When does life begin?

[MyName]

When does life begin? This is a simple question. Here is the simple answer.
For anything to sustain life, it must have that life spark within it. If there is no spark, then it's not alive. What is that spark? It's the Divine. It is that which is greater than you and I. Simply stated, It is God.

It is no secret that I pretend to be an arrogant pompous ass on this board most of the time, but even in my greatest pretendings, I would never be so arrogant as to play God in deciding who lives or dies.

It is kind of like that joke that I posted on God and Darwinians......
'No, no no, make your own dirt'.

 

[OCA]

When does you're life end on this board? soon hopefully!

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER! I just can't stand pompous pseudointellectual assbags.

 

[dilloduck]

I am glad to see that you have understood my point that "life" is not the determining issue in the stem cell debate. It is unfortunate that you have no ideas to contribute to the discussion and to be expected that you would attempt to substitute infantile invective. Thanks for reading my post. I hope you learned something.

Your manipulation and ensuing sophisty regarding the word "Life" taught me a lot about you.

Cmon--let go of that bitter pill, mrsx! It won't hurt.

 

[mrsx]

the debate is not about soulfulness; it's about living and not living, being alive and not being alive. Since only a fool would say living tissue is not living, I believe you already lost the ACTUAL argument.

Life is not a religious concept; it's a biological one. Even atheists believe in life.

My original post was based on a Christian point of view. It isn't the only point of view, but opposition to using embryos for stem cell research is primarily religious in its origin. When GWB talks about the "sacredness" of life, he is speaking from a religious point of view. Nothing is sacred in science.

"Believing in life" is a meaningless phrase. Everyone believes in life. Life is pretty much an established fact. Are you arguing that the destruction of any living thing is wrong? Are you suggesting that the biology of human life is different from the biology of every other living thing? If you have a better theory than the one I posted, share it. I am sincerely interested in learning more.

If your ideas are not based on religious concepts such as the immortal soul created by God for every human being, that is fine. I posted a religious argument, but I am equally enthusiastic to learn non-religious views as well. I would be interested to hear you argue against stem cell research from the point of view of the biological sciences. Give it a try; I'm listening.

 

[MissileMan]

This thread has raised a couple of questions that maybe someone out there can answer. They have to do with when a human being acquires a soul.

1. Is a soul acquired at conception or at some time later in the pregnancy, or even after birth?

2. If it's at conception and the embryo dies, if the soul goes to heaven does that person spend eternity in a fetal state? If not, what does it change into?

3. If a fetus's soul changes when it gets to Heaven, does everyone's? Do you keep your sense of identity in Heaven?

 

[mrsx]

This thread has raised a couple of questions that maybe someone out there can answer. They have to do with when a human being acquires a soul.

1. Is a soul acquired at conception or at some time later in the pregnancy, or even after birth?

2. If it's at conception and the embryo dies, if the soul goes to heaven does that person spend eternity in a fetal state? If not, what does it change into?

3. If a fetus's soul changes when it gets to Heaven, does everyone's? Do you keep your sense of identity in Heaven?

All three questions are issues in speculative theology. There is no clear Bible teaching and Christian tradition has no single answer. My original post addressess the first question (at least as I see it).

#2.According to strict Augistinian/Calvinist tradition any unbaptized soul cannot go to heaven. Other teachers/traditions have regarded such strict interpretation of Christ's Redemption as incompatible with God's Mercy and have suggested a variety of alternatives ranging from Limbo (Catholics) to the idea that everyone goes to Heaven (Universalists).

#3 Tradition generally supports the idea that in Heaven each individual soul exists in its ideal state. The age of 33 is often mentioned because that was the age at which Jesus died. Although the soul is immaterial, the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead indicates that when Jesus returns there will be some sort of reunion of soul and body. "Though worms devour this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God," is to me, personally, one of the most beautiful and comforting parts of the the Christian Good News.

More aristotelian schools of theology emphasize the Beatific Vision: that in Heaven each of us (souls do retain their individual identity) enjoy the extasy of knowing God as He truly is. This is an all-transcending mystic experience. Other schools emphasize a more earthly Paradise in which we are reunited with our loved ones and even with our pets. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[Annie]

All three questions are issues in speculative theology. There is no clear Bible teaching and Christian tradition has no single answer. My original post addressess the first question (at least as I see it).

#2.According to strict Augistinian/Calvinist tradition any unbaptized soul cannot go to heaven. Other teachers/traditions have regarded such strict interpretation of Christ's Redemption as incompatible with God's Mercy and have suggested a variety of alternatives ranging from Limbo (Catholics) to the idea that everyone goes to Heaven (Universalists).

#3 Tradition generally supports the idea that in Heaven each individual soul exists in its ideal state. The age of 33 is often mentioned because that was the age at which Jesus died. Although the soul is immaterial, the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead indicates that when Jesus returns there will be some sort of reunion of soul and body. "Though worms devour this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God," is to me, personally, one of the most beautiful and comforting parts of the the Christian Good News.

