 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > For Pastors:The Chief Shepherd's Heart on Abortion | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 10:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
It is because there is an after-life that every second of our life now has meaning. But being biologically-alive does not mean one is stil with us or already with us as a human being.
That's HALF of the answer. And apparently all that you are going to address.
You do say "Yes" to the part about "Or is there something else beyond the forming of a human that bears back on its meaning?" But you have limited scope for exploring that. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/1/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
Sorry Pow, what mountaintop do you meditate on, maybe I'll climb up so you can complete my understanding?
dlw
LOL | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 2:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I think we all agree that a brain damaged adult at least at one point had or still has a soul. But this is where the analogy breaks down. We don't all agree that a two day old embryo has or ever had a soul.
Of course, that is why MY actual post said: "Applying to another sort of example." It is a useful comparision at certain points. But only at those points.
As a debate tactic, DLW chose to emphasize that issue so as to drop the matter that was central to the post in question, and for which the the second issue was only an analogy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 3:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
You ALSO said, on the "soul" thread: "My understanding is that the Hebrews roughly equate "living being" or "living soul" (Gen 2) with the Greek body and soul put together. I know that's not exact. It is apples and cursive. But I don't think the oversimplification hurts that much"
"HAVE A SOUL?" But here you say, accurately, that humanity is a psycho-somatic (soma means body) unity.
Your two posts contradict each other.
How are you going to work with that?
-
As to the "nostral" bit: That's a nice demonstration of the fact that God creates us by his Word and Spirit -- the wind/spirit. It DOES show that up to a point, before the breath in the narrative, with that first man (who is symbolic of all humanity--male and female), without that first in-spiration, there was not a hu-man.
But your construction of implying that before breathing no soul exists is...
---------
To stear us back on track, I didn't say that an embrio "has a soul." I just won't go there.
What I did do was raise the testemony of God to Job -- "where were you when...?" and ask the question of "Or is there something else beyond the forming of a human that bears back on its meaning?"
The reason for that question IS NOT to ask "when does the soul exist. The reason for that question is to humble us a bit, so that we might consider (1) what is in progress, and (2) what might result, and finally, (3) to pause to reflect on the fact that WE are not in a position to insist that God follow our notions. It was, perhaps accidentally implied that heaven would not have enough room for all the unborn zygotes. Who are we to say.
All I can be sure of is that our world is no "Gnostic" that we are ready and disposed to think that only creative thinking justifies the imposed standard of "really alive." Countries and states warrent suicide to prune off as if unsightly the sub-standard. We love this world so much that we project it unto the next. We want to bring it with us.
As I wrote to DLW, I'm not trying to tell him how to answer the question of "Is there something else beyond the forming of a human that bears back on its meaning?" Or what that "bearing back" might entail. I just challenged him to measure that question into the present issue and decide upon what basis he CAN answer it, and upon what basis he must LEAVE it to God.
Pointedly, I don't think this is about the mere question of when the "soul" begins. Our meaning is beyond our individual selves. Defining ourselve as "persons" necessarily encompases considering on the scale and scope of the community. (Otherwise we are mere 'in-dividuals' -- a broken fragment of humanity.) And, defining ourselve as "human", in "God's image" necessarily encompases considering on the scale and scope of God and his creation.
We live in a reductionist culture. We want to study issues by themselves, without contexts to interfere. And we want to have answers to everything. Settled answers. And quickly.
Are we justified in these wants? | | Back to Top | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:18 AM (GMT -6) | | The voice of Chuck Colson is one of the sane, yea prophetic voices of our day. I just love his heart and what he so lovingly and boldly stands for:
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040702 - 07/02/2004
Watershed Moment: A New Declaration of Dependence
On Sunday, America celebrates another birthday. Americans will hoist their flags, march in parades, and set off fireworks. I get a thrill every time I hear the cannons blast that rousing finale of the "1812 Overture." And I get a lump in my throat whenever I join in singing "America, America, God shed His grace on thee."
Indeed, God has blessed America. This nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, has endured 228 years. America is the oldest constitutional republic on earth.
But all is not well in our land. When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, he deliberately appealed to the Creator. He acknowledged an overriding obligation to "Nature and Nature's God." And he understood that ordered liberty is not just a subjective preference, but a divinely ordained condition for which human beings are designed.
But over the last few decades, legions of skeptics have mounted a massive assault on these "self-evident truths." In prestigious law schools, in the halls of government, and especially in the Supreme Court, God is often banished from public conversation. If a public school teacher introduces Jefferson's ideas and language into the classroom today, she would likely be called on the carpet – and possibly disciplined.
