>>>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>>>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>>>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>>>allow a society to function.
>>
>>
>>You were talking about religious freedom.
>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>religious beliefs."
>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>
>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
I was talking about child sacrifice though.
Or what about secularist pedophiles?
Are you going to turn a blind eye to the first example, because
you don't want to "deprive people of their freedom to make their
own moral judgements based on their religious beliefs",
and the second example because you don't want to impose your own
religious morality on anyone else?
>>Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>>were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>>Law protected the child in the womb and America
>>adopted that law.
>
>No, America did not. abortion was banned later in the US.
But America generally accepted English Common Law before that,
and English Common Law protected the unborn.
So to say that it's "Nazism" or "Buddhism" is false.
>BTW: there are NO "children in the womb." It is not a child until it
>is born.
That's a matter of opinion.
>>>>I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
>>>>a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
>>>>Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
>>>>supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
>>>>society.
>>>
>>>According to the Bible, that is not true. Yshu`a, the Messiah
>>>rejected political activism even though His following was great enough
>>>to secure His followers ten seats on the Sanhedrin. Since Beyt Hillel
>>>agreed with almost all of what Messiah taught, they would have been
>>>able to form an alliance that had absolute authority over the Jewish
>>>people,
>>
>>
>>I don't agree with that at all. The religious leaders
>>of the time were corrupt and they were puppets of the
>>Romans.
>
>You agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. The Bible records the
>fact that Messiah did not exercise His political rights, and records
>the fact that the majority of the Sanhedrin were not corrupt. You are
>just spouting antisemitism as an excuse to disregard the example of
>Messiah.
I'm saying that the Jewish leaders at the time were pretty
powerless and were subject to the Romans.
Anyway, that's irrelevant because Jesus taught against
theocracies, and I'm not advocating theocracy.
>>>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>>>others.
>>
>>I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
>>I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
>>better.
>>We don't live in theocracies.
>
>Emma. banning abortion on religious grounds is a theocratic act.
No it isn't. Not if it's adopted in a democratic way.
Non-Christians could vote for it too.
>>>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>>>who are we to object?
>>>
>>>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>>>secular, not religious reasons.
>>
>>In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
>>Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give up.
>>
>>From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
>>he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
>
>Emma, please don't lie.
I think it's true. You think Wilberforce was advocating
a theocracy because he was forcing his religious views
on others by pushing for an anti-slavery law.
>>> The opression of other human beings
>>>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>>
>>Kant spoke for himself.
>
>???
>That statement does not even make sence. Obviously, you have not read
>the work in question. The entire work is an attempt to prove not only
>that deontology is the superior form of secular ethics, but that his
>methodology is the correct way to formulate a deontological system.
There is no one set of secular ethics. That's what I mean.
>>Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
>
>Fine "Nazi."
>>
>>You should use argument rather than insults.
>
>It is not an insult, Hitler, the Christian candidate for chancellor of
>Germany ran for office promising to ban abortion, which he did.
>On this issue, there is no moral difference between the antiabortion
>people and the Nazis. Both want(ed) to establish a "Christian
>government." The Nazis succeded and thus demonstrated why theocracies
>are wrong even when you start with a theology that you believe.
>
Nazis also built good roads and established a National
Health Service. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants
good roads and a National Health Service are "Nazis".
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 12:48 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> You still have not come up with a passage from the Torah that says
>> that there is a 614th Commandment prohibiting abortion.
>
>Ecc 11:5 As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the
>bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know
>the works of Elohim who makes all.
That is not from the Torah. It also has no bearing on when human life
begins.
>
>Exo 20:13 “You do not murder.
Abortion is not murder. Tirtzach requires premeditation and the
motivation of hatred.
>
>> >Everything you say screams complete ignorance and hatred of Torah.
>> >Nations were in the womb in Genesis:
>
> Gen 25:23 And ???? said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and
>two peoples shall be separated from your body. And one people shall be
>stronger than the other, and the older serve the younger.”
Snow, thise verse, as we have already discussed, demonstrates that
haShem knows the future. It has no bearing on the definition of
tirtzach nor does it make any statement as to when life begins.
>
>> Snow you are telling lies again. Your entire argument is based on the
>> fact that you do not agree with the Torah. Genesis 25:23 demonstrates
>> that haShem knows the future. You have not come up with a single
>> verse where HaShem specifically forbids abortion, yet you claim that
>> anyone who believes the Torah has no regard for the Torah. You really
>> should seek psychiatric help.
>
>No, I said you don't know Torah is a way of life:)
Snow, that is another lie.
So far, your entire argument is that the Torah is NOT a way of life
because you have a "better" (buddhist) way. You have not come up with
a single verse where HaShem specifically and explicitly forbids
abortion, yet you claim that anyone who believes the Torah has no
regard for the Torah.
>
>Gen 9:7 “As for you, bear fruit and increase, bring forth teemingly in
>the earth and increase in it.”
>
>Abortion breaks the command to bear fruit and increase!
>
>> No, you lied about what the Torah says.
>
>No, I quoted the Torah, you didn't:)
No, you have not. You quoted a translation. I stated clearly that
there is no verse to back up your claim. As such there is no verse
for me to quote; the lack of a verse proves my point.
>
>Gen 35:11 And Elohim said to him, “I am El Shaddai. Bear fruit and
>increase, a nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and
>sovereigns come from your body.
>
>Take care and learn the truth my poor lost friend. Stop thinking it's
>antisemitism and realize your just ignorant and think your wise.
Snow you are not making any sense. You are an antisemite, but it is
your disregard for the Torah that is the problem here.
>
>Isa 29:14 “Therefore, see, I am again doing a marvellous work among
>this people, a marvellous work and a wonder. And the wisdom of their
>wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their clever men shall
>be hidden.”
>
>Take care.. hope you learn the truth, my prayers go with you.
So far, you have only demonstrated that you hate the Torah.
Aaron
>In article <pdnrf4pr4eu4s78br...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please use real words. "Abortionist" is a fake word for "gynocologist
>>>>>>that nazis hate."
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's in the dictionary so I'm going to use it.
