How do you feel about ectopics?

[Chris72]

If life is created the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (as you would have to assume if you are against abortion), why would a creator being create a life that not only has no possibility of making it out of the womb alive, but will threaten the life of the mother if not treated medically? Are doctors working against such a god when they treat an ectopic pregnancy?

What possibly could be the purpose of such a life?

And follow-up question, do such lives go to heaven? This question would go for miscarriages also.

 

[drich0150]

If life is created the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (as you would have to assume if you are against abortion), why would a creator being create a life that not only has no possibility of making it out of the womb alive, but will threaten the life of the mother if not treated medically?

Often time these "trials" are not meant to put a hardship or place a challenge on the new life, but are meant for the parents to endure, and overcome.

Are doctors working against such a god when they treat an ectopic pregnancy?

Why would they be? Their are no verses telling them to treat such a pregnancy would be a sin.

What possibly could be the purpose of such a life?

Again, the purpose maybe found in the endurance and perseverance of such a trial.

And follow-up question, do such lives go to heaven? This question would go for miscarriages also.

The bible does not say. I would assume if the purpose of this life is for the soul to choose whether to spend the whole of eternity with God, that the soul ear marked for the miscarriage gets reassigned to another body.

 

[Chris72]

Often time these "trials" are not meant to put a hardship or place a challenge on the new life, but are meant for the parents to endure, and overcome.

This wouldnt represent a "trial" of a "new life", such a "life" has no possibility of making it to this earth. Tubal pregnancies arent "challenges", they are fetuses which will not see the light of day, which will kill the mother if they are not treated.

Why would they be? Their are no verses telling them to treat such a pregnancy would be a sin.

Just pick any "thou shall not kill" verse you can find. If you consider life to begin when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then doctors are taking a life when they remove an ectopic pregnancy.

Again, the purpose maybe found in the endurance and perseverance of such a trial.

They're not "trials", they dont survive.

The bible does not say. I would assume if the purpose of this life is for the soul to choose whether to spend the whole of eternity with God, that the soul ear marked for the miscarriage gets reassigned to another body.

That's alot more rational than the answer I was expecting, that yes the soul goes to heaven. Because then my next question was going to be how could you consider this a just system when nearly one third (the estimates go anywhere from one quarter to one third) of "lives", be it through miscarriage or ectopic or abortion, never have to worry about getting to earth where they could sin and end up in hell. They would just be getting a free pass to heaven with no chance to sin because they never make it to earth.

But the same argument would hold true for infants and small children. The longer time you have on this earth, the more opportunity you have to sin and not ask forgiveness and thus end up spending eternity in fiery damnation instead of eternal bliss. So really, if this were true, the younger you die, the better. Because, as bad as that sounds, any time you spend on earth would be just a blink of an eye compared to the eternity of bliss/damnation that awaits you.

 

[drich0150]

This wouldnt represent a "trial" of a "new life", such a "life" has no possibility of making it to this earth. Tubal pregnancies arent "challenges", they are fetuses which will not see the light of day, which will kill the mother if they are not treated.

I kinda got all of that when i looked up the term before making my initial response.

Just pick any "thou shall not kill" verse you can find. If you consider life to begin when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then doctors are taking a life when they remove an ectopic pregnancy.

Yet their is no command against ending a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother.

They're not "trials", they dont survive.

Is the situation that surrounds this death not a trial to all who survive?

That's alot more rational than the answer I was expecting, that yes the soul goes to heaven. Because then my next question was going to be how could you consider this a just system when nearly one third (the estimates go anywhere from one quarter to one third) of "lives", be it through miscarriage or ectopic or abortion, never have to worry about getting to earth where they could sin and end up in hell. They would just be getting a free pass to heaven with no chance to sin because they never make it to earth.

But the same argument would hold true for infants and small children. The longer time you have on this earth, the more opportunity you have to sin and not ask forgiveness and thus end up spending eternity in fiery damnation instead of eternal bliss. So really, if this were true, the younger you die, the better. Because, as bad as that sounds, any time you spend on earth would be just a blink of an eye compared to the eternity of bliss/damnation that awaits you.

glad i could help.

 

[Chris72]

I kinda got all of that when i looked up the term before making my initial response.

So I dont understand your response then.

Yet their is no command against ending a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother.

Well since we are talking about exceptions to the "thou shall not kill" commandment, there is also no command against ending a pregnancy that were a result of a rape, or that the mother does not want for that matter.

