muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Honestly, and I don't mean this unkindly, but you're fooling yourself.

As far as I know, 100% of women who go to an abortion clinic to end their pregnancy have their pregnancy ended by a doctor intentionally and purposefully killing the unborn child.

If there is an abortion clinic out there that performs an abortion in such a way so as to aim for the survival of the unborn child, can you let me know where this abortion clinic is?

100% of women who go in for an abortion know that the way an abortion is performed is by a doctor intentionally killing the fetus, and then removing it. Otherwise, they would wait until viability, deliver the baby, and put it up for adoption.
And this gets into the particular phrasing you use that makes the argument suspect and using pathos rhetoric instead of actually considering that the situation is not just about the unborn entity that you fixate on as having rights rather than those rights not trumping a woman's right to bodily autonomy in regards to pregnancy not being something she just has to consent to, because women are not just means to the end of human breeding.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
NxNw: Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.
----------------
One life becomes 2 or more. It isn't no life becoming two.

Wrong, it's an unknown quantity at conception. And that's why you can't use the term 'human being'.
NxNW: They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?
-------------
At a point determined by God.

That's not an answer.

You seem to assume we should agree with those heretical links? It doesn't matter what any other organization or church believes. This is what we believe as taught by the Bible.

Billy Graham was heretical? Quoting the Bible itself in the 1970s was heretical? My point is that these beliefs of yours are brand new, and not consistent with anything being taught a few decades back.

the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offence
--------------------
Really? That isn't what I read.

I never said anything about a capital offence, and certainly did not misspell it. You're quoting somebody else there.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
At last I got you to admit that life can begin after conception. Now that we've established that much, it's just a matter of agreeing where to draw the line.
I let science draw the line. At fertilization a new and unique human being comes into existence with its own unique set of DNA. There are times in which an identical twin comes into existence just after fertilization, but the moment it comes into existence it too is a unique human being. That's settled science.

Once a new human being comes into existence it begins a developmental period that lasts about 25 years. But at no point during a human beings development are they not a human being. It's wrong to discriminate against a human based upon their age, level of development, or place of residence.

I don't agree that abortion involves the killing of innocent human beings.
Well I don't know what else it would be. Surely you don't think the human beings in the womb are guilty of anything. So what else can abortion be other than the killing of innocent human beings? That's precisely the point of an abortion - to kill the unborn child.

But you're assuming that a zygote or embryo is comparable to a fetus in viability and capacity to live
I'm assuming that all human beings, regardless of age, level of development, cognitive function, and location of residence are of equal inherent moral worth and value.

Taking a life/killing is not the same as murder when we consider one of the major factors of murder is malice aforethought, meaning you'd have to consider the thing alive in a meaningful sense and would have to be a person, rather than mere human being, which applies to any human cell and only gets focused on a zygote because of the particular context.
If a single, first time mother of a 2 month old came to the decision that it was too hard and too expensive to raise her child, and therefore decided to suffocate and kill her child because she thought that would be more kind than to send it into the foster system, we would charge her with murder. Yet, there was no malice in her decision. She just didn't consider her 100% dependent upon her baby as a real person yet.

For us parents, we know that a newborn is actually more dependent upon its mother for its life than when it was in the womb.

Knowing that abortion removes a zygote/embryo/fetus from the womb and causes its death is not murder, it's barely manslaughter because it's not an incidental situation like me driving drunk and killing someone in a car wreck, because I knew it was possible it could happen if I drank and drove, versus an abortion necessarily having that aspect in it, but isn't comparable because a unique human being genetically speaking is not equivalent to a human person in the experiential sense of sentience we'd attribute to an infant, to say nothing of remote independence, not the same as any unborn entity necessarily tied into its mother's metabolism.
I think it's a slippery slope to start categorizing the moral worth and value of humans based upon their age, cognitive function, and location of residence. It opens up a whole world of potential moral abuses against human beings.

As a Christian, I believe the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are immoral and wrong. I believe this because I believe that all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value on account of being created in the Image of God.

Thanks to the advancements of science, we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization (or shortly thereafter for twins).

