Does a Human Being have a body?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's obvious to me.

"Somebody" wants to try to defend the "pro-life" viewpoint.

No.

Scripture is TRUTH.

What you posted, was obviously from the start anti-Scripture.
At first I did not know why
(I did not know nor even try to guess your motive until I saw what section you posted in).

We can only rest if we rest in Scripture, not in that which opposes YHWH.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Personally, I'm only interested in defending what is true. Unlike you, I don't approach Scripture attempting to prove a particular point of view, I allow Scripture to dictate what my beliefs are.

Biblically speaking, I believe Scripture teaches that mankind is unique among all of God's creation. Mankind alone is created in the image of God and possesses inherent moral worth and value. This moral worth and value is applied to all mankind, regardless of age, race, and gender. That is the foundation that I hold to because that is what I see taught in Scripture.

Thanks to advances in science, medicine and technology, we now know that a new and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization. We now know that when a sperm fertilizes an egg that each contribute genetic information and we can literally watch as a new organism comes into existence. This organism, allowed to grow and develop has begun a process that will take roughly 25 years to fully mature.

So if one wants to discuss what is obvious, then it is obvious that a new human comes into existence at conception.

Douglas, the problem I have with your position is that nothing you say is supported by science. You have to literally come up with your own definitions for terms, throw out known science, and then argue for an arbitrary line in the sand so to speak about when a human being comes into existence which is not even internally consistent.

And then with regards to Scripture, you clearly bring your preconceived beliefs into your interpretations of Scripture and are once again forced to do isegesis and magical word-smithing to create an interpretation that is literally rejected by 100% of theologians throughout all of history.

So for me, someone who desires to base their beliefs on Truth, when someone like you comes along and literally rejects the past 100 years of science, rewrites definitions, and then throws out 2,000 years of Biblical understanding - I can't help but look at you and be like "really? You expect people to believe you?" Honestly, the stuff you say makes you sound more like a cult leader or a gnostic heretic than someone with any bit of credibility. You bring no educational credentials, and you bring no scientific, medical, or theological support for your position.

Every single post you make is filled with fallacy after fallacy, from begging the question, to poisoning the well, to red herrings, to categorical mistakes, to straw-men, to circular reasoning, false analogies etc etc.. I mean really, a great exercise for a introduction to critical thinking class could be a professor having their students read your threads and point out the fallacies.

Until you can bring something to table other than your own "because I said so" argument, I don't see any reason why your belief that human beings never exist inside a womb should not be utterly rejected. I've asked countless times for one, just one source outside your own brain that agrees with your position, even a fringe scientist. You've never been able to produce even one.

That's pretty funny. Your entire manifesto.

What you believe, your "pro-life" creed.
Never to be questioned, couldn't possibly be untrue at any point whatsoever.
And of course anything that does not agree with it can only be considered untrue.

I suppose I should be flattered that half of it is devoted to me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Self-devotion and self-promotion is covered in Scripture.

Not approved, but covered.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Self-devotion and self-promotion is covered in Scripture.

Not approved, but covered.

I hope at least in his own case he agrees,

A HUMAN BEING IS MORE THAN A BAG OF FLESH !

Even though he says the bag of useless flesh he wants to elevate to the status of a human being, "possesses moral worth and value," which is rather ironic, don't you think?

 

[SPF]

Never to be questioned, couldn't possibly be untrue at any point whatsoever.
And of course anything that does not agree with it can only be considered untrue.

This certainly encapsulates quite well your approach to this subject.

I'm personally very open to the notion that I'm probably wrong about a good number of things I believe. Problem is, you give me nothing other than your unsupported opinion with new definitions and new terminology and go against thousands of years of theological agreement and hundreds of years of established science with nothing other than "because it's obvious" as your supporting material. Not very persuasive.

If you think I'm wrong in the above paragraph, just provide one, just one scientific paper that supports your position that there is no such thing as a human being inside a womb. Show me at least one other person who agrees with your beliefs.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Life that YHWH gives is of infinite value.

Anyone who diminishes YHWH'S ETERNAL GIFT is in danger greater than they can imagine.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Personally, I'm only interested in defending what is true.

Every single post you make is filled with fallacy after fallacy, from begging the question, to poisoning the well, to red herrings, to categorical mistakes, to straw-men, to circular reasoning, false analogies etc etc..