Of course, I wasnt really intending for this to be an abortion discussion. What I was getting at was that if you consider this fetus to be a life, you would sort of have to ask yourself why such a creator would put it in a place it could never see the light of day.

Is the situation that surrounds this death not a trial to all who survive?

I am talking about the fetus. Are you saying that the god you believe in puts a life in a place it is destined to die without making it out of the womb, and will threaten the life of the mother if not treated, all to act as a "trial" that makes us better people?

glad i could help.

You didnt really answer my question. That wasn't helping me. Is it not an unjust system where the younger you die, the more chance you have to make it into the "good" afterlife?

 

[drich0150]

So I dont understand your response then.

Read on.

Well since we are talking about exceptions to the "thou shall not kill" commandment, there is also no command against ending a pregnancy that were a result of a rape, or that the mother does not want for that matter.

Of course, I wasnt really intending for this to be an abortion discussion. What I was getting at was that if you consider this fetus to be a life, you would sort of have to ask yourself why such a creator would put it in a place it could never see the light of day.

Again as a trial for the mother, and those who care for her. This type of situation brings many many issues that test and potentially strengthens a faith. It can also show the same person where and if a faith even exists. It is less about the child of a high risk/unwanted pregnancy than it is about steel (the mother) being sharpened by a stone.(the trial)

I am talking about the fetus. Are you saying that the god you believe in puts a life in a place it is destined to die without making it out of the womb, and will threaten the life of the mother if not treated, all to act as a "trial" that makes us better people?

"Better" is a subjective term that i would not use, but more or less Yes.
It is better to loose you life? or to loose your eternal soul? What if your soul hinged on you placing what you claimed as faith to practical use? What if that practical use meant facing a life or death situation? Would it be better for the person in question to live a "comfortable life" and being condemned to hell for sure, or is it better that they have a chance at eternal life by facing a harsh trial that solidifies their faith?

What would a "Just" God do?

You didnt really answer my question. That wasn't helping me. Is it not an unjust system where the younger you die, the more chance you have to make it into the "good" afterlife?

This is your view of Heaven and Hell. I told you my view was that this life is a proving grounds that souls come to test themselves on whether or not they want to spend an eternity with God or not. If a should die before he/she can make that choice, they are issued another chance or no soul was even issued to the condemned "life." In my understanding of this life. No one advances to "Go" without first going around the board.

 

[Chris72]

Again as a trial for the mother, and those who care for her. This type of situation brings many many issues that test and potentially strengthens a faith. It can also show the same person where and if a faith even exists. It is less about the child of a high risk/unwanted pregnancy than it is about steel (the mother) being sharpened by a stone.(the trial)

So, the mother isnt "sharpened" if the first physical symptom (as is often the case) is her fainting then dying as the ectopic ruptures? Or if she were living before modern medicine? And my whole point, originally, was the life of the fetus in question.

"Better" is a subjective term that i would not use, but more or less Yes.
It is better to loose you life? or to loose your eternal soul? What if your soul hinged on you placing what you claimed as faith to practical use? What if that practical use meant facing a life or death situation? Would it be better for the person in question to live a "comfortable life" and being condemned to hell for sure, or is it better that they have a chance at eternal life by facing a harsh trial that solidifies their faith?

So, what does that mean for atheists who survive an ectopic? Why would there be a need to kill a "life" to make another human being "sharper"? Especially when it really doesnt do anything of the sort. I have treated countless ectopics in the emergency room. I have never seen one yet that said "Oh, well then, time for me to start being a better person." In fact, more often than not, they usually didnt even realize they were pregnant. they came in because of vaginal bleeding and we discovered it on the sonogram. You would certainly think if he were going to take a life to make another one "sharper" it would be a bit more dramatic.

See this really doesnt make any sense. You asked in another thread "why" I came to the conclusion that there's no invisible gods and the biblical stories are just cultural superstitions, and this is exactly what I was talking about. You are going to extreme lengths to hold on to this belief.

You use a different set of logic for good and bad things. When something good happens, you consider that to be some kind of evidence in his favor, but when something bad happens, it's a "trial" designed to make you better. No matter that on some days it's more good than bad or vice versa, or different proportions for different people, just stick to that logic and you never lose. the problem is you can use it justify anything. I could say all the good things are a result of XRays from mars, and all the bad things are "trials" to push you back towards recognizing them. What you should be doing is asking yourself why you believed such a thing in the first place.

