 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > When Human life begins: in reality and legally | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/3/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/5/2004 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
Apparently, Kerry believes life begins at conception and he is personally opposed to abortion. He just thinks the separation of Church and State means he can't legislate his views on others.
I almost didn't reply, because of the political nature of the last post. Whatever. I actually hold the same view as Kerry on a different issue. I personally believe that running down crowded city streets and hitting people with a baseball bat is wrong and immoral, but I can't make myself support laws banning the practice. Who am I to tell people what to do?
yeah, I think he's not going to be doing himself any favors with coming out of the closet as someone who is personally opposed to abortion, but who has more or less toed the party-line on the status-quo of abortion-politics in the past. That will cause problems, especially if he comes up with some moderate reforms, since it will be another policy-flip-flop that may or may not be credible.
I wrote extensively about this at my blog.
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 | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/14/2004 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
So...
1. I'm not slamming YOU, dlw. I'm slamming what you were perporting -- HARD!
2. The problem with your poposition is that it confuses WHEN with WHO and WHY. It is not a matter of "when" an conceived human is. It is ensouled all the while. The issue is WHO ensouls: and that is God. and the issue is WHY it is ensouled: and the answer is that God wills. What you say is so wrong because it denies God's will! WHO and WHY are the issues. And those are not available for you to bargain away, as you seem to be trying to do.
3. As I see it, your "legal redefinition of when human life begins" is a selling of birthright for porriage.
4. An area you might consider working in, where you can serve some good, is helping less babies be aborted so that the demands for adoption can be filled. There is a scarcity of babies--they are being killed.
Amen
POW, I send out a big thanks to you and others that have contributed to this thread. I have read the first 3 pages so far and have found Dave’s spiritual arguments to be futile and NOT very convincing. His political argument is another story that I have little interest in. I appreciate your firm stance of not being dragged into the politics of abortion. I find Dave trying to compromise the kingdom of this world with the Kingdom of God. In the process, it seems he’s being torn apart while aborting his moral convictions to God. As I hear Dave reiterating the words “lesser of two evils” a red flag goes off, at this point I believe a discussion on theodicy should commence. This approach of two wrongs make a right is not my view of God.
I think it is imperative to remember that a great event takes place when either a life begins or ends. Such an event takes place when the soul separates from the body at death. If you have ever had someone die in your arms you can truly sense the event of a soul passing. I think a similar event takes place when the soul comes into this world. Granted the soul might tiptoe through the door during entry and slam close during death, but regardless in either case, a colossal event takes place. So in conclusion, to think that the soul arbitrarily sneaks into existence some time after the 4th week of gestations is a far fetched theory. IMHO, a colossal event would take place either at the time of conception or at the time of birth and not some arbitrary time in between. For an example, envision a 1st trimester pregnant woman suddenly jumping up and saying “I felt the baby’s soul enter”. Hmmm, now consider the soul be conceived at the time of conception or the time of birth and you would have a colossal event where one could truly sense the miracle.
So we ask when is the soul conceived, at conception or birth. If I had to choose between the two I would say at the time of conception. I think if you look at all of the Biblical references to adultery and even the analogies used with spiritual adultery then I think you can conclude a huge significance is placed on the event of sexual intercourse. I also believe that the Holy Spirit came over Mary, and at that time, the soul of Jesus entered into her. A big but, what if the soul moves slowly, what if it is a nine month process before the soul entirely enters into this world. I don’t know if this has been explored much? What if at the time of conception the soul just gets its foot into the door of this world?
Shalom,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark, notice!
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Yannaras:
...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 | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think it's so clear cut as being etiher conception or birth. There are other possibilities. Origen, admittedly influenced by Plato, thought the soul preexisted the body. Creationism was held by Jerome and Thomas Aquinas and is the official position of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. It says that each soul is specially created by God and placed into a body sometime at or after conception. Traducianism says that children "inherit" a soul from their parents. Just as the child's body resembles the parents', so does the soul. This view was held by Tertullian and Martin Luther. (Don't be impressed. I've got an old text book open.)
Of all these views only traducianism forces personhood to begin at conception. At least at sometime in the past Roman Catholics put it at the quickening, when the mother first felt the baby kick.
Now, I'm all for being cautious, even legislating that cautiousness. But DWL is right. It ain't happening. I personally think most people don't want to have to worry about the unborn on top of everything else. It's wrong, but the majority makes the rules for everyone here; we've got to convince people. Maybe twenty years from now the tide will have turned. I don't know.
I do know that a lot of the pro-life arguements out there are appeals to authority only. But the authority they appeal to is not the Bible (at least not the Bible in context). It is typically a "because I say so" arguement. By all means, show the pictures of fetuses. But remember when you do that, if the appearance is what we are going by, personhood does not begin at conception. A one-celled zygote looks nothing like a person. The caution arguement is really the only one I've heard pro-lifers use that makes sense. It's also the least frequently heard arguement. It's usually the "make 'em feel guilty" routine instead. But this only convinces a few and makes most even more adamant in their opposition.
So I love the caution arguement. Let's get it out there. If someone runs across something better, let's put it under the fire and see if it holds up. If it doesn't, we should have no qualms about abandoning it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
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.
Thanks Potter, I feel the wheel turning in my little head. 
It raises many new questions that I will have to get back 2 ya with. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/19/2004 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I don't think it's so clear cut as being etiher conception or birth. There are other possibilities. Origen, admittedly influenced by Plato, thought the soul preexisted the body. Creationism was held by Jerome and Thomas Aquinas and is the official position of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. It says that each soul is specially created by God and placed into a body sometime at or after conception. Traducianism says that children "inherit" a soul from their parents. Just as the child's body resembles the parents', so does the soul. This view was held by Tertullian and Martin Luther. (Don't be impressed. I've got an old text book open.)
