"A HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION"

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Of course it's not based on "insisting" at all, either mine or anyone else's;
it is based on the truth of the matter.

so you say..

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, you're grasping at straws here. The Greek is a lot more clear than the KJV translation that you rely on. I can see how you can maybe come up with an interpretation that would mean that Luke 1:15 is referring to John being filled with the HS from birth and onward if you are relying entirely on the KJV. But thankfully, we don't need to do that. We can use the Greek. The Greek is much more clear, and the NASB does a much better job at translating the verse.
Your pretending your translation, the translation that "happens" to agree with you, is the only one, is a bit much.
And that the Greek shows that. Really?
The Greek reads: <eti> <et> ...
<eti> means "yet, even" and <et> means "from, or after" (According to Strong's.)
SO, "even after" or "yet from" are very good understandings, what the Greek actually says.

Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."

Likewise, a straightforward reading of Luke 1:41 would clearly indicate that the baby leaped in Elizabeth's womb in direct relation to hearing the voice of Mary. There is absolutely no reason to mention the baby leaping if there was not a connection. The implication is basically explicit and the connection is obvious.
Of course there is a "connection" between the so-called "leaping" and hearing the voice. THAT is the connection given in Scripture, the "when," that the two events happened at the same time.
NO NEED FOR ANY FABRICATION like the W's, "reacted to Mary's voice." A COMPLETE FABRICATION.
The coincidence is interesting for anyone to notice, and undoubtedly that is why it is mentioned.

Can you find even one commentary, even one theologian that agrees with your assertion that the commend about the baby leaping was completely random and unrelated to anything the baby itself experienced? Just one?
I imagine maybe everybody got it wrong, in a manner probably not much different than yours. That is, pretty well everybody has wanted to interpret it in the manner you do (when there is NO BASIS for that being the correct interpretation compared to my interpretation - sticking to what it actually says.)
IN OTHER WORDS, the whole world may be wrong (like they say), and STILL WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS IS THEE TRUTH. Not adding or subtracting. Because "commentators" have added to Scripture does not mean we need to.

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

You have to work very hard to avoid the clear meaning of these passages. And the only reason you are driven to do so is because they contradict with your personal opinion on when human life begins.
THE CLEAR MEANING is that, "at the very same time, more or less," three things happened. That Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit isn't relevant to the question at issue, though it does show that having the Holy Spirit is a real thing of real (and probably adult) people.
So the two things happened simultaneously, that we are told. And only that, NOT that there was any more profound relationship between the two events than that they happened to occur at the same time. To say more than that is to add to Scripture!

Douglas, you really would do well to drop your defensive guard and spend some honest time exploring your heart on this issue and figuring out why you are so set in your position.

Scientific fact contradicts your position. Scripture contradicts your position. There comes a point where we need to throw our hands up and recognize that we may be just plain wrong.
I'd say the same to you.

Your argument for when a human comes into existence is based upon a level of development that must be reached. You are correct that some pretty dramatic and important things happen developmentally at birth, but birth is just one stage in development. The formation of the brain and nervous system in the womb is pretty dramatic. Learning to speak and walk is a developmental milestone. Puberty is a pretty momentous developmental stage for a human. For some reason that I can't figure out, you have arbitrarily and subjectively chosen birth as the developmental stage that is the one that transforms human life into a human being.
The "development" things you point to take place over some period of time. Unlike birth which is a singular event, and in terms of changes of the fetus very singular and not occurring over time. (Though "labor" may take some time.) In other words, what you call a "stage of development" is not a stage of development, only a one time occurrence that happens on one particular day.
So what you say here is no reason not to point to birth, but in fact one favoring it as the unique and not at all extended point of the coming into existence of a being in the world.

The problem with your position is that you have nothing to back it up
I at least know birth is NOT a stage of development - it is a distinct event.
with other than your word and simple observations that some developmental stuff happens at birth. You're alone in your position Douglas - alone. That should raise some serious red flags for you.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

so you say..

What I say is, we should be focused on finding the truth, rather than being concerned about who said what, and how "insistent" it might have been.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

What I say is, we should be focused on finding the truth, rather than being concerned about who said what, and how "insistent" it might have been.

you don't seem to be too concerned about this as the truth is staring at you in saying that one event lead to another and you call it coincidence based on it fitting your theory and not on what the text actually says.

Elizabeth hears a voice and a child leaps in her womb and she is filled with the Holy Spirit at the same time. were these both coincidences? where do you get this from the text?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

you don't seem to be too concerned about this as the truth is staring at you in saying that one event lead to another and you call it coincidence based on it fitting your theory and not on what the text actually says.