More aristotelian schools of theology emphasize the Beatific Vision: that in Heaven each of us (souls do retain their individual identity) enjoy the extasy of knowing God as He truly is. This is an all-transcending mystic experience. Other schools emphasize a more earthly Paradise in which we are reunited with our loved ones and even with our pets. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

The Catholic Church does not teach a belief in 'limbo' per se.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

As for LIMBUS PATRUM, that deals with those that were born and died before the Ascension.

Regarding unbaptised infants-It more depends on whether one is accepting of the Augustinian or Aquinas-both Catholic-point of view.

 

[007]

If we don't have souls, what goes to Heaven when we die?

How do you know anything goes to heaven? Have you ever met someone who's been there? The answer is "no", and I already know it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This thread has raised a couple of questions that maybe someone out there can answer. They have to do with when a human being acquires a soul.

1. Is a soul acquired at conception or at some time later in the pregnancy, or even after birth?

2. If it's at conception and the embryo dies, if the soul goes to heaven does that person spend eternity in a fetal state? If not, what does it change into?

3. If a fetus's soul changes when it gets to Heaven, does everyone's? Do you keep your sense of identity in Heaven?

Your questions are fruitless. They deal with entities and issues which are beyond the limits of human perception and can thus never be objectively proven. So, like all such speculation, your questions do nothing but lead those who ponder them in endless circles.

 

[007]

...assbags.

LMFAO!!! Almost made beer come out my nose on that one OCA... thanks a fuckin' lot! :rotflmao:

 

[007]

Your questions are fruitless. They deal with entities and issues which are beyond the limits of human perception and can thus never be objectively proven. So, like all such speculation, your questions do nothing but lead those who ponder them in endless circles.

I'm going to fucking faint... I agree with pulit. :shocked:

 

[MissileMan]

Your questions are fruitless. They deal with entities and issues which are beyond the limits of human perception and can thus never be objectively proven. So, like all such speculation, your questions do nothing but lead those who ponder them in endless circles.

I am well aware that the questions can't be answered to any degree of certainty. The questions were intended to provoke thought. I was also looking for the opinions of those here who believe in the human soul and heaven.

Besides, just because the questions have nothing to do with Dubyah doesn't make them invalid.

 

[mrsx]

Your questions are fruitless. They deal with entities and issues which are beyond the limits of human perception and can thus never be objectively proven. So, like all such speculation, your questions do nothing but lead those who ponder them in endless circles.

I agree with you that these issues are theological, not scientific. They become important because many Americans, including GWB, make government decisions (funding stem cell research, banning abortion) based on their religious beliefs. If we were all rational atheists like you, we wouldn't be having this discussion and could wait until the Last Judgement to see if any of this speculation is going to be objectively proven.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My original post was based on a Christian point of view. It isn't the only point of view, but opposition to using embryos for stem cell research is primarily religious in its origin.

But christians don't see it your way. They don't make the irrelevant distinction of soul versus life re: this debate. You're trying to use buzzwords to pervert logic in what Im sure you think is a brilliant argument. Really it just makes you look dishonest and manipulative, but we already know that about you.

When GWB talks about the "sacredness" of life, he is speaking from a religious point of view. Nothing is sacred in science.

Should we repeal laws against murder, then? This is the assinine place where your thinking leads.

"Believing in life" is a meaningless phrase. Everyone believes in life. Life is pretty much an established fact.

Right. and it's an unceasing flow from mother to child. The better question is when does life end.

Are you arguing that the destruction of any living thing is wrong?

I'm saying embryos are alive, and soul is unquantifiable.

Are you suggesting that the biology of human life is different from the biology of every other living thing?

No.

If you have a better theory than the one I posted, share it. I am sincerely interested in learning more.

embryos are alive. Soul is not the barometer of a right to live.

If your ideas are not based on religious concepts such as the immortal soul created by God for every human being, that is fine. I posted a religious argument, but I am equally enthusiastic to learn non-religious views as well. I would be interested to hear you argue against stem cell research from the point of view of the biological sciences. Give it a try; I'm listening.

I'm wondering. Do you believe laws against murder are only justifiable from a religious point of view?

Can you envision people grown in jars as organ donors for they're priveleged counterpart? Talk about a civil rights case.

 

[mrsx]

But christians don't see it your way. They don't make the irrelevant distinction of soul versus life re: this debate. You're trying to use buzzwords to pervert logic in what Im sure you think is a brilliant argument. Really it just makes you look dishonest and manipulative, but we already know that about you.

Should we repeal laws against murder, then? This is the assinine place where your thinking leads.

Right. and it's an unceasing flow from mother to child. The better question is when does life end.

I'm saying embryos are alive, and soul is unquantifiable.

No.

embryos are alive. Soul is not the barometer of a right to live.