>>>>
>>>>Not in a real dictionary.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So where is this "Dictionary that takes Aaron's Prejudices into Account"?
>>
>>Webseter's Dcitionary takes the facts into account.
>>Your personal dictionary is meaningless bigorty.
>>
>
>
>The word "abortionist" is in Webster's Dictionary too.
>
>
>
>>>>>I asked you for proof that *Jews* in Egypt were enthusiastic
>>>>>abortionists. Where is your proof for that?
>>>>
>>>>Asdide from the fact that there is no such thing as an abortionist...
>>>>I said that it was a common practice in Egypt, not among Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you think it wasn't common among Jews?
>>
>>Because of the population explosion during the time in Egypt.
>>
>
>
>So maybe Jews didn't practice abortion because they had
>moral objections to it?
No. They had cultural objections coming from and maintaining a rural
agrarian culture and economy. Any moral objections would be the
result of a scecific and explicit commandment prohibiting abortion.
There is no such passage in the Torah.
>
>eg.
>
>quote:
>
>"That an Israelite parent might consider intentionally aborting
>a foetus seems almost beyond the moral horizon of the Torah's
>original audience. For in the moral environment where the
>law was first received, the memory of genocide and infanticide
>was still fresh [and] every birth was precious."
>Lenn E. Goodman, Judaism, Human Rights, and Human Values,
>
>end quote
This joker admits that he reinterprets texts to reflect his own
opinions. He is not a biblical source, by the way. The Bible
contains no such evidence.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
>>>
>>>
>>>Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
>>>And how do you know that?
>>
>>You have absolutely no knowledge of history do you?
>
>I'm not an expert on homosexual history, no.
>So you'll have to give me some references for all
>these statements.
I meant JEWISH history. I am not sure if there is a body of work that
one could call "homosexual history" since homosexuality is a disorder,
not a culture, religion, or nationality.
>
>
>>It was recorded in Mishneh Torah that Jews were free of homosexuality
>>up until that time (Middle Ages). The fact was used as evidence that
>>HaShem's Commandments were meant for all humanity, not just Jews.
>
>In which case you're quoting a rabbinical source, but you
>dismiss rabbinical sources for abortion. Why?
The rabbinical souces covering abortion admit that they are not
following the Torah, that they are adding something to keep up the
population due to Christians murdering millions of Jews. So, the
rabbinical source does not discuss morality at all, but survival of a
christian onslaught.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
>>>because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
>>>I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
>>
>>No, please don't lie about what i said.
>>
>>The Bible forbids the legal imposition of your religious opinion.
>>You can tell people that you think abortion is morally wrong, but you
>>would be in sin if you tried to ban abortion.
>
>
>What if I tell others that I think abortion is morally wrong
>and they agree with me and want to pass a law to ban it?
>What then?
Then they are acting immorally.
It is immoral whether you do it of an Athesist does it.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>>>>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>>>>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>>>>allow a society to function.
>>>
>>>
>>>You were talking about religious freedom.
>>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>>religious beliefs."
>>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>>
>>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>
>I was talking about child sacrifice though.
Most chioce sacrifice religions such as Ba`al worship required the
child be more than one month old, which makes it taking human life.
>Or what about secularist pedophiles?
A pedophile whether a Catholic priest or a secular person is depriving
their victims of their right to make their own moral judgements.
>
>Are you going to turn a blind eye to the first example, because
>you don't want to "deprive people of their freedom to make their
>own moral judgements based on their religious beliefs",
>and the second example because you don't want to impose your own
>religious morality on anyone else?
No. But there is no analogy between preventing these crimes and
banning abortion.
>
>
>>>Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>>>were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>>>Law protected the child in the womb and America
>>>adopted that law.
>>
>>No, America did not. abortion was banned later in the US.
>
>But America generally accepted English Common Law before that,
>and English Common Law protected the unborn.
>So to say that it's "Nazism" or "Buddhism" is false.
The US formally rejected English Common Law with the declaration of
Independance - before the country was actually formed. Of course you
have offered no proof that this "protection" was actually the case.
The modern antiabortion movement draws directly from Buddhism and
Nazism.
>
>
>>BTW: there are NO "children in the womb." It is not a child until it
>>is born.
>
>That's a matter of opinion.
No it is not, it is a simple fact, a fetus is not a child.
>
>
>>>>>I don't know what sort of religion you follow btw. You may be
>>>>>a Christian or a Christian pretending to be a Jew. I don't know.
>>>>>Anyway, either way, we are called to social action. We are
>>>>>supposed to influence lawmakers into passing laws which benefit
>>>>>society.
>>>>
>>>>According to the Bible, that is not true. Yshu`a, the Messiah
>>>>rejected political activism even though His following was great enough
>>>>to secure His followers ten seats on the Sanhedrin. Since Beyt Hillel
>>>>agreed with almost all of what Messiah taught, they would have been
>>>>able to form an alliance that had absolute authority over the Jewish
>>>>people,
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree with that at all. The religious leaders
>>>of the time were corrupt and they were puppets of the
>>>Romans.
>>
>>You agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. The Bible records the
>>fact that Messiah did not exercise His political rights, and records
>>the fact that the majority of the Sanhedrin were not corrupt. You are
>>just spouting antisemitism as an excuse to disregard the example of
>>Messiah.
>
>I'm saying that the Jewish leaders at the time were pretty
>powerless and were subject to the Romans.
They were not that subject until after the failed Bar Kokba Revolt.
>Anyway, that's irrelevant because Jesus taught against
>theocracies, and I'm not advocating theocracy.
Well, we agree on that. Of course banning abortion is a theocratic
action.
>
>
>>>>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>>>>others.
>>>
>>>I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
>>>I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
>>>better.
>>>We don't live in theocracies.
>>
>>Emma. banning abortion on religious grounds is a theocratic act.
>
>
>No it isn't. Not if it's adopted in a democratic way.
>Non-Christians could vote for it too.
All the Islamic theocracies were established democratically; that does
not make them any less theocratic dictatorships. Democracy itself is
not enough to protect people from tyranny; a country must temper their
democracy with a constitition that provides rights to the minority as
well as the majority. What if the majority decides that children born
with any defect are a drain on the economy and must be aborted? What
if the majority decides that each family can only have one child to
bring the human population down to a level that the economy and
environment can sustain? I know that there is an extremist ecology
group in the UK that wants to pass just such a law.