What would a "Just" God do?

That's like asking why santa clause doesnt lose weight. I dont believe such a god exists, it's not really up for me to design one. It's illogical that such a god would create a universe to begin with (presumably out of boredom I guess), so I cant really comment on how he could be "just". I certainly see no reason why he would have to remain hidden.

This is your view of Heaven and Hell. I told you my view was that this life is a proving grounds that souls come to test themselves on whether or not they want to spend an eternity with God or not. If a should die before he/she can make that choice, they are issued another chance or no soul was even issued to the condemned "life." In my understanding of this life. No one advances to "Go" without first going around the board.

So why different lengths of time for the "going around the board"? If you die at age 2, before you can even speak, when your worst sin is going to be pooping your pants too much, you dont really have the same "proving ground" as someone who lives to 90. If you are miscarreid, or aborted, or are an ectopic, you dont have the opportunity to sin at all. How is that a just system?

 

[drich0150]

So, the mother isnt "sharpened" if the first physical symptom (as is often the case) is her fainting then dying as the ectopic ruptures? Or if she were living before modern medicine?

Again, I pointed out. the life of the "Mother" is not the only one affected. this "trial" is rarely hers alone. Even if she is alone the effects of "her" trial gets past to the care givers of the hospital emergency room she goes to and the begin to question and go through trials of their own.. Or would you disagree?

And my whole point, originally, was the life of the fetus in question.

Once more. we know life begins as you described it. However we have no indication that their is a soul involved.

So, what does that mean for atheists who survive an ectopic? Why would there be a need to kill a "life" to make another human being "sharper"? Especially when it really doesnt do anything of the sort.

So should a "just" God not give an atheist an opportunity to seek him out? to experience the humility He offers a believer?

I have treated countless ectopic in the emergency room. I have never seen one yet that said "Oh, well then, time for me to start being a better person." In fact, more often than not, they usually didnt even realize they were pregnant. they came in because of vaginal bleeding and we discovered it on the sonogram. You would certainly think if he were going to take a life to make another one "sharper" it would be a bit more dramatic.

What have i said to indicate that only the mother is effected by circumstances?

See this really doesnt make any sense. You asked in another thread "why" I came to the conclusion that there's no invisible gods and the biblical stories are just cultural superstitions, and this is exactly what I was talking about. You are going to extreme lengths to hold on to this belief.

Maybe you are not willing to go beyond what you think you know, to find God. Does your arrogance really tell you that you have achieved the pinnacle of learning and philosophical understanding? that there can not be anything that you do not already know and accept? Perhaps this is your missing variable "2" in the equation of your faith.

You use a different set of logic for good and bad things. When something good happens, you consider that to be some kind of evidence in his favor, but when something bad happens, it's a "trial" designed to make you better.

When did I say any of this??? This is a straw man fallacy. you are misrepresenting my position because you are not prepared to address what i have actually stated.

The opposite is true. We are given trials as proof of God's existence not the other way around. Look at all of the OT stories. It is always at our bleakest hour that the presents of God is made known. David and Goliath, Joesph being sold into slavery, Daniel and the lions den. This pattern is demonstrated in the NT as well. Never have I stated that only "good things means God is there."

No matter that on some days it's more good than bad or vice versa, or different proportions for different people, just stick to that logic and you never lose. the problem is you can use it justify anything. I could say all the good things are a result of XRays from mars, and all the bad things are "trials" to push you back towards recognizing them. What you should be doing is asking yourself why you believed such a thing in the first place.

Why don't you reset and go back and reread what has been written, or ask a question rather than building straw men to attack.

That's like asking why santa clause doesnt lose weight. I dont believe such a god exists, it's not really up for me to design one. It's illogical that such a god would create a universe to begin with (presumably out of boredom I guess), so I cant really comment on how he could be "just". I certainly see no reason why he would have to remain hidden.

This statement AGAIN points to the Missing variable or the pride that keeps God out of your life. In that you claim a complete knowledge and or understanding of the known universe and nothing or no one can exist outside of your knowledge.

If you simply Humble yourself before the Lord, know that He will lift you up.

So why different lengths of time for the "going around the board"? If you die at age 2, before you can even speak, when your worst sin is going to be pooping your pants too much, you dont really have the same "proving ground" as someone who lives to 90.

