If I was aborted, would I have gone to heaven?

[Resha Caner]

Define person.

That's a very broad request. Assuming you only mean to define it in the context of the thread (i.e. abortion & spiritual fate), I mean that they have as least the mustard seed of spirit such that they have a spiritual fate. If the baby is aborted, it is not a simple dispersing of physical material. They will face judgement just like any person who was born. The result, as Paradoxum said it, is up to the providence of God.

 

[Upisoft]

I'll try to use eating as an analogy. God could have created us without a need for food. We could complain that we have no freedom because we have to eat, but that is a misunderstanding of what the Bible means by freedom.

Being "bound by sin" would be analogous to being bound so that we cannot eat. The result is starvation and death. Being set "free" means being released from those bonds so we can fulfill our bodys' need to eat. As we perform that task, we have the further freedom to eat according to taste. One person may prefer carrots, another peas. Again, we could complain to God that we don't have the freedom to eat iron bars (at least not if we want to survive), but that's absurd. We should just be thankful that we've been set free to fulfill what we were created to do - eat.

If that's true, then you must see everyone who is not prophesying your religion as not having free will, they are "bound by sin". How is it their fault that they can't chose to be like you? Do they deserve hell?

 

[Resha Caner]

If that's true, then you must see everyone who is not prophesying your religion as not having free will, they are "bound by sin".

Yes. I'd like to think this is a breakthrough in understanding. To be honest, I'm often reluctant to broach this subject because it often produces a "how dare you" kind of reaction.

How is it their fault that they can't chose to be like you?

My college roommate was born prematurely. Due to a mistake made when placing him in the incubator, he was blinded. Was that his fault? No. Could he see? No. (Luke 13:1-5)

So let's try for another breakthrough. "Sin" has 2 contexts. To clarify them, one is typically called "original" sin. Sin can be act, and for that you are responsible. Original sin is a condition, like someone born blind. It may not be your fault, but it still needs to be dealt with.

Do they deserve hell?

And, one last bit of clarification. Technically, all hell means is separation from God. It has a beautiful simplicity to it. You have faith in God. OK. You get to live with God. You don't believe God exists. OK. Then you won't live with God. There is a sense in which both sides get what they asked for.

So, it's not really a matter of "deserving" hell. God doesn't make a list of the tortures he plans to execute that day in hell. Rather, you suffer the consequences of separation from him.

There is an underlying question here: Can they be held accountable if they had no choice?

So, again, for the actions they choose to do (basic sin), yes, they are held accountable. So are Christians. The difference is that Christ acts as a scapegoat for those who put their faith in him.

With respect to original sin, it's not a matter of being held accountable. It's a matter of recognizing the need to be free. This is the Lutheran message of "law and gospel". The purpose of the "law" is to make you recognize the need to be free. Going back to the analogy, even though I'm bound, I still know I'm hungry. It's not too hard to look at the mess this world is in, and the attempts that have been made to create "heaven on earth" and conclude: this isn't working. That's where the gospel comes in. God comes to you and offers to set you free. Unless you first recoginze the need, you're not going to accept the offer. If you don't accept the offer, you won't spend eternity with God.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not at all. You're one of those people who is so polite I would have to work at it to be offended. It's something I strive for, but rarely achieve ([edit] clarification: I strive to be polite, not to manufacture a reason to be offended). I tell myself it's because I'm willing to confront people with the flaws in their thinking, and they don't like that so they respond negatively. But, I know I cross the line from time to time. I'm still a work in progress.

Well I also feel the urge to tell someone their an idiot sometimes and set it out in certain terms why that is true. So although I may do that sometimes I also know that that isn't productive, will anger them, and it may not be their fault anyway. That's how I see it. Discussion if better than arguing.

Yes and no. It seems we have a different view of what freedom means. For me, freedom means the freedom to do what I was created to do. Your freedom sounds as if it borders on relativism, and I don't think that was what the NT was promoting.

I definitely don't mean freedom to mean moral relativism. I believe in a meaningful good and evil, and that this can be understood by reason applied to the conscience. If I act in love I act in the law.

