|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:50 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Foxxtrot God IS life. If he wasn't pro-life, why the heck would he have created the world and everything in it??? rolleyes
If God was pro-life, why did he create death? Who knows? I certainly do not. I do not claim to know why God does what he does. I do know that God has killed human beings, so it follows destroying life is not always contrary to his nature.
For your information, God did not create death. That can be soley blamed on Adam and Eve.
Because of their disobedience of eating from the tree knowledge, God banned them out of the garden. Inside of that garden, amongst all of the many foods he provided for them to eat, the was the Fruit of Life. The Fruit of Life prevented Adam and Eve from dying as long as they ate it. When they were kicked out of the garden, they couldn't eat it anymore. Hence, them and eventually all of their offspring (us) aging and dying. But, then again, I'm positive that was all part of God's plan.
God is most certainly pro-life.
Plants have to die for people to cultivate them. Animals have to die for people to eat them. Pre-humans had to die in order to get to humans.
Death always has been in the natural order of God. Spiritual death is what came from sin. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Cometh The Inquisitor Foxxtrot God IS life. If he wasn't pro-life, why the heck would he have created the world and everything in it??? rolleyes If God was pro-life, why did he create death? Who knows? I certainly do not. I do not claim to know why God does what he does. I do know that God has killed human beings, so it follows destroying life is not always contrary to his nature.
For your information, God did not create death. That can be soley blamed on Adam and Eve.
Because of their disobedience of eating from the tree knowledge, God banned them out of the garden. Inside of that garden, amongst all of the many foods he provided for them to eat, the was the Fruit of Life. The Fruit of Life prevented Adam and Eve from dying as long as they ate it. When they were kicked out of the garden, they couldn't eat it anymore. Hence, them and eventually all of their offspring (us) aging and dying. But, then again, I'm positive that was all part of God's plan.
God is most certainly pro-life.
Plants have to die for people to cultivate them. Animals have to die for people to eat them. Pre-humans had to die in order to get to humans.
Death always has been in the natural order of God. Spiritual death is what came from sin.
Natural Physical Death is not a bad thing. Death is one more step on the road to reaching heaven, and ultimately, God. We must die as Jesus died for us, and even then, we cannot fully repay what he did for us. However, death by anything but natural means (i.e., murder, rape, vehicular homocide, suicide, abortion, et al (and others) ) is wrong. We have no rite to decide life and death, which is what we do when we kill another person. We decide that that person doesn't deserve life. Now, i'm not talking about self-defense. Self-Defense to a point is okay, however self-defense with the intent of killing is wrong (ex, someone hits you and you pull a knife and slit their throat ). |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:24 am
|
|
|
|
that_fairy Here's a situation: There is a gun. You're not sure if it has any bullets in it or not; you don't think it does, but you can't take it apart and look. Would you shoot anybody with the gun? Would you aim it at anybody and pull the trigger? I think of abortion the same way. There's no way for me to know for sure what God wants of me all the time. But, you know, he gave me a brain to think with. So I think, I really don't know if it is wrong. But the *potential* for it to be a terrible thing has to be weighed against the potential for it being a valid life-choice. I have to weigh one against the other. Now I'm not worried about going to hell for anything I do: I'm a Christian, I'm going to heaven. But I would feel terrible if I went to heaven and found out that I had done something that turned out to be terrible. Because I don't know, I won't do it. But I cannot condemn someone else who does, because I just don't know.
An odd example, but i do agree. I find abortion to be reprehensible and disgusting. I hate it and wish nobody would ever participate in it.
Yet i refuse to call it a sin, and i refuse to let others call it a sin unless they can show me why it is. Currently nobody has done this, so i maintain my position. Honestly, i wish abortion was condemned in the Bible, but my own desires are meaningless in this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:02 am
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:30 am
|
|
|
|
that_fairy *sigh* zz1000zz, You use much more logic in other threads.
I find this comment interesting, given that you have responded to me several times now. The interesting part is that we agree on this topic.
that_fairy I wonder why you set up this thread in the first place? It feels to me like you set up this thread merely to be contrary, rather than to actually debate. If you did set up this thread to actually debate, it seems to me, and it appears to seem to many other members, that you are merely baiting them.
Baiting? Sure. In the same way a Christian talking to non-believers about God is baiting them. The topic is one many people tend to ignore out of convience, so the only way to ensure it is discussed is to force a discussion. It happens to be the way most problems get addressed (racial equality would never have been addressed if protestors had not acted out).
that_fairy I'm not saying that you *are* baiting them: I know nothing about you except for your posts. You could be a 91 year old wheel-chair bound man or a high-school cheerleader.
A benefit of the internet is that it removes most of the distractions which can prevent conversations in person. I would much rather you measure me by my posts than any traits life may have given me. You seem to have no problem with my posts outside of this topic.
that_fairy All I know is that you don't seem to be *debating*; it does seem that you are merely re-stating your point of view without listening to anyone else's.
I do listen. The reason i seem to merely restate my point(s) is that is what others are doing. As it stands, i have offered reasoning to discredit the belief that fetuses have souls three times. Yes, i am repeating myself. No, nobody is contradicting me with evidence.
that_fairy I like debates- actual debates. The entire reason I come to this guild is *to debate*, to strengthen myself as a Christian. As a result, I try to come to debates open-minded, being willing to change my opinions.
The same is largely true of me.
that_fairy I could be wrong, however, it does *feel* like you are not here open-minded.
