A Biblical Discussion of Abortion: Split from: A summary of why I used to be a liberal yet am that no more.

[Philbot]

That was an interesting post. :yes:

You get a pearl. :smile:

[Losvedir]

Hm... interesting. Pearls to you for sharing.

That said, I personally believe it's a little silly to change your political views based on how others who share those views act, rather than being persuaded by arguments.

I consider myself conservative, but don't really like most Republicans I know. I didn't vote for Bush, and the one College Republicans meeting I went to left me in a fright. I hate Ann Coulter, Hannity, etc, and don't watch Fox. Watching C-SPAN and seeing what my fellow conservatives in there have to say saddens me, and talk radio is awful. I don't think tax cuts are silly, necessarily, but do feel they are abused. I almost always find myself across the way from Jinx, Arnold, Christianotaku (jeez... I'm losing track of who's still here and don't know if you'd recognize these), and generally read and respect the opinions of CD Ward, EvoUK, and Duder. (If you weren't in that list, don't fret, I just named a few off the top of my head, or don't associate you strongly with liberal, e.g. Justin, Ryokan, BHN, Eireann, etc.) But you know what? None of that changes what I believe. And what I believe is conservative. I figure I'll go on believing what I do, calling myself what I am, and changing my party from the inside.

You should do the same. Ask yourself what it is exactly you believe, why that is, and stick to it. Don't be persuaded by fools who happen to believe the same thing, but have no reasons for it. Liberals and Conservatives and Moderates all come in many different flavors.

[apple]

Hmm, civilised answers. Maybe I'll stop laughing at you for a while.

You may learn something. Who knows?

Or they could put it up for adoption.

People say women regret having an abortion. It is nothing compared to the regret a woman feels whom has put her child up for adoption. Besides the woman's feelings what life will the child have?

Before abortion there were many children available for adoption. Have you ever watched old documentaries about adoption? Picture a garage/yard sale offering children instead of old items. People would come and see the children at play and if one caught their fancy they would inquire further. The children knew the reason for the "garden party" and did their best to impress the adults.

One documentary interviewed an elderly woman telling how she was never selected as a child. The excitement and hope always ended in feelings of rejection and despair. I wonder what would change if hundreds of thousands of children flooded the adoption market.

I don't get it. You're trying to persuade me to your side by telling me people should be selfish and not take responsibility for their actions. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Not only do people not have to keep a child, but I hear far more complaints from women about not having been told what abortion really is than I hear compaints that they'd rather not've had the baby (unless you go to the internet infidels forum where they all seem to regret having had children born in this religious world :ahem: )

I knew a woman whom regretted, years later, having had an abortion. She was successful and lamented that another child would have fit perfectly into her life saying, "I have a good job. I have a beautiful home. I have a loving companion. At times I feel I made a mistake."

"Let's go for a drive", I said. We went to the "wrong" side of town where women wearing old clothes were pushing baby carriages and toddlers were playing in mud puddles in a park devoid of grass.

And then my speech started: "Is this the life you miss", I asked. "Your life is the way it is because you had an abortion. You are looking at people who did not have an abortion. Would you want to live here? Would you want your child to live here? Is this the life you regret not having, not being able to afford to take your child to a dentist and wait until they have a toothache and then have the tooth pulled? Maybe you'd like that guy over there, the one walking down the street with no shirt and a beer in his hand, as your next door neighbor? Is this what you regret not being a part of?"

The shortage is not the point, the reason for the shortage is. It can be linked directly with the rise of a liberal attitude which was what we were discussing. Liberalism leads to a lot of apathy regarding life. Nobody wants to have kids and when they get pregnant, off to the abortion mill. Allowing open immigration might extend Europe's life by a few hundred years until it's either completely islamicised or the plague gets to the immigrants' children too.

Nobody wants to have kids? I'm not sure how that jives with your "Or they could put it up for adoption" solution. If people do not want kids there will be no adoptions.

The problem is lack of programs for women and children. Child care, a national babysitting register a single mom could call for needed time out, a change in society's perception of single parenthood.....the Vice President of the US commented on how "distasteful" a TV show was showing a single mother. That was just 15 years ago. The world changes fast but not that fast.

Your observation "Liberalism leads to a lot of apathy regarding life" is the exact opposite of the truth. Liberals value life and respect human beings. They do not want human beings brought into this world and treated like animals or worse. Apathy is the attitude of the Conservatives. Bring a child into the world and whatever will be, will be. Good home, bad home. Wanted or unwanted. It's really bizarre. The ones fighting to bring children into the world are the very ones against government programs to aid the children and women involved. They want children, so they say, but they want nothing to do with them when they're here. The telling remark is when we hear, "She got herself into that. It is her responsibility." Is their position out of concern for the child or some sort of punishment for the woman? It seems to me if one is concerned about a child it makes little difference how it got here.

Actually I can understand abortion when it's life for life since the doctor has to pick one.

But how many times can the doctor say, for absolute certainty, the woman will die? Do we kill an innocent human being on the chance the woman will die? Can we consider murder a viable preventative option? Do we take a chance on the woman's life? If she will suffer medical damage, from losing a kidney due to high blood pressure to having an amputation due to circulation problems caused by uncontrolled diabetes, do we force the woman to bear that? If the fetus is close to being viable, perhaps in a couple of weeks it could be delivered early and survive, and the woman is seriously ill do we forcibly hospitalize the woman and if she dies keep her alive artificially until we save the innocent human being inside her?

It's situations like these, although rare, that are the logical extensions of classifying a fetus as a human being and it just doesn't sit right with me.

[Tux314]

It's situations like these, although rare, that are the logical extensions of classifying a fetus as a human being and it just doesn't sit right with me.

The logical extension of classifying blacks as people with full human rights was the loss of a huge labor force. That didn't sit well with a lot of people. Does that mean we should go back to having slavery?

[Jack777]

Good post Darth. Only thread I have read in a month. I still have some rankling memories that are impressed from the brainwashing I got in school and such. I used to be much imbued with humanism and liberalism. In retrospect, it is kind of depressing to see that people who consider themselves liberals are such nicompoops. Ron Reagan, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean are sociopathic as well as being liberal lunatics. What gripes me is they think if they act like idiots long enough people will give them their way. Later gator...

[patteeu]

I wrote this for another message board since they're really pissing me off right now but maybe you guys will like it. Keep in mind that this "letter" is not addressed to you so when I'm blaming the reader, I'm not blaming tweb. Enjoy. Some words edited because the language allowed here is a bit more strict. I apologise if I missed anything and if a moderator sees a word that shouldn't be there feel free to censor it. Thank you.

First, I would like to tell you, CE, that you are 100% responsible for what I am today in terms of political views. My political opinion shift happened all because of you. You created a monster that Dr. Frankenstein would be proud of. I suppose I should start this story at the beginning.

I used to be a happy go-liberal. A Canadian liberal of course. You see, in Canada, people are very polite about their political preference. Unlike the US, people don't give a $&^#. There is the odd "Bush is dum lole" joke but it's never really serious. The closest thing to a fundamentalist liberal was my supervisor at a community center I volunteered at. I came with the entire package: Bush is dumb, America is evil, Michael Moore is a good source of info, etc. When I came on CE and argued for liberals, I never noticed (until much later) that while the conservatives (minus doodle) were always calm and gave good explanation for their beliefs which, even though I disagreed with, made for interesting discussions. I guess I never really noticed the venom in the other liberal posts because I ignored them. After all, I've always enjoyed debating and there isn't much point in reading the stuff your side writes unless you need information (something CE isn't particualrly good for). All this, of course, changed when the election came and Bush won a second term. Almost every liberal on CE was:

A) Blaming Christians.
B) Spewing out so much venom that I couldn't help but notice.

Then something clicked. Liberals are supposed to believe in tolerance (something I used to believe in as well), yet the word "bible thumper" flew around CE abundantly. Why? Why were CE's liberals advocating tolerance yet had no problems with broad brushing an entire group of people? So I began to look at the facts more closely. The first of my conceptions that went down was that about Michael Moore. After reading a site criticizing him, I found a copy of "Bowling for Columbine" and looked at it. Not only did I find that the site was right, but I saw through some of Moore's doctoring without needing anybody else to tell me. Amased at my discovery, I went to school the next day to discuss it with my PPC teacher who had previously showed the movie to me. Even though I tried to point out the errors of the movie, she would have none of it. Every bigoted remark Moore made found a defense in her and my best friend. She complained about me using a source that called Moore fat despite the factt hat what Moore did to Heston was much, much worse slander. That was the second liberal hypocrisy that I noticed: brainwashing. Many liberals claim Republicans/Christians are "brainwashed" yet there they were, two very intelligent people and good friends of mine that ignored reason altogether. That's when a major realisation occured: people are going to believe whatever makes them comfortable. Nobody likes change. Now, fast forward to the election. I'm sure everybody remembers Bush's reelection. My uncle (who was conservative) suggested that I actually analyze what everybody says and does carefully. So I sat down with my parents to listen to the first debate between Bush and Kerry, waiting for Bush to say something stupid and give me a good laugh. As I sat and listened, I realised there was something about the Shrub that didn't quite fit with my preconceptions about him. I didn't see the monster that was supposed to be there, I saw a man made out of flesh and bones. A man who knew he wasn't invincible despite the liberal slander and a man who had taken upon himself the duty of ruling a nation. People wondered why he never admitted to making mistakes. He did. He had no problem admitting it at a personal, human level. But he is not just a human, he is also the president of the united states. When he takes up that duty, showing weakness and indecision is not what I want to see. I don't want to see a leader as a fallable human, I want to see him as who he is: the president of the most powerful nation in the world. In contrast, Kerry effectively destroyed my opinion of him by his comment regarding abortion. Sitting there, listening to the man that would have gotten my vote had I been an american citizen say he believes something is murder yet do nothing about it was the equivalent of getting slammed in the face by a hammer. Kerry did not have the guts to stand up for his beliefs. Instead of answering the woman's question with dignity, he spent half the time trying not to offend her and the other half pleading for both sides. What did he hope to accomplish? If PETA's president ran for office, I'd *$&^ well expect him to say he'd turn america into a vegetarian country. I would expect him to walk into my house with a plutoon of soldiers, rip the steak I'm eating for dinner out of my mouth and throw my * edited by a moderator * in jail for premeditated murder. If he doesn't, he doesn't deserve my vote. Anybody who thinks something is murder and does nothing to stop it is worthy not of presidency but of shame and mockery. Having been deeply disturbed that day, I log onto CE to see what? "Bush is dum lole."
Over the next few days I still defended the liberal ideals, but not so heavily. As I saw hordes of liberals chew away at the few conservatives on this board as a pack of rabid dogs I finally abandoned the hypocritical ideal that I was drowning in. No, despite what people believe, I'm not a conservative. I don't want to go back to your grandparents' days. I do not, however, want to have anything to do with a group of people I see as scourges of our society. I've often been accused by people here of being "blind" or not understanding the other side. That's exactly the problem: I understand your side just fine. I used to be one of you. I was a sheep and now I'm a man. I was blind but now I see. I have no plan of turning back and coming into CE to see people blaming Bush fur the attacks in London is not helping. If, in the future, any of you feels the need to ask or comment upon the reasons for my beliefs: here they are, summarised: you're to blame. All of you here that carry the label of "liberal". I honestly can't think of one outspoken liberal on CE whom I respect.


nOOb :tongue:

[Tux314]

We seem to be operating on a different definition of "equality". If someone denies you something because they can see that you are black, that's not equality. If someone denies you something specifically because you are same-sex attracted, that would also not be equality. However, denying a particular behavior to everyone equally can still be equality.