This assault on God in public culture severely damages our republic. If God is thrown out of our history, we lose our basis for believing that individuals have rights and dignity. In an empty universe, we have no meaning, no value. Without God there are no unalienable rights, and no certain proof that liberty is better than tyranny or that life better than death. Everything is a matter of opinion and power.
The references to God in the Declaration of Independence provide a foundation for a moral argument within civil society. And moral truths pervade our founding documents from beginning to end. Without God as the source of all those moral principles, the public square would quickly revert to the law of the jungle. Brutish power would prevail. The weak, the unborn, the elderly, and the gravely ill could be quietly terminated.(my note: and they are... quietly...while the Church sleeps. Oregon Euthenasia's law; legalized killing of the unborn...)
As much as I enjoy the anthems and the fireworks, more than that is called for on this July Fourth. We need to confess our moral failures and our national sins. Repent of the lies that have justified killing innocent babies and the elderly. Renewal begins on our knees. It's there that we hear soul-searching questions from God Himself, asking: "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
. . . Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
Our nation's founding document declared independence from Britain, but, with equal fervor, declared dependence upon God. Expressing "firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," the signers committed the American experiment to their Maker. The Spirit of 1776 was reverence and trust.
So as we mark this solemn occasion, let us seek a rebirth of true liberty, which is possible only when governed by divine law. For, without God, we can never have "liberty and justice for all."
For a free subscription to daily emails such as the one above BreakPoint, click on this link:
msg1svc.net/servlet/Gateway?p=pfm&u=3411&et=T&s=166399
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
Your whole point about the future/heaven bearing back onto the meaning of the fetus still needs a little more elaboration, my friend.
Its hard to debate something one doesn't understand.
dlw
David, you have a PhD in Economics, teach at a prestigious university in Mexico, have and undergraduate degree from an Evangelical Baptist college/university in the Midwest, and can read.
I cited W. Pannenberg as a clear proponant of the concept. GO READ!!!
This is a theology board after all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
David, you have a PhD in Economics, teach at a prestigious university in Mexico, have and undergraduate degree from an Evangelical Baptist college/university in the Midwest, and can read.
I cited W. Pannenberg as a clear proponant of the concept. GO READ!!!
This is a theology board after all.
Al, you teach art to children. Lets show, not tell.
Pannenberg wrote about lots of stuff, how are you applying his future-heaven-stuff to the abortion-debate? Its just not clear.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | DAVE, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ME TO POST A PROPOSITION IN-ORDER-THAT IF YOU CAN SHOOT IT DOWN YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO ANY THINKING OF PONDERING YOURSELF.
YOU WANT A CLOSED SYSTEM. I'M MERELY POSING A QUESTION.
Here is a post on anothe site that mentions Pannenberg, and which quickly shows us that the SCOPE we should consider isn't finite and contained.
It is not applied to the topic here. But it does prohibit some modern notions of scale that we should not allow into out topic.
quote:
To Interested Reflectorites:
I'd be interested to your reactions to the following by
theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, _Toward a Theology of Nature_, ed. by Ted
Peters (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 34-35:
"Affirmations about the contingency of the world at large and of all its parts already imply a close connection between creation and conservation. The world was not simply put into existence once, at the beginning of all things, in such a way that it would have been left to its own afterward. Rather, every creature is in need of conservation of its existence in every moment; and such conservation is, according to theological tradition, nothing else but a continuous creation. This means that the act of creation did not take place only in the beginning. It occurs every moment. Accordingly, in the traditional theological doctrine of creation the activity of every creature is dependent on divine cooperation, a _concursus divinus_. There is no activity and no product of creative activity in the world without divine cooperation. The divine activity operates without detriment to the contingency and immediacy of singular actions, which has been identified in the theological tradition with the idea of divine governance of the world. It is due to this divine government of creation that the sequence of contingent events and created forms takes the shape of a continuous process toward the divine goal of an ultimate completion and glorification of all creation."
It seems to me that Pannenberg's analysis might help forge a middle road between those who want to identify God's God's activity ith "special" creative acts only, and those who want to relegate God's activity in nature only to the initial creative event.
What think ye?
Dennis Durst
Urbana, IL
dldurst@prairienet.org
www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199505-10/0297.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
]Pannenberg wrote about lots of stuff, how are you applying his future-heaven-stuff to the abortion-debate? Its just not clear.
Pannenberg used the term "proleptic" to describe how the future bears meaning back upon the now. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Imagine meeting someone in heaven that you hadn't considered a candidate for being there.
