• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Does a Human Being have a body?

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by Douglas Hendrickson, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    The idea of rats in the bellies of rats is repugnant - there are enough rats already!

    So now you think there are invisible rats too?
    Rats without any skin, without any bone, without any blood?

    Anything else about what characteristics a real animal would have?
     
  2. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Whether it makes sense, and perhaps even is obvious. That is a lot of the criteria I would employ.

    LET THE PEOPLE THINK!

    See if real people (and not only "pro-life" propagandists) think it makes sense. That's about all one needs I would think.
     
  3. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Given that everyone here thinks you're obviously wrong, I'm surprised you haven't changed your mind.
     
  4. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    So personhood depends on how valuable someone/thing is to us, depending on their capabilities?

    By that definition, infants, toddlers, the mentally infirm, many disabled, most of the elderly at some point, etc. are not "persons" at all and perhaps we'd be better off destroying them if they prove an expense or inconvenience?

    Whereas a milk cow, laying hen, or fattening pig could prove very useful and thus are worthy of consideration above the non-persons just mentioned?

    That test fails.
     
  5. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I actually have a hard time believing the person believes as he says. I wonder if we are being trolled by someone who only likes to argue. Which is something else that flies in the face of Christian values. I may simply stop responding. This is ridiculous.
     
  6. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Yah well it's a fake test.
    I certainly never say, "personhood depends on how valuable someone/thing is to us, depending on their capabilities."

    A STRAWMAN. And false witness.
     
  7. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I apologize if I misunderstood what you seemed to be saying so clearly. Perhaps then you can explain what you meant by ...

    Many of the people I listed are incapable of doing anything "useful" by some people's standards. In fact, many can't move about by themselves. So ... is that your definition of worthless, a non-person? Or not?


    A human not yet born has the potential to become much more useful than a permanently paralyzed person, or one with very limited capabilities. So which is valuable, and why?

    (I believe they are ALL valuable, because they are human.)
     
  8. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Potential is NOT actual. That is precisely what it is not. Therefore if we are talking about reality, what is real, it is nothing about potential.

    I do not say worthlessness and having no substance are the only criterion. The people you listed as per the first paragraph here are all actually real people. One thing they do have is a functional body (not dead) of an actual animal - one basic requirement to be the member of the species, an actual human being. As per the OP, they are human being body endowed, not some single cell that is virtually nothing in terms of substance.

    Your final belief is not expressed well, not a good belief to have the way you have expressed it.
    SOMETHING "human" may be valuable in some sense, possibly may be valuable for something "because human," but "human" is an adjective, indicating something is composed of human cells. (Or it may be "of humanity," but that is not much what we are talking about here.)
    Thus this usage would include the "body," the mass of cells that is a cancer in a human body. Also true of an arm of course, which may be said to be "a body," but of course is not a human being body. All can easily see that an arm may be a human arm, but it being human does not make it a human being.
     
  9. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    A piece cut off from a human body is not likewise valuable (though out of respect we do treat human remains with dignity). But a severed arm will not grow into anything else.

    You may not like the way I expressed it, but a child growing in the womb that is not yet fully formed is still a human. It isn't a dog or a donkey. And it isn't shrubbery. Allowed to live, a child will be born. Prevented, it will die. A human will have been killed. Again, not a dog, not a donkey, not shrubbery.

    The revelation we have from God in every case is that He values human life in every stage. It is a gift from Him.

    Can you find a single Scripture that God makes a distinction between persons not yet born as being worthless, and born ones valued?
     
  10. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    There are NO persons "not yet born" ever, so Scripture does not speak of unborn persons being worthless or otherwise.
    God values all human beings, but NOT all human life. Again I point to the cancer, which in a human body is definitely human life.

    It's not really a matter of whether I like how you express something - I would think you would want your expression to be true and not false, not have misleading false terminology.
    "You may not like the way I expressed it, but a child growing in the womb that is not yet fully formed is still a human."
    You apparently don't notice it, but you are now speaking of "a human," whereas formerly you used the adjective "human." Big difference. "A human" is the same as "human being," whereas the adjective "human" means it has human characteristics, satisfied if it is composed of human cells like in the case of the cancer or arm.

    In other words, what I seem to have to keep repeating here is, for it to be "human" really means very little positive in terms of argument.
    The "pro-lifer" will generally fail to notice this difference (between "human" and "a human") and assume because it is human it can be called "a human (being)." It is very false and very illegitimate to do so. The usual "pro-life" irresponsibility.

    And since there are no persons not yet born, EVER, there is no real child or person living inside a woman, in a womb, and it is false to say, "a child growing in the womb that is not yet fully formed is still a human."

    And I would hope all can notice it does not make the falsity true to simply repeat it.
     