If you recall the sodomy law it was OK for a married couple to engage in sodomy but not OK for homosexuals. That is hardly equality.

1.) Those laws no longer exist, AFAIK.
2.) Again, it was just a particular behavior that was banned - homosexual sodomy. It wasn't based on whether someone experienced same-sex attraction or not. It's just that SSA people are much more likely than others to be involved in that particular activity.

My point was that discriminatory laws such as that one has led to homosexuals demanding marriage.

You have provided one example of such, and one that still seems rather weak. I see that you have more examples, I'll examine those as they come.

There are laws/rules where a person can not speak for their partner during a medical crisis as a homosexual partner is not considered family.

Neither can a best friend, for that matter. Your point?

If two people have spent the majority of their lives together and one dies the other is not entitled to survivor pension benefits unless they were married. That applies to a man/woman couple as well as a man/man or woman/woman couple.

It also applies to a man/woman/man/man/woman/woman/man set. Your point? Why do people need the right to pension benefits from someone else of the same sex?

However, I would not be diametrically opposed to some sort of arrangement that would allow this for same-sex as well as polygamous couples. I just wouldn't want to give it the sexual connotations that come with marriage.

The difference is a man/man couple or a woman/woman couple can not marry and rectify the situation. How many other laws are discriminatory?

How is this really discriminatory?

Society has bestowed a multitude of benefits upon married couples and then denied homosexuals the right to marry.

No, they have denied everyone, SSA or not, the right to homosexual, polygamous, and pedophilic marriage. The reasons for each must be examined individually.

What did they think would happen? What is the logical course of action for homosexuals to take? Deal with each law individually, drag each injustice before the courts or simply demand the right to marry?

Well, if they keep insisting that it has nothing to do with sex, they shouldn't have a problem with a celibate straight marriage.

Society has done this to itself. Every turn/decision made resulted in homosexuals becoming less and less equal. Survivor benefts or medical benefits could just as easily been applied to one's partner. A law could have been written so that one's partner may speak for another when one is incapacitated. Just change the word "spouse" to "partner" and all would have been fine.

As long as this could be done without the sexual connotations, this may not be such a bad idea.

But, no, the discriminatory practices continued and continued.

I'm not so sure on that. No law is based on whether you are SSA or not.

Look at the circus that surrounded Ms. Schaivo. Imagine if she had been in a homosexual relationship? Regardless of where one stood on the issue what right would a homosexual partner have had in a similar situation?

I'm not familiar with that situation.

I've never met an unborn foreign tourist. You?

You said that the reason unborn people didn't need to be protected was that they weren't citizens. Foreign tourists aren't citizens, either. In both cases, they are still homo sapien.

It does not harm a human being.

So homosexuals are not human beings? :huh:

Or were you talking about abortion? I stand by my position that all homo sapiens are human beings.

[patteeu]

They push people to fight back and the Cons always lose. Then they whine.

We'll see who's whining once Bush appoints 2 or 3 new SCOTUS justices.

[Darth Executor]

You may learn something. Who knows?

Not likely. I've skimmed through your replies and it's nothing I haven't discussed to death already/



People say women regret having an abortion. It is nothing compared to the regret a woman feels whom has put her child up for adoption. Besides the woman's feelings what life will the child have?

The child can go to school and make a life for itself. What right do you have to choose death over life? My high school english teacher was put up for adoption. If her mother thought like you did she'd be dead and she would not have been the wonderful influence that she was on people.

Before abortion there were many children available for adoption. Have you ever watched old documentaries about adoption? Picture a garage/yard sale offering children instead of old items. People would come and see the children at play and if one caught their fancy they would inquire further. The children knew the reason for the "garden party" and did their best to impress the adults.

Have you watched the documentaries where children's skulls are drilled and their brains sucked out? Beats the heck out of garden parties IMO.

One documentary interviewed an elderly woman telling how she was never selected as a child. The excitement and hope always ended in feelings of rejection and despair. I wonder what would change if hundreds of thousands of children flooded the adoption market.

Instead of dealing with the root of the problem (irresponsible sex), you'd rather just sweep it under a rug by eliminating it with a drill. Did the elderly woman prefer to be dead? If yes, why didn't she jump out a window? Did she ended up being miserable for life?


I knew a woman whom regretted, years later, having had an abortion. She was successful and lamented that another child would have fit perfectly into her life saying, "I have a good job. I have a beautiful home. I have a loving companion. At times I feel I made a mistake."

"Let's go for a drive", I said. We went to the "wrong" side of town where women wearing old clothes were pushing baby carriages and toddlers were playing in mud puddles in a park devoid of grass.

And then my speech started: "Is this the life you miss", I asked. "Your life is the way it is because you had an abortion. You are looking at people who did not have an abortion. Would you want to live here? Would you want your child to live here? Is this the life you regret not having, not being able to afford to take your child to a dentist and wait until they have a toothache and then have the tooth pulled? Maybe you'd like that guy over there, the one walking down the street with no shirt and a beer in his hand, as your next door neighbor? Is this what you regret not being a part of?"

Or you can put the child up for adoption. :ahem:



Nobody wants to have kids? I'm not sure how that jives with your "Or they could put it up for adoption" solution. If people do not want kids there will be no adoptions.

We were discussing EUROPE. Extreme liberalism makes them think abortion is like going to see a hockey game. Pay attention.

The problem is lack of programs for women and children. Child care, a national babysitting register a single mom could call for needed time out, a change in society's perception of single parenthood.....the Vice President of the US commented on how "distasteful" a TV show was showing a single mother. That was just 15 years ago. The world changes fast but not that fast.

We came from banging each other with swords to shooting homing missiles in a few hundred years. "Progress", both social and scientific is accelerating at an alarming rate. When I pass my old high school I shudder to think that these people are the future.

Your observation "Liberalism leads to a lot of apathy regarding life" is the exact opposite of the truth. Liberals value life and respect human beings.

By drilling their brains out or calling them "parasites" to make themselves sleep at night.

They do not want human beings brought into this world and treated like animals or worse.

No, they want to have sex knowing they won't have to be responsible for any "accidents". Don't even try to say they're doing it because they "care". Nobody cares about the well being of strangers. People go "OMG" when some disaster happens and the next day they move on with their lives. Nobody cares about millions of people dying. Nobody cares about poverty. I live in Toronto and know dozens of liberals who complain about problems yet propose no solutions and don't lift a finger to help. I doubt it's any better in the good old US of A.

Apathy is the attitude of the Conservatives. Bring a child into the world and whatever will be, will be. Good home, bad home.

If that is the case why is the US so lively for the most part and Europe looks like a corpse? If Liberals care and Conservatives are apathetic why is the overly liberal Europe dead?

Wanted or unwanted. It's really bizarre. The ones fighting to bring children into the world are the very ones against government programs to aid the children and women involved.

The Republican party pays lip service to the pro life cause but couldn't care less about it. This has nothign to do with republicans. I've seen some of them offer to adopt kids on the net from people who were contemplating abortion. I don't know if anything came of it but that's hardly apathy.

They want children, so they say, but they want nothing to do with them when they're here. The telling remark is when we hear, "She got herself into that. It is her responsibility." Is their position out of concern for the child or some sort of punishment for the woman? It seems to me if one is concerned about a child it makes little difference how it got here.

I've never heard this argument. The closest thing I've heard is that if a slut got herself pregnant she should at least take enough responsibility to bring it into the world.



But how many times can the doctor say, for absolute certainty, the woman will die? Do we kill an innocent human being on the chance the woman will die? Can we consider murder a viable preventative option? Do we take a chance on the woman's life? If she will suffer medical damage, from losing a kidney due to high blood pressure to having an amputation due to circulation problems caused by uncontrolled diabetes, do we force the woman to bear that? If the fetus is close to being viable, perhaps in a couple of weeks it could be delivered early and survive, and the woman is seriously ill do we forcibly hospitalize the woman and if she dies keep her alive artificially until we save the innocent human being inside her?

I can't quite make sense of this tornado of sentences but I'll try. No doctor can say anything with absolute certainty. They are, however, the experts and given a clean record I'm willing to trust them with the decision. The second part is a bit hazy. Are you asking if we should force a woman to bear a child when she is terminally ill instead of letting her die? If that is the case, then you can simply keep her asleep until they can safely remove the baby then let her die.

It's situations like these, although rare, that are the logical extensions of classifying a fetus as a human being and it just doesn't sit right with me.

Of course not. It's typically pro choice to ignore most situations and focus on extremes.

[patteeu]

Gone. Don't make the assumptions that what I was when I left liberalism is what I am now. I was nice then. I'm not anymore.

You've obviously become the new Sith Lord. Congratulations. :smile:

Seriously, Darth, I'm curious about what name you went by when you were a liberal either at CE or here. I'm assuming that Darth Executor reflects your conversion.

