NationStates Jolt Archive

Well do they?

No, they get a brief stay in Purgatory first.;)

Well do they?

According to what I've learned in church. Yes. They have committed no sin whatsoever so they get a free ticket to heaven.

Nope. Heaven don't exist.

Depends on the doctrine I guess :p

The doctrine I'm familiar with would say no, because they haven't been baptised .

Personally I don't believe, so No as well ;)

Heaven does not exist, it is a creation of the reactionary classes.

I was going to post something completely tasteless and possibly inflammatory, and then thought again.

Answer: No.

I'll say yes, because somebody's just gotta say yes.

According to what I've learned in church. Yes. They have committed no sin whatsoever so they get a free ticket to heaven.

But what about original sin?

Typo in the poll. :(

*fails at life*

No, because there's no Hell below us, and above us only sky.

No, they haven't been baptized, and have original sin.

No.

A. They aren't their own person.
B. There is no heaven.
C. Everyone knows wire hangers are the wrong way to have an abortion. They make a handy dandy pill.

God loves aborted babies. It gives his followers something to get angry about.

But what about original sin?

Well they said that God is forgiving and understanding so he would let innocent babies go to heaven because they are of the age of innocence, or why else would God take up babies during the rapture like it says in Revelation?

No, they haven't been baptized, and have original sin.

All children are born with original sin. Technically speaking, an aborted fetus hasn't been born.

Do aborted babies even have souls?

All children are born with original sin. Technically speaking, an aborted fetus hasn't been born.

In that case it's not alive, so abortion isn't murder.

All children are born with original sin. Technically speaking, an aborted fetus hasn't been born.

Yes, but the deciding aspect is not birth, but descent from the Original Sinners.

I was going to post something completely tasteless and possibly inflammatory, and then thought again.

Answer: No.



You must tell me! Those are my favorite kinds of posts!

Yes.

1.They have no way of knowing that they're sinning if at all.
2.Baptism is a publicization of an indaviduals faith, not what saves you.

Yes, but the deciding aspect is not birth, but descent from the Original Sinners.


INXS? :p

And what are you trying to ask in the poll?:confused:

In that case it's not alive, so abortion isn't murder.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I really don't think a fetus is a baby until it can survive ouside the womb.

Depends on the doctrine I guess :p

The doctrine I'm familiar with would say no, because they haven't been baptised .

Personally I don't believe, so No as well ;)I'd have to go with that.

But I love the wire hangers option too much (even though it is a tad... tasteless in the context :rolleyes: :p) so that one it is.

Yes.

1.They have no way of knowing that they're sinning if at all.
Does it matter?
2.Baptism is a publicization of an indaviduals faith, not what saves you.
Yes, publicly stating that you're a christian of whateever flavour and that you accept Jesus and all that good stuff. Incidentally accepting Jesus also cures Original Sin right up. That's the word on the street anyway.

No(t even if there was a heaven).

All children are born with original sin. Technically speaking, an aborted fetus hasn't been born.

Religiously speaking, life begins at conception.

We are talking about religion here.

Religiously speaking, life begins at conception.

"Religiously speaking", that is hardly a universal opinion.

Well do they?
From what I've witnessed, they go down the drain. :(

Now, whether their spirits/souls (or if they even have one to begin with) go to Heaven (or if there even is one to begin with) is another matter entirely.

I see many of you have fallen into Ruffys trap.

You all think he meant fetus when he clearly said "baby". He's talking about murder of a child after birth... duhhhhhhhhhhh

:p

I see many of you have fallen into Ruffys trap.

You all think he meant fetus when he clearly said "baby". He's talking about murder of a child after birth... duhhhhhhhhhhh

:p

Lies! Lies! Why must you lie so?!

the vast majority of aborted fetuses/embryos are too young to have souls.

those that are aborted later have the same afterlife consequences that a stillborn baby does.

so if your stillborn baby goes to hell, so does your late term abortion. if your stillborn baby goes to heaven, the aborted "baby" does the same.

It isn't a question of "original sin" or "baptism". Aborted babies, being humans, are under the age of accountability. Because they do not know right from wrong, their soul goes to heaven immediately. Hence the Bible verse: "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

Yes, but the deciding aspect is not birth, but descent from the Original Sinners.

The concept of Original Sin didn't come about until around the third century when Augustine added it. So really the deciding aspect is what you want to make of it.

It isn't a question of "original sin" or "baptism". Aborted babies, being humans, are under the age of accountability. Because they do not know right from wrong, their soul goes to heaven immediately. Hence the Bible verse: "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

QFT!

You must tell me! Those are my favorite kinds of posts!

From what I've witnessed, they go down the drain. :(

Something along those lines. :p

Religiously speaking, life begins at conception.

We are talking about religion here.

religiously speaking life beings at "quickening"--the point at which a woman can tell that she is pregnant without a test because she can feel the fetus moving inside her.

I see many of you have fallen into Ruffys trap.

You all think he meant fetus when he clearly said "baby". He's talking about murder of a child after birth... duhhhhhhhhhhh

:p
I for one think that with some people, it's never too late to opt for a postnatal abortion!

Religiously speaking, life begins at conception.

We are talking about religion here.

You're confusing my true thoughts with my debate of one religion's dogma.

Lies! Lies! Why must you lie so?!

Don't blame me, blame my 8th grade critical thinking class that made me look twice at everything and discover alternate points of view.

I see many of you have fallen into Ruffys trap.

You all think he meant fetus when he clearly said "baby". He's talking about murder of a child after birth... duhhhhhhhhhhh

:p


Either way my answer's the same.

