We have all seen videos of a child laughing in the womb and I know from my own experience a child in the womb can hear and LEARN my voice as distinct from the voice it hears all the time and all other sounds. Saint John (that would be the Baptizer for those actually believing in a Spirit) heard a voice too and responded. But instead in the same style of the OP post we have multiple comparisons of such demonstrations (that means "shown" BTW) of "learning" and responses to just inherently biological born instincts like that of a rat. Remember now or do we need links to those posts too?
So anyone making absurd claims today such as there is no "proof" of learning in the womb is obviously rather ill prepared to discuss what the Holy Spirit has to work with when Saint John the Baptizer leapt for Joy at 6 months in his mother's womb.
Furthermore, someone that does even believe there is a distinct Person we call the Holy Spirit is being very deceptive to start a thread inviting people who do believe to talk with him about what that Spirit can or cannot do.
Why should I waste time repeating in summary or offer links to very intelligent cases for something immaterial existing when those arguments are something that have already been repeatedly dismissed as "made up" stuff only to have that same "brilliantly thoughtful" rebuttal again?
Or do we need more quotes of how a claim was made none of that is "evidence" a "soul" because there is an apparent irrational desire to be able to dissect an aborted "life" ("life" because there is a quoted refusal to recognize or distinguish a fetus from more than a tumor, gangrene arm to be cut off or cancer or a parasite) to 'show' us something immaterial there?
Why pretend to ask something "innocently" like give us material proof of something when one knows everyone else believes it is immaterial?
Why keep goading people to make case for something one does not believe exists at all while in the process casting dispersion on the Trinity Doctrine in a section where that is not even allowed?
Why argue what the Holy Spirit can or cannot do in the womb when one does not even share a belief in a Holy Spirit that is permissible in this section?
Why argue about what is present in the womb for God to work with, when one cannot even distinguish that "life" from a rat or cancer or a gangrenous arm or tumor and consider the unborn nothing more than a parasite attached to a host until it is breathing ? (do we need links to those brilliant statements as well???)
Why deny and refuse to ever admit to any belief in a soul or in this thread even answer if I understand of one's own expression of what a soul "might be" when there is an obvious desire to use that understanding to refute everyone else's?
In short, when one cannot even address what was wrong with my summary of one's own beliefs about the soul, what can be the motive for asking us to explain what happens in the womb other than to allow one to continue throw stones in a house one does not even believe in or belong to or allowed to protest in?
You can's help it - you just keep on doing it don't you? Throwing out speculations, speculations of what I supposed said without any quotes even.
"REMEMBER NOW" YOUR VAGUE SMEAR GOES.
(As though it is likely I ever said anything like what you so abusedly like to suggest I said.)
A simple example is your suggestion I don't think anything immaterial exists. I would never claim anything like that and certainly wouldn't do so here.
You speak of "casting dispersion on the Trinity Doctrine ..." as though I had denied the Trinity.
Try learning English - I think that is where the real problem exists.
I would have though you would welcome the opportunity to defend your beliefs and perhaps convince me of their truth. Since you do believe you have the truth, and that I do not, it seems?
Personally I would like to see a good defense of what you probably consider, "The Christian Position." I am giving you the opportunity to present one - in fact I would truly appreciate it if you could!
What I see so far is pretty much only you misrepresenting what I have said, I guess to try to make it appear very questionable, anything I might say. To make it appear I don't ever say the truth, to smear me as much as possible!
UNLESS YOUR POSITION IS DEFENSIBLE, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT MY POSITION IS. That is, IF your position is defensible, probably mine which you see so different is not very defensible - and all it will take for our conversation to be useful for both of us is for you to show me what exact claims you want to make (beyond "there is a human being at the moment of conception"), and the grounds for making them.
I do not here claim a certain position is true - I only have noticed a few arguments and ideas without arguments, and have certain views on them which I have shared. You don't want any criticism and only want to criticize, I suppose. Is that it?
Far as I can see in your case, there is NO HOUSE TO THROW STONES AT. Only a few stones "lying abound."
Upvote
0