If I wasn't a Christian and didn't believe that all human beings possessed inherent moral worth and value, then I probably would be fine with abortion. Therefore, I'm not surprised, nor do I actually expect to change the mind of an atheist on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I let science draw the line. At fertilization a new and unique human being comes into existence with its own unique set of DNA. There are times in which an identical twin comes into existence just after fertilization, but the moment it comes into existence it too is a unique human being. That's settled science.


Suppose a woman has an abortion after fertilization, but before an identical twin forms even though it would have formed. How many humans were aborted?


Once a new human being comes into existence it begins a developmental period that lasts about 25 years. But at no point during a human beings development are they not a human being.

The question is when it becomes a human being. We've already agreed it is not necessarily conception. Therefore it's up for debate.
NxNW: I don't agree that abortion involves the killing of innocent human beings.
----------
Well I don't know what else it would be.

Your lack of knowledge isn't an argument.
Surely you don't think the human beings in the womb are guilty of anything.

This statement assumes there are human beings in the womb, which I don't agree. However, your Bible states that there are no human beings who are righteous, not one. Therefore all human beings are guilty from the moment of conception. That much is a clear biblical concept.

So what else can abortion be other than the killing of innocent human beings?

The fact that you can't conceive (heh) of an alternative reality does not mean the alternative does not exist.

As a Christian, I believe the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are immoral and wrong.

If this was 1975 and you were using the same biblical reference materials, you'd be claiming the exact opposite. If this was 1850, you'd be claiming the Bible justifies slavery. If this was 1950, you'd be claiming the Bible forbids interracial marriage.

Interpretations of the Bible change. In this case, around 1982, the interpretation regarding abortion changed not because of anything spiritual, but for political strategy.
I believe this because I believe that all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value on account of being created in the Image of God.

God chooses to miscarry 70% of them before birth. Man-made abortion is a drop in the bucket by comparison.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,719
3,791
✟254,230.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
And probably good acts and without love and hate. Not sure what sort of creatures we may be, perhaps some alien ones that just sit around looking at the light without much meaning to life. Only acting when some chemical impulse urge them to.

I have no desire to murder, steal, rape, etc. So those "creatures" would be a lot like me. Better ever.

If you were placed in a situation where you had to defend yourself or family from someone trying to kill you you would quickly find the desire to take them out. What you are not considering is that most people don't desire to kill or plan to kill. It often happens as a result of other situations that involve heightened emotions like hate, anger and jealousy. In that sense everyone can relate and these same feelings make us humans as they also bring love and compassion.

Your situation wouldn't come up in a world where no one had the desire to harm me or my family.

So what is seen as evil often happens as a result of what people don't consider evil such as some human emotions. Like the seven deadly sins pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. They can all lead to further harm and what people can consider as evil. Christ said even if some gets angry with his brother is in danger of being judged. So anger is seen as a sin that can cause a lot of harm.

Anger without action is benign. I'm fine if someone is angry with me. I'm not fine is someone is angry at me, and then tries to murder me.

As mentioned above rape stems form a human emotion of lust gone to the extreme. If we rid ourselves of lust we also rid ourselves of the act of love making. There can be far reaching implications that we cannot understand by God meddling around with human sovereignty and the right to autonomy.

I lust but don't rape. Get angry but don't hurt people. I want what others have but don't steal. I'm not some kind of moral superhero either. I'm just a regular person. An omnipotent and omniscient god could have created nothing but people like me (and countless people like me), who have the ability to choose to do evil acts but no desire to do so.

So once again, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient god, that god desires that we rape and murder each other more than not.

I've never heard an argument against this position that rebuts it in any convincing way.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The brain that you are thinking with is a fallen brain.

According to christian mythology it is, however there's no evidence to support that idea.

God didn't make Adam's brain this way but they wanted to 'be like God' Even though they couldn't really and fully be like God at all. They ate and they got a sliver of the knowledge of good and evil, that caused aging and death of the body, spiritual separation from God and the inner selfish nature.

So if god didn't make them that way, then how did they acquire that skill?

Furthermore, there's no evidence to support the idea that adam and eve were immortal even within your own theology. The myth says if they ate from the tree of life then they would become immortal, like a god. If they needed to eat from the tree of life to become immortal, then logic would dictate there were never immoral to begin with.