My belief is that when the mother feels the first signs of life is when the spirit is entering the body of the child. If the baby were to be aborted after this than yes they would go to heaven prior to this there is no spirit to go anywhere.

In terms of original sin...If God is is fair and just, how just is it that he continues to punish for generations because of the choice of an ancestor. Adam will be judged for his choices, we will be judged for our own, not his. We are not born sinful, this is smoething we do to urselves as we make choices.

Do aborted babies even have souls?

A soul is a mind, and from what I've read the unborn child actually dreams, and hears sounds outside the belly after it is past the sixth month or something. And lets not forget, being born is the first traumatic experience a child has, to be traumatized you have to have a mind.

Something along those lines. :p

sweet! you and GN both rock my panties!

I for one think that with some people, it's never too late to opt for a postnatal abortion!

okay now you went too far. yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something along those lines. :p
Glad I didn't post my first thought. :eek:;):p
sweet! you and GN both rock my panties!
Yay! Panties!!! :D:D:D
okay now you went too far. yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still believe the term postnatal abortion is brilliant. And don't tell me you don't know people who'd qualify?

ahhhh, thx for this idea, now i have something to stir up mt catholic school religion class for a good half hour, and in my opinion there is not a heaven or hell, its just a scare tactic for the religious fags to scare you into believing, kinda funny how the perceptions of heaven and hell are the dante version more or less....anyway, they go to the big grinder in the back

I would have liked some other metaphysical options their, but as it stands . . .

I'm not sure if the soul is present prior to birth or not. If it is I would imagine that they would re-incarnate like everything else.

Glad I didn't post my first thought. :eek:;):p

Yay! Panties!!! :D:D:D

I still believe the term postnatal abortion is brilliant. And don't tell me you don't know people who'd qualify?

man-panties no less

true, it is brilliant... reason being - I used to call it post-birth abortions so that means you are neat

I'd be inclined to say yes. But why even bother to argue if there's nothing to say yes or no?

We'll know when it happens =D

And original sin was never in the Bible. Twas a later invention.

to add to my thoughts, i found this amazing website that i think everyone should visit, it clearly talks about abortion and gives interesting facts like "Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.".....

http://www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

A soul is a mind

Unless you have some sort of inside track on that then your statement is highly debatable.

no. also, why is the option "there is not heaven or hell". While there is no heaven, there is a hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway)

Unless you have some sort of inside track on that then your statement is highly debatable.

So is religion.

no. also, why is the option "there is not heaven or hell". While there is no heaven, there is a hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway)

Awe, I was expecting a photo of New Jersey.:(

to add to my thoughts, i found this amazing website that i think everyone should visit, it clearly talks about abortion and gives interesting facts like "Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.".....

http://www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

Unless the doctor buggers something up and injures his patient or causes an infection NO ONE is killed by an abortion.

no. also, why is the option "there is not heaven or hell". While there is no heaven, there is a hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway)

And Hell has frozen over.

man-panties no less
D'oh! I got enough of those in my wardrobe... :p
true, it is brilliant... reason being - I used to call it post-birth abortions so that means you are neat
I am. I only wish those in the panties I desire would take notice once in a while. ;)

no. also, why is the option "there is not heaven or hell". While there is no heaven, there is a hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway)

See also: Hell, Michigan

I'd be inclined to say yes. But why even bother to argue if there's nothing to say yes or no?

We'll know when it happens =D

And original sin was never in the Bible. Twas a later invention.

Yes, I kinda pointed that out.

Unless the doctor buggers something up and injures his patient or causes an infection NO ONE is killed by an abortion.

the point was it was a klan website, but sure i can dig that.....

I am. I only wish those in the panties I desire would take notice once in a while. ;)


Shoot, and I was wearing those kind of panties yesterday. ;)

the point was it was a klan website, but sure i can dig that.....

Sorry, didn't catch that. I assumed the link was some sort of "Abortion is murder" dreck and I don't click stuff like that.

Babies are those little people that live in the outside world and gargle and shit themselves. You can't abort them. The things that grow inside a woman are called foetuses, you can abort them, but they don't go to heaven because they aren't people.

Sorry, didn't catch that. I assumed the link was some sort of "Abortion is murder" dreck and I don't click stuff like that.

click it, go ahead it wont hurt you, just dont click on the part about "abortion pictures" (its a klan website, so u know its safe)

Babies are those little people that live in the outside world and gargle and shit themselves. You can't abort them. The things that grow inside a woman are called foetuses, you can abort them, but they don't go to heaven because they aren't people.

only people go to heaven? how do u know a heaven exists?

Shoot, and I was wearing those kind of panties yesterday. ;)
:p

And Hell has frozen over.

who said it was supposed to be hot?

click it, go ahead it wont hurt you, just dont click on the part about "abortion pictures" (its a klan website, so u know its safe)

I don't know, being a klan site it might make my head explode with rage.

who said it was supposed to be hot?

Yeah, according to Dante it was suppose to be frozen comes from being so far from the light.

Well do they?

Depends on the soul's karma.

Unless you have some sort of inside track on that then your statement is highly debatable.

soul (sol).The most central, innermost, or essential part of something : heart, center, core, essence, soul, spirit, quintessence, meat, pith, gist, marrow, nub, kernel, root, stuff, substance, sum and substance, hub, interior, nucleus, gravamen. A animating force believed to exist in living beings : soul, anima, animus, (((psyche))), spirit, vital force. A person's awareness of what constitutes his or her essential nature : ego, self, psyche, soul.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

soul (sol)n. 1. The animating and vital principle in human beings, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. 2. The spiritual nature of human beings, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. 3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human being; a shade. 4. Soul. Christian Science. God. 5. A human being: "the homes of some nine hundred souls" (Garrison Keillor). 6. The central or integral part; the vital core: "It saddens me that this network ... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news" (Marvin Kalb). 7. A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion. 8. A person's emotional or moral nature: "An actor is ... often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not" (Alec Guinness). 9. A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African-Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music. 10. A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist. 11. Soul music.[Middle English, from Old English sawol.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

psyche is another word for mind right?

phyche is another word for mind right?

psyche.