[Darth Executor]

You've obviously become the new Sith Lord. Congratulations. :smile:

Seriously, Darth, I'm curious about what name you went by when you were a liberal either at CE or here. I'm assuming that Darth Executor reflects your conversion.

No, I went by the same name. Except before I was a bit more inspired by the Executor part (if you played Starcraft and are familiar with the protoss I'm sure you are aware of their honorable society) and often ignored the "Darth". Now I fully reflect both sides of the coin.

[BeHereNow]

Naw -- you were a liberal when he hit you.

If you were a conservative, you would have pulled out your gun and shot 'em.

Its just like a liberal to let someone else come onto his or her property, slap 'em around, and then drive off.

Actually I was at the casino with my then-values mentor Bill Bennett. :grin:

[apple]

The logical extension of classifying blacks as people with full human rights was the loss of a huge labor force. That didn't sit well with a lot of people. Does that mean we should go back to having slavery?

I think I mentioned before the strange comparisons people make. Do you compare losing a workforce to losing your life? If fetuses are human beings then when a problem pregnancy arises:
1. We allow the killing of innocent human beings
2. We insist the woman suffer and even die if the fetus can be saved.

Pick one.

[apple]

The child can go to school and make a life for itself. What right do you have to choose death over life? My high school english teacher was put up for adoption. If her mother thought like you did she'd be dead and she would not have been the wonderful influence that she was on people.

It is not death over life of a human being as there is no human being. It is preventing what may or may not become a human being from coming into the world and needlessly suffering.

Have you watched the documentaries where children's skulls are drilled and their brains sucked out? Beats the heck out of garden parties IMO.

I think you mean fetus's skulls as there is no child. I agree something should be done. There is no reason the umbilical cord can not be clamped and the fetus euthanized.

Instead of dealing with the root of the problem (irresponsible sex), you'd rather just sweep it under a rug by eliminating it with a drill.

But most anti-abortionists don't want to deal with irresponsible sex. Where are the TV ads for condoms and birth control during family hour? Do we see an ad showing a mother or father handing their son or daughter a condom as they go out the door on Saturday night? Ohhhhh, noooooo. Can't show that. Even if folks believe a fetus is a human being and abortion is murder it's much more preferable to let the drilling go on rather than show those type of ads. Can you blame folks for not taking them seriously?

We were discussing EUROPE. Extreme liberalism makes them think abortion is like going to see a hockey game. Pay attention.

If your posts were coherent we wouldn't have this problem. You say abortion is the answer then say people don't want kids. You switch between Europe and the US and then expect one to know which one you are talking about without specifying. So, are you saying your adoption solution is no solution for Europe? Are you saying liberal Americans want kids but liberal Europeans don't or are you just filling in the standard replies as you go along?

We came from banging each other with swords to shooting homing missiles in a few hundred years. "Progress", both social and scientific is accelerating at an alarming rate. When I pass my old high school I shudder to think that these people are the future.

Do you have any idea how many generations have said the exact same thing? It always saddens me to see the joy and optimism of youth replaced with the bitter resentfulness that age many times brings.

No, they want to have sex knowing they won't have to be responsible for any "accidents". Don't even try to say they're doing it because they "care". Nobody cares about the well being of strangers. People go "OMG" when some disaster happens and the next day they move on with their lives. Nobody cares about millions of people dying. Nobody cares about poverty. I live in Toronto and know dozens of liberals who complain about problems yet propose no solutions and don't lift a finger to help. I doubt it's any better in the good old US of A.

Most mothers care about their children and that is why they do not want to bring one into the world knowing they can not look after it. Would you want to bring a child into the world knowing it had Tay Sachs disease?
"Symptoms of classical Tay-Sachs disease first appear at 4 to 6 months of age when an apparently healthy baby gradually stops smiling, crawling or turning over, loses its ability to grasp or reach out and, eventually, becomes blind, paralyzed and unaware of its surroundings. Death occurs by age 5. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1227.asp)

As for poverty didn't Mr. Martin adopt Mr. Layton's budget for the poor?

If that is the case why is the US so lively for the most part and Europe looks like a corpse? If Liberals care and Conservatives are apathetic why is the overly liberal Europe dead?

I'm not sure I understand your Europe corpse statement. Have you been taking economy tours?

I can't quite make sense of this tornado of sentences but I'll try. No doctor can say anything with absolute certainty. They are, however, the experts and given a clean record I'm willing to trust them with the decision. The second part is a bit hazy. Are you asking if we should force a woman to bear a child when she is terminally ill instead of letting her die? If that is the case, then you can simply keep her asleep until they can safely remove the baby then let her die.

Not terminally ill at this point but an illness that will get worse if the pregnancy continues. In most cases a problem pregnancy is the fault of the defective woman's body. If a fetus is a human being and there is not a tubal pregnancy or there is no other fault with the fetus then we must insure the survival of the fetus even if it means the disease the mother has will worsen. As medical procedures improve it will become easier and easier to keep the woman alive artifically as she succumbs to her disease. Surely we can not kill an innocent human being in order to save a faulty one so are we ready, as a society, to watch our wives and sisters die in order to protect the fetus?

It's typically pro choice to ignore most situations and focus on extremes.

That's right. It's commonly referred to as "thinking it through". It's one thing to try and stop abortions and quite another to do it in such a way as to put other human beings in harm or insist on genetically defective pregnancies continuing resulting in watching a child suffer from "substances build up and gradually destroy brain and nerve cells, until the entire central nervous system stops working" and dies at five years of age. I think the word "sadistic" is appropriate in those cases.

[Darth Executor]

It is not death over life of a human being as there is no human being. It is preventing what may or may not become a human being from coming into the world and needlessly suffering.

If it's not a human being then what is it?



I think you mean fetus's skulls as there is no child. I agree something should be done. There is no reason the umbilical cord can not be clamped and the fetus euthanized.

Fetus, child, they're both human.



But most anti-abortionists don't want to deal with irresponsible sex. Where are the TV ads for condoms and birth control during family hour? Do we see an ad showing a mother or father handing their son or daughter a condom as they go out the door on Saturday night? Ohhhhh, noooooo. Can't show that. Even if folks believe a fetus is a human being and abortion is murder it's much more preferable to let the drilling go on rather than show those type of ads. Can you blame folks for not taking them seriously?

How about we drill abstinence in our idiot children's heads? It worked pretty well for the past 50000 years.



If your posts were coherent we wouldn't have this problem. You say abortion is the answer then say people don't want kids. You switch between Europe and the US and then expect one to know which one you are talking about without specifying.

No, I don't. each paragraph deals with a specific issue. I don't switch between them and you're only confused because you're too lazy to go back through several exchanges when you don't remember the context. I take the time to do that because I hate misrepresenting people's position. You can do the same.

So, are you saying your adoption solution is no solution for Europe?

My problem with europe isn't specifically with abortion: it's liberalism. Abortion is just one of the simptoms. The solution for Europe would be another Hitler to shake some sense into them. Too much good turns brain into mush.

Are you saying liberal Americans want kids but liberal Europeans don't or are you just filling in the standard replies as you go along?

I'm saying there aren't a lot of "liberal" americans. America has a healthy dose of conservatives in it. Europe, for the most part, doesn't.


Do you have any idea how many generations have said the exact same thing?

No, and I don't really care.

It always saddens me to see the joy and optimism of youth replaced with the bitter resentfulness that age many times brings.

Except we now have the material ability to study social trends and compare them with our past. This may sadden you but it's the truth. Don't only, just because I'm not joyful and optimistic doesn't mean the rest of my generation isn't either. They'll be happy all the way to their graves.



Most mothers care about their children and that is why they do not want to bring one into the world knowing they can not look after it. Would you want to bring a child into the world knowing it had Tay Sachs disease?

Killing it certainly won't lead to a cure.


"Symptoms of classical Tay-Sachs disease first appear at 4 to 6 months of age when an apparently healthy baby gradually stops smiling, crawling or turning over, loses its ability to grasp or reach out and, eventually, becomes blind, paralyzed and unaware of its surroundings. Death occurs by age 5. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1227.asp)

As for poverty didn't Mr. Martin adopt Mr. Layton's budget for the poor?

Drat, I googled for a description for nothing. And Mr. Martin can better help the poor by not having his liberals steal.



I'm not sure I understand your Europe corpse statement. Have you been taking economy tours?

I am in a business program in university so I read on it once in a blue moon. A simple google search will give you many articles which express a real concern with Europe's future development.


Not terminally ill at this point but an illness that will get worse if the pregnancy continues. In most cases a problem pregnancy is the fault of the defective woman's body. If a fetus is a human being and there is not a tubal pregnancy or there is no other fault with the fetus then we must insure the survival of the fetus even if it means the disease the mother has will worsen. As medical procedures improve it will become easier and easier to keep the woman alive artifically as she succumbs to her disease. Surely we can not kill an innocent human being in order to save a faulty one so are we ready, as a society, to watch our wives and sisters die in order to protect the fetus?

If the woman's going to die anyway I don't see why she needs to take the fetus down with her.



That's right. It's commonly referred to as "thinking it through". It's one thing to try and stop abortions and quite another to do it in such a way as to put other human beings in harm or insist on genetically defective pregnancies continuing resulting in watching a child suffer from "substances build up and gradually destroy brain and nerve cells, until the entire central nervous system stops working" and dies at five years of age. I think the word "sadistic" is appropriate in those cases.

I have a simple solution to all of your whining about pain: keep them asleep. We have drugs that can do it. Of course, if this discussion is going to go where it usually does, you're going to complain about maintenance costs, thus putting a price on human life and further sickening me.

[Sheepdog]

That reminds me of the day I stopped being a conservative. Yeah, I was rambling with vague yet fierce complaints about liberals and talking about how myself, my family and money are the only important things in life when all of a sudden Hulk Hogan drove by on a Harley and slapped the [Private Eye] out my mouth.

:lmbo: :thumb:

[apple]

If it's not a human being then what is it?

It is a fetus. It is not yet a human being.

Fetus, child, they're both human.

They both contain human DNA but they are not both human beings.

How about we drill abstinence in our idiot children's heads? It worked pretty well for the past 50000 years.