AGAIN, so the two year old's soul gets plugged in another body. or the two year old was never issued a soul to begin with.

If you are miscarried, or aborted, or are an ectopic, you dont have the opportunity to sin at all. How is that a just system?

seriously do you even read what i have written? I have answer this question 5 times in plain English. Life does not equate to a soul. nothing in the bible suggest that just because something/someone is a live means it automatically has a soul. If this is the case then God has two option as I see them. Either do not issue a soul to the life He knows will be terminated for one reason or another.. Or Reassign the soul from the terminated life a new host body so the it can decide whether or not it wants to spend eternity with God..

 

[Chris72]

Again, I pointed out. the life of the "Mother" is not the only one affected. this "trial" is rarely hers alone. Even if she is alone the effects of "her" trial gets past to the care givers of the hospital emergency room she goes to and the begin to question and go through trials of their own.. Or would you disagree?

Yes, actually I would. I dont see any evidence that the majority go through a "trial", certainly not one commensurate with a life being lost. I really think that this is stretching.

Once more. we know life begins as you described it. However we have no indication that their is a soul involved.

I dont think there's a soul involved whatseoever. I am in agreement there. But do you feel that an aborted fetus has a "soul"? If not, sounds to me like you are just making up your beliefs to whatever makes you feel the best (ie. if its an ectopic: no soul, but if its an abortion: soul) and nothing based on any logic, evidence, reason, or even biblical quotes for that matter.

So should a "just" God not give an atheist an opportunity to seek him out? to experience the humility He offers a believer?

Is it honestly your belief that an atheist that goes to the ER with vaginal bleeding, has a sono showing an ectopic, receives methotrexate (or surgery), goes home, then looks at the event and says "wow I guess there must be a god then."? Or if they just die, which can also happen.

Honestly, it's becoming harder and harder to keep my sarcasm in check. But this is getting ridiculous.

Maybe you are not willing to go beyond what you think you know, to find God. Does your arrogance really tell you that you have achieved the pinnacle of learning and philosophical understanding? that there can not be anything that you do not already know and accept? Perhaps this is your missing variable "2" in the equation of your faith.

"Arrogance" has nothing to do with it. If you're resorting to ad hominems, this is getting desperate. I dont claim to have achieved any "pinnacle of learning and philosophical understanding"! Where did claim that? I just dont throw up my hands and say "god did it" when I reach a boundary of my knowledge.

When did I say any of this??? This is a straw man fallacy. you are misrepresenting my position because you are not prepared to address what i have actually stated.

The opposite is true. We are given trials as proof of God's existence not the other way around. Look at all of the OT stories. It is always at our bleakest hour that the presents of God is made known. David and Goliath, Joesph being sold into slavery, Daniel and the lions den. This pattern is demonstrated in the NT as well. Never have I stated that only "good things means God is there."

A "trial" is not at all a proof of existence of gods, of any form. That is just your (in my opinion rather bizarre) interpretation of what hard times mean. As far as your biblical references go, I have told you before that using the bible as proof of itself is circular reasoning. If I believed such tales to be true, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

But even using your biblical tales, in all those cases the "presents" (sic) of this god was made known, as you state. The idea that I would be presented with a challenge as a means for such a god to present himself, without such a god in any way appearing to me, is absurd.

This statement AGAIN points to the Missing variable or the pride that keeps God out of your life. In that you claim a complete knowledge and or understanding of the known universe and nothing or no one can exist outside of your knowledge.

Alright, now you are getting into pretty much the textbook definition of "strawman fallacy". I didnt say any such thing about "complete knowledge", didnt even suggest it.

Maybe I need to put it into story form, or "parable" form if you will.

Imagine you and another person are sitting in a room and you hear a strange sound from the attic above you.

You: "I wonder what that sound was?"

Other guy: "That's just the ghost of my great-great-great-grandfather playing basketball."

You: "wait, what? How the hell did you come to that conclusion?"

Other guy: "because my dad told me, and his dad told him, and so on. Why DONT you believe that?"

You: "because it's ridiculous. And because the only reason you do believe it is hearsay."

Other guy: "well maybe if you werent so arrogant as to think you know for sure what that sound is, his ghost can reveal himself to you."