You choose minute by minute to make good and bad decisions to turn to or away from God. You have chosen to be an atheist or would you rather God came down and force you to be a Christian?

If god is real, I'd like him to provide some kind of concrete evidence that justifies believing in him, and whatever sect has the right interpretation of scripture. If I can be shown that evidence, then I would certainly accept the belief as true.

The brain is wired to make choices, nobody simply wakes up one day as a serial killer, it was many steps over many years. Most sin is caused by the selfish nature and most sin is that, selfishness. The passing thought of being selfish isn't a sin, it's dwelling on it, building on it and acting on it. Nobody is at the mercy of their own thought life, you make a decision to turn away from the thought, to go get help if you need it.

Apparently your god is a selfish god, does that mean he is prone to sin as well?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You came into a conversation I was having with someone else about Gods morality and you asked for scientific support for God which was irrelevant for proving morality.

As far as Gods morality is concerned objective moral values are rooted in God's nature and not in His will so by nature he cannot be evil and is morally good. Gods goodness is expressed to us with his moral laws for which become a Christians moral duties. So objective morality doesn't exist independent of God, they are God and he cannot be or do anything else.

You just contradicted yourself in back to back paragraphs.... How on one hand can you claim that morality itself is rooted in god, however the fact that god may not actually exist is irrelevant.

The reality is, until we have good reason to believe the god you are referring to exists, then you have no solid foundation to build any other argument on in regards to that god.

But God is not a finite being and is not restricted by our understanding of time and space.

I don't see how that has any relevance...

Do you have any support for this as even if you could support this you would not know what to look for. Good would mean nothing without evil like love would mean nothing without hate. These are essential values that need to be recognized as they are the basis for human endeavor and existence. I think your drawing a long bow that cannot be verified so it is easier said than done.

It's not hard to figure out... if you take all of the evil acts out of the world, and people carry on with their lives as all else was normal, then the only choices they'd have are what we'd consider to be morally good, or morally neutral.

I guess in a sense in many situations you'd have a contrast between a good act and a neutral act, so you could still identify good. But there's no reason to believe that eliminating evil would also eliminate good. There's simply no reason to believe that to be true.

There are certain common factors and the fact is serial killers are either born or made they don't just pop up out of thin air from a so called normal person who has no history or neurological disorders. Humans have a survival instinct where anyone could kill but most people are able to rationalize things to know that it is wrong in most situations. Serial killers don't have that ability. There are certain common factors such as childhood abuse and trauma that certainly causes them to not be able to think and act like most people.

Many serial killers are survivors of early childhood trauma of some kind – physical or sexual abuse, family dysfunction, emotionally distant or absent parents. Trauma is the single recurring theme in the biographies of most killers.
What makes a serial killer?


Ok.... I don't disagree with any of that, but again I'm not sure how it's relevant to my argument

No I said Gods creation was perfect and then it was corrupted by sin. This has allowed things to deteriorate and become imperfect. If God makes creates with free will then by nature there has to be the possibility of consequences of choice if there is good and evil. Wrong choices can lead to bad consequences which may mean things become corrupted and put in chaos. That leads to the loss of God given free will.

If it was vulnerable to corruption via sin, then it wasn't perfect. It had a flaw. A perfect universe would not have been vulnerable to sin entering it.

Alternatively the only way this design could be perfect is if god intended for the world to be corrupted as it went in the story. That means things went perfectly as to his plan, however his plan was for the world to fall into sin.

If I am defending Gods actions morally I am doing it from a biblical position of what the bible says. That is different to you injecting your views onto God restricting him to our time, space and understanding. God thinks infinitely and we think finitely for one. The bible tells us why God did things. Jesus clearly tells us how we should act morally.

A lot of things you have claimed is either based on your own personal interpretation, and not everything you are arguing is explicitly stated in the bible. Quoting the bible at me isn't enough, you must show the claims you are making are true.

But your critiquing God from a atheistic and worldly perspective when God also occupies a divine and spiritual realm beyond our reality of time and space. I qualify when I try to explain things in human terms to try and explain things. I don't say that is is how things are but that these may be possibilities to consider to try and show how the context may be beyond what we understand.