Elizabeth hears a voice and a child leaps in her womb and she is filled with the Holy Spirit at the same time. were these both coincidences? where do you get this from the text?

"Co-incidence" means they happened at the same time. That is what it means.

"AND" does not mean one leads to the other; if you have some secret insight, you know what Scripture does not know, in what direction is the "leading"? Which event comes first? You say one does - which one is it? I only say what Scripture says, that they happened at the same time. "As soon as ..."

Scripture does NOT say "the one event lead to another." That is an added idea, as far as the text is concerned.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

"Co-incidence" means they happened at the same time. That is what it means.

"AND" does not mean one leads to the other; if you have some secret insight, you know what Scripture does not know, in what direction is the "leading"? Which event comes first. You say one does - which one is it? I only say what Scripture says, that they happened at the same time.

Scripture does NOT say "the one event lead to another." That is an added idea, as far as the text is concerned.

so her being filled with the Holy Spirit was coincidence as well?

the passage says the baby leaped and the Holy Spirit fell on elizebath when they heard the voice of mary. voice first, then leaping baby.

the passage actually doesn't they happened at the same time. it says one thing happened when another thing happened. so it would seem the that the concept of a "coincidence" is the added idea.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

so her being filled with the Holy Spirit was coincidence as well?

the passage says the baby leaped and the Holy Spirit fell on elizebath when they heard the voice of mary. voice first, then leaping baby.

the passage actually doesn't they happened at the same time. it says one thing happened when another thing happened. so it would seem the that the concept of a "coincidence" is the added idea.

What is it about "when" that is so difficult to understand? It means "at the same time," not "voice first."

It certainly implies they happened at the same time - it does not say otherwise. If one wants to speculate that they were not at the same time, then I suppose you could even say there was a few minutes or hours difference. Not in Scripture, and it explicitly says "when."

Edit: Sorry, the added idea is anything BEYOND CO-INCIDENCE. That they happened at the same time is fairly easy to see re the passage - your idea that there must be some sort of causation involved is the added idea.
Mine is the lesser claim - your's is speculation, at best.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What is it about "when" that is so difficult to understand? It means "at the same time," not "voice first."

It certainly implies they happened at the same time - it does not say otherwise. If one wants to speculate that they were not at the same time, then I suppose you could even say there was a few minutes or hours difference. Not in Scripture, and it explicitly says "when."

Edit: Sorry, the added idea is anything BEYOND CO-INCIDENCE. That they happened at the same time is fairly easy to see re the passage - your idea that there must be some sort of causation involved is the added idea.
Mine is the lesser claim - your's is speculation, at best.

Correct, it is indeed a lessor as in lower claim - one that rather diminishes the whole idea of a Holy Spirit that is an Individual Person and any concept of a soul other than breathing. Very lower idea/claim indeed. Not even rational, as in scientific either.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Correct, it is indeed a lessor as in lower claim - one that rather diminishes the whole idea of a Holy Spirit that is an Individual Person and any concept of a soul other than breathing. Very lower idea/claim indeed. Not even rational, as in scientific either.

"... Holy Spirit that is an Individual Person ... ," is a pretty grandiose idea all right!

I doubt it is anything that corresponds to anything in Scripture, however.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"... Holy Spirit that is an Individual Person ... ," is a pretty grandiose idea all right!

I doubt it is anything that corresponds to anything in Scripture, however.

The early Church and many today would not agree the Bible does not support the express[ion of the Trinity Doctrine or the idea the Holy Ghost is a Person]. That is why they developed things like Creeds and the Trinity Doctrine [in support of what the Bible says]. They needed concise explanations of truths that were established against the irrational arguments and imaginations of people claiming odd things.
Odd things like there is no real Holy Spirit that is Person or that we don't have souls in any understandable sense other than perhaps a biological based conscientiousness and breathing. In the light of Christianity and Church teachings, I agree those are grandiose ideas all right, also rather irrational and unscientific.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

What is it about "when" that is so difficult to understand? It means "at the same time," not "voice first."

you're proposing a rather abnormal reading of the passage. you're asking us to disregard the testimony of the inspired author and the person who experienced the event for your own speculation.

"when the army stormed the town, the people took arms."

should we conclude that the army storming the town and the people taking arms were simultaneous coincidences with no causation of one leading to the other? if not, why have you chosen to do this with this passage?

