Does a Human Being have a body?

A womb is a part of a human body. Human bodies are made of flesh. The Holy Spirit interacts with human beings - who are made of flesh.

There is no necessary disconnect here. Except perhaps to the gnostic heretics.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

I too believe Elizabeth said that.

Click to expand...

You just don't accept the implications, or think she lied?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

We are not a species of invisible single cells.

Click to expand...

Did I say the cells were invisible?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Might say exaggerations.
Probably both hers and yours.
AND SLOPPY WAYS OF DESCRIBING THINGS THAT ARE "GOOD ENOUGH."

No I don't think she lied, I doubt she was that kind of person at all.

List the supposed implications and I'll deal with them one at a time.
(I suspect NONE of them is a necessary implication ...)

Click to expand...

Well, you are the one who said

Douglas Hendrickson said:

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

Click to expand...

Sure sounded like you wanted to say she was lying. Claiming such a thing, and involving the Holy Spirit, when you know you didn't feel any such thing ... is a little more serious than just exaggerating.

But frankly, I believe that she meant exactly what she said and was telling the truth.

If we get to arbitrarily say that so-and-so "just made up a story" when they relate events that happen in Scripture, then you might as well throw the whole thing out, if it's so untrustworthy.

But I don't think it is.

Even if it makes uncomfortable points.

If the child John could leap on the womb for joy at hearing the Virgin Mary speak, his mother filled with the Holy Spirit as a result, and know that Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb, the implication is that John the Baptist was a person.

I've already mentioned that.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Yes, the Holy Spirit interacts with human beings.
ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION or proof THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB.
Not even an independent physical body (animal), NOT EVEN PHYSICAL BODILY ACTION let alone spiritual acting. Which is why the bit about "leaping" is so incredible, unbelievable.
NOTHING TO LEAP OVER. Something like that.

WOMBS and their contents are pretty much solid flesh - not room for air for instance, not like a balloon that is filly with air - NOTHING AIRY EVEN.

Click to expand...

Babies can move in the womb. As you pointed out, she was not full term. No, it is not full of air, it is full of amniotic fluid.

This is faulty reasoning in an attempt to dodge what Scripture says. Again, you deny the words of a woman who - incidentally - was just filled with the Holy Spirit, who gave her supernatural revelation that the Virgin Mary carried Jesus.

CERTAINLY NOTHING OF THE HOLY GHOST OR HOLY SPIRIT.
(Except for the very peripheral fact that spirit of some sort of other may have been involved in getting her pregnant.)

Click to expand...

Denial of Scripture again.

So you say

Click to expand...

"leaping" is always a spirit thing?
That's why the "leaped" suggestion is begging the question. Wherever it came from.

Click to expand...

I said no such thing. Read the Scriptures. Unless again, you think Elizabeth made it up.

Just so you know, I will not be engaging in this silliness back and forth all day. If you choose to reply, I will reply in a day or so. But this is unfruitful as your arguments deny the Scriptures, make false arguments, and set up strawmen from my words which I never said. (Don't ask me where - in the parts I reply to above.)

I'm unsure what the motive for this conversation is. If it is to justify an abortion, it is better that anyone who sins repents and deals with it so they can move on to healing. And my compassion is for any such person. If it is a true lack of understanding then I would suggest accepting what the Scriptures say. But if it is merely a desire to stir up arguments, that is a sport unworthy of a Christian, and grieving to God. Or perhaps it is something else. Be that as it may, I must limit the time spent on causes that risk simply being contentious.

First off, great post above this Anastasia. Secondly, Douglas you said:

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Yes, the Holy Spirit interacts with human beings.
ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION or proof THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB.

Click to expand...

You actually have it backwards. The fact that John the Baptist DID leap for joy in his mother's womb is an indication that John was a human being in his mother's womb since the Holy Spirit does interact with human beings.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

You say there are invisible human beings when you say a zygote is a human being.

Click to expand...

Zygotes are not invisible.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Invisible to the naked eye, my reading tells me.

Click to expand...

I don't consider that a significant point. As Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who" so very simply put's it, "No matter how big or how small, a person is a person after all."

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Yes, if it is ever a person.

Click to expand...

Your argument was that it wasn't a person because it was so small that it was invisible. Let's get that one out of the way.

My argument is that it is a human being the moment it has a full set of human chromosomes (or the normal set of human deviations). After all, it's not a chimp or horse or fish. That zygote has ALL the potential of living to a ripe old age.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

That is what a zygote is, ONE HUMAN CELL.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised at you Douglas. For being so technical and literal in your language, surely you recognize that a zygote only consists of one cell for a very brief period of time before the cells begin to divide.You speak as if the zygote is always just one cell, which is not the case.

Douglas, if it sounds like you are repeating yourself and going around in circles it's because you are. You make a lot of outrageous claims and create your own definition of what a human being is which flies in direct contradiction to the entire scientific community. I still don't know why I should take your opinion over the past 100 years of established science.

You continue to say that in order for a human being to exist that it must exist outside the womb. Yet, I don't see yet why this must be the case. I know you say it a lot, but you don't really provide any scientific reasoning why.

Can you provide a working definition of "body" as you understand the term?

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Ok, good to see some common sense.

So you accept that a zygote could not possibly be a person. Fine.

I was just responding to the claims you seemed to be making with your Dr. Seuss thing.

Click to expand...

I stated that your argument that size has no bearing on whether or not a being was a person. A zygote may be a person even though it is invisible to the naked eye. You yourself stated that my argument was true "if it is ever a person." IOW, if it meets other criteria for being a person, then its size is irrelevant, you agreed.

As to the philosophical idea of a person, I don't think we really have a working definition. If we say someone with a heartbeat, there are those adults who have no heart beats but do have brainwaves who we still grant rights to. If we say working brains, there are human vegetables to whom we grant rights. There are humans without limbs, humans without eyes or hearing or immune systems or even a conscience. We grant them all personhood. In the end, a "person" is simply an individual who is a human being. By that definition, even a zygote would be a person.