Morally, banning abortion is the same thing as forcing women to have
abortions.
>
>
>>>>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>>>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>>>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>>>>who are we to object?
>>>>
>>>>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>>>>secular, not religious reasons.
>>>
>>>In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
>>>Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give up.
>>>
>>>From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
>>>he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
>>
>>Emma, please don't lie.
>
>I think it's true. You think Wilberforce was advocating
>a theocracy because he was forcing his religious views
>on others by pushing for an anti-slavery law.
The antislavery law has nothing in common with banning abortion
because slavery as the Africans and europeans practiced it oppresses
other people. (This is different from the bondsmanship practiced in
Israel, but usually mistranslated as "slavery.")
>
>
>>>> The opression of other human beings
>>>>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>>>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>>>
>>>Kant spoke for himself.
>>
>>???
>>That statement does not even make sence. Obviously, you have not read
>>the work in question. The entire work is an attempt to prove not only
>>that deontology is the superior form of secular ethics, but that his
>>methodology is the correct way to formulate a deontological system.
>
>
>There is no one set of secular ethics. That's what I mean.
Then you have not read the work. The "Metaphysics of
Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist) establishes a moral compass for
Atheists. His methodology almost invariably results in the same
ethical code from one person to the next.
Of course we have sets of secular ethics for various professions.
>
>
>
>>>Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
>>
>>Fine "Nazi."
>>>
>>>You should use argument rather than insults.
>>
>>It is not an insult, Hitler, the Christian candidate for chancellor of
>>Germany ran for office promising to ban abortion, which he did.
>>On this issue, there is no moral difference between the antiabortion
>>people and the Nazis. Both want(ed) to establish a "Christian
>>government." The Nazis succeded and thus demonstrated why theocracies
>>are wrong even when you start with a theology that you believe.
>>
>
>Nazis also built good roads and established a National
>Health Service. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants
>good roads and a National Health Service are "Nazis".
No, but those who are willing to deprive others of their freedoms are
Facists, like the Nazis, those with the same goals: banning abortion,
establishing a christian government et cetera are as nazi as most of
the German nazis of Hitler's era. Personally, I see the Dominionists
as Satanic Christians. They will serve Armillus (AntiChrist) and be
the perpetrators of the Time of Jacob's Troubles (Great Tribulation).
Some Christians do not know enough about the Bible to know that
abortion is not a sin, they prefer to spread their faith in a godly
way. Others, Dominionists, want Christianity to take over politics
and form a defacto theocracy. I wonder if their followers know that
the leaders need abortion to remain legal so that they will have a
rallying cry for their accumulation and consolidation of power?
Emma
>
>On 21 Oct 2008 09:06:01 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>So maybe Jews didn't practice abortion because they had
>>moral objections to it?
>
>No. They had cultural objections coming from and maintaining a rural
>agrarian culture and economy. Any moral objections would be the
>result of a scecific and explicit commandment prohibiting abortion.
>There is no such passage in the Torah.
Maybe that's because it wasn't necessary eg. Jews already had
the teaching of the sanctity of human life.
>>"That an Israelite parent might consider intentionally aborting
>>a foetus seems almost beyond the moral horizon of the Torah's
>>original audience. For in the moral environment where the
>>law was first received, the memory of genocide and infanticide
>>was still fresh [and] every birth was precious."
>>Lenn E. Goodman, Judaism, Human Rights, and Human Values,
>>
>>end quote
>
>This joker admits that he reinterprets texts to reflect his own
>opinions.
Where does he admit that?
> He is not a biblical source, by the way. The Bible
>contains no such evidence.
>
You quote sources outside the Bible.
Actually, you don't quote sources at all;
you make statements and claim that the evidence is
out there somewhere, but you don't give a reference
for them, and I'm not prepared to take your word for
them.
>>>>
>>>>>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
>>>>And how do you know that?
>>>
>>>You have absolutely no knowledge of history do you?
>>
>>I'm not an expert on homosexual history, no.
>>So you'll have to give me some references for all
>>these statements.
>
>I meant JEWISH history. I am not sure if there is a body of work that
>one could call "homosexual history" since homosexuality is a disorder,
>not a culture, religion, or nationality.
So where is the reference for your statement above?
>>>It was recorded in Mishneh Torah that Jews were free of homosexuality
>>>up until that time (Middle Ages). The fact was used as evidence that
>>>HaShem's Commandments were meant for all humanity, not just Jews.
>>
>>In which case you're quoting a rabbinical source, but you
>>dismiss rabbinical sources for abortion. Why?
>
>The rabbinical souces covering abortion admit that they are not
>following the Torah, that they are adding something to keep up the
>population due to Christians murdering millions of Jews.
What rabbinical sources are these?
Reference please.
>>>>You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
>>>>because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
>>>>I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
>>>
>>>No, please don't lie about what i said.
>>>
>>>The Bible forbids the legal imposition of your religious opinion.
>>>You can tell people that you think abortion is morally wrong, but you
>>>would be in sin if you tried to ban abortion.
>>
>>
>>What if I tell others that I think abortion is morally wrong
>>and they agree with me and want to pass a law to ban it?
>>What then?
>
>Then they are acting immorally.
>It is immoral whether you do it of an Athesist does it.
>
Only from your point of view and those in your camp.
And you wouldn't be able to claim that it's theocratic.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>>>>>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>>>>>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>>>>>allow a society to function.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You were talking about religious freedom.
>>>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>>>religious beliefs."
>>>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>>>
>>>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>>
>>I was talking about child sacrifice though.
>
>Most chioce sacrifice religions such as Ba`al worship required the
>child be more than one month old, which makes it taking human life.
But that's not unethical according to Ba'al ethics,
and you said that you don't want to "deprive people of their
freedom to make their own moral judgements".
>>Or what about secularist pedophiles?
>
>A pedophile whether a Catholic priest or a secular person is depriving
>their victims of their right to make their own moral judgements.