I don't know if I was created, but I could agree that freedom from the natural tendency to do wrong would be a good thing. In fact I think that would come under freedom of thought. I also see freedom as being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. I obviously wouldn't prescribe people hurt themselves though.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes. I'd like to think this is a breakthrough in understanding. To be honest, I'm often reluctant to broach this subject because it often produces a "how dare you" kind of reaction.

What do you mean by Non-Christians not having free will? Free will in regards to moral action? What is it you can do that I can't? Well apart from talking to God.

I hope it wouldn't be too much for me to say that I think I understand the Bible, Christianity and Christian and Non-Christian morality better than many Christians. Its not even purely an intellectual understanding. I loved God and I still do love the idea of Christianity. Maybe I am blinded by sin to the existence of God, but in that case God help me.

 

[Resha Caner]

What do you mean by Non-Christians not having free will? Free will in regards to moral action? What is it you can do that I can't? Well apart from talking to God.

Uh oh. Remember how you like to be polite. In answer to your question, I was tempted to make a blatantly sexist remark as an attempt at levity, but you might think it in bad taste.

I don't think you'll find my answer satisfactory. I rarely get this far in a discussion of the will, so I'm not used to expounding on this. All I can really say is what I already said - that I'm free to do what I was created to do. That basically means serving God. But there is a further Lutheran concept of "vocation". Serving God doesn't mean everyone becomes a pastor (Eph 4:11). It means you fully exercise the talents God gave you. If that means being an engineer (as I am), then you will be a god-pleasing engineer.

It gets fuzzy, though, because the worldy definition of a good engineer is still bound by sin. Further, since I have not passed through death yet, I still have my corrupted body. So, it's not like I'll stand out as a better engineer to my company just because I'm a Christian. But I do think someone who interprets the Bible through the Lutheran Confessions does make a concerted effort to submit themselves. What I mean by that is that there are parts of the Bible I don't like. But I have agreed to live according to what the Bible says whether I like it or not. I could name some specific instances where I've had to stand alone in my job because I thought others were behaving unethically, and it wasn't fun, but I did it because it was right. But, like I said, it gets fuzzy. You can reply with: Do you mean an unbeliever wouldn't stand for what is right?

Maybe I am blinded by sin to the existence of God, but in that case God help me.

I'll pray that He does.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's a very broad request. Assuming you only mean to define it in the context of the thread (i.e. abortion & spiritual fate), I mean that they have as least the mustard seed of spirit such that they have a spiritual fate. If the baby is aborted, it is not a simple dispersing of physical material. They will face judgement just like any person who was born. The result, as Paradoxum said it, is up to the providence of God.

What is spirit and how would one detect the least mustard seed of such?

Would it be fair to say that your assessment that a fertilized human egg has a spirit is a religious assessment and is cannot be evaluated empirically?

Thanks.

ETA: Another question: If you met an alien, how would you decide that it qualified as a person or not?

 

[Resha Caner]

What is spirit ...

The Bible never really says. Literally, the word means "breath" or "wind". There is a sense that spirit is the essence of consciousness, but I'm starting to speculate. I'm willing to do that - give you my opinion - as long as you realize it as such. Maybe it doesn't matter to you whether I'm relating what the Bible says versus giving my opinion, but it matters to me.

... and how would one detect the least mustard seed of such?

Would it be fair to say that your assessment that a fertilized human egg has a spirit is a religious assessment and is cannot be evaluated empirically?

We can't detect it (at least not in the scientific sense you probably mean). I could claim it makes the difference between "mind" in humans and the "animal" nature of other creatures, but you could give other reasons for that difference - both of which are largely unprovable.

So, yes, I guess it's fair to call it a religous assessment according to 1 John 4:1.

If you met an alien, how would you decide that it qualified as a person or not?

Do you mean that is has spirit? Again, 1 John 4:1.

