15 Oct 09
Loathe as I am to admit it, twhitehead is correct here: nothing within a single Scripture (other than projection) favors a reading which results in anything other than biological life in the womb. That is to say, soul life, human life begins as the body comes away from the womb.
While this is the historical and accurate view of the when-does-life-begin question for hundreds of years, it wasn't until after the turn of the last century that the issue somehow became murky. Call it the abandonment of Scripture or the entrance of sentimentality into the considersation; either way, anything other than a Scriptural view of who gives life--- and when--- is leading to all kinds of red-herring situations for Christians, taking them 180 degrees away from their few charged mandates.
15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgryes quite, thanks for the grammar lesson, now you shall state, why the context of the verse is clearly with reference to embryonic development and why you state that it is somehow metaphorical, i.e its use it intended to convey something other than its immediate meaning through a comparison, therefore you have made the assertion, you shall provide an explanation, if you please.
Metaphors by nature are pregnant with connotations. You are thinking of similies when you seek a simple correspondence.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd say God knows and plans the furture, and in it He allows for things
So how could God have known him before he was here? Surely it must be as I have already said, a claim that God knows the future, or carefully plans it.
Nobody here is disputing that a fetus results in a human life, or that termination of a fetus results in a potential human life not existing at some future date, however, one can easily take that argum ...[text shortened]... hing to do with terminating a conscious being, then an early stage fetus clearly does not apply.
like our choices to be part of the process where He is hands off.
Kelly
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo how we treat one another and how He treats us are different, just as someone in authority at work or in the military has a different set of rules as someone of lower rank or position. One has the ability to give raises and fire the other does not.
Actually that is the long and short of it, owning, more power, the creator,
He who sets the rules, He who sets the boundaries, are all God. As I did
point out to you already, your claims against mistreatment are to the one
who set the boundaries of treatment if mistreatment were not an issue
with Him you'd have no claim.
The rules that do apply to G ...[text shortened]... lower rank or position. One has the ability to give raises
and fire the other does not.
Kelly
Nah, I think you're just confusing considerations of delegated authority with considerations of equitable treatment. Sure, I cannot fire my boss, though he can fire me. People who work under different job descriptions will, of course, have different functions, delegated powers and authority, responsibilities, etc. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the basic ethics of the workplace, which, as far as I know, transcend these types of considerations: my boss (and his boss, and his boss, and his boss, etc) is subject to the same code and standards of workplace conduct as myself.
As I did point out to you already, your claims against mistreatment are to the one who set the boundaries of treatment if mistreatment were not an issue with Him you'd have no claim.
I've read this a few times, but I don't think I understand what you mean.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Ok, fair enough. I've already voiced my objection against that sort of "designer argument" where it would concern design of entities with mentality sufficient to merit moral consideration.
This is a hard one for me because I'm not sure I can come up with a better argument. I guess it's the designer argument if we designed something and it was not exactly how we wanted we might have the right to fix it or destroy it or whatever. I think thought there is the aspect that God does not want to destroy, murder, kill whatever definition we want to rue than why send His son to pay for sin? It satisfied God's wrath & justice.
Manny
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou do not know when life begins yet you are willing to okay it end with
Yes, 'wonderfully made', but again, this verse does not tell me where life begins. I read this verse and I see it describing construction of a life - the embryo in the womb. Yes, at some point, the construction results in a person with rights, etc. - but when, exactly?
an abortion after you acknowledge you don't know when? We do know
according to scripture that we have life within the womb, I'd point you to
the gospel of Luke
Luke 1:43-45 (New International Version)
43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"
You wish to tell me something not yet alive can have joy? Notice the
scriptures also do not say the fetus inside of me, but baby. Before
the abortion debate became what it is in many corners of the world
it was acknowledge that women were with child when they were
pregnant. There will be a lot of blood on the hands of those that
supported this practice and refused to even speak up against it.
Kelly
16 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs I did point out to you already, your claims against mistreatment are to the one who set the boundaries of treatment if mistreatment were not an issue with Him you'd have no claim.
[b]So how we treat one another and how He treats us are different, just as someone in authority at work or in the military has a different set of rules as someone of lower rank or position. One has the ability to give raises and fire the other does not.
Nah, I think you're just confusing considerations of delegated authority with considerations no claim.[/b]
I've read this a few times, but I don't think I understand what you mean.[/b]
I've read this a few times, but I don't think I understand what you mean.
If you were playing foot ball and started screaming at the
referees the other team committed a foul against you, then
the referee acknowledges what you claimed happened, did
happen right infront of them, but it wasn’t something against
the rules as far as they are concern, you are left with what?
Kelly
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI would consult a rules book and a replay machine. I am not interested here in what anyone in particular deems to be so. I am interested in what is actually so.
As I did point out to you already, your claims against mistreatment are to the one who set the boundaries of treatment if mistreatment were not an issue with Him you'd have no claim.