Depends on the soul's karma.

Soul's karma?

I don't know, being a klan site it might make my head explode with rage.

oh it will....it compares abortion to the holocaust has a list of clinics as "death camps" and a bunch of pictures that make the whole family throw up....have to admit, i liked the video in my religion class (i go to a catholic school....yes yes hahahaha.....im the only angnostic there...) where it showed babies being grinded up....wasnt the best time to bring up dead baby jokes but how could you resist?

Heaven and Hell are an invention of organized religion to create fear.


I linger between a spiritual Afterlife or reincarnation, but what is hell? I think its funny Christians arrogantly think the millions of people in other countries starving and suffering while their capitalist corrupt countries prosper who do not believe what they believe will probably go to hell.

There's no such thing as an aborted baby. Babies are infants, and have been born.

Now, whether an aborted fetus goes to heaven, I'd say no. They're not their own person. They just cease to exist.

Soul's karma?

Hinduism:
good karma = go up the ladder of reincarnation
bad karma = go down the ladder of reincarnation

a nirvana-esque state is at the top of the ladder
not really sure what would be at the "bottom"

Though there isn't actually a heaven in your sense. There's a place where the gods reside, but I don't think you actually ascend there. Same with hell. It's a place of demons, but you don't end up there no matter how much of a shit you are.

There are some exceptions (one of the central characters of the Mahabharata ascends alive to heaven) though.

Well they said that God is forgiving and understanding so he would let innocent babies go to heaven because they are of the age of innocence, or why else would God take up babies during the rapture like it says in Revelation?

1. It doesn't say that in Revelation.
2. The rapture isn't even mentioned in Revelation.
3. According to Revelation, only 144,000 virgin Jewish males go to heaven. No one else.

1. It doesn't say that in Revelation.
2. The rapture isn't even mentioned in Revelation.
3. According to Revelation, only 144,000 virgin Jewish males go to heaven. No one else.

I'm a little ashamed that I almost asked for a source. :p

1. It doesn't say that in Revelation.
2. The rapture isn't even mentioned in Revelation.
3. According to Revelation, only 144,000 virgin Jewish males go to heaven. No one else.

uh, isnt revelation written in apocaliptic (i cant spell) writing style and is simpley something to keep faith in early christians? or am i just well....we wont go there.....

*Shrug* Ask God when you get to the otherside. Personally I would say yes since it was the mother committing the act and also the baby never developed the senses to commit any sin anyways.

*Waits for a atheist to go on the war path with self*

the vast majority of aborted fetuses/embryos are too young to have souls...

Ashmoria is exactly right. Scientheological studies have shown that over 97% of aborted babies are soulless. Of the approximately 3% of toddlers aborted that did have souls, nearly 92% went to heaven. Of the remaining, 62% went to purgatory, 29% went straight to Hell, 8% inexplicably ended up in Dog-Hell and the remaining 1% are still unaccounted for.

How could one possibly know? To KNOW that heaven exists is silly. There is no proof. To KNOW that heaven doesn't exist is also silly. There is no proof that there isn't a heaven.

Ashmoria is exactly right. Scientheological studies have shown that over 97% of aborted babies are soulless. Of the approximately 3% of toddlers aborted that did have souls, nearly 92% went to heaven. Of the remaining, 62% went to purgatory, 29% went straight to Hell, 8% inexplicably ended up in Dog-Hell and the remaining 1% are still unaccounted for.

I'm not entirely sure what the point is of this, but toddlers and babies are not what is being aborted. What is being aborted are fetuses (feti?) which, depending on the nature of your faith, either have souls from the moment of conception, or do not have souls by the time they are aborted.

Soul's karma?

yea soul's karma.

Come on....it's not that complex a concept :confused:

Ashmoria is exactly right. Scientheological studies have shown that over 97% of aborted babies are soulless. Of the approximately 3% of toddlers aborted that did have souls, nearly 92% went to heaven. Of the remaining, 62% went to purgatory, 29% went straight to Hell, 8% inexplicably ended up in Dog-Hell and the remaining 1% are still unaccounted for.

hmmm my stats show exactly the opposite. 62% ended up in dog heaven (not such a bad fate really) 1% went to hell (administrative error) and 29% went to heaven but had to wait at the gate for a few months to allow their soul a chance to catch up.

hmmm my stats show exactly the opposite. 62% ended up in dog heaven (not such a bad fate really) 1% went to hell (administrative error) and 29% went to heaven but had to wait at the gate for a few months to allow their soul a chance to catch up.

Those damn souls, always lagging behind.

Those damn souls, always lagging behind.

bad karma

hmmm my stats show exactly the opposite. 62% ended up in dog heaven (not such a bad fate really)...

This is where a lot of people get confused. The Plane in question is referred to some as "Dog Heaven" and by others as "Dog Hell" - It's the same place but a difference in perspective. From the point of view of the dog, it's heaven. There are lots of babies to eat - but from the baby point of view....

Do aborted babies even have souls?

No.

I see many of you have fallen into Ruffys trap.

