Life Begins at Conception

[McBell]

*climbs up onto pontoon boat*

 

[AxisMundi]

See post #672 for the basis outside "religion."
The Bible is not the basis for the laws of nature. It is the basis for the authority of the laws of nature, which laws do not allow mankind to plead ignorance in cases relating to them
and, therefore, mankind will be held accountable based on those laws.



Demonstrate the faulty science.

The Bible gives divine authority to the laws of nature as they relate to an issue, as in the issue of God's existence and his invisible qualities (Rom 1:19-21).
Those laws being authoritative, mankind cannot plead ignorance, and will be held accountable according to those laws, as they relate to an issue.
The laws of nature regarding seeds relate to the issue of human seed. Those laws are authoritative for the nature of seeds and, therefore,
mankind cannot plead ignorance on the issue of human seed, and will be held accountable based on their laws,
just as the pagans could not plead ignorance on the existence of God and his invisible qualities revealed in nature alone, and were held accountable based on the observation of nature alone (Rom 1:19-21).
This is the Biblical principle of Rom 1:19-31, and it authorizes the laws of nature (regarding seeds) to apply to the issue of human seed, as the laws of nature applied to the issue of God's existence and invisible qualities in Rom 1:19-21.

The Bible is not the basis for the laws in nature regarding seeds. Science is.
The Bible is the basis for the authority of the laws in nature as they relate to an issue, in this case human seed; and, because those laws have divine authority, mankind cannot plead ignorance in cases relating to them, and will be held accountable in those cases.

I do not need to reference back to anything. What I stated applies to all of your posts to date, including the biblical references above.

I've not been napping.

 

[Smoke]

I didn't go deep enough into the natural revelation in the nature of seeds.
The prinicple of authoritative natural revelation remained the same.

Perhaps, but your attempt to apply it is demonstrably faulty.

Demonstrate it has nothing to do with nature.

That's not what I said.

Demonstrate the faulty science.

You have a point you wish to prove. You concocted a pseudo-scientific argument to "prove" it. That is not how science is done. One does not start from the conclusion and work backwards. Furthermore, when your "data" were shown not to support your conclusion, you arbitrarily changed them. That is unscientific and just plain dishonest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's next. . .

I yield, after reviewing Ex 21:22-25 and seeing that the passage really is not clear, to the ancient Jewish understanding of the passage.

That removes any specific Biblical verse on the origin of human life at conception, and
leaves only Paul's principle of the authority of the revelation in nature (Rom 1:19-21), which holds mankind accountable as it applies to an issue.

If that means that you agree that it's best to base our conclusions on evidence... great.

 

[smokydot]

*climbs up onto pontoon boat*

"slides down the slippery slope"

 

[smokydot]

I do not need to reference back to anything. What I stated applies to all of your posts to date, including the biblical references above.

I've not been napping.

I appreciate that.
Then you'll appreciate that the answer to when human life begins is found in nature, in seeds.
You'll also appreciate the prinicple of Rom 1:19-21, that the answers found in nature are authoritative to the degree that mankind will be held accountable for issues relating to them, as the pagans were held accountable for knowledge of the existence of God and his invisible qualities simply by observing creation.

 

[Smoke]

Then you'll appreciate that the answer to when human life begins is found in nature, in seeds.

Okay, let's say we accept your seed metaphor. A seed is just a potential life, not a life. A pumpkin seed is neither a pumpkin nor a pumpkin vine. Anyone can see that eating a pumpkin seed is not the same as eating a pumpkin. It is not the same as eating a pumpkin vine. It's just a seed. It has potential but the potential has not been realized. If the human conceptus is like a seed, there cannot be any objection to terminating it. It's neither a man nor a child; it's just a seed.

So your argument seems to work against your point rather than for it.

 

[smokydot]

Perhaps, but your attempt to apply it is demonstrably faulty.

That's not what I said.
You have a point you wish to prove. You concocted a pseudo-scientific argument to "prove" it.

I have no point to prove. My aim is simply to present the Biblical testimony on the issues raised, and respond to questions regarding that testimony.

What part of the exposition on seeds was pseudo-scientific?

That is not how science is done. One does not start from the conclusion and work backwards. Furthermore, when your "data" were shown not to support your conclusion, you arbitrarily changed them. That is unscientific and just plain dishonest.

I didn't start from a conclusion. I started from a question as to whether the Bible had anything to say about human life beginning at conception.
In my search, I found a prinicple in Rom 1:19-21 that applied to the question.
My exposition of the prinicple was not "pristine," but that has nothing to do with the principle itself.
I did not go deep enough, to the foundation, in my expostion. Revising it is the honest thing to do.

Revising my exposition is no more faulty or dishonest than any scientist who reworks his thesis because of a foundational assumption which was not correct, or
because of misinterpretation of data (e.g., Ex 21:22-25).