You: "I dont claim at all to know what that sound was. It could have been a rodent, or a bird that got in there, something could have tipped over, who knows? I just can say with confidence it wasnt a ghost. And even more certainly not the ghost of your great-great-great-great-grandfather. And deasd positive he wasnt playing basketball."

Other guy: "just humble yourself before him and you will see."

Now would that make sense to you? I never claimed to know everything about the universe. Didnt even claim to know a millionth of a fraction of a percent of it. But I dont fill in the blanks with primitive cultural superstitions about invisible gods in the sky.

If you simply Humble yourself before the Lord, know that He will lift you up.

Sure thing. This is getting old.

AGAIN, so the two year old's soul gets plugged in another body. or the two year old was never issued a soul to begin with.

You can come up with whatever cockamamie explanation makes you feel better. Doesnt have to be based on anything whatsoever. Just make up something and go with it. Real good approach.

seriously do you even read what i have written? I have answer this question 5 times in plain English. Life does not equate to a soul. nothing in the bible suggest that just because something/someone is a live means it automatically has a soul. If this is the case then God has two option as I see them. Either do not issue a soul to the life He knows will be terminated for one reason or another.. Or Reassign the soul from the terminated life a new host body so the it can decide whether or not it wants to spend eternity with God..

Or he just doesnt exist. I guess that's too far fetched.

This getting tiresome and it's late. Gotta wrap things up in the other threads I started.

 

[drich0150]

Yes, actually I would. I dont see any evidence that the majority go through a "trial", certainly not one commensurate with a life being lost. I really think that this is stretching.

And yet.. you are in a CHRISTIAN Form seeking answers. Trials are not marked by how people go through them. A trial is an opportunity to learn or grow in the faith. You have taken these collective events in random lives and made a "trial" out of them for yourself.

I dont think there's a soul involved whatsoever. I am in agreement there. But do you feel that an aborted fetus has a "soul"? If not, sounds to me like you are just making up your beliefs to whatever makes you feel the best (IE. if its an ectopic: no soul, but if its an abortion: soul) and nothing based on any logic, evidence, reason, or even biblical quotes for that matter.

I honestly do not know. that is why i gave two options. their is a verse that tells us that we are given one life to live and then we face our judgment. Some take that to mean if we die as babies then we are judged as babies. I have taken that to mean that we are given the opportunity to come to an age of accountability and then are judged. So I gave both options for the one who believes that we get one life, and for the one who believes we get one opportunity to live long enough to face an accurate judgment.

For the one who believes we get one life then an aborted, the baby never gets issued a soul. for me the soul gets a new host body. Why? because we are told in scripture that we have been given this life to Choose where it is we wish to spend eternity.. With God or eternally separated from Him. A baby can not make this choice. So forcing a soul into Heaven would be counter to the expressed nature of God as recorded in the bible. For my understanding that leaves one option. The soul gets issued a new host body.

Is it honestly your belief that an atheist that goes to the ER with vaginal bleeding, has a sono showing an ectopic, receives methotrexate (or surgery), goes home, then looks at the event and says "wow I guess there must be a god then."?

Not every time but "events" like this one accumulate and it spurs reasons to ask questions much like you have. to the point where the atheist is forced to start an account on a Christian forum and ask questions to the point he or she spends a Friday night typing away looking for answers to the questions that will not allow them or the person responding any sleep.

Or if they just die, which can also happen.

Then they will have their answers for sure.

"Arrogance" has nothing to do with it. If you're resorting to ad hominems, this is getting desperate.

Actually no i am only making an observation.

I dont claim to have achieved any "pinnacle of learning and philosophical understanding"! Where did claim that?

when you concluded that their can not be a God because you searched and did not find Him.

I just dont throw up my hands and say "god did it" when I reach a boundary of my knowledge.

When did i say this? Is this an ad hominem attack?

A "trial" is not at all a proof of existence of gods, of any form. That is just your (in my opinion rather bizarre) interpretation of what hard times mean.

It is not the hard times that makes or breaks a trial. It is what you take away from it that makes a hard time a trial..

As far as your biblical references go, I have told you before that using the bible as proof of itself is circular reasoning. If I believed such tales to be true, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

This is another falacial logical construct. In that some how I am expected to believe that You can reference the bible to establish the fact their may or may not be a god. Place Him on trial what what you consider to be crimes against your personal version of righteousness. hold those who believe in this God accountable for what you have deemed to be his actions, and yet when the same bible is used to defend this same knowledge of God that you are attacking, the bible is no longer considered to be legitimate source material. What kind of fools errand are you on?