Every single post I make? Really, you really think that?
If you were at all interested in truth, you would certainly have recognized that this post of yours is severely untrue. Just take a look at the post posted just before this one of yours.

Are you going to defend this untruth of yours, that I quote?

I challenge you to find ONE of the fallacies you accuse me of having in every post. Point to just one on this entire thread, and try to defend your aspersions.
Otherwise, you should very much apologize and resolve to not be such a bearer of false witness!

 

[SPF]

Every single post I make? Really, you really think that?
If you were at all interested in truth, you would certainly have recognized that this post of yours is severely untrue. Just take a look at the post posted just before this one of yours.

Are you going to defend this untruth of yours, that I quote?

I challenge you to find ONE of the fallacies you accuse me of having in every post. Point to just one on this entire thread, and try to defend your aspersions.
Otherwise, you should very much apologize and resolve to not be such a bearer of false witness!

red herring.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

red herring.

It is now clear that you don't care if what you say is true or not. Otherwise you would at least have removed the very false, "Every single post you make is filled with fallacy after fallacy." It is clearly not true, and I have pointed out one way it is certainly not true, but you don't care about truth. Only so long as it would seem to be something to attack me, that is your only concern. Apparently.

Yes your "red herring" is definitely a red herring. In that you are true to your self.

Red Herring. ... While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Of course you do not refer to any supposed red herring of mine. That would require some search for truth, and probably be unsuccessful.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think I'm losing the thread of this thread, so to speak. What's the main message?
Many of us believe and would agree that life starts at conception. Obviously there is not a fully formed human being at that point, but the process has begun. The cell becomes an embryo, which becomes a foetus. Recognisable human features will develop, and can be seen on a scan - maybe, in some cases, before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
In the UK, at least, it is illegal to abort a pregnancy after 24 weeks - except maybe for exceptional reasons. If a baby is born at even 24 weeks and one day, doctors have to give life saving medical care.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think I'm losing the thread of this thread, so to speak. What's the main message?

Someone else, fully intent to continually attack me personally, throws out bountiful red herrings, making it a little confusing to try to see what it is all about.

The point is that, a human being requires a human being body.
We have seen how a human being body has arms and legs and a head, etc.
The REAL organs, of an actual biological animal. The pinnacle of Creation, man.

There is none of that in the zygote, the newly fertilized human egg.
Therefore, there cannot possibly be a new human being at conception. NO BODY NO BEING.

 

[SPF]

We have seen how a human being body has arms and legs and a head, etc.

This is something we have most certainly not seen. This is a prime example of Douglas needing to create his own definitions so that he can support his own made up belief about what a human being is.

However, to the rest of the planet, here's what a body is:

Dictionary.com:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

Merriam-Webster:
1: the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
2: the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry (CARM):
A body is the physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc

Oxford Dictionary:
The physical and mortal aspect of a person as opposed to the soul or spirit.

Cambridge Dictionary:
The whole physical structure that forms a person or animal

MacMillian Dictionary:
1a - The whole physical structure of a person or animal, including the head, arms, and legs.
1b - The main part of a person's or animal's body, not including the head, arms, or legs.

Yourdictionary.com:
The definition of a body is the physical part of a living thing or the main part of anything.

Basically, as one can very clearly see, the body is simply the physical makeup of whatever living thing we are talking about. So when we specifically relate body to a human body, we can correctly state that at the moment of conception, when a new and unique human life comes into existence that it has a body, albeit a very very small and underdeveloped body. But it has a body never-the-less. And, over the course of the next 25 years, should nothing interrupt the developmental process, that body will continue to grow.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This is something we have most certainly not seen. This is a prime example of Douglas needing to create his own definitions so that he can support his own made up belief about what a human being is.

However, to the rest of the planet, here's what a body is:

Dictionary.com:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

Merriam-Webster:
1: the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
2: the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry (CARM):
A body is the physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc

Oxford Dictionary:
The physical and mortal aspect of a person as opposed to the soul or spirit.

Cambridge Dictionary:
The whole physical structure that forms a person or animal

MacMillian Dictionary:
1a - The whole physical structure of a person or animal, including the head, arms, and legs.
1b - The main part of a person's or animal's body, not including the head, arms, or legs.

Yourdictionary.com:
The definition of a body is the physical part of a living thing or the main part of anything.