You all think he meant fetus when he clearly said "baby". He's talking about murder of a child after birth... duhhhhhhhhhhh

:p

I stand by my "no heaven no hell" option.

the vast majority of aborted fetuses/embryos are too young to have souls.

And you know this how? Also, does a monkey have a soul?

http://www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

God damn, lol.

uh, isnt revelation ... simpley something to keep faith in early christians?

You mean, like the entire bible?

And you know this how? Also, does a monkey have a soul?



classic dogma

no animals have souls.

...Also, does a monkey have a soul?

I'm not sure about the other three, but Michael Nesmith has a soul.

You mean, like the entire bible?

uh, well the book of revelation is alot of time misthought to have actually been to be understood word for word, however john simpley wrote it in the writing style of the time, and therefor how can you actually say that all that was serious? (apocoliptic style, god damn i need to learn to spell....) its a pretty far out writing style....and if john was a christian then how could only x amount of virgin jew males go to heaven? im confused now :confused:

Even if heaven existed; why should a grimy little shit that nobody wants get a free pass to heaven when it hasn't even developed a sex organ? Or lungs? Or a brain?

One ugly angel right there.

No.
God damn, lol.



i just started wondring how i found that.....


(im putting a link to the best book of all time for no reason....., u miss the pictures and diagrams but its free so who gives a shit?) http://www.tenant.net/Community/steal/steal.html)

If God and Heaven and Hell and whatnot exist, then it would be nice to think that God isn't an asshole and would condemn a human being to hell even though it had no chance to live

Yes.

1.They have no way of knowing that they're sinning if at all.
2.Baptism is a publicization of an indaviduals faith, not what saves you.

How does a new born have any "faith" to publicize?

classic dogma

no animals have souls.

Okay, so at what point in human evolution did "we" get a soul? Evolution is quite gradual, but as you either have a soul or you don't, apparently, you must somehow be able to pinpoint a specific evolutionary mutation that gave us a soul, yes? So please tell us, at which evolutionary change did we gain one?

Okay, so at what point in human evolution did "we" get a soul? Evolution is quite gradual, but as you either have a soul or you don't, apparently, you must somehow be able to pinpoint a specific evolutionary mutation that gave us a soul, yes? So please tell us, at which evolutionary change did we gain one?

Bah you know as well as I do that the crazies are just going to deny evolution how you worded that question ... you wont get any sort of realistic answer

Bah you know as well as I do that the crazies are just going to deny evolution how you worded that question ... you wont get any sort of realistic answer

If they resort to creationism then I win. :P

If they resort to creationism then I win. :P

Then maybe you have not spent enough time in creationism vs evolution thread there is no BS they wont stoop to. you dont "Win" by any definition you just get to wade through the next hundred pages of that classic argument with no resolution

Then maybe you have not spent enough time in creationism vs evolution thread there is no BS they wont stoop to. you dont "Win" by any definition you just get to wade through the next hundred pages of that classic argument with no resolution

Oh, I know about the pointless arguments. But I still win instantly in my mind. Since they aren't able to come up with any answer to my soul-question without resorting to that BS, then the rest is moot anyway. Still, they may have a good explanation for the monkey/soul question. Let's wait and see...

Okay, so at what point in human evolution did "we" get a soul? Evolution is quite gradual, but as you either have a soul or you don't, apparently, you must somehow be able to pinpoint a specific evolutionary mutation that gave us a soul, yes? So please tell us, at which evolutionary change did we gain one?

I have asked the exact question many times; I've never received an answer.

of course!

the go back to standing on line, waiting to be born, muttering things like "oh goddess; what a short trip that was! all cramped up in there and never got to see the sights."

if the're smart, next time the'll pick a shorter line to be born into a less overpopulated world where this is less likely to happen.

=^^=
.../\...

For me, there are so many levels of "I don't care" about this topic. It's kind of impressive.

According to what I've learned in church. Yes. They have committed no sin whatsoever so they get a free ticket to heaven.

According to what you should have read in the Bible:

No. Until they're born, they have not been ensoulled. They're not people until they're alive while out of the uterus up to the naval. Before that, they're just meat.

Your church is lying to you to make you a cheap political puppet.

And you know this how? Also, does a monkey have a soul?

Only the ones that wear diapers and ride tricycles.

How could one possibly know? To KNOW that heaven exists is silly. There is no proof. To KNOW that heaven doesn't exist is also silly. There is no proof that there isn't a heaven.

Yes, absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's a hell of a clue, though.

And michael Nesmith wasn't a monkey. He was a Monkee.

There is no Biblical support for the idea that fetuses, unbaptised children or people with cognitive disabilities to get into Heaven.

The closest passage appears to be in 2 Samuel 12:23,

The context is thus: King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and she had a baby. God confronted David with that sin and told him that the baby would die. David fasted and prayed in hopes that God would change His mind and allow the child to live. That did not happen, the baby died. When the child dies, David stops fasting. When he is asked why, he replies that he did so in hopes of changing God's mind. Then:
But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Some people interpret this to mean that since David is sure he will go to Heaven, it also means that David is sure that his child will too, regardless of the fact that it was never baptised, etc.

Mind you, God basically kills the kid a few verses earlier, so David's faith may be a little misplaced here.

12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

On the other hand, Jesus is quite clear in John 14:6,
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Since the fetuses lack the cognitive ability to know Jesus, they are not getting to the Father.

I think, from a doctrinal standpoint, all the fetuses are in Hell.

Aborted fetuses cannot go to heaven because they aren't baptised.
Hail Natzinger!

For me, there are so many levels of "I don't care" about this topic. It's kind of impressive.