Look you can not have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to hold the God of the bible accountable to you or your sense of righteousness then know the bible will be referenced to explain the nature of God that you have seen fit to attack. Otherwise i will not be apart of your "Circle of reason."

But even using your biblical tales, in all those cases the "presents" (sic) of this god was made known, as you state. The idea that I would be presented with a challenge as a means for such a god to present himself, without such a god in any way appearing to me, is absurd.

This again is another example of the "pride" or pinnacle understanding of the inner working of the universe you profess, yet do not claim you possess. Because you can not see God working this way, some how it means He can not work this way? Again how much pride does it take for a man to make this type of statement? From where i sit one must possess the knowledge of God to determine how God can or can not act.

Alright, now you are getting into pretty much the textbook definition of "straw man fallacy". I didnt say any such thing about "complete knowledge", didnt even suggest it.

See the above post you just said it again.. How can one presume to speak for an unaccounted aspect of God, if Complete knowledge of God is not implied? The bible clearly shows God reveals himself in our trials, yet you represent a position counter to this revelation. So I ask again how can one make such a claim if one does not have a "Complete knowledge of God?"

Now would that make sense to you? I never claimed to know everything about the universe. Didnt even claim to know a millionth of a fraction of a percent of it. But I dont fill in the blanks with primitive cultural superstitions about invisible gods in the sky.

Yet somehow you have incites to God that is not shared with us in scripture...

Or he just doesnt exist. I guess that's too far fetched.

Or He does and you are not able to access him in your current state.
(you next question should be what must I do)

 

[Chris72]

These posts are getting too long and are going nowhere. I’m gonna make a few key points, and if you’re going to respond with more of the same, I am not replying back.

I am not here as some kind of cry for help, seeking answers. I dont know why you would have such an impression. I came here for discussion and debate. I feel that is the only way civilized people make progress. Forums tend to be alot of people feeling the same way and everyone sticks to their flock. Coming to a christian forum, I thought I could get some good dialogue and clear up misconceptions, on both sides. Sure, that involves questions, which I guess technically means looking for answers, just not in the same sense you seem to be getting at. If you are thinking I am trying to seek help, or as a result of some “trials”, you are way way way off.

As far as my losing sleep on a Friday night, I appreciate your concern but dont worry about me. I work nights generally, so I usually dont fall asleep until very late to begin with. As far as being a Friday night, I am 39 years old and married, and my work schedule is very random with respect to weekdays/weekends, so Fridays arent a whole lot different than Mondays to me. And with my wife out of town, and a big storm coming, I was kind of bored last night to begin with. So thanks for your concern, but I am fine with my sleeping and social life.

I think your soul theories are interesting, but since they are grounded in no evidence, logic or reason (or even scripture) whatsoever, I maintain that they are just a whole lot of wishful thinking. Unless you come up with some sort of explanation beyond that, I am done replying to that.

And for at least the tenth (and final) time now, I did NOT just call out for god, hear no answers, then conclude based on that he doesnt exist. The concept of such gods existing is riddled with logical inconsistencies/fallacies, flies in the face of everything we now know through modern science, and has no basis other than just longstanding hearsay. Combine this with the fact that the Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit trilogy is just one set among many thousands (if not millions) of gods beliefs throughout mankind’s history and the myth starts to break down. This plus the fact that such beliefs are divided strictly along cultural boundaries (both in time and place), and you have a strong case that such beliefs are nothing more than just cultural superstitions. Take some studying how the bible was written and edited to what it has become today, and you pretty much have the nails in the coffin.

If you want to discuss any of those points in more detail, I’m game. But if you are just keep your eyes closed, with your fingers in your ears, repeating “You’re just afraid, you couldnt find him so you concluded he doesnt exist, nanananaaaaa” then you’re gonna be just talking to yourself.

 

[drich0150]

I think your soul theories are interesting, but since they are grounded in no evidence, logic or reason (or even scripture) whatsoever, I maintain that they are just a whole lot of wishful thinking. Unless you come up with some sort of explanation beyond that, I am done replying to that.

either you did not see the logic, evidence and references to scripture or you did not understand them.. Besides what does (scripture) matter to one who does not believe in the bible? If you are interest in any of these points they are still in the post i left them in. (That means go back and reread my work)

Just because i did not hold your hand and go point by point in my last post, does not mean i did not address your concerns. It seems that you are simply scanning my post for key words or phrases that allow you to redirect you own points.