For example, your claims here aren't really supported by the bible. There isn't much said about what heaven is, or any realm that god may or may not inhabit. You're basing your claims on theology that came well after the fact.

This explanation of how God relates to us is common knowledge and derived from an understanding of what the bible says. It is not just plain speculation. You make criticize God without reading or understanding the bible. It would be like a layperson criticizing a mechanics work when they have never read a car manual.

I've read the bible, and I'm quite familiar with it. I don't claim to be a scholar on the subject, however you're making more unjustified (and in this case demonstrably false) claims. If how god relates to us was common knowledge, then there would be a unified worldwide church dedicated to this god. Instead we have tens of thousands of denominations, and large parts of the world have no significant christian presence.

On the contrary, the reason for the continually fracturing church is because there's nothing more than subjective speculation, and whenever a dispute arises there's no objective way to determine who's interpretation is correct, hence a new sect breaks away with a modified theology. This wouldn't happen at all if what god wants is clear and common knowledge.

That is the common view of most critics. Sam Harris's moral landscape is certain no verified idea and has many inconsistencies and problems so I don't thin we can place too much faith in it as a foundation for objective morally. The very fact that people are debating the interpretation of it points to its subjectivity. What one person views human well-being is based on happiness and pleasure another person will disagree so we are back to subjectivity.

The irony is I could say the exact same about your moral arguments so far. However, at least we know the concept of human well-being is a real thing whereas we don't know if your god is.

Once again you are restricting things to human logic and God is beyond this. What if his plan is still ongoing and is not completed yet. What if as the bible says that in the end a perfect situation is achieved. It just means that it has to take a certain path for that perfection to be established.

You again are claiming to know the mind of god. How do you know that god has some kind of logic that we don't have access to? And how would that even work given that the laws of logic are also objective?

I don't think every single little step happens according to Gods plan. If we have free will I cannot see how that would be the case. Just because God knows what happens and speaks like he knows what happened doesn't mean he controls everything that happens. When a storm or earthquake occurs it is the result of certain laws and conditions that come together (Chaos theory). God is not going to control all these events. He has only created the laws that govern these things.

So he has only created the ability to have free will and it is up to us to choose which way to go. God sees us outside time like the event has already happened because God is not subject to time as we know it. The bible says God was there before time. There is a video I watch on this that explained things well which ends with God is responsible for the fact of freedom but humans are responsible for the act of freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN53uHzOoXs

This is another point, the bible never explicitly says we have free will either, nor at any point does it say god values or protects free will. That also is a position based on extra-biblical theology. In fact there's many verses which talk about predestination or god explicitly violating the free will of certain characters.

You're going to have to back your claim that free will is something that god actually cares about as well, because you're not going to find much about it in scripture.

But like your boss God does not make robots to carry out the plan. Humans are free agents otherwise we would be slaves or robots. So people can choose to follow the plan and just because God knows the end result as to who follow that plan or not does not mean he had any influence or control of the steps taken in implementing that plan by people. A good example is
if you were watching a replay of a footy game and someone told you the score so you knew the end result. Does that mean that the players don;t have free will anymore during the game.

I've already addressed this argument. People can be wired in ways that they have a variety of choices, but would also never make certain choices. For example, I'd never choose to become a serial killer... does that make me a robot?

Of course not. Hence this argument is silly.

No I don't pick and choose verses. I choose to investigate and understand bible verses in context and with a better understanding from others who have studied the bible more comprehensively. Something it seems you don't do and if anything you are the one pulling isolated verses out of the bible and using them to suit your preconceived view that God and the bible are wrong. Here is a commentary that explains things better than I could about Romans 8:29. The author Greg Boyd is an internationally recognized theologian, preacher, teacher, apologist and author.

The text does not imply that God loves certain individuals ahead of time but not others. And the text certainly doesn’t imply that God foreknows who will and will not choose to be in Christ ahead of time. In fact, any attempt to use this text to prove that God foreknows future free acts actually backfires, for the “foreknowledge” Paul speaks about is limited. Paul says “those who God foreknew he predestined…” This implies there are others God did not foreknow.