You must have read different history books than I did. There were always illegitimate children throughout history. Sometimes they ended up in government/religious orphanages where they were beaten and abused. Child labor was a favorite use for those little b%$#@$. Sometimes a family member, living far away, would take them and they were little more than free farm labor. That is what any decent woman not able to look after a child wants to avoid.

My problem with europe isn't specifically with abortion: it's liberalism. Abortion is just one of the simptoms. The solution for Europe would be another Hitler to shake some sense into them. Too much good turns brain into mush.

Please don't start with the "suffering-is-good-for-the-soul" thing.

No, and I don't really care.

Well, all generations feel the one following is heading down the road to destruction. It's not, so don't worry.

Except we now have the material ability to study social trends and compare them with our past. This may sadden you but it's the truth. Don't only, just because I'm not joyful and optimistic doesn't mean the rest of my generation isn't either. They'll be happy all the way to their graves.

Social trends? Sounds like you feel a lot more is wrong than just abortion. Would you care to elaborate?

Killing it certainly won't lead to a cure.

Perhaps not but stem cell research might. Maybe wait until there is some hope rather than just keep producing those children knowing they will suffer?

I am in a business program in university so I read on it once in a blue moon. A simple google search will give you many articles which express a real concern with Europe's future development.

The only thing I have read is the lack of replacement population which is ludicrous. There are so many people wanting to emigrate to Western European countries they could be swamped with new folks if they so wish.

If the woman's going to die anyway I don't see why she needs to take the fetus down with her.

Neither do I. My point is what happens if the fetus can be saved at the expense of serious medical damage to the mother? If both the fetus and the mother are human beings then we will have two choices.
1. We allow medical damage to occur to the mother if we can save the fetus.
2. Or we allow the woman to abort in cases of possible medical damage which means we kill one "class" of human beings (fetuses) in order to prevent damage to another "class" of human beings (women).
If a fetus is a human being then we must choose. Which do you choose?

I have a simple solution to all of your whining about pain: keep them asleep. We have drugs that can do it. Of course, if this discussion is going to go where it usually does, you're going to complain about maintenance costs, thus putting a price on human life and further sickening me.

So you're suggesting bringing a child into the world knowing it has a fatal genetic disease and keeping it sedated until it dies. Is that what you are saying?

[Darth Executor]

It is a fetus. It is not yet a human being.

They both contain human DNA but they are not both human beings.


Which species? And if it's not a human being yet, when does a human being become a human being?



You must have read different history books than I did. There were always illegitimate children throughout history. Sometimes they ended up in government/religious orphanages where they were beaten and abused. Child labor was a favorite use for those little b%$#@$. Sometimes a family member, living far away, would take them and they were little more than free farm labor. That is what any decent woman not able to look after a child wants to avoid.

:ahem:
Of course there were always illegitimate children. But in previous times things like adultery could land you dead. I guarantee people were not having sex like rabbits everytime they "fell in love".

Please don't start with the "suffering-is-good-for-the-soul" thing.

I'm not, although if you feel you're capable you can try and tackle me on the Problem of Evil in this thread as it relates to that:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55945



Well, all generations feel the one following is heading down the road to destruction. It's not, so don't worry.

I don't care what previous generations feel. And it's usually the old people that complain. I don't fit the description of the average complainer.


Social trends? Sounds like you feel a lot more is wrong than just abortion. Would you care to elaborate?

Blind pacifism. Apathy to anything but worthless social interaction (all of my "peers" know the locations of parties and cheap sources of alcohol yet I guarantee they'd all get trashed into any serious discussion). Irrealistic view of an utopia that will never come (especially since nobody actually cares to work for it).



Perhaps not but stem cell research might. Maybe wait until there is some hope rather than just keep producing those children knowing they will suffer?

Actually in that case it seems to me that the baby's nerves become disfunctional so there really isn't much suffering. Of course, I have better solutions but for them to work I need to reform a nation's infrastructure from the ground up and there's no way I'm getting into that here.



The only thing I have read is the lack of replacement population which is ludicrous. There are so many people wanting to emigrate to Western European countries they could be swamped with new folks if they so wish.

*sigh*

The populatin decline is a side effect, not the main problem. Mass emigration will do one of two things:

* Crapify Europe. Strangers will bring their disputes with them and the leniency they find there will likely just give them more fuel. There are several branches it could go off into and none of them look good to me.
* Corrupt the new comers. This assumes they want to integrate which solves nothing. Integration in the new society will not change social trends one bit.



Neither do I. My point is what happens if the fetus can be saved at the expense of serious medical damage to the mother? If both the fetus and the mother are human beings then we will have two choices.
1. We allow medical damage to occur to the mother if we can save the fetus.
2. Or we allow the woman to abort in cases of possible medical damage which means we kill one "class" of human beings (fetuses) in order to prevent damage to another "class" of human beings (women).
If a fetus is a human being then we must choose. Which do you choose?

I don't like making choices like these unles specific examples are given but as it stands I'm leaning towards saving the baby.



So you're suggesting bringing a child into the world knowing it has a fatal genetic disease and keeping it sedated until it dies. Is that what you are saying?

Yep.

[Sheepdog]

the vast majority of abortion cases are where neither the mother nor fetus are in harms way. why should the exception make the rule?

i wonder, does apple drive 25mph down the interstate? or does apple drive 70 through a residential zone?

some of us who are generally anti-abortion will permit the choice to the mother in the event of mortal harm to either. i don't like playing God myself, so in those circumstances i'll leave to mother to decide if she can live with an innocent's blood on her conscience.

[Stephen]

It is a fetus. It is not yet a human being.
Fetus, child, they're both human.

I've been following this discussion for a while, but I think a lot of it is fruitless if two people disagree on such a fundamental thing.

Apple, since Darth believes a fetus is a human being, all of your rhetoric about the impracticality of life after an unwanted pregnancy is useless. I'm sure you would agree that when it comes down to suffering vs. murder, suffering is the lesser of two evils.

Darth, if a fetus is not (as I strongly believe it is) life, merely a potential life, would your argument change?

If both of you would concede to the other's viewpoint if you assumed his presuppositions, either focus on whether a fetus is a human being or not, or drop the issue altogether.

[Darth Executor]

Darth, if a fetus is not (as I strongly believe it is) life, merely a potential life, would your argument change?


It would but I'm way past that stage so don't expect my beliefs to change. I know it's alive for sure (unless you wish to imply it's an inanimate object or dead) and I know it's an early stage of human development(and humans develop and degenerate throughout their life). That's more than enough for me. I do plan on continuing this because I know how it's going to end.

[Stephen]

It would but I'm way past that stage so don't expect my beliefs to change. I know it's alive for sure (unless you wish to imply it's an inanimate object or dead) and I know it's an early stage of human development(and humans develop and degenerate throughout their life). That's more than enough for me. I do plan on continuing this because I know how it's going to end.

I agree. My point is if apple cannot agree with you on such a basic issue, everything that builds on it falls apart.

[patteeu]

I've been following this discussion for a while, but I think a lot of it is fruitless if two people disagree on such a fundamental thing.

Apple, since Darth believes a fetus is a human being, all of your rhetoric about the impracticality of life after an unwanted pregnancy is useless. I'm sure you would agree that when it comes down to suffering vs. murder, suffering is the lesser of two evils.

Darth, if a fetus is not (as I strongly believe it is) life, merely a potential life, would your argument change?

If both of you would concede to the other's viewpoint if you assumed his presuppositions, either focus on whether a fetus is a human being or not, or drop the issue altogether.

This is the best post in the thread.

[apple]

Which species? And if it's not a human being yet, when does a human being become a human being?

The species is Homo sapiens. As for becoming a human being the Bible makes that very clear. It is the first breath. Whether talking directly about man becoming alive with the first breath or using breath in an analogy breath is always referred to as the start of life. It goes further and says "breath in nostrils" and describes breath as "smoke in nostrils". There isn't anything happening in the womb that could remotely fit those references.

Of course there were always illegitimate children. But in previous times things like adultery could land you dead. I guarantee people were not having sex like rabbits everytime they "fell in love".

People were barbarians in those days. If you think of the human race as a person growing up the people in those days were like young teenagers with no one to guide them. They lived by their emotions. Love, sexual attraction, was and is a strong emotion/force. It wasn't all that long ago that certain Western European countries (I think Italy was one) considered adultery a mitigating circumstance for murder. Here, we are not allowed to murder our unfaithful spouse. Are you suggesting they had a better way of living?

I'm not, although if you feel you're capable you can try and tackle me on the Problem of Evil in this thread as it relates to that:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55945

Thanks for the invite but I have commitments on other threads and boards.

Blind pacifism. Apathy to anything but worthless social interaction (all of my "peers" know the locations of parties and cheap sources of alcohol yet I guarantee they'd all get trashed into any serious discussion). Irrealistic view of an utopia that will never come (especially since nobody actually cares to work for it).

Maybe it's just me but your comments seem to have that underlying air of struggle/hard times/suffering that I used to see with organized religion. I can't really put my finger on it but it's like certain religious folks are never "too" happy. There's a serious side that can't be forgotten. It's like there is an unspoken problem, an overpowering cloud, an undefined evil just waiting for the unsuspecting. It's like a group of employees sitting in the lunch room of a company undergoing financial restructuring. They're telling jokes, they're laughing but one can sense an air of foreboding......oh, well. Just a feeling I get from you when reading your posts.

Actually in that case it seems to me that the baby's nerves become disfunctional so there really isn't much suffering. Of course, I have better solutions but for them to work I need to reform a nation's infrastructure from the ground up and there's no way I'm getting into that here.

Sounds like you need to start your own blog. Hahahaha

The populatin decline is a side effect, not the main problem. Mass emigration will do one of two things:

* Crapify Europe. Strangers will bring their disputes with them and the leniency they find there will likely just give them more fuel. There are several branches it could go off into and none of them look good to me.
* Corrupt the new comers. This assumes they want to integrate which solves nothing. Integration in the new society will not change social trends one bit.

It's difficult to respond when I don't know what social trends you are referring to. Let's see if I can put it this way. If one of the reasons you are against abortion is because of the population decrease and you are against immigration which would solve the decrease problem because the newcomers will be corrupted but I don't know of what corruption you are speaking then I'm not addressing the full reasons for your objection.

You say population decline is a side affect, not the main problem. If I recall you said the main problem was apathy. What are people apathetic about? What is lacking concern/attention?