Basically, as one can very clearly see, the body is simply the physical makeup of whatever living thing we are talking about. So when we specifically relate body to a human body, we can correctly state that at the moment of conception, when a new and unique human life comes into existence that it has a body, albeit a very very small and underdeveloped body. But it has a body never-the-less. And, over the course of the next 25 years, should nothing interrupt the developmental process, that body will continue to grow.

Half of these are NOT, could not possibly be a definition of "body," (which you say they are), since they limit it to an animal or some such; the others could not possibly be the definition of "human being body," since in fact are general definitions of "body."
Thus you provide merely obfuscation and confusion.

In an earlier post there are clear definitions of "human being body," which is what we require.
NOT this "body" confused with "human being body" garbage.

 

[SPF]

Half of these are NOT, could not possibly be a definition of "body," (which you say they are), since they limit it to an animal or some such; the others could not possibly be the definition of "human being body," since in fact are general definitions of "body."
Thus you provide merely obfuscation and confusion.

In an earlier post there are clear definitions of "human being body," which is what we require.
NOT this "body" confused with "human being body" garbage.

Saying that these definitions of body cannot possibly be a definition of body is like you saying the color green cannot possibly be green. These ARE the definitions of body.

Thus, you need to adapt your understanding of when a human is considered to have a body. Here's a hint - it's at conception.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I know "pro-lifers" are often if not always unable to distinguish between "human" and "human being," I didn't realize until now they would suffer from such malady with regard to "body" and "human body."

Certainly indicated by post #234.

 

[SPF]

I know "pro-lifers" are often if not always unable to distinguish between "human" and "human being," I didn't realize until now they would suffer from such malady with regard to "body" and "human body."

Certainly indicated by post #234.

Douglas, these are basic definitions. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions are not impacted at all by them. People both pro-choice and pro-life can accept the definitions of body without any issue that I know of.

If you want to try and stay on topic, please feel free to. But I don't know how you can argue against definitions. I suppose you could try to create your own dictionary.

 

[SPF]

Oh, and be careful Douglas, your post #235 sounds an awful lot like a red herring. The topic is whether or not humans have a body, I don't see any reason why pro-life or pro-choice would have any impact on a definition.

 

[Strong in Him]

Someone else, fully intent to continually attack me personally,

I have no wish to attack you personally - stop slinging accusations around.

The point is that, a human being requires a human being body.
We have seen how a human being body has arms and legs and a head, etc.
The REAL organs, of an actual biological animal. The pinnacle of Creation, man.

There is none of that in the zygote, the newly fertilized human egg.
Therefore, there cannot possibly be a new human being at conception. NO BODY NO BEING.

I, for one, have said a few times that an 2 hour old newly fertilised egg is not a fully developed human being - nevertheless, life has begun.
If you can't accept this, despite all the scientific and some Biblical evidence to the contrary; your loss. It doesn't mean it's not true because you don't believe it.

If you are saying that God does not care for the unborn; that a 7 month old foetus is not actually a real person of real concern, value and worth, I think you are wrong. All through Scripture God is firmly on the side of the vulnerable, the marginalised, the poor and those without a voice. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it wrong to say that he doesn't care for the unborn because they are not people. What about folk like my mum, who still has the physical body of a woman but is losing everything else to Alzheimer's? Is she a non human being? Does God not care about her either? What of people who are missing/born without various limbs and therefore do not have a complete human body? Are they non human beings?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does a human being have a body? Of course, is the obvious answer.

I consider it a fact, that human beings, actual animals, members of the species, have bodies.

So the zygote, a single cell with human DNA, cannot itself be a human being.
Since it is only one cell, it cannot possibly have any flesh and blood and bone, i.e. a body.

The implication is, there cannot possibly be a human being at conception.
(Other than the newly pregnant woman.)


Note this is NOT about any disembodied "soul," not about "souls surviving the body," things like that. It is about real human beings alive on the earth.

Curious, do you have some type of agenda here? Is there an abortion close to home for you, and it needs justifying, or something in that area?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Curious, do you have some type of agenda here? Is there an abortion close to home for you, and it needs justifying, or something in that area?

There does seem to be an agenda (throughout this whole section, of course, not just this thread) not in line with YHWH'S Instructions/Word/Plan.
Whatever it is, like other religions, it failed from the start because of unbelief. (i.e. not trusting YHWH, YHWH'S Word, Plan, Purpose and Salvation in Yeshua)