You are wrong.

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

CCubed

In going with that_fairy, you also have to realize that if we knew God before we were born, we were in some sort of state in heaven or something in between. Regardless, because he knew us, and because we didn't yet have a physical existence, it would imply that he knew our spiritual existence, thus, our soul.

CCubed

We have given proof, not wanting to listen is something we can't control. In any event, you are beaten whether you like it or not.

To prove something, you must offer an opinion supported by fact. Next the opinion must be defended against other opinions/facts. To "have given proof," you must have defended your opinion against my response. You did not do this.

zz1000zz

That God knows a "person" in a womb does not mean the "person" has a soul. After all, God knows everything. God knew you when you were in the womb, God knew you before you were conceived. God knew you before he created this world. God knowing you does not mean you have a soul. God knowing you means that God knows everything, nothing more.

The first time you even addressed this point is in your most recent post, the one which claimed to have already proven your point. There you said:

CCubed

We have shown you, that since God knew us before we were born, implying that we knew him as well, he knew us during a non-physical state. As such, he must have known us in a state between heaven and hell, not nonexistence, which would imply a spiritual state, or soul. If we were nonexistent, then he could never have known us, because he wouldn't have thought of us yet, or made us, and we would not have souls. Your argument, as unorganized as it is, is a logical fallacy.

The obvious response to this is, "If you have already proven your side as you claimed, why is this the first time you responded to my point?" That makes no sense to me.

Next the actual argument. You say, "God knew us before we were born, implying that we knew him as well..." How is that implied? What about God knowing us means we know him? What prevents God from knowing something without that something knowing him? You say the answer is implied, but it most certainly is not.

The only support to this idea i see is where you say, "If we were nonexistent, then he could never have known us, because he wouldn't have thought of us yet, or made us, and we would not have souls." This is also baseless, as far as you have shown. You have offered no correlation between existence and God's knowledge. This point, which is meant as support, lacks credence.

My explanation for your verses is God knows everything, ergo God knows humans before they are conceived. For that matter, God knew us before he created the universe. Your "proof" is not proven.

CCubed

You apparently cannot, or will not, I honestly haven't decided, give any proof to support any claim you made, you simply respond that you don't have to prove a so-called "negative." Negative or not, your claim is that fetuses do not have souls. Where's proof? As I said before, I can simply not say that half of the world is red-skinned without proof. Just as you can simply not say that because I think fetuses don't have souls, they don't.

Tangled up in Blue

Since it's impossible to prove a universal negative like "God doesn't exist", their contention is that their position is correct until a positive proof for God's existence is offered.

I make the universal negative claim, "fetuses do not have souls." I do not need to prove this. Just as i do not need to offer proof showing God is not living like a bum in my basement, i do not need to offer proof of my position.

So please quit saying i need to prove my point. I have critiqued your support of your opinion, which is all i need to do. I have done so with the same point the last three times.

CCubed

Your argument, as unorganized as it is, is a logical fallacy.

I really do not trust your opinion on logical fallacies given that you demanded i prove a universal negative, but i will bite anyway. My argument is a logical fallacy because... You say it is!!!!

Ironic, much?

You repeatedly mention the word "debate." A debate is two or more people arguing about something. You are one person and I am another. There is no debate if there are not two sides to an issue. As such, it's impossible for you position to be a "negative." Since it would mean, according to your definition of it, that there is only side to the argument. And as that_fairy said, your position is that fetuses do not have souls, but you've agreed that people out of the womb do.

Finally, one question. Does death erase a soul?  

[Spartan1989]

that_fairy

zz1000zz

Spartan1989

But a major reason for people to refute what the scriptures teach is because they feel guilty and have to justify there acts.

Well, there have been *many* people who use the bible to justify their acts. People in the middle ages used the bible as justification to do terrible things to jewish people for hundreds of years. They also used the bible to prosecute supposed witches (who were usually just normal woman that happened to have money or property). People use the bible to justify war, murder, rape, and just about every crime and sin under the sun. I'm not saying I even care at the moment about the bible's stance on homosexuality; even if it is a sin, it's still not my business.