I don't like making choices like these unles specific examples are given but as it stands I'm leaning towards saving the baby.

Yep.

I definately disagree with your last two replies.

[Darth Executor]

The species is Homo sapiens.

Then it's human and alive. Do you admit it is a human being? Is your problem that the fetus is not a "person"?

As for becoming a human being the Bible makes that very clear. It is the first breath. Whether talking directly about man becoming alive with the first breath or using breath in an analogy breath is always referred to as the start of life. It goes further and says "breath in nostrils" and describes breath as "smoke in nostrils". There isn't anything happening in the womb that could remotely fit those references.

No, the bible doesn't make it "very clear" because all of the instances about "man becoming alive with the first breath" are of grown men undergoing special creation. Heck, one of them is not even reality but a vision. The bible does talk about a fetus in one of its laws and the word they use for it is the same word they use for "child". In addition, there is no historical reference of Jews and early Christians condoning abortions while there are some against it. If you think the bible supports abortion or declares the starting point of EVERY human's life when they draw their first breath you're wrong.


People were barbarians in those days. If you think of the human race as a person growing up the people in those days were like young teenagers with no one to guide them. They lived by their emotions. Love, sexual attraction, was and is a strong emotion/force. It wasn't all that long ago that certain Western European countries (I think Italy was one) considered adultery a mitigating circumstance for murder. Here, we are not allowed to murder our unfaithful spouse. Are you suggesting they had a better way of living?

Yep, because adultery caused a LOT of damage in the past. It's admissible now because messing around nowadays doesn't risk bankrupting your family and having them starve to death.


Thanks for the invite but I have commitments on other threads and boards.

Pity.



Maybe it's just me but your comments seem to have that underlying air of struggle/hard times/suffering that I used to see with organized religion. I can't really put my finger on it but it's like certain religious folks are never "too" happy. There's a serious side that can't be forgotten. It's like there is an unspoken problem, an overpowering cloud, an undefined evil just waiting for the unsuspecting. It's like a group of employees sitting in the lunch room of a company undergoing financial restructuring. They're telling jokes, they're laughing but one can sense an air of foreboding......oh, well. Just a feeling I get from you when reading your posts.

You're right. However, I was never a "happy" person. I used to be nice and naive. Then I got hit hard. Becoming a deist from a Christian did nothing to me. Becoming a Christian again simply ensures that I no longer fall into despair. Whenever I start leaning in that direction now God gives me a kick to get me back on track. Of course, I can't live like that for the rest of my life so I'll have to do something about it but if you think my religion is the cause for my unhappiness you're way off.



Sounds like you need to start your own blog. Hahahaha

Maybe I should. But I don't wanna give away my master plan. :grin:



It's difficult to respond when I don't know what social trends you are referring to. Let's see if I can put it this way. If one of the reasons you are against abortion is because of the population decrease and you are against immigration which would solve the decrease problem because the newcomers will be corrupted but I don't know of what corruption you are speaking then I'm not addressing the full reasons for your objection.

No, that's not one of the reasons why I'm against abortion, although abortion certainly isn't helping. Abortion is just a side effect of apathy. Regarding social trends, it seems to me that people are taking the "live and let live" mantra to an extreme.

You say population decline is a side affect, not the main problem. If I recall you said the main problem was apathy. What are people apathetic about? What is lacking concern/attention?

A real purpose, mostly. Most of human history involves people trying to survive. We no longer have that problem and people seem to lose purpose. We were not made for this. Not only is stress now a problem but the average Joe's ambition seems to be a good job and maybe a family (and the latter is failing in Europe). In ancient times it was different. For example, when the Roman empire began conquering,they had a purpose. Kings and emperors were interested in grand achevements. Bush and Kerry are interested in not looking too stupid when they're doing an extremely restricted debate that answers almost nothing. Joining the legion gave you the feeling that you were achieving something. I don't see this in a lot of people today.


I definately disagree with your last two replies.

Of course you do.

[apple]

Then it's human and alive. Do you admit it is a human being? Is your problem that the fetus is not a "person"?

I view a human being and a person to be the same thing and a fetus is not one. A fetus, living inside the body of a human being, using and depending upon the organs of a human being, living in a liquid environment can not be said to be the same as something that lives outside the body of a human being, complete and not dependent upon the body/organs of another and living in a gaseous environment. How can anyone overlook such basic, fundamental differences and claim they are the same?

No, the bible doesn't make it "very clear" because all of the instances about "man becoming alive with the first breath" are of grown men undergoing special creation. Heck, one of them is not even reality but a vision. The bible does talk about a fetus in one of its laws and the word they use for it is the same word they use for "child". In addition, there is no historical reference of Jews and early Christians condoning abortions while there are some against it. If you think the bible supports abortion or declares the starting point of EVERY human's life when they draw their first breath you're wrong.

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Was Job a "special" creation or was he born as every other human being is?

Regarding the vision the point is breath is used to denote life. Sinews, flesh, bones....all there but no breath. Breath is the final thing. The thing that starts life. The verse is perfectly clear "...and the breath came into them, and they lived.."

"Breath in nostrils", "Breath as smoke in nostrils"

Wisdom 15:11 "Forasmuch as he knew not his Maker, and him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed in a living spirit." That verse is referring the men, in general (potters,goldsmiths, etc).

If conception was the start of life or the life of a human being began inside the woman would it have been so difficult to write something along the lines of "God's spirit entered the woman" or something similar? Breath is always mentioned when discussing life and even though the folks who wrote the Bible may not have known about eggs and fertilization they certainly could figure out there was no breath where the fetus is domiciled. Furthermore, the writers were inspired by God. Many things mentioned in the Bible made little or no sense to the person writing them. A burning bush that is never consumed, a wheel inside a wheel....the point being if the life of a human being began inside a woman and God was inspiring them to write such, to pass along the information, the last thing they would associate the beginning of life with would be breath.

Yep, because adultery caused a LOT of damage in the past. It's admissible now because messing around nowadays doesn't risk bankrupting your family and having them starve to death.

Exactly! A family was all a person had. No social programs, whatsoever. I'm sure the elderly, without family, didn't survive too long. As we progressed we realized we needed services to look after the elderly. That is what we need today, for children. People complain about the decline in population, the shortage of children, but as soon as one mentions programs such as daycare and assistance for single parents folks start screaming.

We wonder why people are not having children. What has changed over the 1000s of years as far as child rearing is concerned? Is anyone there to help if the father disappears? Sure, find him and sue him, if one can find him. Is there any babysitting/child care available to parents? Any financial assistance until the father starts paying? Can't reasonable, sensible people connect the dots? Working, paying for child care, looking after the child every moment when not working, struggling to fulfill all the requirements and it's very likely one will have a breakdown, lose thier job and go bankrupt.

People see, if not the poverty, the stress put on regular families when a new baby arrives. Imagine what goes through the mind of a single woman or a young married woman reading divorce statistics.

Pity.

It's a busy time for me, summer that is. Perhaps in the fall I'll pick up the gauntlet.

You're right. However, I was never a "happy" person. I used to be nice and naive. Then I got hit hard. Becoming a deist from a Christian did nothing to me. Becoming a Christian again simply ensures that I no longer fall into despair. Whenever I start leaning in that direction now God gives me a kick to get me back on track. Of course, I can't live like that for the rest of my life so I'll have to do something about it but if you think my religion is the cause for my unhappiness you're way off.

Hmmmm. I thought, perhaps, organized religion made people unhappy. Maybe it's that unhappy people are attracted to organized religion.

A real purpose, mostly. Most of human history involves people trying to survive. We no longer have that problem and people seem to lose purpose. We were not made for this. Not only is stress now a problem but the average Joe's ambition seems to be a good job and maybe a family (and the latter is failing in Europe). In ancient times it was different. For example, when the Roman empire began conquering,they had a purpose. Kings and emperors were interested in grand achevements. Bush and Kerry are interested in not looking too stupid when they're doing an extremely restricted debate that answers almost nothing. Joining the legion gave you the feeling that you were achieving something. I don't see this in a lot of people today.

That was a heartbreaker. You started off so well but....

Let's take a closer look. You write, "Most of human history involves people trying to survive." I completely agree.
You write, "We no longer have that problem and people seem to lose purpose." Absolutely! People are looking for a purpose.
Then came the heartbreaker. "We were not made for this." That is where you skidded off the rails. We were made for this. That is what the Garden of Eden was all about, wasn't it? We were made/created for a paradise. Our job, if one could call it that, was to tend the garden. It's after the apple that it's written, "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,...." Gad, sounds terrible!

We needed to work and work and accept suffering because it was all there was. It was necessary for survival. God decided He was not going to help us anymore as far as a good life was concerned in the Garden. So, we have become conditioned, over the years, to believe struggle and suffering is good. It has become part of us.

That is the mentality of many people. That's why people are against helping others in the sense of government/social programs. "It makes people lazy." "It's not good." "Suffering is noble." All these expressions/ideas have become so ingrained that we lost perspective. Now, I'm not saying we should all go lie on the beach. What I am saying is the idea that everyone should work, even if a job is not necessary but just to keep the person busy, is wrong.

Do we have a purpose when we go to an amusement park? Go on vacation? Have a family dinner? We enjoy all those things and we don't have a "mission" to accomplish. People feel they need a purpose and by not having a need to struggle they have turned their attention to interfering in other people's lives. Helping is noble. Interfering is the opposite.

We have the less fortunate to help in other lands as well as at home. We have robots to build. We must pursue technology with a passion coupled with the understanding that man was not created to struggle and suffer. It is not noble. It is not Christian. It was never God's idea/plan when he created us. We screwed up and got punished. When we send our child to their room because they are naughty the child does not believe that is going to be it's permanent place. It does not adapt to the room in the sense it's life becomes fashioned around the circumstances in the room. When a person is jailed they do what is necessary to survive in jail but they do not, or should not, live the same way when they are let out.

The most noble of purposes, in my estimation, is helping others. Did you know, when many people retire, they fall ill because they have no "purpose"? They don't have to get up for work anymore. They become lost. It is a frequent happening.

I don't know what hit you hard, Darth, but it sounds like you have a lot in common with a person that retires, as far as purpose is concerned. I often wonder what a dog, being hit by a car but doesn't die, thinks what it did wrong. Was it being punished or did **** just happen?