[b]I've read this a few times, but I don't think I understand what you mean.
If you were playing foot ball and started screaming at the
referees the other tea ...[text shortened]... asn’t something against
the rules as far as they are concern, you are left with what?
Kelly[/b]
So I still don't understand why you think this is relevant. I am still concerning myself with the claim that it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates however he sees fit. I am assuming here that it is an objective matter whether or not this claim is true.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTropes are not grammar. The lesson concerns rhetoric figures which you need to understand in order to read a text that revels in figures.
yes quite, thanks for the grammar lesson, now you shall state, why the context of the verse is clearly with reference to embryonic development and why you state that it is somehow metaphorical, i.e its use it intended to convey something other than its immediate meaning through a comparison, therefore you have made the assertion, you shall provide an explanation, if you please.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou cannot paraphrase metaphor, which seems to be what you seek. But, that Psalm 139 is grounded in figures should be evident from a few key elements:
therefore you have made the assertion, you shall provide an explanation, if you please.
To what does wings of morning refer? (verse 9)
How does darkness cover? (11)
Verse 12 is a simile: darkness is as light because God does not need external illumination to see.
Verse 13 the singer moves from his own inner parts to his mother's womb, then in 15 he is made in the depths of the earth, previously referenced in verse 8--Sheol (sometimes considered hell, where God is even there).
The larger point of the figures concerns God's omnipotence and omniscience.
All the figures, and the character of God, are preliminary to the final couplet:
Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!
The poet/singer seeks epiphany from God's infinite knowledge. He seeks the path of righteousness.
To extract a single piece in the string of figures and deploy it as biblical injunction against abortion does violence to the message of the text, and fails to appreciate the beauty of the poetry.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloWe are talking about God are we not. Your claims of unjustness in
I would consult a rules book and a replay machine. I am not interested here in what anyone in particular deems to be so. I am interested in what is actually so.
So I still don't understand why you think this is relevant. I am still concerning myself with the claim that it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates however he sees fit. I am assuming here that it is an objective matter whether or not this claim is true.
your life or the lives of any other against God are going to be brought
up before whom that could hold God's feet to the fire so to speak?
I've already given to you that the ref agreed with you, what you claim
occured did happen, but his response was, it isn't against the rules.
So the replay machine is meaningless, the rule book may be, but only
if you find a rule book that agrees with you that the ref is bound to.
Kelly
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI haven't stated my position on abortion.
You do not know when life begins yet you are willing to okay it end with
an abortion after you acknowledge you don't know when? We do know
according to scripture that we have life within the womb, I'd point you to
the gospel of Luke
Luke 1:43-45 (New International Version)
43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As hands of those that
supported this practice and refused to even speak up against it.
Kelly
My point is that the Bible [judging from the verses quoted so far] is silent on when life [from a rights perspective] begins. I haven't given my position on when life begins.
The story from Luke is probably apocryphal.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are talking about God are we not. Your claims of unjustness in
We are talking about God are we not. Your claims of unjustness in
your life or the lives of any other against God are going to be brought
up before whom that could hold God's feet to the fire so to speak?
I've already given to you that the ref agreed with you, what you claim
occured did happen, but his response was, it isn't against the rules.
So the ...[text shortened]... y be, but only
if you find a rule book that agrees with you that the ref is bound to.
Kelly
your life or the lives of any other against God are going to be brought
up before whom that could hold God's feet to the fire so to speak?
No one. If God is all-powerful, then presumably there is no one who will be able to "hold God's feet to the fire". God will still be able to successfully bring about whatever he wants to. So what?
I've already given to you that the ref agreed with you, what you claim occured did happen, but his response was, it isn't against the rules. So the replay machine is meaningless, the rule book may be, but only if you find a rule book that agrees with you that the ref is bound to.
For my purpose here, why would I care what the ref deems to be so? Look, I know it's difficult for you to distinguish between what is actually so and what God would deem to be actually so. But like I said before, I am concerning myself with the claim brought up by Manny -- basically that it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates any way he sees fit. Like I said, I presume that it is an objective matter whether or not this claim is true. That means I presume that the truth value of this claim doesn't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. It's of little or no direct concern to me what any person, let alone God, deems to be so concerning the truth value of this claim, per se. Even if God is really smart and always seems to get the truth values of claims correct, I am presuming that what he deems to be actually so is in principle a separate matter from what is actually so.
Unless you want to tell me that the truth values of moral claims depend constitutively on what God thinks. Ok, then, you have nothing more to offer than a subjective, arbitrary account of morals. After all, if one person gets to decide, I guess merely by fiat, the truth values of moral claims, then that makes morals subjective and arbitrary basically by definition. Aren't you always screaming at atheists that their moral groundings are impoverished because all they have to offer you is "personal taste, nothing more". Sounds like you suffer from this same exact problem that you like to lash out against.