The merits of the exposition of Rom 1:19-21 is for each one to decide, and to bear whatever the consequences may be of their decision.

 

[Smoke]

I didn't start from a conclusion. I started from a question as to whether the Bible had anything to say about human life beginning at conception.
In my search, I found a prinicple in Rom 1:19-21 that applied to the question.
My exposition of the prinicple was not "pristine," but that has nothing to do with the principle itself.

It shows that even if we accept the principle, the application of that principle is fraught with peril -- as you demonstrated yourself by confidently proclaiming two contradictory ideas as "revelation" within a very short period of time. Thus we cannot rely on this principle -- at least, not as applied by you.

I did not go deep enough, to the foundation, in my expostion. Revising it is the honest thing to do.

Revising my exposition is no more faulty or dishonest than any scientist who reworks his thesis because of a foundational assumption which was not correct, or because of misinterpretation of data (e.g., Ex 21:22-25).

The reason it is dishonest is that you are not looking at the evidence and seeing what it can teach you. You have already decided on your conclusion. You decided you "did not go deep enough" because your first "revelation" didn't support your conclusion. So you went "deeper" to try to find a "revelation" that did support your conclusion. In my opinion your new "revelation" doesn't support your conclusion any better than the previous one, but even if it did, and even if your conclusion were correct, the process would not be honest. You can "prove" anything by that kind of process. You can "prove" that Jesus was a kangaroo if you assume that Jesus was a kangaroo and then go looking for a "revelation" to prove it.

 

[smokydot]

Okay, let's say we accept your seed metaphor. A seed is just a potential life, not a life. A pumpkin seed is neither a pumpkin nor a pumpkin vine. Anyone can see that eating a pumpkin seed is not the same as eating a pumpkin. It is not the same as eating a pumpkin vine. It's just a seed. It has potential but the potential has not been realized. If the human conceptus is like a seed, there cannot be any objection to terminating it. It's neither a man nor a child; it's just a seed.

So your argument seems to work against your point rather than for it.

No, a seed is life, of the nature of that which produced it, but in a different form. In the right conditions (planted), it will change forms as it develops into a plant of the same nature as the seed.
In adverse conditions, the seed will die, preventing its life from changing forms and developing into the body of a plant.
Human seed (fertilized egg) is life, of the nature of that which produced it. In the right conditions (the womb), it will change forms as it develops into the body of a human, which is the nature of the seed.
In adverse conditions, the human seed will die, preventing its life from changing forms and developing into the body of a human.
In human seed, it is human life that is extinguished when the seed dies.

 

[Smoke]

No, a seed is life, of the nature of that which produced it, but in a different form. In the right conditions (planted), it will change forms as it develops into a plant of the same nature as the seed.
In adverse conditions, the seed will die, preventing its life from changing forms and developing into the body of a plant.
Human seed (fertilized egg) is life, of the nature of that which produced it. In the right conditions (the womb), it will change forms as it develops into the body of a human, which is the nature of the seed.

Cancer cells are living. Bacteria are living. The question is not whether the fertilized egg is living; the question is whether it is a person. It is not a person, just as a seed is not a plant.

 

[smokydot]

It shows that even if we accept the principle, the application of that principle is fraught with peril -- as you demonstrated yourself by confidently proclaiming two contradictory ideas as "revelation" within a very short period of time. Thus we cannot rely on this principle -- at least, not as applied by you.

My exposition of Rom 1:19-21 stands on its own merits with each person.
Each must decide for onesself.

The reason it is dishonest is that you are not looking at the evidence and seeing what it can teach you. You have already decided on your conclusion. You decided you "did not go deep enough" because your first "revelation" didn't support your conclusion. So you went "deeper" to try to find a "revelation" that did support your conclusion. In my opinion your new "revelation" doesn't support your conclusion any better than the previous one, but even if it did, and even if your conclusion were correct, the process would not be honest.

No different than the scientist who didn't go "deep enough" regarding a foundational assumption that was not correct, or who misinterpreted data.
In seeking an answer to a specific scientific question (e.g., what causes gravity?), he starts with a governing principle, the law of gravity.
He may find that, upon examination, his answer to the question does not correspond with the law of gravity.
So he corrects his incorrect foundational assumption, and he corrects his misinterpretation of the data in correspondence with his governing principle, the law of gravity.
Is he likewise guilty of dishonesty, of a dishonest process, and of already deciding on the conclusion (must correspond with the law of gravity) when he revises his answer in light of the law of gravity?
Or is he answering the question in conformity with his governing principle, the law of gravity?

You can "prove" anything by that kind of a process. You can "prove" that Jesus was a kangaroo if you assume he was a kangaroo and then go looking for a revelation to prove it.

Yes, you can. . .if you can find Biblical teaching that supports it.
No, you can't. . .if you cannot find Biblical teaching that suppports it.