I suppose the old sayings like, "Appreciate all the little things" and "Learn to love what you have and not be envious of others" have more meaning than most realize. In the words of Joseph Campbell, "Find your bliss". Remember, life was a struggle because it was our punishment. We've struggled so long that we've come to believe it is the natural way things should be. Nothing could be further from the truth.




Of course you do.[/QUOTE]

[Darth Executor]

I view a human being and a person to be the same thing and a fetus is not one. A fetus, living inside the body of a human being, using and depending upon the organs of a human being, living in a liquid environment can not be said to be the same as something that lives outside the body of a human being, complete and not dependent upon the body/organs of another and living in a gaseous environment. How can anyone overlook such basic, fundamental differences and claim they are the same?

I can easily find differences like these amd make out other people that you would consider human beings not so. Of course, who is to say the differences between a "normal" human being and those you made matter? Many people are dependant on one thing or another. ALL human beings are dependant on their mother before they are born.



Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Was Job a "special" creation or was he born as every other human being is?

What does "the breath of the almighty" have to do with Job's breath?

Regarding the vision the point is breath is used to denote life. Sinews, flesh, bones....all there but no breath. Breath is the final thing. The thing that starts life. The verse is perfectly clear "...and the breath came into them, and they lived.."

]Breath in nostrils", "Breath as smoke in nostrils"


It's still a special creation. I can also bring mention of specific individuals of whom God speaks of as real persons in the womb.



Wisdom 15:11 "Forasmuch as he knew not his Maker, and him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed in a living spirit." That verse is referring the men, in general (potters,goldsmiths, etc).

Umm, isn't Wisdom an apocryphal book? Not that it matters because I don't see what that has to do with birth.

If conception was the start of life or the life of a human being began inside the woman would it have been so difficult to write something along the lines of "God's spirit entered the woman" or something similar?

Or they could have the same word for fetus that they use for child. Oh wait...

Breath is always mentioned when discussing life and even though the folks who wrote the Bible may not have known about eggs and fertilization they certainly could figure out there was no breath where the fetus is domiciled. Furthermore, the writers were inspired by God. Many things mentioned in the Bible made little or no sense to the person writing them. A burning bush that is never consumed, a wheel inside a wheel....the point being if the life of a human being began inside a woman and God was inspiring them to write such, to pass along the information, the last thing they would associate the beginning of life with would be breath.

Actually ALL of the things in the bible made sense to them. Despite what many fundies think the bible wasn't written for us. God didn't put in some special knowledge for us to discover in the year 2000.



Exactly! A family was all a person had. No social programs, whatsoever. I'm sure the elderly, without family, didn't survive too long. As we progressed we realized we needed services to look after the elderly. That is what we need today, for children. People complain about the decline in population, the shortage of children, but as soon as one mentions programs such as daycare and assistance for single parents folks start screaming.

I never heard anybody "start screaming". In fact, I've never ran into this being an issue at all. The only people I've heard complain about having to pay for child care are liberals.

We wonder why people are not having children. What has changed over the 1000s of years as far as child rearing is concerned? Is anyone there to help if the father disappears? Sure, find him and sue him, if one can find him. Is there any babysitting/child care available to parents? Any financial assistance until the father starts paying? Can't reasonable, sensible people connect the dots? Working, paying for child care, looking after the child every moment when not working, struggling to fulfill all the requirements and it's very likely one will have a breakdown, lose thier job and go bankrupt.

As opposed to ancient times where even a small failure can mean death? To say we "have it bad" today is ridiculous.

People see, if not the poverty, the stress put on regular families when a new baby arrives. Imagine what goes through the mind of a single woman or a young married woman reading divorce statistics.

Make divorce illegal or at least extremely difficult to accomplish. Problem solved. It would certainly make people think before they make a commitment.


It's a busy time for me, summer that is. Perhaps in the fall I'll pick up the gauntlet.

Don't worry about it, I got a debate with Johnny Skeptic coming up so that should fill up my time.


Hmmmm. I thought, perhaps, organized religion made people unhappy. Maybe it's that unhappy people are attracted to organized religion.

I don't know a lot of unhappy people that are in organized religion. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on your part?



That was a heartbreaker. You started off so well but....

Then came the heartbreaker. "We were not made for this." That is where you skidded off the rails. We were made for this. That is what the Garden of Eden was all about, wasn't it? We were made/created for a paradise.

This is not paradise. We were not made to drone around in a city with no real purpose in mind. Survival isn't a challenge. The garden of eden is not a good comparison IMO because you had God taking care of their every need.


Our job, if one could call it that, was to tend the garden. It's after the apple that it's written, "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,...." Gad, sounds terrible!

Was it? I'm pretty sure our job was to sit around doing nothing all day. Or have fun. That's not exactly something we can achieve.

We needed to work and work and accept suffering because it was all there was. It was necessary for survival. God decided He was not going to help us anymore as far as a good life was concerned in the Garden. So, we have become conditioned, over the years, to believe struggle and suffering is good. It has become part of us.

Suffering IS good. If you're stuck in a strictly physical mindset you will disagree but when looking at the bigger picture it's nothing. Of course, this involves the POE and I'm not getting into that here.

That is the mentality of many people. That's why people are against helping others in the sense of government/social programs. "It makes people lazy." "It's not good." "Suffering is noble." All these expressions/ideas have become so ingrained that we lost perspective. Now, I'm not saying we should all go lie on the beach. What I am saying is the idea that everyone should work, even if a job is not necessary but just to keep the person busy, is wrong.

I'm not really interested in what people do with their free time. The reasons you listed are ridiculous. People I know which are against social programs are like that because they feel slackers will abuse them. Since I am a slacker myself I can only agree.

Do we have a purpose when we go to an amusement park? Go on vacation? Have a family dinner? We enjoy all those things and we don't have a "mission" to accomplish. People feel they need a purpose and by not having a need to struggle they have turned their attention to interfering in other people's lives. Helping is noble. Interfering is the opposite.

Helping is interfering...

Having fun is enjoyable simply because we have the bad to contrast it with. If you had fun all the time would it still mean something? One summer I couldn't wait until I got off school so I can do nothing all day. By the time summer was over I couldn't wait to go to school because all the "fun" was boring me out of my mind.

We have the less fortunate to help in other lands as well as at home. We have robots to build. We must pursue technology with a passion coupled with the understanding that man was not created to struggle and suffer. It is not noble. It is not Christian. It was never God's idea/plan when he created us. We screwed up and got punished. When we send our child to their room because they are naughty the child does not believe that is going to be it's permanent place. It does not adapt to the room in the sense it's life becomes fashioned around the circumstances in the room. When a person is jailed they do what is necessary to survive in jail but they do not, or should not, live the same way when they are let out.

Suffering isn't noble? I guess Jesus died for nothing.

The most noble of purposes, in my estimation, is helping others. Did you know, when many people retire, they fall ill because they have no "purpose"? They don't have to get up for work anymore. They become lost. It is a frequent happening.

Yes, I did know that. Only further proves my point.


I don't know what hit you hard, Darth, but it sounds like you have a lot in common with a person that retires, as far as purpose is concerned. I often wonder what a dog, being hit by a car but doesn't die, thinks what it did wrong. Was it being punished or did **** just happen?

I'm not like a retired person in that I do have a purpose. Lacking the means of achieving it in this apathetic world however is driving me crazy. And no, I won't go into what my purpose is.

I suppose the old sayings like, "Appreciate all the little things" and "Learn to love what you have and not be envious of others" have more meaning than most realize. In the words of Joseph Campbell, "Find your bliss". Remember, life was a struggle because it was our punishment. We've struggled so long that we've come to believe it is the natural way things should be. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Wise" words have little meaning for me.

[Darth Executor]

Btw, where does the bible say that breathing through one's nostrills is a requirement for life? Take adam for example. We have him "asleep", then he becomes alive and takes his first breath. How does this EXCLUDE other kinds of oxygen transfer from allowing for life? If my nose is clogged up and I have to breathe through my mouth do I suddenly lose my soul? Fish were considered living creatures yet:

A) Some fish have no nostrills.
B) Those that do use it for smelling alone. They breathe through their gills.

[apple]

Btw, where does the bible say that breathing through one's nostrills is a requirement for life? Take adam for example. We have him "asleep", then he becomes alive and takes his first breath. How does this EXCLUDE other kinds of oxygen transfer from allowing for life? If my nose is clogged up and I have to breathe through my mouth do I suddenly lose my soul? Fish were considered living creatures yet:

A) Some fish have no nostrills.
B) Those that do use it for smelling alone. They breathe through their gills.

Here's a few verses about the "breath of life". I'll reply to your other post later. It's getting near my afternoon nap time. :-)

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 7: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Psalms 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Wisdom 2:2 For we are born at all adventure: and we shall be hereafter as though we had never been: for the breath in our nostrils is as smoke, and a little spark in the moving of our heart:

All those verses refer to breath as life. It doesn't say a person's heart is stopped or a person's blood stops flowing or .....there is no other word or phrase consistently used to denote life. Furthermore, the word nostrils is used so one doesn't have to guess what is meant. Breath, nostrils...what else can it possibly mean except the every day definition of breath?

Then there is the analogy in Ezekiel 37:
5: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
[6] And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
[8] And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
[9] Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
[10] So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Because an analogy is used to help people understand the analogy will refer to something people are familiar with, something common place, something people easily recognize. The story tells about the bones and sinews and flesh and skin and tells us, directly, "but there was no breath in them." I can't see how it could have been written any clearer? Can you?

[Darth Executor]

Here's a few verses about the "breath of life". I'll reply to your other post later. It's getting near my afternoon nap time. :-)

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 7: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Psalms 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Wisdom 2:2 For we are born at all adventure: and we shall be hereafter as though we had never been: for the breath in our nostrils is as smoke, and a little spark in the moving of our heart:

All those verses refer to breath as life. It doesn't say a person's heart is stopped or a person's blood stops flowing or .....there is no other word or phrase consistently used to denote life. Furthermore, the word nostrils is used so one doesn't have to guess what is meant. Breath, nostrils...what else can it possibly mean except the every day definition of breath?

