 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5141
Location: Missouri
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: CONCERNING ABORTION! |
 |
|
Sofyst & P1234567890 have challenged each other to a debate on abortion. Concerning Abortion!
Read the rules for there are a few added.
Don't start another thread just start your opening Post in this thread just below this post!
May the best debater win! 
Have fun,
Nobby
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, let's try to define the scope of this debate so that we don't go all over the place. I am happy to let you set the terms.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am going to first start this conversation out with attempting to come to agreement as to whether 'person' within the Scripture is a reference to a person (whether with body or without) and not in reference to the body.
P said,
| Quote: | | You have yet to point out where in the Bible it clearly states that the vessel of a person's body can not be referred to by that person's name. |
Let me quote a few passages:
1Co 13:3 And if I donate all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Here Paul seems to suggest that the body is a possession of the person. Just as he, Paul, can give up all his goods to other people, he can likewise give up his 'body' and still be considered 'Paul'.
And likewise here,
2Co 5:8 yet we are confident and satisfied to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.
I think from these two passages alone, we have the view that the 'body' is part of man, and not man in its entirety.
I am going to quote a couple of Theologians to prove this point more vividly (we are afterall discussing Scripture, therefore I think the opinion of respected Theologians should be considered here).
| Quote: | | The usual view is that man consists of two parts, body and soul. This is in harmony with the self-consciousness of man, andis also borne out by a study of Scripture, which speaks of man as consisting of 'body and soul,' Matt. 6:25; 10:28, or of 'body and spirit,' Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor. 5:3, 5. - Louis Berkhof 'Summary of Christian Doctrine' |
Berkhof then goes on to explain the idea that the word 'soul' and 'spirit' are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. There is debate about whether man consists of body/soul/spirit or only body/soul, with 'spirit' being an interchangeable word for 'soul'. But there is no debate, throughout Christianity, that a man is only a man when he is 'body/soul' and without the 'soul', the body is nothing more than dust. It is not man.
| Quote: | | Liberal theology quite clearly distinguished the soul and the body as virtually two different substances. The person was identified with soul or spirit, not the body. One clear example of such thinking, William Newton Clarke, speaks of a twofold division of the human into body and spirit (soul and spirit are used as interchangeable terms for ths ame entity.) 'The person, the self-conscious moral agent, is not the body; rather does it inhabit and rule the body.' The spirit of a human is to be conceived of as 'incorporeal and immaterial, inhabiting and acting through the body.' The body is th seat and means of our present life, but not a necessary part of personality. Rather it is the organ through which personality gathers sensations and expresses itself. Personality might exist without the body, conceivably learning of the external world by some means other than sensation and expressing itself by some means other than through the body, and yet 'be as real as it is at present.' The body, then is not an essential part of human nature. The person can function quite well without it. This is a full and true dualism. Death is the death of hte body, and the spirit lives on quite succesfully. It 'leaves the material body, but lives on, and enters new scenes of action'. Millard J. Erickson - 'Christian Theology, second edition' |
My point in all this is that the Christian view has some disagreements as to whether a person can exist without the body, but never whether the person can exist as only a body, no spiritual aspect of 'soul'.
Since then we are discussing Scripture, and attempting to see whether Scripture affirms that when a 'person' is referred to by God specifically that this 'person' is only a body, or necessarily a body/soul, we should consider that the common agreement throughout Christianity is that a person is at least a body with some other aspect(s), but never is the 'person' only a body. When we are referring to only the 'body' we consider it to be no different than the dust from which it was made.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HA! I didn't see your first comment. I think though that I responded to it well without knowing I did so. I think this is a good direction to take it...
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh one more:
Jam 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before we delve right in, let's quote the relevant verse about Jeremiah. Is this the verse that you have always been referring to?
| Quote: | | "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV) |
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yessir, that is the verse.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Yessir, that is the verse. |
I understand that you are arguing that God's reference to the fetus by the pronoun "you" is significant.
You think that because He is saying "you" rather than "your body", that this clearly shows that the Jeremiah's fetus already had a soul.
Can you give me a scripturally-based argument which definitively proves that it is wrong to refer to just a body without a soul by a name?
My interpretation of the verse in question is that by saying "you", God is simply referring to the physical part of Jeremiah that was formed in the womb before ensoulment. This makes sense because being physical beings, humans are intimately connected to their physical bodies. It would make perfect sense to Jeremiah to have his body referred to as him.
For example, even if someone is in a coma and we see them in a hospital bed, we still refer to them by name even though their consciousness / soul / active part is completely unresponsive and absent.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
P, in our previous discussion on abortion you said this,
| Quote: | According to my definition of person, a fetus is not a person, so abortion doesn't harm anyone's rights. According to your definition, the opposite is true...
Unless you can find some kind of higher power such as a holy book to support your definition, then we're at an impasse. I've got my definition, and you've got yours, and there's no way to settle the argument. |
And I think by this (and our discussion now), I have found the true impasse.
Let me attempt to explain.
You have a view that says the fetus is not a person, Christians have a view that says it is. There really is no way of resolving this issue. You say though that if the Christian cannot find some kind of higher power to support their definition, then we're at an impasse. But I say we will be at an impasse regardless.