All along they had been part of God's plan. And dispite your evidence, God continued with his plan. the 'end' affected your and their 'now.' | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | I've tried to conflict your conscience enough this week.
I think I'll go see SpiderMan insead, with my eldest son, before his younger brother spills the beans about it.
My wife loved it! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Imagine meeting someone in heaven that you hadn't considered a candidate for being there.
All along they had been part of God's plan. And dispite your evidence, God continued with his plan. the 'end' affected your and their 'now.'
If that happens, praise God!
But the issue at stake is discerning right-conduct at the personal level and for political activism in the here and now and that requires that we make fallible judgements about the world we live in.
dlw
Dave, sometimes you fail to keep the two issues separate: belief and legislation. You want to conflate them for yourself, and see the first through the lense of the second. You only want to believe what is politically possible.
Worse, you want to force everytone else to ONLY believe what is politically possible to legislate. When someone believes differently, you take after them. I've seen you do to.
Is this just complusive? (like wanting the webmaster to reorganize which forum different posts by other people are in. Surely such compulsivity is an acset in some way in economics.) Or is it a matter that you are deeply conflicted and don't know how to handle it.
Again, you choice is to ONLY believe what you can prove. If it is politically or legislatively risky you will alter (On the ourside--though conflicts creep in anyways.) your beliefs. And you call them "fallible judgements."
"Fallible judegments" is something that belongs in the DOMAIN of politics and legislation. We can believe and practice what will never be possible (But then God only knows...) in the political or legislative or power domains.
Martyrdom is always an option for the Christian. If we live in a Moslem, or Hindu country, or are dominated by the Kahn, we can still believe and do what we may not convince others to believe or do.
Augustine spoke of TWO CITIES. Not one. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Christos Yannaras
"Man": Elements of Faith
(T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1991), Chapter 7: pp. 53-88.
http://jbburnett.com/resources/yannaras/yannaras_elements7-man.pdf
But why should we exclude that what each man is as a unique, distinct and unrepeatable personal existence is owed exclusively and only to the differentiation of the biochemical composition of its chromosomes and by extension to the function of the various “centres” of its brain? Why do we restrict the role of biochemical composition and biological functions solely to the activity and manifiestiation of the hypostatic otherness of each man, and do not extend it also to its foundation and composition?
. . .
“What is the body and what is the soul of man?” with the criteria of the ecclesial tradition: Both the body and the soul are energies of human nature, that is the modes by which the event of the hypostasis (or personality, the ego, the identity of the subject) is given effect. What each specific man is, his real existence or his hypostasis, this inmost I which constitutes him as an existential event, is identified neither with the body nor with the soul. The soul and the body only reveal and disclose what man is; they form energies, manifestation, expressions, functions to reveal the hypostasis of man. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | “What is the body and what is the soul of man?” with the criteria of the ecclesial tradition: Both the body and the soul are energies of human nature, that is the modes by which the event of the hypostasis (or personality, the ego, the identity of the subject) is given effect. What each specific man is, his real existence or his hypostasis, this inmost I which constitutes him as an existential event, is identified neither with the body nor with the soul. The soul and the body only reveal and disclose what man is; they form energies, manifestation, expressions, functions to reveal the hypostasis of man.?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/2/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | PotOnWheel,
Bravo! Your response to DLW is well stated. I think your correction was right on and done gracefully.
quote:
PotOnWheel: Dave, sometimes you fail to keep the two issues separate: belief and legislation. You want to conflate them for yourself, and see the first through the lense of the second. You only want to believe what is politically possible.
Worse, you want to force everytone else to ONLY believe what is politically possible to legislate. When someone believes differently, you take after them. I've seen you do to.
Is this just complusive? (like wanting the webmaster to reorganize which forum different posts by other people are in. Surely such compulsivity is an acset in some way in economics.) Or is it a matter that you are deeply conflicted and don't know how to handle it.
Again, you choice is to ONLY believe what you can prove. If it is politically or legislatively risky you will alter (On the ourside--though conflicts creep in anyways.) your beliefs. And you call them "fallible judgements."
"Fallible judegments" is something that belongs in the DOMAIN of politics and legislation. We can believe and practice what will never be possible (But then God only knows...) in the political or legislative or power domains.
Martyrdom is always an option for the Christian. If we live in a Moslem, or Hindu country, or are dominated by the Kahn, we can still believe and do what we may not convince others to believe or do.
Augustine spoke of TWO CITIES. Not one.