But you're depriving securalist pedophiles of making *their* moral judgements
and you said you don't want to do that.
Actually, you said that you want all laws to be passed according
to secular ethics.
I don't actually believe that there are one set of secular ethics.
but apparently you do.
>>Are you going to turn a blind eye to the first example, because
>>you don't want to "deprive people of their freedom to make their
>>own moral judgements based on their religious beliefs",
>>and the second example because you don't want to impose your own
>>religious morality on anyone else?
>
>No.
But that's what you said. Those are your own arguments.
>>>>Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>>>>were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>>>>Law protected the child in the womb and America
>>>>adopted that law.
>>>
>>>No, America did not. abortion was banned later in the US.
>>
>>But America generally accepted English Common Law before that,
>>and English Common Law protected the unborn.
>>So to say that it's "Nazism" or "Buddhism" is false.
>
>The US formally rejected English Common Law with the declaration of
>Independance - before the country was actually formed.
It formally rejected English Common Law? Is there a reference
for that?
I thought you kept a lot of our laws. Even today a lot of your
laws are based on ours, aren't they?
>Of course you
>have offered no proof that this "protection" was actually the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_2.shtml
>The modern antiabortion movement draws directly from Buddhism and
>Nazism.
Actually, there is no one opinion on abortion within Buddhism either,
as far as I can see.
>>
>>>>>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>>>>>others.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
>>>>I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
>>>>better.
>>>>We don't live in theocracies.
>>>
>>>Emma. banning abortion on religious grounds is a theocratic act.
>>
>>
>>No it isn't. Not if it's adopted in a democratic way.
>>Non-Christians could vote for it too.
>
>All the Islamic theocracies were established democratically; that does
>not make them any less theocratic dictatorships.
They weren't all established democratically.
> Democracy itself is
>not enough to protect people from tyranny; a country must temper their
>democracy with a constitition that provides rights to the minority as
>well as the majority. What if the majority decides that children born
>with any defect are a drain on the economy and must be aborted?
That's your opinion. And I'm fighting it!
>>>>>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>>>>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>>>>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>>>>>who are we to object?
>>>>>
>>>>>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>>>>>secular, not religious reasons.
>>>>
>>>>In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
>>>>Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give >up.
>>>>
>>>>From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
>>>>he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
>>>
>>>Emma, please don't lie.
>>
>>I think it's true. You think Wilberforce was advocating
>>a theocracy because he was forcing his religious views
>>on others by pushing for an anti-slavery law.
>
>The antislavery law has nothing in common with banning abortion
>because slavery as the Africans and europeans practiced it oppresses
>other people. (This is different from the bondsmanship practiced in
>Israel, but usually mistranslated as "slavery.")
I'm using this an example of Christians fighting for
what they believe to be right according to biblical morality.
If you don't think Christians should impose their morality on
others, then you would have opposed Wilberforce.
>>>>> The opression of other human beings
>>>>>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>>>>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>>>>
>>>>Kant spoke for himself.
>>>
>>>???
>>>That statement does not even make sence. Obviously, you have not read
>>>the work in question. The entire work is an attempt to prove not only
>>>that deontology is the superior form of secular ethics, but that his
>>>methodology is the correct way to formulate a deontological system.
>>
>>
>>There is no one set of secular ethics. That's what I mean.
>
>Then you have not read the work. The "Metaphysics of
>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist) establishes a moral compass for
>Atheists. His methodology almost invariably results in the same
>ethical code from one person to the next.
>
>Of course we have sets of secular ethics for various professions.
>
Actually, from what I can discover on the internet, Kant is
most often quoted by anti-abortionists.
In any case, my point is that Kant has his critics. Nobody
has to agree with Kant. Not all secularists agree with
Kant.
>>>>Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
>>>
>>>Fine "Nazi."
>>>>
>>>>You should use argument rather than insults.
>>>
>>>It is not an insult, Hitler, the Christian candidate for chancellor of
>>>Germany ran for office promising to ban abortion, which he did.
>>>On this issue, there is no moral difference between the antiabortion
>>>people and the Nazis. Both want(ed) to establish a "Christian
>>>government." The Nazis succeded and thus demonstrated why theocracies
>>>are wrong even when you start with a theology that you believe.
>>>
>>
>>Nazis also built good roads and established a National
>>Health Service. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants
>>good roads and a National Health Service are "Nazis".
>
>No, but those who are willing to deprive others of their freedoms are
>Facists, like the Nazis, those with the same goals: banning abortion,
>establishing a christian government et cetera are as nazi as most of
>the German nazis of Hitler's era.
I don't want to establish a theocratic Christian government.
Non-Christian anti-abortionists obviously don't want to
establish a theocracy either.
guardian Snow
> >>"That an Israelite parent might consider intentionally aborting
> >>a foetus seems almost beyond the moral horizon of the Torah's
> >>original audience. For in the moral environment where the
> >>law was first received, the memory of genocide and infanticide
> >>was still fresh [and] every birth was precious."
> >>Lenn E. Goodman, Judaism, Human Rights, and Human Values,
>
> >>end quote
>
> >This joker admits that he reinterprets texts to reflect his own
> >opinions.
>
> Where does he admit that?
We both know that I'm the type of person that I put the passage I'm
citing in my post everything so that there is no way that people like
Aaron can make such foolish claims... Anybody can into my history and
find that I quote scriptures in almost every post I make.
> > He is not a biblical source, by the way. The Bible
> >contains no such evidence.
>
> You quote sources outside the Bible.
> Actually, you don't quote sources at all;
> you make statements and claim that the evidence is
> out there somewhere, but you don't give a reference
> for them, and I'm not prepared to take your word for
> them.
See this is why I'm not bothering wasting my time talking to Aaron.
Clearly anybody can look at the history of even this thread and see
that I've quoted numerous passages of scriptures that say, "Life is in
the blood" and many others that support the idea that abortion is
murder.
Mat 15:13 But He answering, said, “Every plant which My heavenly
Father has not planted shall be uprooted.
Mat 15:14 “Leave them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And
if the blind leads the blind, both shall fall into a ditch.”
I've come to the conclusion that he is best left to his own devices.