 

[smokydot]

Cancer cells are living. Bacteria are living. The question is not whether the fertilized egg is living; the question is whether it is a person. It is not a person, just as a seed is not a plant.

The seed is simply one living form of the plant, as are the sprout and the shoot.
Extinguish any of them, and you extinguish the plant.

The fertilized egg is simply one living form of the human, as are the zygote and the fetus.
Extinguish any of them, and you extinguish the human.

There is no human that is not a person. That's another false dichotomy, as is the dichotomy of life or human life in the womb.
The Biblical testimony is that the human life in the womb is a person.
"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer 1:5)
"Thee" (you) is a personal pronoun.
While still in the womb, Jeremiah was known as a person, sanctified as a saint, and ordained as a prophet.

 

[Smoke]

The Biblical testimony is that the human life in the womb is a person.
"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer 1:5)
While still in the womb, Jeremiah was known as a person, sanctified as a saint, and ordained as a prophet.

According to that, Jeremiah was known by God, sanctified, and ordained as a prophet before he was conceived. If you insist on reading that literally as having anything to do with biology, it means life and personhood begin before conception.

 

[Smoke]

No different than the scientist who didn't go "deep enough" regarding a foundational assumption that was not correct, or who misinterpreted data.
In seeking an answer to a specific scientific question (e.g., what causes gravity?), he starts with a governing principle, the law of gravity.
He may find that, upon examination, his answer to the question does not correspond with the law of gravity.
So he corrects his incorrect foundational assumption, and he corrects his misinterpretation of the data in correspondence with his governing principle, the law of gravity.
Is he likewise guilty of dishonesty, of a dishonest process, and of already deciding on the conclusion (must correspond with the law of gravity) when he revises his answer in light of the law of gravity?
Or is he answering the question in conformity with his governing principle, the law of gravity?

The difference is that gravity is not comparable to your doctrine that a fertilized egg is a person. There are good objective reasons for believing in gravity, and even the law of gravity is not some inviolable absolute. The scientific understanding of gravity -- the scientific understanding of anything, in fact -- is always subject to refinement and revision in the light of new and compelling evidence. Provided such evidence actually comes to light.

That's not the case with your argument. You have assumed your conclusion. The argument is tailored -- though not very well -- to support your conclusion. You have not investigated anything. You have not examined any evidence. All you've done is to choose a metaphor that seems -- to you -- to illustrate your conclusion. That's not science, it's not logic, and it doesn't convince anybody who hasn't already assumed the same conclusion you have. Not even them, if they're thinking clearly.

 

[smokydot]

The difference is that gravity is not comparable to your doctrine that a fertilized egg is a person. There are good objective reasons for believing in gravity, and even the law of gravity is not some inviolable absolute. The scientific understanding of gravity -- the scientific understanding of anything, in fact -- is always subject to refinement and revision in the light of new and compelling evidence. Provided such evidence actually comes to light.

That's not the case with your argument. You have assumed your conclusion. The argument is tailored -- though not very well -- to support your conclusion. You have not investigated anything. You have not examined any evidence. All you've done is to choose a metaphor that seems -- to you -- to illustrate your conclusion. That's not science, it's not logic, and it doesn't convince anybody who hasn't already assumed the same conclusion you have. Not even them, if they're thinking clearly.

Responded to in post #693.

 

[smokydot]

According to that, Jeremiah was known by God, sanctified, and ordained as a prophet before he was conceived. If you insist on reading that literally as having anything to do with biology, it means life and personhood begin before conception.

"Formed" does not necessarily mean the seed.
There are many forms involved in the womb.

 

[smokydot]

The "Mass of the Angels" would cover this.

note:

http://www.diocese-sdiego.org/Handbook/Handbook_PDFs/Liturgy8.pdf


I believe that the OCF #234-342 has become popularly known as "Mass of the Angels."

Have them sing the liturgical "In Paradisium" if you can.

Is this basically a Catholic website?

 

[AxisMundi]

I appreciate that.
Then you'll appreciate that the answer to when human life begins is found in nature, in seeds.

What constituted human life is the question, a question you have not answered as it pertains to the OP of this thread.

Is a zygot "life"? Certainly, just like a blood cell is life.

is it a HUMAN is the question.

You'll also appreciate the prinicple of Rom 1:19-21, that the answers found in nature are authoritative to the degree that mankind will be held accountable for issues relating to them, as the pagans were held accountable for knowledge of the existence of God and his invisible qualities simply by observing creation.

Oh gods, not this retroactive BS again.

Pre-Christian Theists could not have worshipped your god because your god wasn't born yet.

 

[Smoke]

"Formed" does not necessarily mean the seed.
There are many forms involved in the womb.

Okay, you seem like a sincere person and I wish you well in life. But my patience is extremely limited, and I'm afraid you've exhausted it. I just can't continue this conversation any longer. You may chalk that up as a win if you like; it really doesn't matter to me.