Like I tell my partner, there are times when apathy is its own reward.

Okay, so at what point in human evolution did "we" get a soul? Evolution is quite gradual, but as you either have a soul or you don't, apparently, you must somehow be able to pinpoint a specific evolutionary mutation that gave us a soul, yes? So please tell us, at which evolutionary change did we gain one?

oh really? do we have an example of every mutation that was significant enough to be given a different scientific name in the evolution of humanity? i think not.

we got a soul when we became homo sapiens sapiens or whatever they are calling modern humans these days.

there came a day and a birth where god declared us "done" and that first true person received a soul. as did all his/her children who inherited whatever quality it was that tipped the scale from animal to human.

ok?

Well do they?

Yes. A cartoon movie made the case that all dogs go to heaven, and they've got to eat something, so I assume they're eating the aborted babies.

Well do they?

Nope. I don't believe they are actually babies. Not persons. Not going to heaven.

As far as the beliefs of Christianity, for a very long time, Christians (and Jews I think) believed in something called the quickening, when the soul is infused to the body. An abortion before that would not be sending a soul anywhere. Now, of course as abortion became something we tried to make illegal, suddenly the quickening moved back to conception. Interesting how God's word seems to change to support the political will of His followers.

It all depend on which religion and which sub-sect of that religion you ask.

...
On the other hand, Jesus is quite clear in John 14:6,
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Since the fetuses lack the cognitive ability to know Jesus, they are not getting to the Father.

I think, from a doctrinal standpoint, all the fetuses are in Hell.

Where did Jesus say you needed cognitive ability? He didn’t, you assumed it.

Luke 18:15-16
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read,

"'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise'?"

How then is it that you argue that cognitive ability is somehow required? If such (babes, infants and little children) belongs the kingdom of God AND God has prepared praise for himself from the mouths of infants and babies, perhaps they know Jesus better than someone with cognitive abilities…

Matthew 18:2-4
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I think rather, from the doctrinal standpoint you talked about, the question is not so clearly answered in the negative as you supposed.

Nope. I don't believe they are actually babies. Not persons. Not going to heaven.

As far as the beliefs of Christianity, for a very long time, Christians (and Jews I think) believed in something called the quickening, when the soul is infused to the body. An abortion before that would not be sending a soul anywhere. Now, of course as abortion became something we tried to make illegal, suddenly the quickening moved back to conception. Interesting how God's word seems to change to support the political will of His followers.

What you are talking about came hundreds of years later...

The earliest Christian writings were set against it.

The Didache
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

But of course you must believe what you said there, or else you would have to believe yourself to be an enabler of filicide by supporting abortion rights now, and you would probably have a hard time sleeping at night if you did that on purpose.

What you are talking about came hundreds of years later...

The earliest Christian writings were set against it.

The Didache
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

But of course you must believe what you said there, or else you would have to believe yourself to be an enabler of filicide by supporting abortion rights now, and you would probably have a hard time sleeping at night if you did that on purpose.

the problem with your analysis is that when that was written they didnt know a woman was pregnant until the quickening. then it was a sin to abort. somewhere around the 12th to 16th week when you can feel the fetus moving and you know that your lack of menstruation is due to being pregnant. there was no presumption of pregnancy after sex that meant that one must perserve the possible embryo growing inside. whatever "herbal tea" that one might drink to flush the system didnt count as an abortion, no one knew that a pregnancy existed.

What you are talking about came hundreds of years later...

The earliest Christian writings were set against it.

The Didache
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

But of course you must believe what you said there, or else you would have to believe yourself to be an enabler of filicide by supporting abortion rights now, and you would probably have a hard time sleeping at night if you did that on purpose.

Ha. Amusing. First, the earliest Christian writings not by Christ himself could say "Eric, yes, Eric who goes by Jocabia on NS, we think abortion is wrong" and I still wouldn't feel bad for supporting freedom.

Keep in mind that I believe that people should worship God, as well, but I'm not willing to require it by law, and that's their soul not just their body.

Meanwhile, in the Didache does it say when it becomes a child?

the problem with your analysis is that when that was written they didnt know a woman was pregnant until the quickening. then it was a sin to abort. somewhere around the 12th to 16th week when you can feel the fetus moving and you know that your lack of menstruation is due to being pregnant. there was no presumption of pregnancy after sex that meant that one must perserve the possible embryo growing inside. whatever "herbal tea" that one might drink to flush the system didnt count as an abortion, no one knew that a pregnancy existed.

Yes, of course. His claim completely denies the idea of the quickening, the point when they consider it to be an actual person. An idea supported by the Church at that time. So let's speculate as to whether the Church PW believes was infallible was wrong, in which PW is wrong about that, or whether he's wrong now?

Now, that's a pickle, hain't it? PW is wrong no matter what he says at this point.

Where did Jesus say you needed cognitive ability? He didn’t, you assumed it.

Luke 18:15-16
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read,

"'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise'?"

How then is it that you argue that cognitive ability is somehow required? If such (babes, infants and little children) belongs the kingdom of God AND God has prepared praise for himself from the mouths of infants and babies, perhaps they know Jesus better than someone with cognitive abilities…

Matthew 18:2-4
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I think rather, from the doctrinal standpoint you talked about, the question is not so clearly answered in the negative as you supposed.

Here we definitely agree. Pick up your tongue.

