Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know of no Scriptures which promote or even mention human beings as being soulless or without a spirit. The Scriptures do call those who have had the spirit/soul departed as dead and that was not our created intent. Thus why the Resurrection of Christ was a Bodily resurrection.I don't want to argue with you, but what about if some of the genes are missing?
I was very surprised once here on CF to find a person that thought original sin was physically inherited in genes. Isn't there something called a 'soul' and something called a 'spirit' (I'm being rhetorical, because I know you agree souls and spirits are real).
This isn't a small thing, about what is physical and what is not physical...
This spirit, from God, isn't the body, isn't physical:
Ecclesiastes 12:7 before the dust returns to the ground from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
The spirit is not the body.
When the body returns to dust, the spirit goes back to God, Who gave it into the dust body, temporarily.
Why does this point matter. It matters because we don't know from scripture when the spirit is put into the body, but only know that the spirit exists before the body does:
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations."
"before" -- spirit exists before the body in which it will be placed.
This is all deeply relevant to this whole question, of course. It's not the temporary dust body we are to place our hope in, but in God. Would God put a spirit into a fertilized egg He knows is only going to die just a few days later?
In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.
Conception: How It Works
These usually flawed fertilized eggs are naturally aborted by the body, as God designed.
Would He put a spirit into a fertilized egg He can see is going to die naturally? I don't think that would fit what we know of God.
The soul, which seems to be the outcome of the spirit lived in a body, seems associated to consciousness, and when consciousness is finally ended comprehensively (including the level called 'unconscious' like dreaming and such), the soul departs the body.
But consciousness doesn't begin in a developing baby until at the very earliest 6 weeks, but probably more like 12 --
Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed. The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16.
The moment a baby’s brain starts to function, and other scientific answers on abortion
Let me ask a more compelling question...Do you believe we can be saved by the Grace of God at any stage of our development as human beings?
This thread is now at least 8 pages long. Did I miss a response from you? If so please just give me the post # please. Thanks.Wasn't talking to you. I already addressed your little thing and you stopped talking.
It's certainly possible. But as I said, it is also possible that the constituency for the rest of the Christian Right's political agenda is not so broad as they would like to think. I don't know, really--it's just an idea I got the other day reading about the Civil War. In March, I think it was, of 1865 the Confederate Government finally decided to offer slaves their freedom to serve as soldiers. The Confederated Army was always undermanned and the situation had grown disastrous. By then, of course, it was too late. But what if they had come to that decision in, say, late 1862? It would have meant the end of the institution of slavery, but wiser heads knew that was inevitable anyway. And if they were really fighting for freedom and states rights, why not? They could well have won the war, or at least settled it on favorable terms. It would depend on what they really wanted.I agree, it's time to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of political expedience.[/s]
Do you really think that this will be a solution? It will just take the conservatives a few months to rile up their voters with another non-issue that they can get outraged about. They propably already have their game plan in the drawer for 3 replacements.
And at the same time, they can celebrate it as a win to have made the democrats buckle and rally around that.
It's certainly possible. But as I said, it is also possible that the constituency for the rest of the Christian Right's political agenda is not so broad as they would like to think. I don't know, really--it's just an idea I got the other day reading about the Civil War. In March, I think it was, of 1865 the Confederate Government finally decided to offer slaves their freedom to serve as soldiers. The Confederated Army was always undermanned and the situation had grown disastrous. By then, of course, it was too late. But what if they had come to that decision in, say, late 1862? It would have meant the end of the institution of slavery, but wiser heads knew that was inevitable anyway. And if they were really fighting for freedom and states rights, why not? They could well have won the war, or at least settled it on favorable terms. It would depend on what they really wanted.
What do the Democrats want? Is an inflexible stance on unrestricted abortion on demand worth another four years of Trump? The courts he will continue to packing will almost certainly gve him abortion, but they, or the Congress, are likely to give him the rest of the Christians Right's political agenda as well, crouched in the cruel and punitive terms they dream of. It's certainly worth thinking about. If the chips are down, I don't think there would be unanimous support for unrestricted abortion on demand in the Democratic party anyway,
Of course you can prove that statement, right?
A human zygote is human, but not a human being.