I highly doubt aliens exist, but I won't rule it out, so it's a question worth pondering. FYI, it's something where you can find such ponderings in writing. For example, Summa Elvetica by Theodore Beale, which put a story to Aquinas' theology. There was a struggle over that issue with the discovery of the New World. Did the American Indians have souls? I think there was a papal bull issued to the effect that they did, which is what prompted all the Spanish missions to be built (but too late to stop the Conquistadors). However, I can't find it at the moment.

 

[Paradoxum]

Uh oh. Remember how you like to be polite. In answer to your question, I was tempted to make a blatantly sexist remark as an attempt at levity, but you might think it in bad taste.

I don't get offended by jokes I'm not polite in that way

I don't think you'll find my answer satisfactory. I rarely get this far in a discussion of the will, so I'm not used to expounding on this. All I can really say is what I already said - that I'm free to do what I was created to do. That basically means serving God. But there is a further Lutheran concept of "vocation". Serving God doesn't mean everyone becomes a pastor (Eph 4:11). It means you fully exercise the talents God gave you. If that means being an engineer (as I am), then you will be a god-pleasing engineer.

It gets fuzzy, though, because the worldy definition of a good engineer is still bound by sin. Further, since I have not passed through death yet, I still have my corrupted body. So, it's not like I'll stand out as a better engineer to my company just because I'm a Christian. But I do think someone who interprets the Bible through the Lutheran Confessions does make a concerted effort to submit themselves. What I mean by that is that there are parts of the Bible I don't like. But I have agreed to live according to what the Bible says whether I like it or not. I could name some specific instances where I've had to stand alone in my job because I thought others were behaving unethically, and it wasn't fun, but I did it because it was right. But, like I said, it gets fuzzy. You can reply with: Do you mean an unbeliever wouldn't stand for what is right?

Well to be honest I'm not sure how this answers the question. Non-believers can try to be the best they can be and try to do what is right, as you say.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The Bible never really says. Literally, the word means "breath" or "wind". There is a sense that spirit is the essence of consciousness, but I'm starting to speculate. I'm willing to do that - give you my opinion - as long as you realize it as such. Maybe it doesn't matter to you whether I'm relating what the Bible says versus giving my opinion, but it matters to me.

So in the literal sense of the word, an egg doesn't have spirit. But, I'm okay with not being too literal.

Do you think the essence of consciousness can exist before the brain does?

We can't detect it (at least not in the scientific sense you probably mean). I could claim it makes the difference between "mind" in humans and the "animal" nature of other creatures, but you could give other reasons for that difference - both of which are largely unprovable.

Are you saying that scientific speculations for the differences in the mind of an animal and the mind are largely unprovable?

If so, why? If not, could you clarify what you mean?

So, yes, I guess it's fair to call it a religous assessment according to 1 John 4:1.

I am speculating what you mean by citing this verse. Are you saying that you have spiritually assessed that fertilized eggs have spirits and have determined that this idea is of God? The attendant paragraph seems to be about determining what spirits are from God or not--based on whether one acknowledges that Jesus is from God. How does "fertilized eggs have spirit" relate to acknowledge Jesus is from God?

So your "yes" answer would suggest the idea that an fertilized egg is a person is a religious idea. Yes? (I may be being redudant, sorry.)

On what basis should those of a different religious (or non-) persuasion accept this assertion?

Do you mean that is has spirit? Again, 1 John 4:1.

I highly doubt aliens exist, but I won't rule it out, so it's a question worth pondering. FYI, it's something where you can find such ponderings in writing. For example, Summa Elvetica by Theodore Beale, which put a story to Aquinas' theology. There was a struggle over that issue with the discovery of the New World. Did the American Indians have souls? I think there was a papal bull issued to the effect that they did, which is what prompted all the Spanish missions to be built (but too late to stop the Conquistadors). However, I can't find it at the moment.

I'd wouldn't mind whatever you want to show me, however, I'm more interested in your thoughts.

I don't "highly" doubt that aliens exist. However, I'd agree that it is highly improbable that humankind will ever have the experience of meeting them.

However, if aliens crash landed ala District 9, on what basis do we grant them rights or not? I would assume that we would make that decision based on personhood.