Of all these views only traducianism forces personhood to begin at conception. At least at sometime in the past Roman Catholics put it at the quickening, when the mother first felt the baby kick.
Now, I'm all for being cautious, even legislating that cautiousness. But DWL is right. It ain't happening. I personally think most people don't want to have to worry about the unborn on top of everything else. It's wrong, but the majority makes the rules for everyone here; we've got to convince people. Maybe twenty years from now the tide will have turned. I don't know.
I do know that a lot of the pro-life arguements out there are appeals to authority only. But the authority they appeal to is not the Bible (at least not the Bible in context). It is typically a "because I say so" arguement. By all means, show the pictures of fetuses. But remember when you do that, if the appearance is what we are going by, personhood does not begin at conception. A one-celled zygote looks nothing like a person. The caution arguement is really the only one I've heard pro-lifers use that makes sense. It's also the least frequently heard arguement. It's usually the "make 'em feel guilty" routine instead. But this only convinces a few and makes most even more adamant in their opposition.
So I love the caution arguement. Let's get it out there. If someone runs across something better, let's put it under the fire and see if it holds up. If it doesn't, we should have no qualms about abandoning it.
When did God "knit" us together? I love Psalm 139.
"Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out;
you formed me in my mother's womb.
I thank you, High God - You're breathtaking!
Body and soul, I am marvelously made!
I worship in adoration - what a creation!
You know me inside and out,
you know every bone in my body;
You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit,
how I was sculpted from nothing into something,
Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception
to birth;
all the stages of my life were spread out before you,
The days of my life all prepared
before I'd even lived one day." (Psalm 139 - The Message Bible)
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Creationism ... is the official position of ... the Orthodox Churches. It says that each soul is specially created by God and placed into a body sometime at or after conception.
???
Dualistic anthroplogy? Not in Orthodoxy!
What's your source on that? Orthodox are really strong on a biblical anthropology. Anthropology plays a strong role in their whole theology. I can't see that being the mainline view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
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.
Thanks Potter, I feel the wheel turning in my little head.
It raises many new questions that I will have to get back 2 ya with.
FOURTY-SEVEN YEAR OLDS OF THE WORLD UNITE! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/20/2004 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Mark, notice!
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Yannaras:
...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.
What a hypocrite I am. I applauded you in one breath and then in the next breath I start going down the same road I applauded you for not going down. Thanks for keeping me pointed down the straight and narrow. Hey teach, do you get many complaints for handing out to much  homework? Seriously, thanks for being so resourceful, you point out a lot of great material. Unfortunately, I’m pressed for time trying to keep pace  , but I’ll keep treading forward.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
FOURTY-SEVEN YEAR OLDS OF THE WORLD UNITE
Can I take a seat in the front of your class; you know my eyesight and hearing aren’t so good  in my old age. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I don't think it's so clear cut as being etiher conception or birth. There are other possibilities. Origen, admittedly influenced by Plato, thought the soul preexisted the body. Creationism was held by Jerome and Thomas Aquinas and is the official position of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. It says that each soul is specially created by God and placed into a body sometime at or after conception. Traducianism says that children "inherit" a soul from their parents. Just as the child's body resembles the parents', so does the soul. This view was held by Tertullian and Martin Luther. (Don't be impressed. I've got an old text book open.)
Of all these views only traducianism forces personhood to begin at conception. At least at sometime in the past Roman Catholics put it at the quickening, when the mother first felt the baby kick.
Now, I'm all for being cautious, even legislating that cautiousness. But DWL is right. It ain't happening. I personally think most people don't want to have to worry about the unborn on top of everything else. It's wrong, but the majority makes the rules for everyone here; we've got to convince people. Maybe twenty years from now the tide will have turned. I don't know.
I do know that a lot of the pro-life arguements out there are appeals to authority only. But the authority they appeal to is not the Bible (at least not the Bible in context). It is typically a "because I say so" arguement. By all means, show the pictures of fetuses. But remember when you do that, if the appearance is what we are going by, personhood does not begin at conception. A one-celled zygote looks nothing like a person. The caution arguement is really the only one I've heard pro-lifers use that makes sense. It's also the least frequently heard arguement. It's usually the "make 'em feel guilty" routine instead. But this only convinces a few and makes most even more adamant in their opposition.
So I love the caution arguement. Let's get it out there. If someone runs across something better, let's put it under the fire and see if it holds up. If it doesn't, we should have no qualms about abandoning it.
When did God "knit" us together? I love Psalm 139.
"Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out;
you formed me in my mother's womb.
I thank you, High God - You're breathtaking!
Body and soul, I am marvelously made!
I worship in adoration - what a creation!
You know me inside and out,
you know every bone in my body;
You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit,
how I was sculpted from nothing into something,
Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception
to birth;
all the stages of my life were spread out before you,
The days of my life all prepared
before I'd even lived one day." (Psalm 139 - The Message Bible)
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Hi Jo-anne. That is a great verse, but it is a loose translation. Here is the NASB, which is closer to the original.
13 For You formed my inward parts. You wove me in my mother's womb.
dlw:We are woven in our mother's womb. That leaves unspecified when we become human beings while in our mother's womb.
16:Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.
dlw:You see there was nothing about conception in the original, because they knew far less than we do today about the fetal development process and we need to avoid just reading in our modern-day world-views/ traditions into the Bible.
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 | | |
| 291 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:44 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 |
|
|