Nor can this passage be used to support that idea that God predestines who will and will not be in Christ. Read the text carefully. What is predestined is not who will be in or out, but what will happen to all who are in. They will eventually be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and glorified. God predestines the consequence of the choice to be in Christ or not, but he doesn’t predestine the choice itself. Scripture is clear that God wants every person to put their trust in his Son, and through his Spirit God empowers us toward this end (2 Pet. 3:9).

How do you respond to Romans 8:29-30? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Again, how do you justify claiming I am not familiar with the bible just because I disagree with you on it. In fact, a number of studies show the two most biblically literate demographics are Atheists, and Mormons. Many atheists became atheists as a result of reading the bible.

There is one difference between us though, at one point I was a christian. I looked at the evidence and wound up changing my mind. That shows I am open to critical thought and following where the evidence leads. I have no particular attachment to non-belief, and if evidence is shown that justifies belief, then I will believe.

You on the other hand likely have not shown that same willingness to be open to alternative views, and likely have an attachment to your faith and a bias towards it.


God no more created Dahmer that way than he did for the Aussie bush fires. The bush fires are said to be a combination of climate change, droughts and poor land management. As mentioned research shows that most serial killers have been conditioned to end up that way. But even if they were born that way this is often the result of genetic disorders or other influences that effected the brain sometimes through prenatal events or even hereditary such as epigenetics. But certainly not God reaching down and making it that way.

Again, you're claiming to know the mind and actions of god.... how do you know these things?

As mentioned God by nature is all good. He cannot be morally bad. So whatever you perceive as him being bad is your subjective view of morality.

And who did you learn this fact from, god himself? Just because something claims to be morally perfect doesn't make it so. Actions speak louder than words, and god is responsible for a number of immoral acts based on the bible stories.

Gods acts in his time and that time is perfect time so that in the end sin and evil will be defeated. Any other time will not achieve the outcome. The same as when Jesus came. It was at the right time for Christ in our history and happened according to the prophesies. Any other time it would not have brought the right outcome as people were not ready.

If you have the ability to end evil and you choose to not do so, then you at the very least partially responsible for that evil, if not an outright co-conspirator.

That's the difference between me and your god though, if I was aware a child was being raped in the next room, I would do everything in my power to stop it. God apparently doesn't care that much and often allows it to continue.

Based on situations like that, I'm morally superior to your god, and if you would act in the same way I did, then you are too.

That,s what I am trying to do. Sorry if I am not explaining things well. The thing is originally someone was criticizing God morally for killing people. I said we cannot judge God on how we perceive things as God is beyond our realm of time and space. They were trying to tie him down to how we see things. I said that for one we see death differently.

For atheists killing is final as this world is all there is so it has more gravity. For God the taking of a life is not final and is moving people from one dimension to another so it doesn't have the same implications as it does for human understanding. That needs to be taken into consideration what applying our view or morality onto God.

Again, you're going to need to justify these claims.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As far as I know, 100% of women who go to an abortion clinic to end their pregnancy have their pregnancy ended by a doctor intentionally and purposefully killing the feus.

You are incorrect. The vast majority of abortions are performed before there is s fetus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wrong, it's an unknown quantity at conception. And that's why you can't use the term 'human being'.

At conception, it is one life, not an unknown quantity. If it decides to split into 2 or 3 more lives a day or more later has nothing to do with anything. And yes I can and will use human being because that is what it is, a human zygote. It isn't a rock or an elephant.

That's not an answer.
Yes it is, because only God knows.
Do you know what you will be doing 2.45pm in 3 years from now?

Billy Graham was heretical? Quoting the Bible itself in the 1970s was heretical? My point is that these beliefs of yours are brand new, and not consistent with anything being taught a few decades back.

If Billy graham published a pro-choice article then yes, it was heretical.
I don't care who anybody is, how many books they publish or what letters are after their name, none of that impresses me in the slightest.
Exodus 21:22-24
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Show me in that verse where God does not regard the fetus as a soul.

no serious injury Doesn't mention who this is talking about. Could be the mother, could be the baby, could be both.
if there is serious injury Again no mention of who this is talking about.