If the God I worship is a God that would condemn children to eternal separation from Him, and condemn Christians to eternity knowing their children will never know God, then I'd rather suffer. Fortunately for me, I needn't make any such moral decision, as such a claim is not supported.

the problem with your analysis is that when that was written they didnt know a woman was pregnant until the quickening. then it was a sin to abort. somewhere around the 12th to 16th week when you can feel the fetus moving and you know that your lack of menstruation is due to being pregnant. there was no presumption of pregnancy after sex that meant that one must perserve the possible embryo growing inside. whatever "herbal tea" that one might drink to flush the system didnt count as an abortion, no one knew that a pregnancy existed.

I submit that any woman that is in a position to make her would want an abortion, or a woman that is afraid of becoming pregnant (rape, prostitution, one too many kids already, whatever) then as now, did not need to wait 12 weeks to notice that she was pregnant. There are many examples of Roman prostitutes seeking birth control methods and aborficants of some kind or another (I'm not claiming all or any of them worked). They didn't need to wait to be afraid of being pregnant and a scared person assumes the worst right from the get go, they don't have to wait...

Yes, of course. His claim completely denies the idea of the quickening, the point when they consider it to be an actual person. An idea supported by the Church at that time. So let's speculate as to whether the Church PW believes was infallible was wrong, in which PW is wrong about that, or whether he's wrong now?

Now, that's a pickle, hain't it? PW is wrong no matter what he says at this point.

the thing is that to claim that life begins at fertilization and that any "baby" that dies after fertilization goes to hell is inherently cruel. who knows how many "babies" i have lost over the years due to lack of implantation? what of all those untold billions who never lived long enough to bring their mothers the joy of knowing there is a life inside her? is god so cruel as to condemn upwards of 50% of all humanity to hell because he cant be bothered to design a system that preserves the life of all fertilized eggs?

and what would be the point of forcing us to have a life on earth if a one-day-after-fertilization "baby" can get to heaven? shouldnt we ALL pray to have our babies die before we know they are conceived?

and, if those "babies" go to heaven, its not a terrible thing to abort them now is it?

The catholic church recently deleted a part of hell where unbaptised babies went after they died. They did this because for years they were telling people the babies were in a hell/purgatory type of thing, and noticed a sharp fall in faith in Africa, where many babies die without being able to be baptised.

Don't ask me how they can just delete a part of hell to suit their needs.

I submit that any woman that is in a position to make her would want an abortion, or a woman that is afraid of becoming pregnant (rape, prostitution, one too many kids already, whatever) then as now, did not need to wait 12 weeks to notice that she was pregnant. There are many examples of Roman prostitutes seeking birth control methods and aborficants of some kind or another (I'm not claiming all or any of them worked). They didn't need to wait to be afraid of being pregnant and a scared person assumes the worst right from the get go, they don't have to wait...

im not sure that there was a difference between birth control and early term abortifacients back then. they were preventing pregnancy without knowing if they were pregnant or not. later term abortions when they knew they were pregnant are a different thing of course.

it still doesnt mean that the church considered a "pre-soul" pregnancy (since its obvious that you were pregnant before you felt the fetus move) to be a child.

Well do they?

They never left. *nod*

How does a new born have any "faith" to publicize?


They don't, but Catholics and maby some other religons believe that if you aren't baptised you will go to Hell.

and, if those "babies" go to heaven, its not a terrible thing to abort them now is it?
If aborting a pregnancy automatically sends the fetus straight to Paradise, then I think abortion is morally superior to childbirth.

If you choose to give birth to a child, then you are selfishly putting your desire to have that child ahead of its well-being. You are bringing it into a dangerous world, and exposing it to the serious risk that it will sin or somehow turn from God in a manner that will get it sent to Hell. You are deliberately choosing to put a child in danger, when it is completely within your power to ensure that the child NEVER experiences ANY danger whatsoever.

Yes, of course. His claim completely denies the idea of the quickening, the point when they consider it to be an actual person. An idea supported by the Church at that time. So let's speculate as to whether the Church PW believes was infallible was wrong, in which PW is wrong about that, or whether he's wrong now?

Now, that's a pickle, hain't it? PW is wrong no matter what he says at this point.

I am not in a pickle on either of those accounts. Abortions were not approved in the beginning of Christianity, they are not approved by the Church now... You on the other hand tend to pick your argument backing based on your whim, not steady theology. You, who attack the church so vehemently (the church of the period you are talking about now anyway), now suddenly claim them as you best ally and backing for your belief.

Interesting.

What happened to change that Roman Empire Church, the Constantine Tyrant’s pagan influenced Church since the last time you and I talked that those church periods until now, to now make you want to use them as such wise and all knowledgeable doctrine makers?

If aborting a pregnancy automatically sends the fetus straight to Paradise, then I think abortion is morally superior to childbirth.

If you choose to give birth to a child, then you are selfishly putting your desire to have that child ahead of its well-being. You are bringing it into a dangerous world, and exposing it to the serious risk that it will sin or somehow turn from God in a manner that will get it sent to Hell. You are deliberately choosing to put a child in danger, when it is completely within your power to ensure that the child NEVER experiences ANY danger whatsoever.

:rolleyes: haha


And in the same manner, I suppose you think every minister that ever baptizes a new Christian into the church should immediately afterward hold the person's head underwater until they drown, thus saving them from any possible future sin (or ability to backslide out of the church later) and they would go immediately to heaven upon their death... (and you would have far less Christians running around the world messing everything up for you as well huh?)

Where did Jesus say you needed cognitive ability? He didn’t, you assumed it.

Why, in the Gospel opf John!
3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. "No man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Please explain to this poor sinner how fetuses are born again.

Luke 18:15-16
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

And when we read the next line, we realise he is trying to make a point:

18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Here, Jesus is saying that we must be childlike to go to heaven. He is not saying that all kids get into heaven free.



Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read,
"'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise'?"

I would argue that the ability to speak shows that the children here have the ability to recognise God and Jesus.

How then is it that you argue that cognitive ability is somehow required? If such (babes, infants and little children) belongs the kingdom of God AND God has prepared praise for himself from the mouths of infants and babies, perhaps they know Jesus better than someone with cognitive abilities…

Well, the doctrine of original Sin is pretty orthodox, so I think I can safely assume it to be true in regards to Christian doctrine. I would assume that the same apllies for fetuses unless we have some sort of other Biblical support. Apparently we don't.

Matthew 18:2-4
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Those parts I bolded are what we call similes. They are comparisons. Again, Jesus is saying that we must be childlike to go to heaven. He is not saying that all kids get into heaven free.

I think rather, from the doctrinal standpoint you talked about, the question is not so clearly answered in the negative as you supposed

From the book of Mark:
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Since fetuses are incapable of having any belief system, or knowing about Jesus even if they could, I do not see how they would enter Heaven.

The catholic church recently deleted a part of hell where unbaptised babies went after they died. They did this because for years they were telling people the babies were in a hell/purgatory type of thing, and noticed a sharp fall in faith in Africa, where many babies die without being able to be baptised.

Don't ask me how they can just delete a part of hell to suit their needs.

Generally they think of these:

Matthew 16:18-20
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Matthew 18:17-19
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

The catholic church recently deleted a part of hell where unbaptised babies went after they died. They did this because for years they were telling people the babies were in a hell/purgatory type of thing, and noticed a sharp fall in faith in Africa, where many babies die without being able to be baptised.

Don't ask me how they can just delete a part of hell to suit their needs.

Misconstrued there. Firstly its not hell, its limbo. It means that the baby would be in eternal bliss but not in Gods presence. However it was never brought up particularly in the past until Pope Benedict XVI commissioned a study due to his belief that limbo was not an origional teaching of the church. The link below is an excellent one which covers all the issues IMO. Its not hell, but its not heaven, it was limbo.

Oh, and Pope Benedict changed this very quickly, it has been his belief limbo does not occur.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/12945/pope-to-abandon-idea-unbaptised-babies-suspended-forever-in-limbo

However, as for the actual poll, im not voting. Wondering why? Well put simply, the poll is not accurate enough. Abortions can occur at any time along pregnancy, the question is, when does the baby become a human being? Catholic teaching is from the word go, in fact thats partly why they don't use contraception(sexual intercourse should be possible to lead to a child according to the RC church).

But, IMO once the baby is in fact a baby, i'd say at about 3months of pregnancy (miscarriges occur less frequently after this point and the baby is more developed), then it will go to heaven. I personally disagree with original sin, its there for sure as we are all humans, but God does not hold it against us as it was not ourselves who put it there. Its like being born in a country, you can't help being that nationality but it should never be held against you.

Generally they think of these:

Matthew 16:18-20
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Matthew 18:17-19
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

I don't get it. Translation?

:rolleyes: haha


And in the same manner, I suppose you think every minister that ever baptizes a new Christian into the church should immediately afterward hold the person's head underwater until they drown, thus saving them from any possible future sin (or ability to backslide out of the church later) and they would go immediately to heaven upon their death... (and you would have far less Christians running around the world messing everything up for you as well huh?)
If you honestly believe in the Christian model of Heaven, and if you truly believe that baptism cleanses a person of sin, and if you truly believe that a person who dies thusly cleansed gets a ticket to Heaven, then yes. That would be the appropriate action.

One can only conclude, therefore, that Christians do not actually believe one (or several) of the above.

The catholic church recently deleted a part of hell where unbaptised babies went after they died. They did this because for years they were telling people the babies were in a hell/purgatory type of thing, and noticed a sharp fall in faith in Africa, where many babies die without being able to be baptised.

Don't ask me how they can just delete a part of hell to suit their needs.

i just spent a bit of time looking this up.

the part of hell is called LIMBO. there were assumed to be 2 zones of limbo, the one where the pre-jesus righteous were held (abraham, moses, isaiah, and the rest) until jesus opened the gates of heaven to them and the one where unbaptised babies went. its a zone without suffering of any kind but also without the joys of living with god.

the first one was closed when jesus descending into hell after the crucifiction.

the baby one was not firm theological doctrine but was deduced from scripture. babies have not sinned but they are infected with original sin. they are pure but they have not been baptised (which the bible tells us is a prerequisite for going to heaven). so they dont deserve either heaven or hell. so the big thinkers of the church 700 years ago decided that there was a limbo infantium that solved the problem.

great for them, not all that satisfying for anyone who has lost a baby before it could be baptised.

the church has decided to drop this rather mechanistic view of god. god isnt a petty dictator bouncing people from heaven for lack of the right paperwork. they feel it makes more sense to assume that god will welcome these souls into heaven due to his great love.

now, what that means about the necessity of baptism and when this free-trip-to-heaven card expires, i dont know.

I am not in a pickle on either of those accounts. Abortions were not approved in the beginning of Christianity, they are not approved by the Church now...

They were not even considered abortions until long after the time when abortions are conducted now. But then you knew that, no?

You on the other hand tend to pick your argument backing based on your whim, not steady theology. You, who attack the church so vehemently (the church of the period you are talking about now anyway), now suddenly claim them as you best ally and backing for your belief.

Amusing. Because the Church said something? I don't agree with the idea of the Church setting my beliefs. Never have. That's steady. What is not steady is considering the Church to be infallible when they originally claimed that a "baby" was not a "baby" until the quickening and now claim that it is a "baby" at conception. That is not steady theology. If steady theology is your goal, don't follow the Church, which is why I don't.