It is difficult that such aliens could make the trek without a sophisticated level of consciousness. OTOH, ala Ender's Game, the arriving aliens could be drones.

Is it plausible that personhood is detectable at least in some circumstances? If so, how do we do that?

Why or why not should we apply such tests to fertilized eggs?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't get offended by jokes I'm not polite in that way

Good. Then I'll save my reply for the next time you ask me what I can do that you can't.

Well to be honest I'm not sure how this answers the question. Non-believers can try to be the best they can be and try to do what is right, as you say.

Yeah. I'll give this some more thought and see if I can frame a better explanation. In the mean time, I'll address the issue by asking you a question. Are you serving God?

I can imagine the atheist reply, that for them it is a nonsensical question. But I honestly have no idea how you would answer that.

 

[Resha Caner]

So in the literal sense of the word, an egg doesn't have spirit.

Good question. In past discussions people usually pushed the other direction - claiming life/consciousness begins at a later stage, not an earlier one. My gut reaction was to say no, but after further thought some caution is in order.

In anticipation of where this might lead, I guess I would say I'm generally opposed to liberal attitudes toward how early life is treated - stem cells and so forth. I'm still inclined to say no, an egg doesn't have spirit (nor does sperm), but neither would I jump on board with whatever inventive purposes might be devised for them since I could be wrong.

I'll also note that you're right to be confused about my mention of 1 John 4:1. I should have mentioned something like Jeremiah 1:5 instead. I was still thinking about the OP with regard to how they would be judged.

Do you think the essence of consciousness can exist before the brain does?

It can exist apart from the brain, God being an example of that.

Are you saying that scientific speculations for the differences in the mind of an animal and the mind are largely unprovable?

It's obvious human and animal brains are different. It's obvious those differences lead to different abilities. But establishing how the human brain instantiates "mind" is a different matter.

So your "yes" answer would suggest the idea that an fertilized egg is a person is a religious idea. Yes? (I may be being redudant, sorry.)

On what basis should those of a different religious (or non-) persuasion accept this assertion?

Many don't, and that's why they think it's acceptable to abort. It's why most fall back on the viability argument and compromise by stipulating abortion by term.

However, if aliens crash landed ala District 9, on what basis do we grant them rights or not? I would assume that we would make that decision based on personhood.

That's a different question. Now you're getting into legal rights.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Good question. In past discussions people usually pushed the other direction - claiming life/consciousness begins at a later stage, not an earlier one. My gut reaction was to say no, but after further thought some caution is in order.

In anticipation of where this might lead, I guess I would say I'm generally opposed to liberal attitudes toward how early life is treated - stem cells and so forth. I'm still inclined to say no, an egg doesn't have spirit (nor does sperm), but neither would I jump on board with whatever inventive purposes might be devised for them since I could be wrong.

OK. I didn't word that very carefully. I was shortening fertilized egg to just egg.

I'm guessing that you would say a fertilized egg has a spirit, but are hesitant to say a "mere" egg does. Correct?

I'll also note that you're right to be confused about my mention of 1 John 4:1. I should have mentioned something like Jeremiah 1:5 instead. I was still thinking about the OP with regard to how they would be judged.

Something like Jer. 1:5 is more typical though I would suggest that a just as reasonable interpretation of that verse is that it is an indication of God's foreknowledge. However, there is a verse in Psalms like "knit together in your mother's womb".

Neither of these verses though speak of spirit.

It can exist apart from the brain, God being an example of that.

Well, of course, that is a presumption. But we needn't divert this thread for yet another discussion God's existence.

However, we don't have any examples of mind existing apart from the brain for non-deities--so far as I know.

It's obvious human and animal brains are different. It's obvious those differences lead to different abilities. But establishing how the human brain instantiates "mind" is a different matter.

I think substantial headway (pardon the pun) is being made in that area. I'd be hesitant to say that it cannot be known.

Out of curiosity, supposing that you could be convinced that it was actually known and could be fully explained as a physical process: How would that change your views on personhood and conception?