Again this Identifies a great deal your personal pride in your heart and in your works here. God has seen fit to show you over and over the pride/sin in your words and thoughts, that is keeping you from witnessing all of the "evidence" you could ever want or need. He is showing you these things so that you may repent to Him.

If you are indeed here to Explore Christianity then know the first thing you have found and need to deal with is your Pride. Because God will not interfere with a proud heart. Remove this pride and you will get to see/hear God.

If you want to discuss any of those points in more detail, I’m game. But if you are just keep your eyes closed, with your fingers in your ears, repeating “You’re just afraid, you couldn't find him so you concluded he doesnt exist, nanananaaaaa” then you’re gonna be just talking to yourself.

So it seems that if God will not approach you from the direction you are willing to look. then you have decided to close you mind to anything outside of your Circle of logic. If this is an accurate representation of what a scientific mind has to offer then being ridiculed by such a person is something I can easily dismiss.

 

[Faulty]

If life is created the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (as you would have to assume if you are against abortion), why would a creator being create a life that not only has no possibility of making it out of the womb alive, but will threaten the life of the mother if not treated medically? Are doctors working against such a god when they treat an ectopic pregnancy?

What possibly could be the purpose of such a life?

I think this might be where it would be difficult to meet on common ground, at least at first. According to the scriptures, this life is just the beginning of existence, and at the end of it, some go to eternal life and other to an eternity apart from God, which it refers to as the 'second death'.

From this perspective, a child who dies is such a state would move from this life to the next now rather than later.

And follow-up question, do such lives go to heaven? This question would go for miscarriages also.

As to where a child goes, there is such a concept in the scriptures that's usually called the 'age of accountibility' where a child who cannot discern right from wrong would be innocent and covered by the blood of Christ for their sins, and there are generally three areas of the scripture used to illustrate this.

The first is found in Numbers 32 where God did not permit any Israelites 20 years old and up, other than two, because they refused to go into the Promised Land as God told them to do so. Those under 20 years of age were not held accountable for that particular sin.

The second deals with the death of David's infant son in 2 Samuel 12. The child died due to David's sin, but desppite then, the child's own sin nature was not held against him and God took him to Paradise. David proclaimed, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me"

The third is by Paul in the letter to the Romans in chapter 7, verse 9, "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died." In this part of the scripture, Paul tells of a time in his life, before the Law, the knowledge of his sins, came alive in him and at that point he became accountable for his own sins.

There's no actual age for this given in the scriptures as it likely varies from one person to another since each person matures in their own time. It's also a reason why a case can be made that the mentally-challenged, who live as children all their lives without true understanding, will not be held accountable for their sins either.

You and I no longer have this applicable to us. We are in a position to accept or refuse the forgivness of our sins and will be fully accountable for our choice.

 

[Chris72]

I think this might be where it would be difficult to meet on common ground, at least at first. According to the scriptures, this life is just the beginning of existence, and at the end of it, some go to eternal life and other to an eternity apart from God, which it refers to as the 'second death'.

From this perspective, a child who dies is such a state would move from this life to the next now rather than later.

As to where a child goes, there is such a concept in the scriptures that's usually called the 'age of accountibility' where a child who cannot discern right from wrong would be innocent and covered by the blood of Christ for their sins, and there are generally three areas of the scripture used to illustrate this.

The first is found in Numbers 32 where God did not permit any Israelites 20 years old and up, other than two, because they refused to go into the Promised Land as God told them to do so. Those under 20 years of age were not held accountable for that particular sin.

The second deals with the death of David's infant son in 2 Samuel 12. The child died due to David's sin, but desppite then, the child's own sin nature was not held against him and God took him to Paradise. David proclaimed, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me"

The third is by Paul in the letter to the Romans in chapter 7, verse 9, "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died." In this part of the scripture, Paul tells of a time in his life, before the Law, the knowledge of his sins, came alive in him and at that point he became accountable for his own sins.

There's no actual age for this given in the scriptures as it likely varies from one person to another since each person matures in their own time. It's also a reason why a case can be made that the mentally-challenged, who live as children all their lives without true understanding, will not be held accountable for their sins either.