Don't simply pull out evidence that you have already decided is on your side. Look at all sides of the matter; it's the considerate thing to do.

Oh no no no, I wasnt saying it that way. And plus, people that have used the scriptures to do harmful things to people Don't truly understand that the Scriptures are all about love. But alot of Churchs now a days are not teaching the whole Bible for attendance purposes. People dont want to feel convicted any more so they dont teach about ceratin things. I wasnt saying that people never used the Bible TO justify there acts.  

[Kittey-chan]

Spartan1989

that_fairy

zz1000zz

Spartan1989

But a major reason for people to refute what the scriptures teach is because they feel guilty and have to justify there acts.

Well, there have been *many* people who use the bible to justify their acts. People in the middle ages used the bible as justification to do terrible things to jewish people for hundreds of years. They also used the bible to prosecute supposed witches (who were usually just normal woman that happened to have money or property). People use the bible to justify war, murder, rape, and just about every crime and sin under the sun. I'm not saying I even care at the moment about the bible's stance on homosexuality; even if it is a sin, it's still not my business.

Don't simply pull out evidence that you have already decided is on your side. Look at all sides of the matter; it's the considerate thing to do.

Oh no no no, I wasnt saying it that way. And plus, people that have used the scriptures to do harmful things to people Don't truly understand that the Scriptures are all about love. But alot of Churchs now a days are not teaching the whole Bible for attendance purposes. People dont want to feel convicted any more so they dont teach about ceratin things. I wasnt saying that people never used the Bible TO justify there acts.

If this was directed to me: I was talking to zz1000zz, not Spartan1989.

Spartan1989, I agree with you. My point was that people twist the bible to justify things that the bible clearly opposes. I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough.  

[Kittey-chan]

[quote="CCubed]
Finally, one question. Does death erase a soul?
Ooh! Ooh! *raises hand and frantically waves it* I know! I know!  

[zz1000zz]

CCubed

You repeatedly mention the word "debate." A debate is two or more people arguing about something. You are one person and I am another. There is no debate if there are not two sides to an issue. As such, it's impossible for you position to be a "negative." Since it would mean, according to your definition of it, that there is only side to the argument.

Say what? You are one side, the affirmative. I am the other, the negative. So what in the world are you saying?

CCubed

And as that_fairy said, your position is that fetuses do not have souls, but you've agreed that people out of the womb do.

Actually i have agreed the Bible says people outside of the womb have souls. A minor distinction, but i am trying to keep personal beliefs out of this.

In any event, what is your point?

CCubed

Finally, one question. Does death erase a soul?

I see no reason it would, so no.  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

zz1000zz

I did not prove a fetus does not have a soul. I discredited the belief that a fetus has a soul. I did so by pointing out the flaw of saying fetuses have a soul because God knows them before they are born. There are a multitude of problems with this "evidence," the most important being God is omnipotent. As such, God knows everything at all times. This means God would know fetuses while they are in the womb, as well as knowing them before the world existed.

This in no way states a fetus has a soul.

that_fairy

My strong opinion is that if you accept the bible as evidence, it does very strongly imply that unborn people have souls. It twice implies that, and never implies the opposite.

If God simply knew about the person, wouldn't that have been said? Why bother to point that God "knew him in the womb"?
There is not only a difference between knowing 'about' and actually knowing, there is also a difference between the way we phrase that.

If the world was not created within a week, why does the Bible say it was? The reason is that translations can be unclear. The precise meaning of verses can be other than what you read literally.

that_fairy

Also, even if God only knew him in general and forever, not just in the womb, would that imply that the soul had been around forever? And that it simply got transplanted in the womb?

I would say no. God knows everything, even things which have yet to exist. There is no reason to assume God would be incapable of knowing a person within the womb as easily as someone already born. Nor is there any reason to believe he is incapable of knowing someone before conception as though they already existed.

that_fairy

No matter which way you look at it, there is still a talk of knowing someone while in the womb. How can you interpret that any differently than 'knowing someone in the womb'?

