Talk:Self-sacrifice in Jewish law

message: Pikuach nefesh neither translates into "self-sacrifice" nor does it connote this.  Rather, pikuach nefesh as a concept is one that placed life above virtually all other religious considerations.  In fact, pikuach nefesh is the opposite of self-sacrifice -- self-sacrifice is when the principle of pikuach nefesh fails to override the circumstance, and one must in fact place the other religious considerations above human life.  Self-sacrifice is a rough translation of yeihareig v'al ya'avor. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minconception 

message: A few things, like "This practice reflects the practical and malleable nature of Judaic law." is entirely dependent on opinion and I don't think it fits on an encyclopaedic page. The same goes for "For the obvious reason this status should be compared more with heroism than with martyrdom in the Christian sense." What obvious reason? You can't just assume someone is familiar with Christians and their sense of heroism, I keep rereading that paragraph and I still don't understand what the fuck it's talking about, but I understand it enough to notice that it sort of assumes that Christians' definition of heroism is a more correct one, or that for some reason the reader gives a fuck about Christians' definition of heroism. They probably don't, and in 100% of the cases they do, they already know what it is and don't need you to tell them that.
It should also be noticed that while the article refers to this belief as a general thing that any Jew would do, I think it's safe to say that any non-orthodox Jew isn't stupid enough to actually engage in it. Survival instinct is too strong to actually kill yourself over trivial things like sex unless you genuinely believe that's what God wanted, which 90% of Jews don't. Do you know how many gay Jews there are? The same fucking amount as Christian gays or Muslim gays or Atheist gays. Do you really think they don't have gay sex because that would require them to kill themselves? Obviously fucking not.
Anyway, point is, I think it should be modified to represent the actual nature of the sacrifice (i.e. the fact that almost no one would actually do it,) and all the tiny little comments are unnecessary, too.
:It is martyrdom by Christian definition...--174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, yeah, I think this article is a bit subjective. 

message: " The Talmud derives from this verse that one must do everything in his or her power to save the life of another Jew, even if this involves violation of one or more of the mitzvot. If it is the life of a non-Jew or apostate Jew that is in danger, the law is not so clear, and is the matter of some debate, but it is certainly within the spirit of the law, if not the letter."
This is a typical obfuscation of the things matter, which has been done for some 700 years, and has to stop.
See Israel Shahak page 23
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Israel.Shahak/Jewish.History.Jewish%20Religion-The.Weight.of.Three.Thousand.Years.pdf
Halakhot are derived from consensus among the most important sages listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha#Codes_of_Jewish_law
Unfortunately the humanist[Menachem Meiri] is not considered (yet) as one of the these important sages.
You can not insinuate that the Halakhot are based on universal humanism when they're not.
According to the Halakha, a pious Jew is recommended not to save a gentile from death, and there is a death penalty if it is done without permission on Shabbot.
*See pages 112 and 118
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU7_Shapiro.pdf
*Rabbi David Bar Chaim
At 25:00 and 1h:16:00, the "logic" explained why Jews should not save non-Jews from death on Weekdays.
On sabbath, it is a death-sentence to save a gentile from death, without formal ruling from rabbi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8
*Rabbi David Bar Chaim essay     http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119
*http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5140#msg-5140
*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3&ei=5087&em&en=4f9d372ba8aa7e8a&ex=1185336000
*http://www.talkreason.org/articles/gentiles.cfm
*http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sources.pdf
*http://archive.is/Xhnn
For sure you should write that in modern contemporary Judaism there are lots of rabbis who sign up to the idea of universal humanism and 
denounce these lethal Halakhot, and really give emphasis to that,and also write that pious Jews are demanding this, ("even most pious Jews are demanding it" ,if you like) but you shouldn't deny and hide the legacy.
*Pious Jews demanding the removal and the revoke of the lethal supremacist Halakhot
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html
Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Preservation of life in Judaism" 

message: Here there is also an obfuscation regarding the things matters.
According to the Halacha, pedophila is permitted. There is consensus among the most important sages. Here a reading from the Rambam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyTd9nknBz8&
The text is the Rambams comment on Sanhedrin 54b. Sex with a man is forbidden, but sex with a boy is not forbidden if he is below 9 years of age because a boy that young is not a man.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html
And in and Sanhderin 55b, Kethubot 11a and 11b, The message is that a girl, if 3 years old and a day, can be acquired for coition, it is no sin.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html
It is immoral to cover these things up.
Did I err here by not assuming good faith?
Didn't you know this?
Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Types of sexual misconduct involved"