I have shown you the 'higher power' that does support the definition. I have made the case wherein the Scripture claims 'the body to be a non-essential part of personhood and therefore not referred to alone as a person' (1Co 13:3; 2Co 5:8; Matt. 6:25; 10:28; Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor. 5:3, 5; Jam 2:26). I have likewise shown that every Christian would agree with this idea and interpretation.
You however say that you offer a different interpretation and therefore our 'higher power' is disqualified. The only way for this 'higher power' to be considered as objective or as resolving this difficulty would be for you to agree with the Christian interpretation of it. But you are necessarily not going to do so, you already have your belief that the Christian belief (which is based on Scripture) is wrong, and therefore your 'interpretation' is necessarily going to disagree with their's.
You have your definition, and the Christians have their's. You say the only way to resolve this impasse is for the Christians to plead to a higher power that supports their definition. They (I) have done so. Yet you reject this 'higher power' as it does not agree with your own definition. THEREFORE there truly is no way to resolve this conflict.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think this would be analogous to another situation.
You would claim that God did not create the universe. The Christians would claim that He did. We would then say that the only way to resolve this difficulty would be to seek a higher power. You would then present your science as proof of your belief, and the Christians would present the Scripture as proof of their's. You however would claim that since science disagrees with the Scripture, that the Scripture is wrong. The Christian would likewise say that since Scripture disagrees with your science, then your science is wrong. And we would be back to the starting point.
The ONLY way to resolve it would be to truly find a 'higher power' that we both agree upon. But since we both recognize different 'higher powers', we are necessarily not going to find agreement. I could present Scripture all day long that agrees with me, but you already do not believe Scripture to be true and therefore will not accept my interpretation, always positing an alternative interpretation that agrees with you.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, we're not at an impasse simply because I'm being stubborn.
If the Bible said something like, "Abortion is murder. Anyone who kills a human fetus is guilty.", then things would be very clear. But it doesn't say this at all. It doesn't even come close. There are very good arguments which show that there is no way you should be so convinced that it does:
1. Adam's soul entered his body with his first breath.
2. There is reasonable doubt about whether or not Jeremiah's soul had already entered his body in the womb, but even if you're right, that's just Jeremiah; that's just one person. The Bible doesn't say that this happens in ALL pregnancies, but rather just that it happened in Jeremiah's (again, this is the best-case scenario for you, assuming you are totally right). For all you know, Jeremiah was special.
3. Abortion was widely-practiced back then. If abortion really is murder, then people back then would have had strong feelings about it and they would have clearly stated that it is murder. Or put another way: this is a HUGE issue; God is omniscient, and He could easily see that it was going to be a big issue, so if it really is murder, then He would have made sure that a commandment against it was put into the Bible. He didn't, so it isn't.
So like I've been saying, the Bible is at best unclear as to whether or not abortion is murder. There is no way you should be so convinced that the Bible says it is.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So like I've been saying, the Bible is at best unclear as to whether or not abortion is murder. There is no way you should be so convinced that the Bible says it is. |
I don't think I have ever claimed that the Bible IS clear that abortion is murder. I have never taken that stance. The only stance that I have taken is that the Bible does give reasonable doubt to whether abortion is murder or not.
My point is that the Bible does not say that abortion is murder, but neither does it say 'abortion is not murder'. But the Bible is not completely silent on the issue (hence my continued point to Jeremiah). But even though it is not completely silent on the issue, the only thing it does say seems to only give reasonable doubt, it doesn't solve the issue completely but does give us reason for caution.
It would be as if you and I walked up to a great sage. You thought it was wrong to commit adultery, and I thought it was allright. We then ask the sage whether it was wrong or not. He does not say 'yes it is wrong, or not it is not wrong', but rather responds 'well David got in trouble for committing adultery', and then says nothing else.
This still would not answer our question but would give me reason to think 'well if David got in trouble for committing adultery, maybe I will too'. The sage did not outright answer my question, but he did give me reason to be cautious.
That is what I am saying the Bible does here.
| Quote: | 1. Adam's soul entered his body with his first breath.
2. There is reasonable doubt about whether or not Jeremiah's soul had already entered his body in the womb, but even if you're right, that's just Jeremiah; that's just one person. The Bible doesn't say that this happens in ALL pregnancies, but rather just that it happened in Jeremiah's (again, this is the best-case scenario for you, assuming you are totally right). For all you know, Jeremiah was special. |
Here you confuse me. You argue in one breath that Jeremiah may have been special and that this may be a peculiar case, and yet you likewise argue that since Adam' soul entered his body at first breath, then you seem to suggest that everyone else does as well.
I agree with your assertion about Jeremiah though. I agree he may have been special. But I likewise say maybe it was Adam that was special. Maybe Jeremiah was special and everyone becomes a person at birth, or maybe Adam was special and Jeremiah is the norm wherein everyone becomes a person at conception.