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:41, 44

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy'

What the Bible Says About the Beginning of Life - Focus on the Family Plenty of verses there including Exodus 21:22-24


I never said anything about a capital offence, and certainly did not misspell it. You're quoting somebody else there.
I don't know where that came from then.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are incorrect. The vast majority of abortions are performed before there is s fetus.

Induced Abortion in the United States

Medication abortions accounted for 39% of all abortions in 2017, up from 29% in 2014. Medication abortion is provided up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

The baby is called a fetus from the eighth week.
61%
of abortions occur after the tenth week. The vast majority of abortions are on fully formed babies.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to christian mythology it is, however there's no evidence to support that idea.

The Bible is the only evidence needed.

So if god didn't make them that way, then how did they acquire that skill?

They had to be tempted from outside of themselves. Satan tempted Eve then she tempted Adam.

The parallel verse to this, the verse that shows this being compleated without falling is the temptation of Jesus. Matthew 4:1-11
This is why Jesus is called the second Adam, because where Adam failed he succeeded.

Furthermore, there's no evidence to support the idea that adam and eve were immortal even within your own theology. The myth says if they ate from the tree of life then they would become immortal, like a god. If they needed to eat from the tree of life to become immortal, then logic would dictate there were never immoral to begin with.

The garden and the perfection of Adam and Eve was again another shadow of what is to come. It's a picture of the New Heavens and New World to come after the second coming of Christ.
They didn't need to eat from it to be immortal before the fall because sin is what caused death. Before the fall, there was no death.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinn-


The two trees were there to show both sides and the choice they had. The Tree of Life represented God and closing off the garden showed them how they were now closed off from God. The tree of life is again reflected in the New Testament when there is immortality again only this time the tree is there twice because the choice of evil has been removed.
Revelation 22
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.

If god is real, I'd like him to provide some kind of concrete evidence that justifies believing in him, and whatever sect has the right interpretation of scripture. If I can be shown that evidence, then I would certainly accept the belief as true.

These days it seems 'proof' drives people more than anything else, but God doesn't want to be proven, he wants faith.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

Apparently your god is a selfish god, does that mean he is prone to sin as well?

That is your view.
Psalm 86:15
But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.

Sin is the very opposite of God.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I let science draw the line. At fertilization a new and unique human being comes into existence with its own unique set of DNA. There are times in which an identical twin comes into existence just after fertilization, but the moment it comes into existence it too is a unique human being. That's settled science.

No one's denying that, but human DNA does not equate to a person, strictly speaking, you're equivocating two categorically distinct terms, in the same way I could talk about a botanical vegetable or a culinary vegetable and they'd not necessarily overlap (tomato is culinary, but not a botanical vegetable, but a fruit)

Once a new human being comes into existence it begins a developmental period that lasts about 25 years. But at no point during a human beings development are they not a human being. It's wrong to discriminate against a human based upon their age, level of development, or place of residence.

Development in a biological sense still has particular points of significance you can't just dismiss in terms of Roe v. Wade's distinction that also applies reasonably to a cut off where the state would have a vested interest in not allowing abortion carte blanche.

A fetus doesn't "reside" in a womb like I reside in a house, they can't move out, they are literally latched to the mother's metabolism, as I already pointed out. And I'm not discriminating in the sense of it being prejudice, I'm distinguishing between something that cannot reasonably even be compared to a pet, no sentience, no reasonable life distinctions beyond cell activity on a molecular level versus a fetus that's developed enough that it behooves us to protect it within reason. And I'm also not going to just be guilted into favoring something because people regard it with affection, that's overly sentimental and irrational to ignore a woman's right of bodily autonomy based on a particular context

Well I don't know what else it would be. Surely you don't think the human beings in the womb are guilty of anything. So what else can abortion be other than the killing of innocent human beings? That's precisely the point of an abortion - to kill the unborn child.

They are guilty in the sense that the woman does not consent to their existence, so she technically has a right to govern how her body will be used by her and not by another, unless she deigns based on the understanding of what goes on, not just societal pressures to "deal with it" in a way they expect

You calling it a child insinuates meaning that isn't necessarily there unless you're intentionally framing it in a way that, again, appeals to a rhetoric of pathos, and hollow rhetoric at that.