Seeing as i already explained my answer, how about i pose a question for you. How can you interpret a verse applying to a single individual in a manner which applies it to all? How do you know God did not know only *those* individuals mentioned in the Bible?

Sure, it may be implied, but it is in no way proof.

that_fairy

Don't simply pull out evidence that you have already decided is on your side. Look at all sides of the matter; it's the considerate thing to do.

Can you give a single example of me doing otherwise? Sure, i only argue for my side of the discussion, but that does not mean i ignore everything else. This is the second time you have implied some fault of mine without offering a single reason to support it. It is getting annoying.

that_fairy

*sigh*
zz1000zz, You use much more logic in other threads.

So would you mind stopping it?  

[zz1000zz]

So far i have been able to offer a logical reason to contradict everything which states abortion is a sin. Whether or not you agree with my position, this much is clear. This brings me to my main point.

zz1000zz

There is no *proof* God deems having an abortion to be a sin. As such, we have know way to know God does so. Without having a clear decision from God, we humans are incapable of determining if it is a sin. Anyone who claims to know God's will on this topic with certainty *must* be wrong. Any such person would be falsely preaching God's word. This would make that person a false prophet, a heretic.

This is my position. I will gladly defend it, but so far it stands valid.

Calling abortion a sin is in fact a sin.  

[Kittey-chan]

zz1000zz

Actually i have agreed the Bible says people outside of the womb have souls. A minor distinction, but i am trying to keep personal beliefs out of this.

Why would you keep personal beliefs out of this? This is a debate about a personal matter. That is, it is a matter that can influence us personally at some point in time, and a debate that the result of which only matters to us personally.  

[Kittey-chan]

zz1000zz

How can you interpret a verse applying to a single individual in a manner which applies it to all? How do you know God did not know only *those* individuals mentioned in the Bible?

Sure, it may be implied, but it is in no way proof.

Maybe he did know only those individuals mentioned.
But there is no mention of that, so why should I assume that?
You ever hear the saying, better safe than sorry? I'm not saying that I know with a certainty that abortion is a sin; I just think it quite possibly might be. I think this based on A. what sketchy things I can get from the bible and B. my own conjuncture.
It's a very interesting position for me to have. Because it always seemed to me like babies would have souls when they were conceived. What other time would they get them? What would be the logical conclusion? Do I think souls grow in the womb along with the body? Do I think you have to have been walking and talking a few years before it lands?
I honestly can't imagine a more logical time. My hypothesis is that fetuses have souls; I have yet to come up with an experiment to proove it but I'll keep my eyes open.
I've always thought that fetuses had souls; you might find it amusing to know that I had no problem with the thought of killing them before I became Christian. You see, I also think that the soul is immortal, and at that time I believed in reincarnation. I thought that if you killed 'em off, well, they'd just be reborn, so what was the harm in it? Esp. if you did it before the nerves matured and they could feel pain.
Well, I have yet to see any sign that would indicate reincarnation exists, and there is certainly no support for it in the bible (although it is ever so slightly possible, as it isn't directly refuted... Yet I prefer the idea of one life of misery). So if you kill a person before they are born, you kill any chance they might have to choose God- at least, based on the knowledge we have that seems to be what happens. So either they go to heaven without making the choice, which would be a shame, or something else which I have no idea.
Also? Once you get pregnant, unless something goes seriously wrong, there *is* going to be a person, (and you curiously have very specifically *not* shared your thoughts about whether people in general have souls) who according to the bible would have a soul. Is it wrong to kill the near-certain possibility of a person? Is that akin to mangling a young piano prodigys hand and killing their future piano career? I mean, it's not 100% certain, but if things kept going the way they were, it was nearly certain. No?  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

zz1000zz

Actually i have agreed the Bible says people outside of the womb have souls. A minor distinction, but i am trying to keep personal beliefs out of this.

Why would you keep personal beliefs out of this? This is a debate about a personal matter. That is, it is a matter that can influence us personally at some point in time, and a debate that the result of which only matters to us personally.

Debates, by nature, should be devoid of emotion. Debates are meant to logically determine the correct position. Personal beliefs and feelings do nothing to contribute to this, but rather muddle the discussions.