That's a different question. Now you're getting into legal rights.

Yes and no. The question was about personhood, not rights. The question of rights was just a reason to ponder the personhood of aliens.

How do I know you are a person? How would I know if an alien is a person? Are these tests applicable to fertilized eggs?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm guessing that you would say a fertilized egg has a spirit, but are hesitant to say a "mere" egg does. Correct?

Yes.

Something like Jer. 1:5 is more typical though I would suggest that a just as reasonable interpretation of that verse is that it is an indication of God's foreknowledge. However, there is a verse in Psalms like "knit together in your mother's womb".

And Luke 1:41 also indicates the consciousness of the fetus. One can put together an impressive list of verses to support the fetus as a conscious being.

Neither of these verses though speak of spirit.

No, they don't. Recall that I marked our departure into speculation. Maybe I need to elaborate on that more. If I felt this were a Biblical principle, I would fight for it tooth and nail. Since it's just speculation on my part (shrug) I'm OK if it gets shot down. I'm at where I'm at because no one has offered me a better explanation.

However, we don't have any examples of mind existing apart from the brain for non-deities--so far as I know.

I'll give you more ammunition. Someone might suggest angels as another example (though, since you dismissed God as an example I expect you would dismiss angels as well). I would disagree that angels are an example of full consciousness. Though spiritual in substance (and therefore the essence of consciousness), I don't think of them as independently conscious.

Out of curiosity, supposing that you could be convinced that it was actually known and could be fully explained as a physical process: How would that change your views on personhood and conception?

My speculation is more material in nature than it is for many other Christians. Spirit needs a means for manifesting. The only non-material means is God. The material means is the human soul. So, the human soul is a physical thing. Whether it is just the brain or the entire nervous system or also the heart, I don't know. I suppose the sentimental part of me wants to include the heart as well.

And, with respect to the development of a fetus, they don't fully express their consciousness simply because the brain has not fully developed. That we cannot communicate with them does not take away from what they are - in the same way it doesn't take away from the personhood of someone in a coma.

The point is, I fully expect it to be a physical process. I believe it is a physical process. It wouldn't change my view, but only confirm it. The aspect that separates me from the "scientific" approach to it all is my belief in the Godelian nature of it all.

How do I know you are a person? How would I know if an alien is a person? Are these tests applicable to fertilized eggs?

If you recall, I mentioned the viability argument. I was there for a time. At one time I believed people didn't have any spirit until after they were saved - only a soul. At one time I was not opposed to abortion. My mind was changed. From there I went to a "potential" argument. I suppose that is still where I am at to some extent, but neither argument works with someone who doesn't believe in spirit.

Regardless, this whole approach is centered in the idea that people have rights. Based on the way our legal system is set up, it's easier to argue for the rights of a fetus. But that isn't very Biblical. The more Biblical approach is one of responsibility. Intercourse means acceptance of the responsibility of the outcome.

So, whether the child is born or not is a matter of God's providence. My part is a responsibility to protect any child resulting from my actions. Their rights and personhood never really enters as an issue.

So, I don't have as compelling a need to define personhood as you do. That other humans are persons is a tautology. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't speak of any other souls expect for humans (and that includes Ecclesiastes). If the time comes when we meet conscious aliens, God will provide an answer for how to deal with them. It's an interesting question to ponder, but I honestly haven't put much thought into it.

 

[Paradoxum]

Good. Then I'll save my reply for the next time you ask me what I can do that you can't.

What can you do that I can't? XD

Yeah. I'll give this some more thought and see if I can frame a better explanation. In the mean time, I'll address the issue by asking you a question. Are you serving God?

I don't know. I would like to think that if there is a God then He would look on me kindly for the good things I do. As Jesus said, when you feed the poor you feed Him. Of course a typical Christian response would be that we are sinful and that our good deeds are as filthy rags to God. I believe God is love and so where love is God is too. If I try to be a loving person then perhaps I have faith in God but call Him by another name.

Maybe that is too relativistic for you, but I do think that there is more to faith than acceptance of a set of beliefs.