His tactic is to ignore the passages and then claim that I am anti-
semitic when he can't refute the scriptures. He cited one verse and
tried to say that woman were property. His views are clearly not
based in the Torah and I won't waste my time with him.
> >The rabbinical souces covering abortion admit that they are not
> >following the Torah, that they are adding something to keep up the
> >population due to Christians murdering millions of Jews.
>
> What rabbinical sources are these?
> Reference please.
He is teaching what these people tell him and is a victim of brain
washing. His programming tells him that anybody that doesn't agree
with him must be against Jews and that includes the scriptures of the
Torah.
Somebody really has done a number on this guys mind. He is no longer
able to even think for himself or reason with people and blindly
follows his cult leaders.
Gen 25:23 And YHWH said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two
manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one
people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall
serve the younger.
Gen 25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold,
there were twins in her womb.
Where would Israel be if abortion was practiced here?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Linda Lee
> In article <c4lsf49k78okk8ec8ord8f2152k5qej...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
It may not be murder, but it is killing, and it is hard to get around
the fact that, left undisturbed, a healthy pregnancy will result in a
healthy baby, one's own child. I could not do it. But then I might
look at it differently if there were no birth control at all, and I
was pregnant nine months out of every year for 30 years or so.
> ...
>
> read more »
Aaron
>In article <c4lsf49k78okk8ec8...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>On 21 Oct 2008 09:06:01 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>So maybe Jews didn't practice abortion because they had
>>>moral objections to it?
>>
>>No. They had cultural objections coming from and maintaining a rural
>>agrarian culture and economy. Any moral objections would be the
>>result of a specific and explicit commandment prohibiting abortion.
>>There is no such passage in the Torah.
>
>Maybe that's because it wasn't necessary eg. Jews already had
>the teaching of the sanctity of human life.
A fetus is not "human life according to the Bible.
According to the Bible human life is NOT sacred. Many human lives are
so far from sacred that God requires their execution.
God's 613 Commandments are the definition of "Good;" defying them is
the definition of "evil." All of God's Commandments are in the Torah.
If something is not forbidden in the Torah, it is not evil.
>
>
>>>"That an Israelite parent might consider intentionally aborting
>>>a foetus seems almost beyond the moral horizon of the Torah's
>>>original audience. For in the moral environment where the
>>>law was first received, the memory of genocide and infanticide
>>>was still fresh [and] every birth was precious."
>>>Lenn E. Goodman, Judaism, Human Rights, and Human Values,
>>>
>>>end quote
>>
>>This joker admits that he reinterprets texts to reflect his own
>>opinions.
>
>Where does he admit that?
On the faculty website where he works. I should also point out that
His degree is in Philosphy, not Theology or Judaism, so he is not an
expert in the first place. Like many Atheists, he feel justified
telling people what religious people believe.
You onlt bothered to quote him because the bible does not support your
desire.
>
>
>> He is not a biblical source, by the way. The Bible
>>contains no such evidence.
>>
>
>You quote sources outside the Bible.
>Actually, you don't quote sources at all;
>you make statements and claim that the evidence is
>out there somewhere, but you don't give a reference
>for them, and I'm not prepared to take your word for
>them.
Emma, you are just being dishonest.
The fact is that there is NO Bible verse to quote that forbids
abortion.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Homosexual sex was common in Greece, but did not happen among Jews,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Homosexual sex didn't happen among Jews?
>>>>>And how do you know that?
>>>>
>>>>You have absolutely no knowledge of history do you?
>>>
>>>I'm not an expert on homosexual history, no.
>>>So you'll have to give me some references for all
>>>these statements.
>>
>>I meant JEWISH history. I am not sure if there is a body of work that
>>one could call "homosexual history" since homosexuality is a disorder,
>>not a culture, religion, or nationality.
>
>
>So where is the reference for your statement above?
"Mishneh Toarh" by Rambam, as I already stated..
>
>
>>>>It was recorded in Mishneh Torah that Jews were free of homosexuality
>>>>up until that time (Middle Ages). The fact was used as evidence that
>>>>HaShem's Commandments were meant for all humanity, not just Jews.
>>>
>>>In which case you're quoting a rabbinical source, but you
>>>dismiss rabbinical sources for abortion. Why?
>>
>>The rabbinical souces covering abortion admit that they are not
>>following the Torah, that they are adding something to keep up the
>>population due to Christians murdering millions of Jews.
>
>What rabbinical sources are these?
>Reference please.
The rulings of post-talmudic Rabbinical courts.
>
>
>>>>>You're telling me that my opinion shouldn't be voiced simply
>>>>>because I'm a Christian. I think the opposite.
>>>>>I think I should speak out *because* I'm a Christian.
>>>>
>>>>No, please don't lie about what i said.
>>>>
>>>>The Bible forbids the legal imposition of your religious opinion.
>>>>You can tell people that you think abortion is morally wrong, but you
>>>>would be in sin if you tried to ban abortion.
>>>
>>>
>>>What if I tell others that I think abortion is morally wrong
>>>and they agree with me and want to pass a law to ban it?
>>>What then?
>>
>>Then they are acting immorally.
>>It is immoral whether you do it of an Athesist does it.
>>
>
>
>Only from your point of view and those in your camp.
>And you wouldn't be able to claim that it's theocratic.
Emma, you are being dishonest. We both know that the bible forbids
the type of evil that you propose. You have already admitted it.
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. In the US Laws against murder were made by the Atheists and
>>>>>>Diests who established this country. Neither of these religions has
>>>>>>any set of Commandments; they act upon a human sence of what will
>>>>>>allow a society to function.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You were talking about religious freedom.
>>>>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>>>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>>>>>religious beliefs."
>>>>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>>>>
>>>>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>>>
>>>I was talking about child sacrifice though.
>>
>>Most child sacrifice religions such as Ba`al worship required the
>>child be more than one month old, which makes it taking human life.
>
>
>But that's not unethical according to Ba'al ethics,
>and you said that you don't want to "deprive people of their
>freedom to make their own moral judgements".
Emma, you are being ridiculous.
>
>
>>>Or what about secularist pedophiles?