 

[SPF]

Douglas, you have to realize it's pretty laughable for you to assert that John leaping for joy in his mothers womb was a mere coincidence. You're basically asking people to believe that there was absolutely no significance to John leaping in his mothers womb and that the author added that to Scripture for no reason other than he thought it was an interesting, yet meaningless coincidence.

You honestly need to stop reading your subjective ideas into Scripture. The fact that you are entirely incapable of providing any support whatsoever for your claims is telling in itself. Youve never brought anything to the table except your own opinion. Your opinion contradicts everything we know about life from a medical and scientific standpoint. Your opinion contradicts everything that Christendom has held to. You're utterly and absolutely alone in your opinion. Does that
Bring you any pause at all? Any?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, you have to realize it's pretty laughable for you to assert that John leaping for joy in his mothers womb was a mere coincidence. You're basically asking people to believe that there was absolutely no significance to John leaping in his mothers womb and that the author added that to Scripture for no reason other than he thought it was an interesting, yet meaningless coincidence.

You honestly need to stop reading your subjective ideas into Scripture. The fact that you are entirely incapable of providing any support whatsoever for your claims is telling in itself. Youve never brought anything to the table except your own opinion. Your opinion contradicts everything we know about life from a medical and scientific standpoint. Your opinion contradicts everything that Christendom has held to. You're utterly and absolutely alone in your opinion. Does that
Bring you any pause at all? Any?

You're a bit prescient in what you say - I am about to '"pause" a bit and start a new thread on how perhaps Christianity has been corrupt from very early on. Almost everybody misled, perhaps? To try to get to the bottom of this difference of understanding.

It is I who does NOT read subjective ideas into Scripture, whereas you and others would make the passage from Luke 1 say more than it actually says.
I do NOT say there is "absolutely no significance" to the womb "leaping;" I am pretty sure the co-incidence was very significant in making it a tale more often repeated and thought to be more meaningful because of the coincidence by everyone hearing of it from those first recounting the tale to even you. And what a tale - that Mary would be the mother of our Lord!
SCRIPTURE says it was co-incidence, it does NOT say the additional you want it to say, adding some sort of causation to the "leaping." Scripture supports what I say. Your overreaching is understandable in that you share that going beyond Scripture with quite a few others, but that does not make it truthful or correct.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

you're proposing a rather abnormal reading of the passage. you're asking us to disregard the testimony of the inspired author and the person who experienced the event for your own speculation.

"when the army stormed the town, the people took arms."

should we conclude that the army storming the town and the people taking arms were simultaneous coincidences with no causation of one leading to the other? if not, why have you chosen to do this with this passage?

That is all we are really warranted with concluding, that they were simultaneous occurrences. It could have said before they were stormed, they took arms. Or it could have said, once they were being stormed they took arms, to clarify the matter.
There is NO CAUSATION in either case - undoubtedly the reason they took arms is because they were stormed or about to be stormed. The "when" in your story suggests they did not take arms until actually being stormed. It is a different sort of situation in that presumably there were people making decisions on the basis of what was happening, and no similar decision is involved in the Luke passages.

I am certainly not asking anyone to "disregard the testimony of the inspired author and the person who experienced the event," only not go beyond it with YOUR SPECULATION.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You're a bit prescient in what you say - I am about to '"pause" a bit and start a new thread on how perhaps Christianity has been corrupt from very early on. Almost everybody misled, perhaps? To try to get to the bottom of this difference of understanding.

It is I who does NOT read subjective ideas into Scripture, whereas you and others would make the passage from Luke 1 say more than it actually says.
I do NOT say there is "absolutely no significance" to the womb "leaping;" I am pretty sure the co-incidence was very significant in making it a tale more often repeated and thought to be more meaningful because of the coincidence by everyone hearing of it from those first recounting the tale to even you. And what a tale - that Mary would be the mother of our Lord!
SCRIPTURE says it was co-incidence, it does NOT say the additional you want it to say, adding some sort of causation to the "leaping." Scripture supports what I say. Your overreaching is understandable in that you share that going beyond Scripture with quite a few others, but that does not make it truthful or correct.

If someone holding no particular concept of humans having both a physical and a spirit nature (as in a body with a real human soul distinguishable and separable from the body) then am unclear why the severe under-reaching of their speculation on human nature qualifies them to declare everyone else in Christian history has "overreached". Of course such a low opinion of human nature would have to look at every opinion in Christian history as overreaching.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is all we are really warranted with concluding, that they were simultaneous occurrences. It could have said before they were stormed, they took arms. Or it could have said, once they were being stormed they took arms, to clarify the matter.
There is NO CAUSATION in either case - undoubtedly the reason they took arms is because they were stormed or about to be stormed. The "when" in your story suggests they did not take arms until actually being stormed. It is a different sort of situation in that presumably there were people making decisions on the basis of what was happening, and no similar decision is involved in the Luke passages.