This then is the reason I spoke like I did above. The Bible gives us both ends of the spectrum and doesn't tell us which is the norm. Therefore, the only reasonable thing we can do is to take caution and not assume fallaciously that either is true.
| Quote: | | 3. Abortion was widely-practiced back then. If abortion really is murder, then people back then would have had strong feelings about it and they would have clearly stated that it is murder. Or put another way: this is a HUGE issue; God is omniscient, and He could easily see that it was going to be a big issue, so if it really is murder, then He would have made sure that a commandment against it was put into the Bible. He didn't, so it isn't. |
But this would be a false way of considering what the Scriptures are. Despite the tired old cliches of most Preachers, the Bible is not an instruction manual. That was never its purpose. It is not meant to tell us how we should act in each and every conceivable situation. It is only intended to give us principles for action. This is why you do not find the use of pornography (specific situation) condemned, but you do find lust and adultery condemned (principle applicable to pornography).
| Quote: | | So like I've been saying, the Bible is at best unclear as to whether or not abortion is murder. There is no way you should be so convinced that the Bible says it is. |
I agree that the Bible is unclear. I likewise agree that there is no way one should be convinced either way. But in such unclarity I think caution should arise, not a settling on one extreme over the other.
For you see, one could just as easily argue your opposite. They could say that the Bible is unclear as to whether abortion is wrong or not, therefore one should not be convinced that it is not, therefore abortion should be practiced based upon such and such reasons.
But if a person argued thusly, they would be incorrect.
I think caution is the only way one can argue.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Here you confuse me. You argue in one breath that Jeremiah may have been special and that this may be a peculiar case, and yet you likewise argue that since Adam' soul entered his body at first breath, then you seem to suggest that everyone else does as well.
|
No, you misunderstand. I am not trying to say that the Bible clearly says that abortion is fine. All I'm saying is that it's totally unclear, and you can't get any meaningful answer from the Bible.
| sofyst wrote: |
I agree with your assertion about Jeremiah though. I agree he may have been special. But I likewise say maybe it was Adam that was special. Maybe Jeremiah was special and everyone becomes a person at birth, or maybe Adam was special and Jeremiah is the norm wherein everyone becomes a person at conception.
|
Yes, of course Adam might be a special case as well. So like I said, the Bible is not a good place to go if you want answers about whether or not abortion is murder.
| sofyst wrote: |
This then is the reason I spoke like I did above. The Bible gives us both ends of the spectrum and doesn't tell us which is the norm. Therefore, the only reasonable thing we can do is to take caution and not assume fallaciously that either is true.
|
Yes, EXACTLY! I 100% agree with this sentence. I would even go further and say that anyone who DOES think that the Bible says that abortion is murder or is not murder is (as you point out) making a fallacious assumption.
| sofyst wrote: |
I agree that the Bible is unclear. I likewise agree that there is no way one should be convinced either way. But in such unclarity I think caution should arise, not a settling on one extreme over the other.
For you see, one could just as easily argue your opposite. They could say that the Bible is unclear as to whether abortion is wrong or not, therefore one should not be convinced that it is not, therefore abortion should be practiced based upon such and such reasons.
But if a person argued thusly, they would be incorrect.
I think caution is the only way one can argue. |
How are you defining caution here? Are you saying that people should be cautious about saying things like, "The Bible says abortion is murder.", or "The Bible explicitly allows abortions.", or are you saying that people should be cautious by assuming that abortion is murder and outlawing it?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Yes, EXACTLY! I 100% agree with this sentence. I would even go further and say that anyone who DOES think that the Bible says that abortion is murder or is not murder is (as you point out) making a fallacious assumption. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | How are you defining caution here? Are you saying that people should be cautious about saying things like, "The Bible says abortion is murder.", or "The Bible explicitly allows abortions.", or are you saying that people should be cautious by assuming that abortion is murder and outlawing it? |
Well yes, in a sense. I would say that people should be cautious about saying 'the Bible says abortion is murder' or 'the Bible allows abortions' for the very reason, that I think you would agree, it does not. Therefore one should always be cautious about speaking lies.
But what I really meant is caution should be had in assuming abortion is murder. I am not going to take the leap right now and speak about whether it should then be outlawed or not. But I do want to discuss whether you would agree with me that reasonable doubt is given by the Scriptures as to whether it is or not.
We have Adam who is made a person when he was born, and we have Jeremiah who was a person prior to birth. And we do not have any statement as to which of these was the norm. Agreed so far?
If this is the case, and considering nothing else right now (don't bring in the arguments of the cons of taking away women's rights or the pro's of allowing abortion - lets just consider these basics right now). Considering only that the Bible gives us no concrete idea as to whether the thing within the womb is a person (it could or it could not), wouldn't you agree the safest thing, in each individual situation, is to assume that it is a person and therefore not kill it?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
P, please stay with mere here. I thinkyou may be suprised as to my stance on this. I want to discuss the ethical ramifications of abortion, but that doesn't mean that my decision there (that abortion ethically is wrong) would mean that I likewise believe abortion should be made illegal. Truthfully, I have not given much thought on the issue past the idea that I have always thought abortion was murder and murder should be illegal. But you would be suprised at how socially liberal I can be at times. So, let us take this one step at a time. Let us discuss the ethical part of it, and then we can move on to whether laws against it would be best or not.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