>>
>>A pedophile whether a Catholic priest or a secular person is depriving
>>their victims of their right to make their own moral judgements.
>
>But you're depriving securalist pedophiles of making *their* moral judgements
>and you said you don't want to do that.
>Actually, you said that you want all laws to be passed according
>to secular ethics.
Emma, you are telling lies again.
I already stated that no one has the right to deprive another person
of their right to make their own moral decisions, but you want
pedophiles to deprive children of their right to make moral decisions.
>
>I don't actually believe that there are one set of secular ethics.
>but apparently you do.
>
>
>>>Are you going to turn a blind eye to the first example, because
>>>you don't want to "deprive people of their freedom to make their
>>>own moral judgements based on their religious beliefs",
>>>and the second example because you don't want to impose your own
>>>religious morality on anyone else?
>>
>>No.
>
>
>But that's what you said. Those are your own arguments.
Emma you are being dishonest again.
you tried to set up cases to prove your point, but they failed to
apply to the question at hand. So, you resort to lies.
>
>
>
>>>>>Anyway, many American laws are based on British laws and they
>>>>>were definitely influenced by Christianity. English Common
>>>>>Law protected the child in the womb and America
>>>>>adopted that law.
>>>>
>>>>No, America did not. abortion was banned later in the US.
>>>
>>>But America generally accepted English Common Law before that,
>>>and English Common Law protected the unborn.
>>>So to say that it's "Nazism" or "Buddhism" is false.
>>
>>The US formally rejected English Common Law with the declaration of
>>Independance - before the country was actually formed.
>
>It formally rejected English Common Law? Is there a reference
>for that?
>I thought you kept a lot of our laws. Even today a lot of your
>laws are based on ours, aren't they?
>
>
>>Of course you
>>have offered no proof that this "protection" was actually the case.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_2.shtml
So, it only covered late term abortion.
>
>
>>The modern antiabortion movement draws directly from Buddhism and
>>Nazism.
>
>
>Actually, there is no one opinion on abortion within Buddhism either,
>as far as I can see.
The myth that all life is sacred is Buddhist.
Buddhists are moral enough to refrain from imposing their beliefs on
others.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>but Messiah taught against imposing our religious belefs on
>>>>>>others.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not talking about *imposing* our beliefs on others though.
>>>>>I'm talking about convincing others that our values are
>>>>>better.
>>>>>We don't live in theocracies.
>>>>
>>>>Emma. banning abortion on religious grounds is a theocratic act.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't. Not if it's adopted in a democratic way.
>>>Non-Christians could vote for it too.
>>
>>All the Islamic theocracies were established democratically; that does
>>not make them any less theocratic dictatorships.
>
>They weren't all established democratically.
Yes they were. Sure the political leaders were dishonest, but that is
nothing new to the UK or the US.
>
>
>> Democracy itself is
>>not enough to protect people from tyranny; a country must temper their
>>democracy with a constitition that provides rights to the minority as
>>well as the majority. What if the majority decides that children born
>>with any defect are a drain on the economy and must be aborted?
>
>That's your opinion. And I'm fighting it!
That is an absolutely stupid thing to say!
If you were right about that then slavery would be perfectly fine as
long as the majority votes to oppress the minority. You say that you
oppose abortion, but your argument would allow forced abortion as long
as the majority votes the law in. Without constitutional protection
for the minority, the majority could simply vote in a law that says it
is illegal to be black and then enforce that law by executing all
black people, or make a law that it is illegal to be Christian and
execute all Christians. That is what happened in Nazi Germany. You
claimed that your opinion has nothing to do with nazism, then you
support the holocaust because the Christian majority chose to "solve"
the "Jewish problem." That is pretty racist, Emma.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Your type of religion would mean that there were still slave
>>>>>>>traders in the West, because we shouldn' "force our religious
>>>>>>>beliefs on others". So if some people think slavery is fine, then
>>>>>>>who are we to object?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Slavery, as practiced by Europeans and Africans was banned for
>>>>>>secular, not religious reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>In my country it was mainly Christians who campaigned for its end.
>>>>>Particularly Wilberforce. He had masses of opposition but he didn't give >up.
>>>>>
>>>>>From your point of view, he should have kept quiet because
>>>>>he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.
>>>>
>>>>Emma, please don't lie.
>>>
>>>I think it's true. You think Wilberforce was advocating
>>>a theocracy because he was forcing his religious views
>>>on others by pushing for an anti-slavery law.
>>
>>The antislavery law has nothing in common with banning abortion
>>because slavery as the Africans and europeans practiced it oppresses
>>other people. (This is different from the bondsmanship practiced in
>>Israel, but usually mistranslated as "slavery.")
>
>I'm using this an example of Christians fighting for
>what they believe to be right according to biblical morality.
>If you don't think Christians should impose their morality on
>others, then you would have opposed Wilberforce.
Emma, that is not true and it is just plain dishonest of you to say
it. Slavery was wrong for secular reasons that are supported by nost
major religions (all but Islam).
>
>
>
>>>>>> The opression of other human beings
>>>>>>is a violation of secular ethics as defined in the "Metaphysics of
>>>>>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist).
>>>>>
>>>>>Kant spoke for himself.
>>>>
>>>>???
>>>>That statement does not even make sence. Obviously, you have not read
>>>>the work in question. The entire work is an attempt to prove not only
>>>>that deontology is the superior form of secular ethics, but that his
>>>>methodology is the correct way to formulate a deontological system.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no one set of secular ethics. That's what I mean.
>>
>>Then you have not read the work. The "Metaphysics of
>>Morality" by Emmanuel Kant (Atheist) establishes a moral compass for
>>Atheists. His methodology almost invariably results in the same
>>ethical code from one person to the next.
>>
>>Of course we have sets of secular ethics for various professions.
>>
>
>Actually, from what I can discover on the internet, Kant is
>most often quoted by anti-abortionists.
LOL
Kant's framwork would make banning abortion immoral.
>
>In any case, my point is that Kant has his critics. Nobody
>has to agree with Kant. Not all secularists agree with
>Kant.
Many uneducated secular people attempt to use Teleology rather than
Deontology. Teleology (situational ethics) does not work because
human beings never know the full results of their actions.