I am certainly not asking anyone to "disregard the testimony of the inspired author and the person who experienced the event," only not go beyond it with YOUR SPECULATION.

Why would someone agreeing with every opinion in Christian history (and a good portion of pagan history) need to be considered "speculation" compared to a singular idea someone here just made up and can only offer as their opinion?

 

[SPF]

Douglas, given your absolutely entrenched notion that the life inside a mother's womb cannot be an actual baby, but is some not-human organism, this probably won't have much impact upon you, but I thought it worth noting.

The Greek word used for "baby" in Luke 1:41 is used 8 times in the NT.

Luke 1:41 and 44 as we have been discussing, as well as the following.

Luke 2:12 - This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths....

Luke 2:16 - So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger.

Luke 18:15 - And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them...

Acts 7:19 - It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

I Timothy 3:15 - and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings....

I Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word...

I'm sure you'll see where this is going. If the life inside Elizabeth's womb was not considered a person, why would Scripture not use a different word?

The bottom line Douglas is that scientific fact is that new human life begins at conception. The Bible is also clear in that there is no distinction between a human that resides within a womb and a human that resides outside of a womb. The distinction that you have made, to use one of your favorite lines - is your fabrication. There is nothing scientifically or Biblically based that would lead us to need to make the distinction that you are arguing for. You have utterly no support for your position. You can point to nothing scientific and nothing Scriptural to support your idea.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You're a bit prescient in what you say - I am about to '"pause" a bit and start a new thread on how perhaps Christianity has been corrupt from very early on. Almost everybody misled, perhaps? To try to get to the bottom of this difference of understanding.

It is I who does NOT read subjective ideas into Scripture, whereas you and others would make the passage from Luke 1 say more than it actually says.
I do NOT say there is "absolutely no significance" to the womb "leaping;" I am pretty sure the co-incidence was very significant in making it a tale more often repeated and thought to be more meaningful because of the coincidence by everyone hearing of it from those first recounting the tale to even you. And what a tale - that Mary would be the mother of our Lord!
SCRIPTURE says it was co-incidence, it does NOT say the additional you want it to say, adding some sort of causation to the "leaping." Scripture supports what I say. Your overreaching is understandable in that you share that going beyond Scripture with quite a few others, but that does not make it truthful or correct.

Correct saying "it is I" that can be said holds an opinion/speculation that is counter to everyone else in Christian history was rather many posters take on your posted positions in CF.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

That is all we are really warranted with concluding, that they were simultaneous occurrences. It could have said before they were stormed, they took arms. Or it could have said, once they were being stormed they took arms, to clarify the matter.
There is NO CAUSATION in either case - undoubtedly the reason they took arms is because they were stormed or about to be stormed. The "when" in your story suggests they did not take arms until actually being stormed. It is a different sort of situation in that presumably there were people making decisions on the basis of what was happening, and no similar decision is involved in the Luke passages.

I am certainly not asking anyone to "disregard the testimony of the inspired author and the person who experienced the event," only not go beyond it with YOUR SPECULATION.

did the people take arms because they were stormed or not? if yes, why have you not chosen to apply the same logic to the luke passage?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

1. "A human life beginning at conception," is NOT the same thing as "human life beginning at conception."
"Human life" means alive human cells; "a human life" means a person, a human being.

2. There is human life at conception.
There are alive cells that are human cells, therefore there is "human life."

3. There is no NEW appearance of life at conception, NO NEW LIFE, so the "beginning" is not of life, as in "new human life." ALL the life found at conception is the very life that the ALIVE SPERM and ALIVE OVA brought together in the unity that is the zygote. Life continues from sperm and egg to fetus, the same life contributed by the alive cells from the alove woman (I like that!) to the alove man (I like that!). [With "alove" here I mean "alive," of course.]

I would ask everyone interested in abortion to consider these three claims, and especially how is someone to correctly understand what "A HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION" means?
Hint: at conception what will be (maybe!) a human being is "begun." (New genetics.)
That something is begun (to be made) does not mean the thing to be, to be made, THEN EXISTS as though it were already made.

Is there anything in the above claims that strikes one as untrue, and if so, why?

"...every attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault on the belief in existence after death. The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."
'If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body."
"The lowest savages arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort."
"Body and soul are recognized as a dualism"
Soul | Catholic Answers