Here's a thought: The Agnostic is not justified before God just because "he is not completely sure." If the evidence is clear enough to act upon (notice, I didn't say perfectly clear - but clear enough to act upon; clear enough for that person to be judged if no action is taken), then to not act upon that evidence will condemn that person. The person's conscience and nature itself is enough to convince him that there is a God, and to convict him; make him guilty before God - as the Scripture says,
quote:
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
and
quote:
Rom 2:14-16 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
and
quote:
John 3:18-21 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
Regarding the unborn at conception having a soul - being a human being made in the Image and Likeness of God, The Scriptures, conscience, common sense, and science give us plenty of evidence to understand and to act upon the truth that a baby at conception is a human being. If this is true (which I unapologetically claiming to be truth), then the one who says, "I'm not sure enough to take action" is in a sin of omission toward God - not responding when there is enough light that one can and ought to respond. If this is the case, that Christian needs to repent and take action. If not, there will be definate discipline - because he is going against the truth and God loves us too much to allow us to continue to go in against His truth.
If I am wrong about this, and one doesn't act, then that person is cleared. This is all about weighing the evidence and, as the evidence piles up, I see it becoming more and more difficult for those who want to hide behind "well, we don't know for sure - so God's not requiring us to cry out for the unborn" wall.
The sad part, I suspect, is that if all the evidence was crystal clear, I suspect that I still wouldn't see people crying out before God for unborn children being legally killed. These people would still hide behind, "Well, umm... sure... umm.. unborn children are legally being killed, but it's still a highly charged political issue.. and God didn't call us to politics, or to save children's lives from being murdered. He's called us to preach the Gospel!"
So, as we see over and over - "the issue is not really the issue." The issue of "is this truly an unborn baby being killed?" is not the issue. The issue is the apathy and passivity of Christians who think they can just slip out of their God-given yoke of citizenship, and their God-given calling to be "salt and light" to a deceived and wicked world, and their God-given responsibility to speak the truth in love and feel O.K. about it.
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/3/2004 4:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BemaBound
So, as we see over and over - "the issue is not really the issue." The issue of "is this truly an unborn baby being killed?" is not the issue. The issue is the apathy and passivity of Christians who think they can just slip out of their God-given yoke of citizenship, and their God-given calling to be "salt and light" to a deceived and wicked world, and their God-given responsibility to speak the truth in love and feel O.K. about it.
quote:
RESPONSE BY Sahid: While apathy is a big problem within Christianity, the issue is still the issue. How are we to "speak the truth in love" if we skip the step of learning the truth? History is full of stories where Christian have a fire lit under themselves to promote a lie. Two notable examples are the Christian resistance to new scientific developments and Christian fervor to kill Muslims and take back the holy land. Passivity is a big problem, but activity in the wrong direction is a big one too. ...
In short, don't speak the truth in love without actively seeking the truth first.
I will agree with your statement about "Christian resistance to new scientific developments" - but only as far as this: as we discover more and more evidence proving that the unborn child from conception is a human being that deserves rights, more and more Christians - and Christian leaders - are resisting that evidence and hiding behind the "Well, we're still not absolutely sure, so, we don't feel responsible to do anything about this holocaust." This is the truth.
And it's also the truth that we don't need more evidence. We do have our consciences, common sense, the Holy Spirit speaking to us and the Word of God that says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." We are pushing away this truth and forming opinions out of our own ignorance, fears and apathy. And I speak this truth sincerely in love. Not to condemn, but to invite Christians to fight for the rights of the unborn - for that is a way to love the unborn (if you think that these precious unborn children of His are worthy of love).
I'm really at a loss for your other comparison, Sahid. My cry is for the SAFETY and PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN. In other words, if the Pro-Life people get their way, there will be no legalized murders in our land. To compare me, or to compare this cause to Christians who are "killing and taking back the Holy Land" is really more a comparison to those who kill babies in the name of "This baby (or land) is rightfully mine."
By the way, what is this "Christian fervor to kill Muslims and take back the holy land"? If you're referring to history, then I, along with other sane Christians, deplore that kind of "killing in the name of Jesus." You're throwing up "straw men" to shoot down.
Sahid, it sounds like there was a time when God gave you His heart for the unborn and you saw the injustice in that and carried his burden. If you are sincerely willing, I would be glad to help you get back that burden - as difficult as it is. I am honestly not trying to be condescending, but helpful. Yes, it takes courage, and yes, one must resist creating other issues and arenas to avoid the real issue. But here's the truth: Abortion is murder - killing innocent babies - from conception to 9 months - is murder. It's happening in our land and God is ready to put a stop to it one way or another. Perhaps you can help me to know how to communicate this difficult truth in the most loving way without compromising this truth. I'd sincerely be open to that.
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
| 169 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|