>
>
>>>>>Using the term Neo-Nazis is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>Fine "Nazi."
>>>>>
>>>>>You should use argument rather than insults.
>>>>
>>>>It is not an insult, Hitler, the Christian candidate for chancellor of
>>>>Germany ran for office promising to ban abortion, which he did.
>>>>On this issue, there is no moral difference between the antiabortion
>>>>people and the Nazis. Both want(ed) to establish a "Christian
>>>>government." The Nazis succeded and thus demonstrated why theocracies
>>>>are wrong even when you start with a theology that you believe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nazis also built good roads and established a National
>>>Health Service. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants
>>>good roads and a National Health Service are "Nazis".
>>
>>No, but those who are willing to deprive others of their freedoms are
>>Facists, like the Nazis, those with the same goals: banning abortion,
>>establishing a christian government et cetera are as nazi as most of
>>the German nazis of Hitler's era. Personally, I see the Dominionists
>>as Satanic Christians. They will serve Armillus (AntiChrist) and be
>>the perpetrators of the Time of Jacob's Troubles (Great Tribulation).
>>
>>Some Christians do not know enough about the Bible to know that
>>abortion is not a sin, they prefer to spread their faith in a godly
>>way. Others, Dominionists, want Christianity to take over politics
>>and form a defacto theocracy. I wonder if their followers know that
>>the leaders need abortion to remain legal so that they will have a
>>rallying cry for their accumulation and consolidation of power?
>>
>
>I don't want to establish a theocratic Christian government.
>Non-Christian anti-abortionists obviously don't want to
>establish a theocracy either.
The entire concept of banning abortion is adding theocratic elements
to the government.
Aaron
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 6:20 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c4lsf49k78okk8ec8ord8f2152k5qej...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>>
>>
***SNIP***
>>
>> >>>>You were talking about religious freedom.
>> >>>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
>> >>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
>> >>>>religious beliefs."
>> >>>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>>
>> >>>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>
>It may not be murder, but it is killing, and it is hard to get around
>the fact that, left undisturbed, a healthy pregnancy will result in a
>healthy baby, one's own child. I could not do it. But then I might
>look at it differently if there were no birth control at all, and I
>was pregnant nine months out of every year for 30 years or so.
>
Killing is not a sin.
The real objection here is that people, like Emma and Snow Try to
violate the biblical prohibition against imposing their religious
beliefs on others, and lie about the Bible (Snow mostly) in their
attempts to justify their evil actions.
I jave already challenged Snow to proven that there is a 614th
Commandment that prohibits abortion by showing a verse from the torah
that specifically and explicitly forbids abortion. So far he has
attempted to "prove" his point by citing passages that say that haShem
knows the future.
***SNIP***
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 9:20 pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
***SNIP***
>
>See this is why I'm not bothering wasting my time talking to Aaron.
>Clearly anybody can look at the history of even this thread and see
>that I've quoted numerous passages of scriptures that say, "Life is in
>the blood" and many others that support the idea that abortion is
>murder.
Snow that is a lie. You have not posted a single verse from the Torah
that specifically and explicitly states that abortion is forbidden.
BTW: the verse does not say "the life is in the Blood." we discussed
that, and you know it is not true. Even if your mistranslation was
accurate, cancer is alive, but removing it and killing it is not
murder.
You have not only been proven ignorant of Hebrew and the Bible, you
have been proven dishonest. You are more concerned with promoting
Nazism and Dominionism that with what the Bibles says.
Snow Your bigotry against your fellow Christians, and your
antisemitism are both symptoms of the same psychological disorder.
You really need to seek professional help.
guardian Snow
> Killing is not a sin.
> The real objection here is that people, like Emma and Snow Try to
> violate the biblical prohibition against imposing their religious
> beliefs on others, and lie about the Bible (Snow mostly) in their
> attempts to justify their evil actions.
>
> I jave already challenged Snow to proven that there is a 614th
> Commandment that prohibits abortion by showing a verse from the torah
> that specifically and explicitly forbids abortion. So far he has
> attempted to "prove" his point by citing passages that say that haShem
> knows the future.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that
I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of YHWH: and the fruit of the
womb is his reward.
You are commanded to choose LIFE. You are commanded to be fruitful
and Life is in the blood, nations and prophets in the womb.
Gen 1:28 And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The command is clear, be fruitful. That you have determined for
yourself that abortion is not murder is just wrong.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given
it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it
is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Gen 25:23 And YHWH said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two
manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one
people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall
serve the younger.
Shalom,
Linda Lee
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 6:20 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c4lsf49k78okk8ec8ord8f2152k5qej...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
>
> ***SNIP***
>
> >> >>>>You were talking about religious freedom.
> >> >>>>You said you didn't want laws that "deprive people
> >> >>>>of their freedom to make their own moral judgements based on their
> >> >>>>religious beliefs."
> >> >>>>So what if those religious beliefs include murder?
>
> >> >>>Abortion is not murder, so it does not matter.
>
> >It may not be murder, but it is killing, and it is hard to get around
> >the fact that, left undisturbed, a healthy pregnancy will result in a
> >healthy baby, one's own child. I could not do it. But then I might
> >look at it differently if there were no birth control at all, and I
> >was pregnant nine months out of every year for 30 years or so.
>
> Killing is not a sin.
It sure feels like it would be a sin to me, whether the killing is of
humans or animals. It feels wrong.
> The real objection here is that people, like Emma and Snow Try to
> violate the biblical prohibition against imposing their religious
> beliefs on others, and lie about the Bible (Snow mostly) in their
> attempts to justify their evil actions.
>
> I jave already challenged Snow to proven that there is a 614th
> Commandment that prohibits abortion by showing a verse from the torah
> that specifically and explicitly forbids abortion. So far he has
> attempted to "prove" his point by citing passages that say that haShem
> knows the future.
The thing is, as a man, you would never be in the position of being
responsible for having an abortion.
I don't judge others who have had abortions, and I know some people
who have, but I know myself and I know my conscience would not let me
have one or would torment me the rest of my life if I did. So if it
is not a sin, why would my conscience bother me in that situation? I
don't tend to feel guilty over nothing.