Then there is the analogy in Ezekiel 37:
5: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
[6] And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
[8] And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
[9] Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
[10] So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Because an analogy is used to help people understand the analogy will refer to something people are familiar with, something common place, something people easily recognize. The story tells about the bones and sinews and flesh and skin and tells us, directly, "but there was no breath in them." I can't see how it could have been written any clearer? Can you?


This does nothing to answer my question.

[apple]

This does nothing to answer my question.

Let's take a look at your question. You asked, "Btw, where does the bible say that breathing through one's nostrills is a requirement for life?"

It doesn't say that and I wasn't saying that. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Bible says people receive the breath of life and in some cases it mentions the breath of life is received through the nostrils. It goes further and describes it as "smoke in nostrils."

Does one have to keep breathing through their nostrils? It doesn't say that so I don't know. What it does say is the breath of life, necessary to start life, is received through the nostrils. Can it be received through the mouth? I don't know but I think so as certain verses mention the dead and say there was no breath in the mouth so I suppose it's possible.

My point is the "breath of life", the thing that starts life as written in the verses "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." and "the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." and "I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:", coupled with the description of breath as "smoke in nostrils" shows that breath is what we normally think of as breath. What is "like smoke" and enters a person's nostrils? Is "air" a reasonable conclusion?

[Darth Executor]

Let's take a look at your question. You asked, "Btw, where does the bible say that breathing through one's nostrills is a requirement for life?"

It doesn't say that and I wasn't saying that. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Bible says people receive the breath of life and in some cases it mentions the breath of life is received through the nostrils. It goes further and describes it as "smoke in nostrils."

Does one have to keep breathing through their nostrils? It doesn't say that so I don't know. What it does say is the breath of life, necessary to start life, is received through the nostrils. Can it be received through the mouth? I don't know but I think so as certain verses mention the dead and say there was no breath in the mouth so I suppose it's possible.

Then your objection that one MUST breathe through their nose is unfounded.

My point is the "breath of life", the thing that starts life as written in the verses "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." and "the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." and "I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:", coupled with the description of breath as "smoke in nostrils" shows that breath is what we normally think of as breath. What is "like smoke" and enters a person's nostrils? Is "air" a reasonable conclusion?

How about oxygen? Would you expect medical accuracy from an ancient text? How would God explain this without writing up a science book for them?

[apple]

Then your objection that one MUST breathe through their nose is unfounded.

I never said one MUST breathe through their nose. I said one must be able to receive a breath, which is air, as described as "smoke in nostrils". How can air enter the body similar to a breath entering the body through the nostrils? Maybe through the mouth? It's possible. I can not say it is impossible but I can say it is impossible to receive a breath when one is in a liquid environment. There is no mechanical equipment in the womb making it possible for a fetus to accept a breath.

How about oxygen? Would you expect medical accuracy from an ancient text? How would God explain this without writing up a science book for them?

Very easily. The "Spirit of Life" entered the fetus or child. Or the "Spirit of Life" entered the woman and the child lived. Job 33:4 says. "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Why specify breath when anyone can figure out there is no breath in the womb?

Isaiah 2:22 "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils....."
Lamemtations 4:20 "The breath of our nostrils,...."

Why would breath be mentioned and described as one would describe air when it is the one thing that is not present in the womb? A woman's "water" breaks just before delivery time. The baby is wet when it is born. It gasps and chokes and tries to breathe. Why would they go out of their way to mention the one thing that obviously is not present (breath) and say that's what gives life unless that is exactly what gives life? How can a fetus be considered alive when the one thing it can not do (accept a breath) is the very thing that starts life?

[Darth Executor]

I never said one MUST breathe through their nose. I said one must be able to receive a breath, which is air, as described as "smoke in nostrils". How can air enter the body similar to a breath entering the body through the nostrils? Maybe through the mouth? It's possible. I can not say it is impossible but I can say it is impossible to receive a breath when one is in a liquid environment. There is no mechanical equipment in the womb making it possible for a fetus to accept a breath.

Umm, yes, there is. Are you saying fetuses don't get oxygen?



Very easily. The "Spirit of Life" entered the fetus or child. Or the "Spirit of Life" entered the woman and the child lived. Job 33:4 says. "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Can something that is not alive die in the womb? This verse seems to suggest that the writer was alive in the belly.

Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Still care to risk smiting down one of God's servants?

I can get you plenty more verses if you want.

Why specify breath when anyone can figure out there is no breath in the womb?

Why call fish alive when anyone can figure out there is no breathing underwater?

Isaiah 2:22 "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils....."

I guess women aren't alive then. :ahem:



Lamemtations 4:20 "The breath of our nostrils,...."
Irrelevant


Why would breath be mentioned and described as one would describe air when it is the one thing that is not present in the womb? A woman's "water" breaks just before delivery time. The baby is wet when it is born. It gasps and chokes and tries to breathe. Why would they go out of their way to mention the one thing that obviously is not present (breath) and say that's what gives life unless that is exactly what gives life? How can a fetus be considered alive when the one thing it can not do (accept a breath) is the very thing that starts life?

How can fish? Not that it matters since both fish and fetuses need oxygen to survive and can accept a "breath" just fine.

[Sheepdog]

what's interesting is that in the Hebrew, the word for "spirit" in Gen. 1:2 (the Spirit of God) can also mean "breath" or "wind." In fact, i think that was the background for Jesus' analogy of the Holy Spirit being like the wind in John 3. i'm not even sure if there was a word in the ancient Hebrew that could only mean "spirit" or "soul."

the language in the Old Testament tends to be very fluid. I wouldn't say we cannot make doctrines from the OT books, but we have to be very careful in how we interpret it. For instance, some of the Psalms describe the "arm of God." Did God have a literal, physical arm? No, but back in the day one's arm was symbolic of protection.

[apple]

Umm, yes, there is. Are you saying fetuses don't get oxygen?

No, I'm not saying that. The fetuses are supplied oxygen through the mother's blood and placenta, however, I wasn't saying anything about oxygen. There is more to breath than simply supplying oxygen.

The first breath causes a pressure change in the body that starts the closing of a valve which results in a change in blood flow. That results in certain veins not being used to carry blood anymore and the veins change to cords that hold organs in place.

It is a common misconception that the first breath is strictly to supply oxygen. While that is definately one function it is not the only one.

Can something that is not alive die in the womb? This verse seems to suggest that the writer was alive in the belly.

Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

I think we have to be careful when reading Job. He is a man going through some rough times. One should not interpret his questions as facts. Let me give you an example.

Jesus says in Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and it is repeated in Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Do those verses seem to suggest Jesus had been forsaken? I'm sure Jesus felt like He was but we know that He wasn't.

We see something very similar in Psalms 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?"

Still care to risk smiting down one of God's servants?

I can get you plenty more verses if you want.

I'm certainly not smiting down anyone. I'm saying to be careful not to interpret questions as facts unless you believe Jesus was abandoned on the cross. As for submitting more verses, "yes, please." Isn't that what we are here for, to discuss Biblical matters?

Why call fish alive when anyone can figure out there is no breathing underwater?

Let's look at Deuteronomy Deut.20:16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:"

"Save alive nothing that breatheth". Does that not imply that there are things alive that do not breathe? Recall the fig tree that beared no fruit? The tree withered away. We can say it was "alive". The difference is it is written that that breath enters man and he lives. It is repeated over and over. Breath is necessary for man to come alive. It's not necessary for fish or fig trees. It never says that breath enters a fish or a fig tree. In Genesis it doesn't say God breathed life into fish and fowl and all creeping things but it does say in Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" and it mentions breath every time it talks about the life of a human being.

I guess women aren't alive then. :ahem:

A little humor is always appreciated. :-)

How can fish? Not that it matters since both fish and fetuses need oxygen to survive and can accept a "breath" just fine.

Because a fish is not a human being and neither is a fetus. You are confusing the intake of oxygen and breathing as one and the same. The intake of oxygen is one factor accomplished by breathing. As an example I mentioned earlier the intake of oxygen does not change the internal body pressure resulting in a blood flow change.

[Darth Executor]

No, I'm not saying that. The fetuses are supplied oxygen through the mother's blood and placenta, however, I wasn't saying anything about oxygen. There is more to breath than simply supplying oxygen.

The first breath causes a pressure change in the body that starts the closing of a valve which results in a change in blood flow. That results in certain veins not being used to carry blood anymore and the veins change to cords that hold organs in place.

It is a common misconception that the first breath is strictly to supply oxygen. While that is definately one function it is not the only one.

I don't see what this has anything to do with the subject at hand. People breathe to take in oxygen. Pressure changes and valves closing are not something you can prove Adam did.

I think we have to be careful when reading Job. He is a man going through some rough times. One should not interpret his questions as facts. Let me give you an example.

If you're going to use this excuse to weasel out of verses then you're wasting my time.

Jesus says in Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and it is repeated in Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Do those verses seem to suggest Jesus had been forsaken? I'm sure Jesus felt like He was but we know that He wasn't.

We see something very similar in Psalms 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?"


Jesus didn't feel forsaken at all. In fact, He was quoting the very verse you quoted to attract his audience's attention to that Psalm. Psalm 22 is a messianic psalm and by invoking it he gave them yet another hint that he was the messiah. You are right that we should be careful. It is also amusing to see you tickle the issue but not quite get to the bottom of it.


I'm certainly not smiting down anyone. I'm saying to be careful not to interpret questions as facts unless you believe Jesus was abandoned on the cross.

I don't. Jesus didn't believe it either like you thought He did though.

As for submitting more verses, "yes, please." Isn't that what we are here for, to discuss Biblical matters?

I will later. For starters you can deal with the Psalms verse I gave you which you dodged. Was the Psalms writer going through a hard time when he wrote it too? :tongue:

Let's look at Deuteronomy Deut.20:16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:"

"Save alive nothing that breatheth". Does that not imply that there are things alive that do not breathe?

Yes. Plants.

Recall the fig tree that beared no fruit? The tree withered away. We can say it was "alive". The difference is it is written that that breath enters man and he lives. It is repeated over and over. Breath is necessary for man to come alive.

No, the idea that breath is necessary for man to come alive is your anachronism. The Jews did not know much about anatomy so oxygen exchance and breath are the same thing. Further more, "breath" as used in the bible can mean a lot of things from spirit to the wind.