I'm assuming that all human beings, regardless of age, level of development, cognitive function, and location of residence are of equal inherent moral worth and value.

And thus you'd consider a zygote preserved in frozen status as equally valuable as a living infant? The examples are there and you seem to think you can just ignore an infant and favor a zygote if you're going to be absolutely consistent on this notion of equal worth and value when they're necessarily distinct in both manifestation and interaction with society at large. If I find an infant in a trash can, I'll care far more than a frozen zygote (assuming I could even identify it as such in a tube that could be containing a frozen sample of anything else given how minute in size a zygote is)

If a single, first time mother of a 2 month old came to the decision that it was too hard and too expensive to raise her child, and therefore decided to suffocate and kill her child because she thought that would be more kind than to send it into the foster system, we would charge her with murder. Yet, there was no malice in her decision. She just didn't consider her 100% dependent upon her baby as a real person yet.

Infanticide is qualitatively different and you know it, because the decision is upon something that can and should be allowed to live because it is not in a remotely dependent parasitic type relationship as an unborn entity is. Her thinking it's more kind is irrelevant when we can demonstrate that it can survive on its own, unlike her 2 month old embryo if she was still pregnant, which literally would die in minutes at most because it cannot survive otherwise without technological advances we don't have
For us parents, we know that a newborn is actually more dependent upon its mother for its life than when it was in the womb.

No, it's dependent on a caretaker, we have formula that eliminates the need for even breastfeeding and wet nurses likely still exist as well; claiming a newborn is more dependent on its biological mother than if it's in the womb is demonstrably false, because the facts are such that we cannot just take a fetus out of the womb and transfer it into another womb and it will survive. Whereas if a child is abandoned by its mother after birth, it can survive and thrive through adoptive parents taking care of it, the qualitative difference is so stark, it's baffling you'd try to claim the contrary

I think it's a slippery slope to start categorizing the moral worth and value of humans based upon their age, cognitive function, and location of residence. It opens up a whole world of potential moral abuses against human beings.

Slippery slope fallacy would only apply if the standard was that subject to change in the first place, but viability is not discriminatory, it's demonstrable fact that, barring technology in sci fi, a fetus cannot just come out of the mother and survive before a certain cut off point and thus, is not reasonable to be protected unless the mother in question actually desires the pregnancy. Reducing this to the unborn entity and ignoring the mother/woman entirely is disingenuous.

As a Christian, I believe the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are immoral and wrong. I believe this because I believe that all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value on account of being created in the Image of God.

Only because you reduce women in terms of their autonomy to robots that should just go along with things rather than considering that pregnancy is not something a woman consents to anymore than a person consents to a virus making them ill, those are things that occur by natural processes that are not in human cognizance without technology.

You can believe that, but that's irrelevant to more fundamental moral principles of autonomy over the dignity you ascribe to entities that are functionally possessing of less capacity than an insect and are valuable only based on people's desire to be parents, not merely because they are humans that have independence in the basic sense we grant to infants onwards because with proper care, they thrive, while we don't have care outside of a woman being pregnant to apply to an embyro or zygote, they will not survive outside of the womb at present technological level

Thanks to the advancements of science, we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization (or shortly thereafter for twins).

We know a genetically unique specimen comes into existence, you're equivocating again based on a particular perspective that assumes everyone will just regard conception as just automatically deserving of the focus that the parents would rightfully have, while to the uninvolved, it's not remotely that apart from vested interest in some sense (godparent, etc)

If I wasn't a Christian and didn't believe that all human beings possessed inherent moral worth and value, then I probably would be fine with abortion. Therefore, I'm not surprised, nor do I actually expect to change the mind of an atheist on this subject.

You don't have to be fine with abortion in itself to allow that it should be permissible in terms of human freewill (like how I loathe war, but am not going to just try to outlaw military service entirely, because I am not about undermining autonomy within basic constraints), unless you don't believe people really have freewill, in which case how can you say you've genuinely decided anything in your life of significance if you had no will of your own to do so?
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
The baby is called a fetus from the eighth week.
61%
of abortions occur after the tenth week. The vast majority of abortions are on fully formed babies.