I can imagine the atheist reply, that for them it is a nonsensical question. But I honestly have no idea how you would answer that.

What do you think of me as if not atheist??

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, I don't have as compelling a need to define personhood as you do. That other humans are persons is a tautology. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't speak of any other souls expect for humans (and that includes Ecclesiastes). If the time comes when we meet conscious aliens, God will provide an answer for how to deal with them. It's an interesting question to ponder, but I honestly haven't put much thought into it.

I don't have a compelling need here. You answered a question on when a human becomes a person with "at conception."

I wanted to know what you meant.

I agree that the alien question is an interesting question. It is interesting because as humans we assume that humans are persons. The alien question pulls us out of that so that we can consider what personhood means.

 

[Resha Caner]

What can you do that I can't? XD

You're trying to get me in trouble. Most of the answers to that question would get me a visit from a moderator.

Let's try this one: I can grow a beard that reminds people of Santa Claus.

What can you do that I can't?

I don't know. I would like to think that if there is a God then He would look on me kindly for the good things I do. As Jesus said, when you feed the poor you feed Him. Of course a typical Christian response would be that we are sinful and that our good deeds are as filthy rags to God. I believe God is love and so where love is God is too. If I try to be a loving person then perhaps I have faith in God but call Him by another name.

I hate to say it, but I'm disappointed. It seems a bit cliche.

I once wrote a piece on J.V. Atanasoff, the inventor of the digitial computer. He used to teach at my alma mater, so I had a chance to meet him when he came back for a visit. I passed. Why? Because to him I would just be a face in the crowd. If he didn't care about meeting me, why should I care about meeting him?

If you don't care to know God, do you think he cares about your good deeds? I'm not saying you don't care, but that's the feeling that comes through in your reply.

Maybe that is too relativistic for you, but I do think that there is more to faith than acceptance of a set of beliefs.

True. As Lutherans, we embrace sola gratia, sola fide (check my signature). No one has a perfect set of beliefs. That's not what faith is about. As Luther said, "Sin boldly." But that phrase does not condone a flippant behavior toward belief sets.

What do you think of me as if not atheist??

Officially you list yourself as an agnostic. Though the atheist crowd here likes to equivocate on those labels, I still keep them distinct. With that said, you seem more like a seeker than an agnostic. I think you've said you want to believe in Christ, but for some reason you can't.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't have a compelling need here. You answered a question on when a human becomes a person with "at conception."

Oops. Did I torpedo a nice conversation? I didn't mean to challenge you.

I can play along. Personhood is an interesting thing to discuss. I just wanted to make the point that it's not a cornerstone for my beliefs.

I think an important aspect of personhood is mind, and an important aspect of mind is the ability to make abstractions. Wasn't there a recent PBS special comparing cognitive abililties between people and animals? If I recall, they concluded that chimps are very poor at abstraction. The animal that showed the most potential was the raven.

So, how would you define "person"?

 

[bricklayer]

Human life began with the creation of Adam. God created one human flesh in Adam; all human bodies are composed of and have come from that one human flesh.
Human life is CONTINUED through conceptions and births.
At conception, there is established a unique combination of pre-existing human genetic information. These unique bodies of human flesh are then individual human beings.
Human life began with the creation of Adam and is continued through conceptions and births.
A human being is established at conception.
As it stands in the US today, a citizen is established at birth.

 

[Buy Bologna]

Human life began with the creation of Adam. God created one human flesh in Adam; all human bodies are composed of and have come from that one human flesh.
Human life is CONTINUED through conceptions and births.
At conception, there is established a unique combination of pre-existing human genetic information. These unique bodies of human flesh are then individual human beings.
Human life began with the creation of Adam and is continued through conceptions and births.
A human being is established at conception.
As it stands in the US today, a citizen is established at birth.

But when is it a soul to god. Not to humans.

What about Psalm 139:16.christian pro life use this for anti abortion.

I basically want to know where they go after death,miscarried, aborted or even at birth and then suddenly die.