You got that right, we are ready to go. We are gonna block immigration by all aliens...you know these kindI agree, it's time to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of political expedience.[/s]
Do you really think that this will be a solution? It will just take the conservatives a few months to rile up their voters with another non-issue that they can get outraged about. They propably already have their game plan in the drawer for 3 replacements.
And at the same time, they can celebrate it as a win to have made the democrats buckle and rally around that.
Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? It is a simple DNA test to tell....the results will come back as a human being....even its sex.....It doesn't require logic or a syllogism or scientific evidence. It's a definition.
Human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens"
A zygote is not a man woman or child of any species.
Which proves what? If I am already opposed to abortion what difference should that make to me?Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? It is a simple DNA test to tell....the results will come back as a human being....even its sex.....
I've told you my view a few times, and it's still the same (though not rigid -- I consider there are real unknowns). Here it is again. perhaps more succinct (click and wait a second to jump to post): Post #116Also, I have not heard if you accept the following:
Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
“It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.”So, at the moment of fertilization when 23 chromosomes from the mother and father pair up, what do you have? Most scientists, as well as science books, will tell you that you have a human being. This zygote, which is what a fertilized egg is called, has everything it needs to be identified as a human being....not a horse, not a pig,.....a human being. So it seems that conception is the point that determines when a human being exists and not some indeterminate point later down the line. Don't believe me; go investigate for yourself before making a decision on whether abortion is killing and innocent human being. I understand you are not a believer but we will all stand before God someday and receive His judgement for our lives....abortion is an easy one to not stand judgement for.....
My question was directed to someone else. If you are trying to answer it maybe expand your answer somewhat......Which proves what? If I am already opposed to abortion what difference should that make to me?
I'm not sure what the argument is about. Of course a human zygote or embryo or fetus will have a human genome, whatever opinion you may have about whether any of those stages of development is a human being capable of being murdered. Such an opinion would be formed independently of the fact that a human genome was present.My question was directed to someone else. If you are trying to answer it maybe expand your answer somewhat......
Why should we guess that a soul/spirit was not present?
That is based on 4 "studies" (loose interpretation of that word) from 1962-1988 .....it is a review of those studies. It also has a proviso that the results the studies arrived at are 'exaggerated'. No wonder since the parameters of the studies are seriously flawed.“It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.”
Source:Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say
A human zygote is not human? And a zygote is not of our species? Provide the genetics to support your assertion.
Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? .
Good news in the sense that more people are actually realizing abortion is the termination of a human being and changing their views...I will give you that.It's good news, even if the actual percentage favoring abortion restrictions isn't an entire 14% increase in just 1 month, even if only 10% or whatever. It's good more have gained awareness of distinctions. Further, again, 78% don't agree that 'abortion on demand' is always ok (such as just for 'convenience' alone, after some point in time).
You are assuming Premise #2 is wrong based on how all humans are sinners and deserving death? Nice point, but notice this from Psalm 51:
Psalm 51: NASB
1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Notice what you refer to in verse 5, verse 4 addresses. God has every right as creator of every life to give said life and take it. Premise 2 addresses decisions to kill by human beings. We are commanded throughout Holy Scriptures to not take another life. And God does explain this in the context of human on human killing or murdering:
And God does make the distinction of "innocent blood" (life) often in Holy Scriptures:
Many more passages on the shedding of innocent blood (life) here.
Therefore, the Scriptures do make the distinction. Premise #2 stands as does the syllogism:
Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
The same thing always happens here when you try to discuss the political implications of abortion law--it turns into a thread spammed by Christian arguments against abortion even when it is stipulated in the OP that abortion should be illegal. The exact same thing happened recently when we tried to have a discussion on the practical aspect of anti-abortion laws. It seems that the pro-lifers aren't interested in discussing any practical issues growing out of their position and don't want anybody else to discuss them, either. Please close the thread.
Based on a dictionary which uses general terms.My assertion was that a human zygote is not a human being.
Some gender confusion aside, where does adolescence factor into your wooden literalism?A human zygote, but not a human being.
Human being:
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
Therefore, children or even adults who don't have a high degree of mental development are not human. An elderly man or woman hunched over is not a human being. Someone who has a speech impediment is not a human being.A zygote is not a man, woman, or child. A zygote also doesn't do very well at mental development, articulate speech, or an upright stance. A zygote is not a human being.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?