Does a Human Being have a body?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

1. The definition of body (an accurate and sufficient definition), would have to include all bodies, would it not?
So if the definition specifically says, "of an animal or plant," which your first two "dictionaries" do, then that definition cannot include anything that is not a plant or animal, in other words probably does not cover even one tenth of all the real bodies on the earth. (Have a rock!)

So it's they are impossible definitions. Make no sense.

Can you at least tell me if you agree with what I have here labeled "1."?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. The definition of body (an accurate and sufficient definition), would have to included all bodies, would it not?

Do you even realize that the definition makes no difference at all ? Especially when a so-called definition is being used to attempt to thwart YHWH'S Giving and Sustaining of LIFE that HE GIVES at conception as a GIFT pure and simple.

 

[SPF]

1. The definition of body (an accurate and sufficient definition), would have to include all bodies, would it not?
So if the definition specifically says, "of an animal or plant," which your first two "dictionaries" do, then that definition cannot include anything that is not a plant or animal, in other words probably does not cover even one tenth of all the real bodies on the earth. (Have a rock!)

So it's they are impossible definitions. Make no sense.

Can you at least tell me if you agree with what I have here labeled "1."?

Those were the primary definitions of body from those sources. There are of course multiple definitions for body, but given the context of this discussion, I limited the quotations to living organisms.

For instance, at dictionary.com it says:
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.
2.a corpse; carcass.
3.the trunk or main mass of a thing:

But, given that the context of our discussion is whether or not humans have bodies, I didn't see it pertinent to include either definitions 2 or 3.

The main point however, just to reiterate is that under what the English language defines as "body", we can accurately say that a human being, from the moment of conception does have a body. Certainly not a developed body (that takes about 25 years), but it certainly has what we could call a body.

Indeed, the only people that probably don't have a body are those that have passed away and are awaiting the return of Christ. Those people are possibly currently disembodied.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

Unless I missed it, doesn't appear Douglas will be answering so we'll likely never know.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

I guess I was speculating a bit.

How would you explain the fact you cannot see the difference between "body" and "human being body"?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Unless I missed it, doesn't appear Douglas will be answering so we'll likely never know.

Do you realize that in a meeting of ekklesia such discussion would or seems like it should at least be ended ? (i.e. not permitted to hardly even start, let alone continue) i.e. so whenever an inappropriate for believers topic is brought up, the sooner it is ended the better (for believers/ seekers/ little ones) .

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

I really should let you get away with your slight of hand here. Otherwise, how would you survive, that is, how would your pet theory survive?

Yes, in case you did not see it, and as you use in subsequent posts, there are two things being talked about here.
The broad, encompassing definition of "body" which means "every thing," and the narrow usage to refer to human or animal bodies.

You CANNOT SAY it is "the physical reality of everything," use the broad definition of "body," and then pretend this definition applies to the limited case of the human being body.
THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Sometimes you seem able to tell the difference, sometimes not.

So your "very very small" body is NOT a human being body - that is the other definition and is NOT APPLICABLE here.

You are systematically confusing the two, whether deliberately or not I do not know, but it is illegitimate to do so. This argument of yours must be thrown out. It only pretends to show something, does not actually do so. (A form of begging the question, perhaps?)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you realize that in a meeting of ekklesia such discussion would or seems like it should at least be ended ? (i.e. not permitted to hardly even start, let alone continue) i.e. so whenever an inappropriate for believers topic is brought up, the sooner it is ended the better (for believers/ seekers/ little ones) .

Glad you have the entire total perfect answers to everything.

I am certain I don't - which is why I discuss this here. There is no other agenda.
I am certainly not considering any actual abortion or possibility thereof when I ask these questions.
To discover what is untrue and what is true, is the major reason for being around here.
I guess you do not believe that believers should seek the truth of such matters ...

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you even realize that the definition makes no difference at all ? Especially when a so-called definition is being used to attempt to thwart YHWH'S Giving and Sustaining of LIFE that HE GIVES at conception as a GIFT pure and simple.

There is nothing given to anybody when a human egg is fertilized.
There is no recipient that is given anything; prior to that one could say a woman and/or her sacred parts receive a deposit of sperm, but that is not what you are talking about.

The sperm that is deposited, well there are many, but one gives its entire self to an egg, that is, combines with an egg. Both have life before they come together, and that life is the only life present. It is in a sense given to the woman when her body accepts it, when it becomes implanted in her womb.
Again, I don't think that is what you are talking about.
(I am tempted to say what you are talking about is an "airy-fairy nothing," but you can perhaps enlighten me as to what you are actually talking about?)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Bible Verses Proving That Life Begins Before Birth
short excerpt from page:
"Christians must understand that supporting abortion is opposed to God and his righteousness. We must not allow the heretical views of the world a place to seep into our individual beliefs or the churches that we attend. Taking a stand on abortion in your church is easy; you have God and the Bible on your side."

 

[SPF]

The sperm that is deposited, well there are many, but one gives its entire self to an egg, that is, combines with an egg. Both have life before they come together, and that life is the only life present

It’s not unexpected to find Douglas continuing to spread the same misinformation, demonstrating once again that’s he’s not seeking the truth but instead pushing his own belief.

Science has demonstrated that when a sperm fertilizes an egg a completely new organism comes into existence with its own unique DNA. That’s how and when a new human being is created. Continuing to spread this disinformation is nothing less than deceitful at this point.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It’s not unexpected to find Douglas continuing to spread the same misinformation, demonstrating once again that’s he’s not seeking the truth but instead pushing his own belief.