Fetus/=/ fully formed, that would be an infant at term that can be born healthy and with no real complications barring genetic issues or other factors. 8 weeks is not even remotely viable, unlike a 20 week fetus, which would at least have semi formed structures necessary for life (brain, lungs, heart, etc)
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You are incorrect. The vast majority of abortions are performed before there is s fetus.
The vast majority are certainly performed before viability, but that's the law anyway, barring extenuating circumstances for late term abortions
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
At conception, it is one life, not an unknown quantity. If it decides to split into 2 or 3 more lives a day or more later has nothing to do with anything. And yes I can and will use human being because that is what it is, a human zygote. It isn't a rock or an elephant.

You're still confusing "life" with "human being", which have different meanings.

If Billy graham published a pro-choice article then yes, it was heretical.
I don't care who anybody is, how many books they publish or what letters are after their name, none of that impresses me in the slightest.

Earlier, you made the claim to the effect that Christians have always been anti-choice. I proved you wrong. It's really been less than 40 years since your position became mainstream. You need to accept the fact that your interpretation is merely the result of some political decisions made in the early 1980s, and not biblical text.

Show me in that verse where God does not regard the fetus as a soul.

You don't have a fetus until 8 weeks, so if you're arguing that it's not a human being before that point, I won't disagree.

Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Conception occurs in the fallopian tube. Apparently you're claiming that humans are formed in the womb after conception, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm glad you and the Bible agree with me.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
61% of abortions occur after the tenth week. The vast majority of abortions are on fully formed babies.

You posted false information. 66% of abortions occur before the tenth week.

A fetus is not a fully-formed baby at 10 weeks, of course. They are not even capable of thought or sensory input at that stage.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So God chooses to obey the morals that exist separately from him?
Moral laws don't exist separate from God. As God is good by nature then his makeup is only good. He cannot lie or sin so I guess in that sense he follows moral laws. But to say that God has to obey moral laws is wrong I think because God is to be obeyed. Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God. So I don't think God could be subject to this law.

Plus because God is God and has the authority to act as law maker he can be exempt from laws. For example the police can be exempt from speeding laws when chasing a suspect or taking someones life in the process of upholding the laws. The same with God when administering his judgement and punishment. So we can't always apply our moral views to God especially as he is acting in a divine capacity about things that we don't fully understand.

But the point is the bible says that God is a rightful God so he cannot undermine his own laws as this would create chaos among heaven and earth where God could not be trusted. He has to stand on his word as God be be regarded as a worthy and rightful judge and God .



This implies that he's unable to exist or act within our reality.
I think God can act within and beyond our reality. This is something we don't fully understand but the bible says that God is omnipresent so I guess he is everywhere.
Jeremiah 23:23-24
"Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're still confusing "life" with "human being", which have different meanings.

I'm not confusing anything. God sees our yet unformed body in the womb. The baby has arms, legs, fingers and toes, the eyes are forming eyelids and the cerebral cortex is already formed by the eighth week.
Psalm 139:13-18
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.


Earlier, you made the claim to the effect that Christians have always been anti-choice. I proved you wrong. It's really been less than 40 years since your position became mainstream. You need to accept the fact that your interpretation is merely the result of some political decisions made in the early 1980s, and not biblical text.

The Bible says life is precious. As far as other people are concerned, I don't control them. The Bible is against abortion. Lol you think we have a hive mind?

Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”


You don't have a fetus until 8 weeks, so if you're arguing that it's not a human being before that point, I won't disagree.

Conception occurs in the fallopian tube. Apparently you're claiming that humans are formed in the womb after conception, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm glad you and the Bible agree with me.

It doesn't matter if the new life is in the fallopian tube or in the womb. God sees out yet unformed body and considers us a person.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You posted false information. 66% of abortions occur before the tenth week.

A fetus is not a fully-formed baby at 10 weeks, of course. They are not even capable of thought or sensory input at that stage.

I did not make those statistics up they are right here Induced Abortion in the United States
The baby is already moving it's legs by the eighth week. No one is saying the brain is fully formed, it doesn't have to be. It is developing rapidly along with everything else.
Touch is the first sense to develop. By week 8 the baby has developed touch receptors on the lips and nose.
It isn't a blob, it is a recognizable human being.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0