Ultimately your personal beliefs are your own. I can critique them as much as i want, but i am not trying to convince you. I am trying to convince anybody who may be interested in listening. Those people deserve logical reasons rather than petty emotional points.  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

zz1000zz

How can you interpret a verse applying to a single individual in a manner which applies it to all? How do you know God did not know only *those* individuals mentioned in the Bible?

Sure, it may be implied, but it is in no way proof.

Maybe he did know only those individuals mentioned.
But there is no mention of that, so why should I assume that?
You ever hear the saying, better safe than sorry? I'm not saying that I know with a certainty that abortion is a sin; I just think it quite possibly might be.

Thank you for proving my point. You do not *know* abortion is a sin. Therefore you cannot say abortion is a sin.

Naturally this begs the question as to why you kept criticizing my points.

that_fairy

you curiously have very specifically *not* shared your thoughts about whether people in general have souls

If the general attitude of this guild had not been overtly hostile i might have considered sharing my personal beliefs. However, i see no reason to state my beliefs so that people can insult me for them.

If i am to be insulted just for being correct when i disagree with people, why should i share anything? Besides, this topic is to debate facts, not to discuss personal choices.  

[Cattrain]

I know these things are a sin, because God tells me that they are.  

[Spartan1989]

Quote:

If i am to be insulted just for being correct when i disagree with people, why should i share anything? Besides, this topic is to debate facts, not to discuss personal choices.

I have not seen you prove yourself to be correct yet....

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13-14

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us within our mothers? Job 31:15

The Lord hath called me from the womb: from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Isaiah 49:1

If the Lord knew these people before and while they were in there mothers womb. They must have had a soul correct?

Quote:

Just 18 days after conception, the baby's heart begins to beat. At six weeks, brain waves can be measured. At eight weeks the vital organs are functioning and fingerprints have formed. At nine weeks, the unborn baby is able to feel pain. Over 700,000 abortions each year are performed after this point in the pregnancy. By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child, small as it is, has begun to look distinctly human, though the mother may not even be aware that she is pregnant! By the time the baby is eleven weeks old, he or she breaths (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, and feels pain. Babies born prematurely can survive outside the womb as young as 20-25 weeks old. Yet, all that is necessary to make the baby a grown human being is already there from the moment of conception. All it needs is time to mature

Quote:

Former Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated "We now know when life begins because the test-tube baby proves that life begins with conception. What do you have in the dish? An egg and a sperm. What do you add to it to get a baby? Nothing." Though it is wee, it is still a real person, just as a crumb of bread is still real bread. No one who has been given the gift of life should dare despise the day of small beginnings. Have we forgotten so quickly that we were once as small?

And last but not least why would God make a Law involving/protecting unborn babies?

Exodus 21:22:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Just some Food for thought. 0_o  

[zz1000zz]

cattrain

I know these things are a sin, because God tells me that they are.

I know you are a killer clown that flies around assassinating all who oppose the clown society, because the flying noodle monster tells me so.

Spartan1989

I have not seen you prove yourself to be correct yet....

If the Lord knew these people before and while they were in there mothers womb. They must have had a soul correct?

Apparently you have not seen such because you did not read my posts. You know, where i answered this point a dozen times over?

Spartan1989

And last but not least why would God make a Law involving/protecting unborn babies?

Exodus 21:22:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if the mother dies, the man must be put to death. That would be in the next verse, which you so cleverly did not mention. That law clearly values a living mother more than a fetus.

Besides, if a man were to strike a woman during a fight, he would face punishment, even if she were not pregnant. So, your verse does nothing for your position, save to show it is incorrect.  

[Spartan1989]

First of al. Does the Verse Include the Unborn baby? Yes so Dont try to say it doesnt have anything to do with it. Lus, Why is it sating on pregnant women?

Secondly What about my other verses?

And A man would be punished for striking a woman in the old testament times? sweatdrop

I think you should research that a little more....Your talking about a time where the husband practicly owned the wife and was able to sell her into slavery. He could also stone her to death if she cheated.