Science has demonstrated that when a sperm fertilizes an egg a completely new organism comes into existence with its own unique DNA. That’s how and when a new human being is created. Continuing to spread this disinformation is nothing less than deceitful at this point.

So, you can point to nothing false in what I say.

You merely regurgitate your talking points, or notice its not in agreement with them.
Very little respect for truth. I am simply pointing to the fact you do not address what I say, merely NAME CALLING, calling it "disinformation."
I say truths plainly and straightforwardly. NO DECEIT in what I say.
You go off on a red herring tangent, simply attacking me.

There is nothing given to anybody when a human egg is fertilized.
There is no recipient that is given anything; prior to that one could say a woman and/or her sacred parts receive a deposit of sperm ...
The sperm that is deposited, well there are many, but one gives its entire self to an egg, that is, combines with an egg. Both have life before they come together, and that life is the only life present. It is in a sense given to the woman when her body accepts it, when it becomes implanted in her womb.

Now I again challenge you, point to something false in that what I say. I suspect you cannot.

 

[SPF]

I quoted the part that wasn’t true. I’m sure everyone following along was able to recognize it just fine.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I quoted the part that wasn’t true. I’m sure everyone following along was able to recognize it just fine.

Amen. (if they are not also part of some other 'agenda' (which things it is not even proper to be discussed (this whole section of the forum, for example) , especially amongst those who call by Jesus' Name honoring the Giver of LIFE!) )

 

[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.

Why is it so important to determine at exactly what point we are "human"? Will the outcome make it ok to butcher a defenseless child at any point prior to what you conclude?

I still smell agenda.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Why is it so important to determine at exactly what point we are "human"? Will the outcome make it ok to butcher a defenseless child at any point prior to what you conclude?

I still smell agenda.

ISSUE NOT AGENDA.
It's nothing about exactly at what point we are human (personally I think in the head).
The issue is when there is a human being.
When we first exist. Before which there is no "we" to become human.

The "outcome," way I see it up to this point, is that IN THE WOMB there is no defenseless child.
NO CHILD WHATSOEVER BEFORE BIRTH.
So you don't have to worry about killing a child, if you have an abortion.
DOES NOT MEAN THERE ARE NOT MANY REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT NEVER DO SO, however.

 

[SPF]

Why is it so important to determine at exactly what point we are "human"? Will the outcome make it ok to butcher a defenseless child at any point prior to what you conclude?

I still smell agenda.

For Douglas, that is precisely his point. Douglas goes to an extreme that I’ve never even seen a pro-choice advocate go before. He is trying to make people believe that at no point in time is there ever a human being inside a womb - never. Not even after the fetus is viable. Not even when a woman is 2 weeks past her due date.

His position makes abortion morally acceptable even to the point of the middle of a delivery of the woman changed her mind.

It’s a deplorable, indefensible position that not even secular science supports. Douglas has for years at this point attempted to rewrite definitions, manipulate Scripture, and flat out ignore and deny factual science. All I can say is readers beware.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

For Douglas, that is precisely his point. Douglas goes to an extreme that I’ve never even seen a pro-choice advocate go before. He is trying to make people believe that at no point in time is there ever a human being inside a womb - never. Not even after the fetus is viable. Not even when a woman is 2 weeks past her due date.

His position makes abortion morally acceptable even to the point of the middle of a delivery of the woman changed her mind.

It’s a deplorable, indefensible position that not even secular science supports. Douglas has for years at this point attempted to rewrite definitions, manipulate Scripture, and flat out ignore and deny factual science. All I can say is readers beware.

Back-biting and slanderer is what I find thrown at me. What I have to be ware of.

The Lutheran Catechism has an admonition to put the most charitable construction on what others do.
"Not backbite or slander, but apologize for, speak well of, and put the most charitable construction on all that he does."
NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

 

[Kenny'sID]

For Douglas, that is precisely his point. Douglas goes to an extreme that I’ve never even seen a pro-choice advocate go before. He is trying to make people believe that at no point in time is there ever a human being inside a womb - never. Not even after the fetus is viable. Not even when a woman is 2 weeks past her due date.

His position makes abortion morally acceptable even to the point of the middle of a delivery of the woman changed her mind.

It’s a deplorable, indefensible position that not even secular science supports. Douglas has for years at this point attempted to rewrite definitions, manipulate Scripture, and flat out ignore and deny factual science. All I can say is readers beware.

Agree.

So you don't have to worry about killing a child, if you have an abortion.

Disagree...and undoubtedly agenda driven.

Don't kill defenseless babies, no matter their age.

 

[Strong in Him]

I
The "outcome," way I see it up to this point, is that IN THE WOMB there is no defenseless child.
NO CHILD WHATSOEVER BEFORE BIRTH.
So you don't have to worry about killing a child, if you have an abortion.
.

That's your opinion and your choice. Doesn't mean it's true or right.

If even Christians won't defend or speak up for unborn babies, if Christians won't speak out against abortion but go to all kinds of lengths to justify it, if they won't live to a higher standard and proclaim God's will and truth to a godless world; who will?

I should add a disclaimer here and say that if a woman is not a Christian and adamant that she wants an abortion, or if she is seeking one after rape; it may be right for her, and we have no right to force her to do otherwise.
But this whole thread sounds to me as if you know someone who has had an abortion; they may even know it was wrong and feel guilty - but you're trying to make them feel better by denying that it was a baby that was killed. I'm probably wrong, but that's how it comes across.

But denying facts doesn't change them.