  11. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I'm afraid you are quite mistaken.

    Seems like John the Baptist and Jesus were both persons in the womb, and capable even of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, John recognized Jesus. So yes, John was a human person. John had a body. John was filled with the Holy Spirit. While in the womb.

    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

    41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
     
  12. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    "Seems" may be the operative word here. But not so much even "seem," if you look closely.
    Don't know which translation you used, but it is one that more gives the answer you want. I generally prefer the King James, which in this case reads:
    Luke 1:15 "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."
    I don't think there is any good warrant for translating the Greek "eti ek" as "while yet in," rather than "even from."
    The first and I would think strongest Strong's translation for "ek" is "from"; "eti" is about "henceforth" and "hereafter," as in "after that."
    SO you are really grasping at straws to make the pivot of your argument the one translation "in," the only relation to that being "because of" and "after." The point from which action or motion proceeds.
    In other words, Luke 1:15 is not talking about anything in a womb.

    And verse 44 is the same in both translations, except the King James has "babe," a more affectionate (and less misleading) term for what is being referred to. It was pretty obvious she was going to give birth, have a baby, and that anticipation is reflected in the "babe" reference. It had to be called something, and that was the most likely outcome.

    There was some noticeable motion in the womb,
    that is certainly what it was, which happened to happen just when Mary saluted Elizabeth. (And certainly not much like the real leaping of the man whose inability to walk Jesus cured.) Such an experience late in a pregnancy is rather usual, and it is of course Elizabeth's interpretation that the so-called leaping was "for joy." When the womb motion is first mentioned that "for joy" is not part of the understanding, and undoubtedly it was Elizabeth's joy, for it is her who we are told in 41 was (then) filled with the Holy Ghost.

    Again, it is grasping at straws to think this shows there was a person in Elizabeth's womb. It certainly DOES NOT SAY WHAT WAS IN THE WOMB WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST; it was Elizabeth we are specifically told was so filled. And Mary's spirit rejoiced, and her soul was magnified.
    There is in the Scriptures no "John recognized Jesus," when neither had even been born; the Bible does not talk with that sort of silliness. So you should certainly dispense with such imagining.
    edit: And Christians over the centuries should never have engaged in such.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  13. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    "What was in the womb" was John the Baptist.

    "The baby leapt for joy".

    I'll leave you to it.

    It is you who would grasp at straws, twisting Scripture to justify your opinion. For what reason I can't begin to imagine.

    Christians over the centuries were well aware of what the Scriptures meant. The early Church fathers forbade abortion - "killing a child in the womb". There were strict canons against it all through history.

    And that has always been the Christian position, as taught by the Apostles, received from Christ, believed by the faithful.
     
  14. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    I say what it says.

    You say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

    Cannot argue against that, so of course you don't try.
     
  15. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Ditto.
     
  16. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Wanna try another ditto?

    I'll say for the "pro-life" person, Luke 1:44 has to appear pretty good and true.
    Especially when translations have it "baby.'

    I'm noticing it was the useful ears, the ready ears of a real person, that Scripture bothers to tell us about. No voice of salutation FROM THE WOMB? How come if it is such a good person, such a good person, it is not the one slaying HI. (She probably shouted and work up the baby. Oh, it is a real baby and was on a real bed even. Oh.)

    .Forty feet FORTY FOUR? (Scary person wit forty feet.)
    or forty four [wish ever on cometh furst]

    disposal unity er units
    POST THREADED

    DEPOSIT UTILITY
    slt

    Better go now,
    Love Douglas.
     
  17. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    WHAT IF :

    Lis did not feel anything in her belly (not even six months done, apparently)

    LIZ DID NOT EVEN FEEL, even feel ANYTHING IN HER BELLY
    And just made up a story

    Had it furst
    Lid did not feel anything ...
     
  18. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Disrespecting Scripture (reporting something made-up as being true?), and disrespecting the people it tells about (Lis/Liz?). All for the sake of making John the Baptist before he was born "not a person" ... so you can justify your thoughts that's it's ok to kill a baby before it's born, which flies in the face of 20 centuries of Christianity?


    Why not go ahead and admit this is making up one's own rules apart from God, Scripture, and Christianity? We all have free will after all. Though this is done at one's own peril. May God be merciful ... but I would be wrong to offer assurance of that.

    Just don't try to repackage it as Christian truth, or rewrite what Christianity believes. Nobody here seems to be buying it anyway.



    (And babies are easily felt before 6 months.)
     
  19. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    IF YOU CAN FEEL IT IT MUST BE A BABY
     
  20. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,882
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Never said that.

    But Elizabeth said the baby leapt in her womb with joy, and she was filled with the Holy Spirit.

    At least that's what the Scriptures say. And I believe it.
     
Loading...