It's not necessary for fish or fig trees. It never says that breath enters a fish or a fig tree. In Genesis it doesn't say God breathed life into fish and fowl and all creeping things

Really?

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

How many terrestrial animals have nostrills? Did the flood dodge the ones that don't?

Gen 7:22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

Notice something about the above verse: It says everything on dry land in whose nostrills was the breath of life. Why bring up the breath of life unless there are things in the sea with the "breath of life"?

Because a fish is not a human being and neither is a fetus.

Irrelevant. Animals are talked about as having the "breath of life" and "nostrills". As for a fetus, I have already asked you to which species it belongs and you said homo sapiens. Why are you backpedaling?

You are confusing the intake of oxygen and breathing as one and the same. The intake of oxygen is one factor accomplished by breathing. As an example I mentioned earlier the intake of oxygen does not change the internal body pressure resulting in a blood flow change.

I don't care about the changes that happen to a fetus unless you can show me that the same changes occured in Adam as well (hint:it's not in the bible).

[apple]

I don't see what this has anything to do with the subject at hand. People breathe to take in oxygen. Pressure changes and valves closing are not something you can prove Adam did.

It doesn't just depend on Adam. When talking about the start of a person's life it mentions them receiving the breath of life as I have shown in the verses in previous posts. Whether or not Adam's valve closed or whether or not he even had a valve is not important. What is important is the breath of life is mentioned where the life of a human being is concerned.

I mentioned the valve closing as one example of what the first breath does besides delivering oxygen. The first breath is not the same as a fetus receiving oxygen through the mother's blood and placenta. There is a difference and one of the differences is the first breath closes a valve and redirects blood flow so the idea a fetus receiving oxygen is the same as a baby breathing is not true. That is the point.

If you're going to use this excuse to weasel out of verses then you're wasting my time.

There is no weaseling out of anything. Someone asking a question is not the same as stating a fact. We know that particular writer is saying how they feel and we know that what they feel is not true. It appears you are the one wasting time by grasping at straws to support an erroneous belief.

Jesus didn't feel forsaken at all. In fact, He was quoting the very verse you quoted to attract his audience's attention to that Psalm. Psalm 22 is a messianic psalm and by invoking it he gave them yet another hint that he was the messiah. You are right that we should be careful. It is also amusing to see you tickle the issue but not quite get to the bottom of it.

Read Job 21. He is saying how good the lives of evil people are. Are we to assume being evil brings a better life? Of course not. Are we to take one or two verses out of the chapter such as verse 10: "Their bull gendereth, and faileth not; their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf." and verse 11: "They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance." and believe Job is trying to tell us it's good to be bad?

That's the point I was trying to get across to you. Read Job with the understanding he is questioning. He doesn't understand. He is not stating facts. He is saying what he thinks/feels. Can you not diifferentiate between the two?

I will later. For starters you can deal with the Psalms verse I gave you which you dodged. Was the Psalms writer going through a hard time when he wrote it too? :tongue:

What do you think? Verse 1: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2: O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent."

I suppose you'll be telling me that's proof God doesn't take crying calls during the day or night either, I suppose.

No, the idea that breath is necessary for man to come alive is your anachronism. The Jews did not know much about anatomy so oxygen exchance and breath are the same thing. Further more, "breath" as used in the bible can mean a lot of things from spirit to the wind.

Anachronism: The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: (Dictionary.com)

Isn't it strange the mentioning of breath is used in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and on and on, mentioned by different people in different times/ages? Isn't it strange the "breath of life" is the last thing mentioned and it is immediately followed by "and man became a living soul" or "hath given me life"? Even when using a human being in an analogy breath is the last thing mentioned. Bones and flesh and sinews and skin and then breath. No life until breath.

Whether or not breath means spirit or wind or anything else doesn't change the fact it is described as 'smoke in nostrils". "..and breathed into his nostrils.." "..whose breath is in his nostrils.." What is ambiguous about those phrases? Breath and nostrils...what else can it possibly mean except exactly what it says? Give me an idea what you think it means. I can not think of anything that can be described that way and not mean what we all think of as breath. It is written as the last thing. The body is formed, whether from the dust of the ground or from bones and skin and then breath enters it and it comes alive. Life follows exactly the same chronological order. Breath is the last thing.

Irrelevant. Animals are talked about as having the "breath of life" and "nostrills". As for a fetus, I have already asked you to which species it belongs and you said homo sapiens. Why are you backpedaling?

Backpedaling? About what? I said a human fetus belongs to the Homo sapien species. That does not mean it is a human being. It means it is a human fetus.

I don't care about the changes that happen to a fetus unless you can show me that the same changes occured in Adam as well (hint:it's not in the bible).

What does that have to do with whether or not a fetus is a human being? In any case, as you said, I can not show those changes happened to Adam and you can not show they didn't so where does that lead? The Bible does tell us that Adam was formed and then the breath of life caused him to become a living soul. Breath, as smoke in nostrils, is what gives life. It is written, over and over, by different writers at different times. From the very beginning, all through the Bible. What is your purpose in trying to discount what is written?

[Darth Executor]

It doesn't just depend on Adam. When talking about the start of a person's life it mentions them receiving the breath of life as I have shown in the verses in previous posts.

Never actually answering my original question: is the breath NECESSARY? In fact, I do not believe the breath is a literal breath because of the examples involving animals that I gave you. Not that it matters, I have a new verse from which I am goingt o enjoy watching you try to weasel your way out of.


There is no weaseling out of anything. Someone asking a question is not the same as stating a fact. We know that particular writer is saying how they feel and we know that what they feel is not true. It appears you are the one wasting time by grasping at straws to support an erroneous belief.

What? Job is asking why he was not killed in the womb. He considers that fact already. If it's not fact then his question doesn't make any sense.

Read Job 21. He is saying how good the lives of evil people are. Are we to assume being evil brings a better life?

No, because he doesn't say that. He assumes you are alive from the womb however, otherwise again, his question makes no sense.


That's the point I was trying to get across to you. Read Job with the understanding he is questioning. He doesn't understand. He is not stating facts. He is saying what he thinks/feels. Can you not diifferentiate between the two?

His thoughts and feelings depend on preexisting knowledge, including that of life in the womb. What next, are you going to assume his house isn't real because he is questioning everything?


What do you think? Verse 1: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2: O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent."

That's nince but the psalm is a messianic prophecy. Not that it matters because this time David isn't "questioning" anything. He gives a factual statement.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

No question mark.

Here's another one just for you:

Jer 20:17 because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great.

I suppose you'll be telling me that's proof God doesn't take crying calls during the day or night either, I suppose.

No need for that given the context.



Anachronism: The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: (Dictionary.com)

Yup. You are assuming that they would describe(or even know about) oxygen transfer or valves opening by saying something else other than breath. You're thinking from a modern perspective and shoving it on the text.

Isn't it strange the mentioning of breath is used in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and on and on, mentioned by different people in different times/ages? Isn't it strange the "breath of life" is the last thing mentioned and it is immediately followed by "and man became a living soul" or "hath given me life"? Even when using a human being in an analogy breath is the last thing mentioned. Bones and flesh and sinews and skin and then breath. No life until breath.

Isn't it strange that God tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree they shall surely die yet they live for quite a while?

Whether or not breath means spirit or wind or anything else doesn't change the fact it is described as 'smoke in nostrils". "..and breathed into his nostrils.." "..whose breath is in his nostrils.." What is ambiguous about those phrases? Breath and nostrils...what else can it possibly mean except exactly what it says? Give me an idea what you think it means. I can not think of anything that can be described that way and not mean what we all think of as breath. It is written as the last thing. The body is formed, whether from the dust of the ground or from bones and skin and then breath enters it and it comes alive. Life follows exactly the same chronological order. Breath is the last thing.

Spirit, oxygen intake, take your pick. Literal breath contradicts the bible.

Backpedaling? About what? I said a human fetus belongs to the Homo sapien species. That does not mean it is a human being. It means it is a human fetus.

Why did God give it equal legal treatment in the OT if it's not a human being?


What does that have to do with whether or not a fetus is a human being? In any case, as you said, I can not show those changes happened to Adam and you can not show they didn't so where does that lead? The Bible does tell us that Adam was formed and then the breath of life caused him to become a living soul. Breath, as smoke in nostrils, is what gives life. It is written, over and over, by different writers at different times. From the very beginning, all through the Bible. What is your purpose in trying to discount what is written?

I'm not trying to "discount" anything. I'm saying that even if they mean literal breath it does not mean something cannot be alive otherwise. In fact, your position contradicts Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, God's law and everything we have from early Jews and Christians about abortion.

[apple]

Never actually answering my original question: is the breath NECESSARY? In fact, I do not believe the breath is a literal breath because of the examples involving animals that I gave you. Not that it matters, I have a new verse from which I am goingt o enjoy watching you try to weasel your way out of.

Yes, breath is necessary as it says so in all the verses. Referring to the analogy in Ezekiel what is the point of including something in an analogy that has nothing to do with what they are trying to say? An analogy is supposed to be a simplified explanation. If breath had nothing to do with life what reason would they include it? Not just include it but specify it was the last thing and then life started.

The same with Adam. Why say God made him and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life? If the breath of life was not necessary then just saying God made him would have been sufficient.

What? Job is asking why he was not killed in the womb. He considers that fact already. If it's not fact then his question doesn't make any sense.

No, because he doesn't say that. He assumes you are alive from the womb however, otherwise again, his question makes no sense.

His thoughts and feelings depend on preexisting knowledge, including that of life in the womb. What next, are you going to assume his house isn't real because he is questioning everything?

He knows a fetus is alive which brings me to the point I made earlier. The writers knew the fetus was alive and still specified "breath through nostrils" as the start of a human being's life. Knowing that there was no breath in the womb there is only one conclusion one can draw and that is while a fetus is alive it is not a human being.

That's nince but the psalm is a messianic prophecy. Not that it matters because this time David isn't "questioning" anything. He gives a factual statement.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

No question mark.

I asked before what does that verse have to do with life? Of course God was his God while he was a fetus. God is everybody's and everything's God.

Here's another one just for you:

Jer 20:17 because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great.

This is getting bizarre. Did you read the verses? Let's take a look.

14: Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed.
15: Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, A man child is born unto thee; mak