I'm wondering. Do you believe laws against murder are only justifiable from a religious point of view?

Can you envision people grown in jars as organ donors for they're priveleged counterpart? Talk about a civil rights case.

The distinction between biological life and the immortal soul is not irrelevant. It is really central to any argument *against* abortion or stem cell research because it places the issue on a religious or spiritual foundation. Attempts to argue about "life" don't work because life isn't sacred or even special in the natural world of God's creation. The immortal, God-created soul is what is redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. Everything else is natural law. It is unfortunate that so many Christians are ignorant of the fundamentals of their religion as their faith is weakened. A little basic logic couldn't hurt either: abolishing laws against murder is an idea unconnected to my point that it is the soul, not the biology of life that is sacred. The idea is silly but possible if you argue that "all life is sacred" or that "human life" is sacred. I'm attempting to show Christians who oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research a better way to defend their faith by beginning with the terms of religion (soul) rather than the terms of science (life). When poorly informed Christians try to make religion into a science, they end up with junk science. When scientists attempt to make science into a religion, they produce a sterile atheism without an ethical compass.

The fear and anger that fuels your personal attacks on me blinds you to the power, comfort and beauty of the religion you profess to defend.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The distinction between biological life and the immortal soul is not irrelevant. It is really central to any argument *against* abortion or stem cell research because it places the issue on a religious or spiritual foundation. Attempts to argue about "life" don't work because life isn't sacred or even special in the natural world of God's creation. The immortal, God-created soul is what is redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. Everything else is natural law. It is unfortunate that so many Christians are ignorant of the fundamentals of their religion as their faith is weakened. A little basic logic couldn't hurt either: abolishing laws against murder is an idea unconnected to my point that it is the soul, not the biology of life that is sacred. The idea is silly but possible if you argue that "all life is sacred" or that "human life" is sacred. I'm attempting to show Christians who oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research a better way to defend their faith by beginning with the terms of religion (soul) rather than the terms of science (life). When poorly informed Christians try to make religion into a science, they end up with junk science. When scientists attempt to make science into a religion, they produce a sterile atheism without an ethical compass.

The fear and anger that fuels your personal attacks on me blinds you to the power, comfort and beauty of the religion you profess to defend.

You say it's central. I say it's not. Life alone is sacred. Your allegedly christian viewpoint is not shared by many christians.

No one needs your better way to defend anything.

There are prolife atheists, since life is verifiable. The soul, being an unquanifiable entity, is not, and should not be a standard to set public policy.

 

[mrsx]

You say it's central. I say it's not. Life alone is sacred. Your allegedly christian viewpoint is not shared by many christians.

No one needs your better way to defend anything.

There are prolife atheists, since life is verifiable. The soul, being an unquanifiable entity, is not, and should not be a standard to set public policy.

A bit wobbly on the quatifiable soul; do you mean "verifiable? What conclusions do we draw from the sacredness of life according to your theory? Is masturbation genocide? Pouting about what Christians (usually capitalized out of respect BTW) share or need just makes you look foolish. Do you not believe in the soul? What do you think goes to Heaven when you die? How is human life different from any other life? Time to stop sulking and get down to cases...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A bit wobbly on the quatifiable soul; do you mean "verifiable? What conclusions do we draw from the sacredness of life according to your theory? Is masturbation genocide? Pouting about what Christians (usually capitalized out of respect BTW) share or need just makes you look foolish. Do you not believe in the soul? What do you think goes to Heaven when you die? How is human life different from any other life? Time to stop sulking and get down to cases...

I mean both, actually. Soul is neither verifiable NOR quantifiable. what's your damage, Heather?

Human life is sacred to me because I'm a human. I have a blatant pro human bias; they're part of my tribe. Are you an anti-human environmentalist? You're a disgusting eugenicist if you are.

 

[mrsx]

I mean both, actually. Soul is neither verifiable NOR quantifiable. what's your damage, Heather?

Human life is sacred to me because I'm a human. I have a blatant pro human bias; they're part of my tribe. Are you an anti-human environmentalist? You're a disgusting eugenicist if you are.

I agree completely with you that the soul is not verifiable. It is a matter of religious belief. My statements from the beginning of this thread are all explicitly within the context of Christian religious belief. If you don't share this belief, there isn't a lot to be gained from hearing you sound off on a subject about which you are so uninformed.

If you wish to offer an atheistic defence of whatever it is you are defending, using "sacred" seems a curious choice of words as it is a specifically religious term.

OK, you have a pro-human bias. You root for the humans against all the other life forms on the planet -- great! So, are you opposed to anyone or anything that takes a human life under any circumstances? Sweeping truisms contribute nothing to the issue of embryonic stem cell research. What are the rules or guidelines as your philosophy reveals them to you? Still waiting to get down to cases. Getting a little bored, though....

 

[Shattered]

^^^^^ <-- Pro-life athiest. We do exist.