You and I no longer have this applicable to us. We are in a position to accept or refuse the forgivness of our sins and will be fully accountable for our choice.

And hence my point, if this were the system (and I will point out again that I dont believe in such gods, souls, or afterlives, I am just demonstrating the logical fallacies involved), it would be an incredibly unjust system.

If you are sent to an afterlife of eternal bliss without even making it to the earth (and hence bypassing any chance for sin whatsoever), you should consider yourself extraordinarily lucky! Same goes for the death of a young child (again, assuming you believe in this). After all, what's the big deal about missing out on a short time on planet earth when you have all of eternity awaiting you.

But if you never make it out of the womb, you get a free pass because you never have an opportunity to sin. For a small child, same deal. In fact, your opportunity to sin is directly proportional to the time spent on this planet.


For example, lets say you have a set of identical twins born, that lead good relatively sin-free lives, always seeking forgiveness from the heavens whenever they trip up. At age 81 one dies and obviously to heaven. The other one a couple of years later rethinks his beliefs, begins leading a "sinful" life, never seeks redemption, and when he dies at age 85 goes to hell. But if he had just died when his brother did he would have gone to heaven.

So I really question how you consider this to be a just system that you are describing.

 

[zaksmummy]

Have you read the story of King David?

He committed adultery and God told him that the child conceived would die at birth. David was distraught - he prayed that God would change his mind - he refused to eat and drink. When his attendants brought him news that the child had been born and died he got up, washed and dressed himself and ate. His attendants were confused by his behaviour. They asked him how he could be so calm. His answer was that whilst the child still lived he would pray and ask Gof to change his mind, but now that he knew his child was dead, what was the point in praying and grieving - he would see his child again in the world to come. He knew that his child was with God.

As for ectopic pregnancies - am I right in thinking that you could equate them with abortion?

If that is your thinking, then they are not. Abortion is the deliberate attempt to end the life of an unborn child by its parents.

Treating an ectopic pregnancy or an abortion on the grounds of saving the life of the mother, is saving a life at the cost of another, and this does not go against the teachings of the bible.

 

[Chris72]

Have you read the story of King David?

He committed adultery and God told him that the child conceived would die at birth. David was distraught - he prayed that God would change his mind - he refused to eat and drink. When his attendants brought him news that the child had been born and died he got up, washed and dressed himself and ate. His attendants were confused by his behaviour. They asked him how he could be so calm. His answer was that whilst the child still lived he would pray and ask Gof to change his mind, but now that he knew his child was dead, what was the point in praying and grieving - he would see his child again in the world to come. He knew that his child was with God.

That is a biblical justification for believing that a soul exists and goes to heaven when a baby dies, yes. My question was, if you believe this how could you consider it a just system? I'm not going to repeat my posts.

My point is that if you believe this, then you have to believe several things:

1) you should look at the death of a fetus or baby as a wonderful thing because you just guaranteed its passage to heaven since it never would have the opportunity to sin, and therefore just got a free ticket straight to eternal bliss (please note that is NOT the way I feel, I dont believe such a soul/god/heaven exists). After all what is 70 or 80 years on earth compared to eternity?

2) The system would favor those with shorter lives, since the longer you are here the more chance to slip up and sin. Look back at my example of the two twins and tell me where the logic breaks down. So therefore the shorter the life the better, if you believe that is how things work.

As for ectopic pregnancies - am I right in thinking that you could equate them with abortion?

No, I wouldnt equate them at all other than they both represent the death of a fetus.

If that is your thinking, then they are not. Abortion is the deliberate attempt to end the life of an unborn child by its parents.

Actually, if you want to be technical, abortion just means the termination of a pregnancy. It can be voluntary (what you are getting at) or spontaneous (miscarriage). But these are just semantics, I know what you mean.

Treating an ectopic pregnancy or an abortion on the grounds of saving the life of the mother, is saving a life at the cost of another, and this does not go against the teachings of the bible.

That wasnt what I was getting at with this thread. My point was, does it really make sense to you that an all-powerful creator being would create a life and put it in a place where it can never make it out into the world?

I did make the follow-up point that a doctor treating an ectopic would consequently be going against such a god, but I really shouldnt have because it opens the door for a thread derailment. My basic point was that I dont see how you could look at an ectopic pregnancy an think some sort of infallible creator was behind it. Unless of course you dont consider a fetus to be a life, but I dont think any of you feel that way.