>
> ***SNIP***
guardian Snow
> On Oct 21, 6:57 pm, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Oct 2008 09:06:01 -0700, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <pdnrf4pr4eu4s78brbobje448qu9vdd...@4ax.com>, Aaron says...
> belongs to the husband. Where does it say that?
>
> I ask because when I found out I was pregnant it did not feel like
> anyone else's, and it did not feel like an "it"; I viewed the 'fetus'
> immediately as my baby, and the baby felt like mine first and foremost
> (other than it was really God's as we all are). Men can 'spread seed'
> anywhere; it is the women who wind up caring for the children almost
> always. And I immediately, within seconds of the doctor saying 'You're
> pregnant', felt love for it.
>
> When I was pregnant, I had about seven people harassing me to abort it
> for all but the last six weeks, one of them being my now ex-husband
> (the rest his friends); it was horrible and none of their damned
> business as far as I was concerned, and I can't believe that baby
> growing in me God had given me was his to do with as he pleased; and
> he 'pleased' to kill the baby, even feeding me some herbal concoction
> clandestinely in my food when I was 7-1/2 months pregnant trying to
> abort it. He was pure evil as far as I'm concerned.
>
> So where does the Torah say that baby was his to kill or to keep as he
> willed? (By the way, when the baby was born; then he glommed onto it
> and it was his in his mind, much more than mine.)
It is his "claim" and that of his brain washing rabbis:
Exo 21:22 “And when men strive and they shall smite a pregnant woman,
and her children come out, yet there is no injury, he shall certainly
be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband lays upon him. And he
shall give through the judges.
That verse 22 says woman are property and the fetus is not a life all
in this one verse. He also claims this verse says abortion is alright
but ...
Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
he also ignores all the verses that followed it too and implies they
don't count.
Pro 6:23 For the command is a lamp, And the Torah a light1, And
reproofs of discipline a way of life, Footnote: 1Ps. 119:105.
Linda Lee
To me that is saying if a man attacks a pregnant woman and causes her
to go into labor, but both woman and child are unharmed and still
alive, then the husband decides what punishment the attacker should
have for the attack.
>
> That verse 22 says woman are property and the fetus is not a life all
> in this one verse. He also claims this verse says abortion is alright
> but ...
>
> Exo 21:23 “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life,
To me, verse 23 says, if the attack on the pregnant woman caused
either the wife or baby to die, the man who attacked them should die.
> Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
> Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.
I thought it had to either be a misinterpretation by the rabbis or an
addition by the scribes. I've been there and I know for a fact that
the baby is not solely the property of the husband.
guardian Snow
Neither is the wife property.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
At least.. no more then I myself am my own "property". Rather, Torah
says Husband and wife are ONE and equal.
If she is my property, I am hers. And the child in that one flesh is
One with me and I point back again that we are commanded to choose
life for us and OUR SEED.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that
I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Linda Lee
> On Oct 23, 3:47 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > Killing is not a sin.
> > The real objection here is that people, like Emma and Snow Try to
> > violate the biblical prohibition against imposing their religious
> > beliefs on others, and lie about the Bible (Snow mostly) in their
> > attempts to justify their evil actions.
>
> > I jave already challenged Snow to proven that there is a 614th
> > Commandment that prohibits abortion by showing a verse from the torah
> > that specifically and explicitly forbids abortion. So far he has
> > attempted to "prove" his point by citing passages that say that haShem
> > knows the future.
>
> Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that
> I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
> choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
That is not about physical life; it is about choosing to worship
Elohim which will result in the blessing of eternal life, or choosing
to curse Elohim and reject Him, which will result in death of the
spirit.
>
> Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of YHWH: and the fruit of the
> womb is his reward.
That is a very good example that we are all Elohim's, and are not
anyone else's (including our parents) and are not even our own.
Linda Lee
> On Oct 22, 4:46 pm, guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 3:47 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > > Killing is not a sin.
> > > The real objection here is that people, like Emma and Snow Try to
> > > violate the biblical prohibition against imposing their religious
> > > beliefs on others, and lie about the Bible (Snow mostly) in their
> > > attempts to justify their evil actions.
>
> > > I jave already challenged Snow to proven that there is a 614th
> > > Commandment that prohibits abortion by showing a verse from the torah
> > > that specifically and explicitly forbids abortion. So far he has
> > > attempted to "prove" his point by citing passages that say that haShem
> > > knows the future.
>
> > Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that
> > I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
> > choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
>
> That is not about physical life; it is about choosing to worship
> Elohim which will result in the blessing of eternal life, or choosing
> to curse Elohim and reject Him, which will result in death of the
> spirit.
P.S. The entire house/family/"seed" is blessed if the parents choose
to worship Elohim/God.
Linda Lee
I agree, and that people misinterpret the Scriptures so that they
believe that is one reason male/female relationships are so messed up.
I have no desire to dominate someone else; but neither do I feel
anyone else has the right to dominate me, husband or not.
>
> Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
> shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>
> At least.. no more then I myself am my own "property". Rather, Torah
> says Husband and wife are ONE and equal.
>
> If she is my property, I am hers. And the child in that one flesh is
> One with me and I point back again that we are commanded to choose
> life for us and OUR SEED.
>
> Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that
> I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
> choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
>
> Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
> (¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
>
> A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
> left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
> Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua<-- joinhttp://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
> orhttp://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
guardian Snow
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
If I choose death for my seed, I choose death for myself for all is
ONE FLESH. A wife is not property! She is a part of my own being.
If I'm married and I harm my wife or unborn child, I have chosen death
for myself. If my wife chose to murder the unborn, I must separate
from that part of me that chose death.
Mat 18:9 “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and
throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life with
one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be thrown into the fire of
Gehenna.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always
gotten.
Tony Robbins
Linda Lee
>
>
> Mat 18:9 “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and
> throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life with
> one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be thrown into the fire of
> Gehenna.
>
You've just said today or yesterday that Gehenna was only a dumpsite;
now you seem to be quoting something that identifies it as symbolic of
the 'lake of fire', which is what it is.