I am open-minded. To my knowledge, i have responded with a logical, supported answer to every point anyone has made. I do this because this is a debate, not because i am close-minded.
that_fairy Now, saying that you are not Christian is a poor way to point that out- to be sure, but the last person that did so admitted that was a poor way of stating her point, and explained why she did so in a civil manner. If you expect her to flat-out apologize, say so.
Apologize? Of course i expect her to apologize. I would expect her to apologize if she called me stupid, and what she said was far worse. I am not going to demand, or even ask for an apology, but i certainly am not going to be friendly to anyone who treats me like that.
Apart from any offense i may take from her comments, it does show something when my side is the side not insulting people. Generally that shows a stronger position.
that_fairy It is unfair to hold grudges because someone got frustrated and phrased something incorrectly; how many times have you yourself done that?
Many times. However, i have never walked away and left it sit. If i do something wrong, i try to make up for it. I do not spit in people's faces and leave.
that_fairy There will always be some people on this guild that are closed-minded and ignorant- its a large guild, and there's such a thing as free speech, which sadly we cannot restrict to the mentally capable. (that was a joke, btw. I fully believe that even imbeciles should be able to say whatever they want. I just wish they wouldn't.)
I do expect people like that. I also expect people who are not like it. Unfortunately, the people who disagree with me all seem to be the former.
that_fairy Expect a few of those, but don't just back out of a discussion because you feel insulted.
I will not back out of the discussion as a whole, but i will refuse to talk to certain people. I made this topic because i feel people are misled about God. I want to help fix that, and i would do quite a bit to do so. I have actually considered the idea of starting this thread over, and trying to do it better because of the way it has gone.
that_fairy I, at least, will be continuing to post on this discussion until it comes to a halt of its own accord. smile I've been having fun.
You are welcome to post as you wish. Of course, you do not need me to tell you that.
P.S. It all comes down to the answer to a single question. Can you *prove* the Bible says a fetus has a soul? If we cannot prove with certainty the Bible says a fetus has a soul, there is no basis to say abortions are sinful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:04 am
|
|
|
|
that_fairy Well, no, the bible does not say "A fetus has a soul". However, the bible *says* lots of things directly that we flat-out ignore in this day and age, or say are no longer important. The bible *says* for women to cover their heads in church. It says this directly, and has no provision for changing cultures, sweltering head, or the fact that hats look totally dorky. The last bit is my own opinion. Are we to interpret the bible literally in every manner?
Well first, a literal interpretation of the Bible may not be the best interpretaion in some cases (i.e. the creation story). Second, that there are laws in the Bible which have been abolished does nothing in regards to abortion.
that_fairy I apparently missed where you proved three times that a fetus does not have a soul. Mind re-posting that?
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 Also, I'm not sure that you don't have to proove a negative. For example, I could say President Bush doesn't have a soul. That's a negative; I don't have to proove it. (For that matter I could say he has the intellectual ability of a sixth grader; which would quite possibly be much easier to proove. However that is not so much a negative. Depressing, but not a negative.) However, simply stating something in a negative manner does not mean that it is true. I mean- we can't proove *anybody* has souls, except through the bible... and the bible never refers to a time when a person gains a soul. For all we know, you don't get a soul until you're 12 years old.
If you say President Bush does not have a soul, but all other humans do, then you do have to prove it. If you were only to state no human has a soul, then you do not. The reason is the in the former example you stated something, then contradicted it. To do so requires evidence. The latter simply stated a negative which contradicted nothing.
I do not have to prove a negative. A negative postition only requires a refutation of the points offered against it.
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.
Even though there is a perfectly valid interpretation of both verses which does not require a fetus have a soul? Okay. Your beliefs are your beliefs.
But do not think of saying having an abortion is a sin based only upon these "implications" which can easily be interpreted differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:57 am
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Why ask something when you do not care to know the answer?
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the phrase "rhetorical question"?
Quote: A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than for the purpose of getting an answer. ("How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?"). A rhetorical question seeks to encourage reflection within the listener as to what the answer to the question (at least, the answer implied by the questioner) must be. When a speaker declaims, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "Will our company grow or shrink?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:08 am
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Second, that there are laws in the Bible which have been abolished does nothing in regards to abortion.
Actually, the hat thing is not part of the mosaic laws, nor is it even in the OT. It's in the NT- you know, that thing that we take large parts out of and call 100% accurate while ignoring other large parts. Even if you state that all OT laws are gone, you'd still have to follow NT rules, no?
~of course, in case you'd forgotton: I brought that example up as an example of times we look at the bible and interpret it as more of a whole. While it does, directly and irrifutably tell woman to cover their heads, we say we're a different culture, and in our culture, hats would be more of a status symbol than anything else. Whether unborn people have souls, however... well, that's not a matter that would change with culture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:15 am
|
|
|
|
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.
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?
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'? Just because humans cant interact with unborn people doesn't mean God can't either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:24 am
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz If you say President Bush does not have a soul, but all other humans do, then you do have to prove it. If you were only to state no human has a soul, then you do not. The reason is the in the former example you stated something, then contradicted it. To do so requires evidence. The latter simply stated a negative which contradicted nothing. I do not have to prove a negative. A negative postition only requires a refutation of the points offered against it.
Mmm, no. I wouldn't. Not according to your reasoning.
Because, see, you are saying that some people do not have souls, but that all other humans do. No?
Well, if you state that none of us have souls, then you do not have to proove it. Otherwise.... *smiles* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
