Hi Kaninchen - Well, since you have posted your link, I guess you are done. Thank you for providing insight to Jewish thinking on the matter. Because you cannot answer the OP as it pertains to the American experience and political climate I won’t direct any more questions your way.
Didn’t you think people would respond to your link?
The Jewish name for Hell is Sheol. According to Wikipedia, originally it was a place inhabited by shades where everyone went when they died, whether righteous or wicked, but by the time of the Second Temple period differing views had emerged about whether the righteous had their own section of Sheol separated from the wicked, or whether only the wicked spent eternity there.I thought the concept of hell was in the OT. I never knew Jews didn’t believe it was real. So they must think those who do not go to heaven must not go anywhere after death. I guess Hitler gets a pass.
Where did you get this idea from?
Ha ha! LOL - Congrats, you’re that guy who posts the one thing that will almost certainly result in the most controversy! There should be a medal or an icon for this post in every thread
But seeing as I am in the mood for controversy, I think I will take the bait and bite into the hot potato:Experience of threads here on the question of sacrifice and Judaism.
I expect you mean the Tanakh - ‘Law/Prophets/Writings’ rather than just the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).
Well, ordinarily, the Catholic idea of sacrifice typically revolves Biblically around Abraham-Isaac, Melchizedek and the Passover, so I am not too sure where or why the Temple would come into prominence.
Yes, but I find people these days have a weird fetish for using precise terms or proper names borrowed from other languages, which to me seems an aweful lot like trivia, which I generally dislike. For Catholics, it seems to be a tendency to using Greek words and terms since about V2, and Jewish ones more recently- though this seems to be across the board even beyond Christianity. It reminds me of people using -and frequently misusing- jargin in order to sound smart or seem expert.
In threads about it. Be sure that the next time we have a thread on the subject, I’ll let you know so you can put everybody right.
And I’ll stick to telling people that the ‘equivalent’ to the Old Testament is the Tanakh.
Most Jews are liberals, and Liberals support abortion.
I think it is more accurate to say that liberal Jews tend to keep their own views on abortion separate from the decisions made by women who choose abortion. If one prefers to say that, by so doing, they are indirectly (or even directly) supporting abortion, one may do so; but I see a distinction.
Just like liberal Catholic politicians!
oneofmany - Yes, I live in Utah and there are very few Jewish people here as well.
You can think again, although you are not totally wrong. The concept of hell is indeed in the OT but the one in terms of the grave and not of a place in flames burning the souls of non-repented sinners. This is found only in the NT and in the Dante’s Inferno. Now, you know that such a thing is not real. And BTW, heaven likewise is not a place to get into but a spiritual state of mind which is up to ourselves to allow it to dwell within ourselves. That’s what Jesus himself made it very clear in Luke 17:21. “The kingdom of heaven is not a place we could report of being here or there; for it is to be found within each one of us.” Jews do believe that after death we all go somewhere: Grave, that is. A place wherefrom no one will ever return. (Job 10:21; 2 Chron. 12:23)I thought the concept of hell was in the OT. I never knew Jews didn’t believe it was real. So they must think those who do not go to heaven must not go anywhere after death. I guess Hitler gets a pass.
More than a religion of Law; Judaism is a way of life. I am aware of that Jewish position for the whole of my lifetime as a Jew. I guess that for a legal reference, you might want to ask a Jewish Lawyer.
The Jewish position with regards to the precedence of the mother over that of the not-yet-born child has nothing to do with the sex of the babe but with the actual life of the motherHa ha! LOL - Congrats, you’re that guy who posts the one thing that will almost certainly result in the most controversy! There should be a medal or an icon for this post in every thread
“A baby is a baby from conception, but as long as it is not born, the life of the mother takes precedence. To think otherwise is political badgering of women as a result of hypocrisy.”
I am not going to presume against your logic, which I assume you are ready to justify, but don’t you mean to say, “To think otherwise is political badgering of mothers as a result of hypocrisy”? A child’s sex is determined at conception; on the whole, isn’t one woman of equal value to any other? Indeed, is it not safe to even assume that the child - if a girl - is by nature more likely to be fertile than the mother, who is already - by having her first child or being pregnant and, moreover, if pregnancy is an actual danger to her life - already passing as it were out of her child-bearing prime? Is not, in fact, the biological clock de facto on the side of the youngest possible woman?
Runs and hides from the likely wrath of all the women readers here who are already mothers or are pregnant and not likely to be pleased at the suggestion that they are in any sense whatsoever past their prime