I don't claim them as an ally. You do. We were discussing what you claim I must believe.


Interesting.

What happened to change that Roman Empire Church, the Constantine Tyrant’s pagan influenced Church since the last time you and I talked that those church periods until now, to now make you want to use them as such wise and all knowledgeable doctrine makers?

You use them, my friend. Thus I'm asking you to answer why their claims don't match yours. What part of logic is difficult for you?

I'll go slowly for the people struggling in the class. Here, I'll line it out.

1. You claim the Church was infallible.
2. They claimed, then, that a fetus becomes a person at the quickening.
3. Now they and you claim that the fetus becomes a person at conception.

So are you wrong or was the Church you claim was infallible wrong? This isn't about what I believe. It's about what you're claiming I'm supposed to believe because you do.

I don't get it. Translation?

He's using the same misunderstanding that is used to claim the Catholic Church can do no wrong. The claim is that even if what they say is ludicrous it becomes true because they say it. Nevermind, that the same group chose the books of the Bible and the translations of it. Convenient, no?

According to this interpretation of the doctrine, if I as Pope say God is an antelope it becomes true because I'm the Pope, thus I can't be wrong even when I am.

If you honestly believe in the Christian model of Heaven, and if you truly believe that baptism cleanses a person of sin, and if you truly believe that a person who dies thusly cleansed gets a ticket to Heaven, then yes. That would be the appropriate action.

One can only conclude, therefore, that Christians do not actually believe one (or several) of the above.

Well, to be fair, it could also mean that Christians believe their is a purpose to life that has value to our soul and, as such, denial of life is, at least, unfortunate.

Why, in the Gospel opf John!

3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Please explain to this poor sinner how fetuses are born again.

In the same way that we cannot determine who will and who will not be called by the spirit…
John 3:8
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Acts 15:6-11
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Who are we to say where and who the holy spirit can come upon? It certainly isn’t a cognitive ability or intelligence would be a litmus test and could save themselves by being smart. And you surely know, without me reminding you, that we cannot save ourselves, lest any man boast. Only through Christ can we be saved.

And when we read the next line, we realise he is trying to make a point:

18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Here, Jesus is saying that we must be childlike to go to heaven. He is not saying that all kids get into heaven free.

Exactly right. He doesn’t say all children get to go to heaven, only that heaven was made for such as them. So a Christian should raise their children to be Christians and should get them baptized and should try to lead them to an adult understanding of Christ as they raise them. I agree with that.

I would argue that the ability to speak shows that the children here have the ability to recognise God and Jesus.

It is not the ability to speak that allows them the ability to recognize God, or else Rocks are saved…

Luke 19:39-41
And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Luke 3:8
Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

The ability of speech does not get one saved, or else no one would be lost. Additionally, you are essentially trying to put an age limit on salvation, you recognize that right?


Well, the doctrine of original Sin is pretty orthodox, so I think I can safely assume it to be true in regards to Christian doctrine. I would assume that the same apllies for fetuses unless we have some sort of other Biblical support. Apparently we don't.

Original sin does apply to them, as well as us. And Jesus can cleanse away original sin for them, the same as us.

Those parts I bolded are what we call similes. They are comparisons. Again, Jesus is saying that we must be childlike to go to heaven. He is not saying that all kids get into heaven free.

Agreed. However, consider this, Jesus told adults to become like them in order to be worthy of heaven, he didn’t say they had to become like adults to be saved.



From the book of Mark:
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Since fetuses are incapable of having any belief system, or knowing about Jesus even if they could, I do not see how they would enter Heaven.

No, you think they are incapable of belief because they are not cognitive by your definition yet, but that is not the end of the matter though. Jesus can be in their heart, and they can believe and are baptized by the spirit (baptized by the spirit suffices IF the spirit says it suffices) then they are saved. Perhaps you have it backwards, cognitive ability produces in you the power to lose faith, to choose not to believe. If you do not have cognitive power you know what you know, like Adam and Eve before the fall (I’m not saying infants are not in original sin though, some people say that, I am not. I’m saying original sin or not, Jesus can save them, it is not beyond his ability).

...

I'll go slowly for the people struggling in the class. Here, I'll line it out.

1. You claim the Church was infallible.
Really, who are you thinking of? Perhaps you would like to quote me saying that? Good Luck.

...
2. They claimed, then, that a fetus becomes a person at the quickening.
Who is they, and what year are you talking about? I already quoted the oldest known Christian church document, the Didache. It doesn't say what you say.

...
3. Now they and you claim that the fetus becomes a person at conception.

You got this part right anyway. I and they both say that.

So are you wrong or was the Church you claim was infallible wrong? This isn't about what I believe. It's about what you're claiming I'm supposed to believe because you do.

You made a big old strawman there... would you like to borrow a match to burn it?

Really, who are you thinking of? Perhaps you would like to quote me saying that? Good Luck.

Um, didn't you just talk about how we argued about the Church? Do you not remember that in that thread you were claiming that such a thing, the Church, in the Nicean conference defined Christianity and that one MUST agree with the Creed in order to be Christian? Are you really claiming you DON'T believe the Church was infallible?

Did you not just post passages claiming that the Church defines Heaven?

Who is they, and what year are you talking about? I already quoted the oldest known Christian church document, the Didache. It doesn't say what you say.

The Church is they. You do know how pronouns work, no? It doesn't? Where did you quote about the quickening? I'm looking but I don't see mention of it. Are you claiming the idea of the quickening didn't exist in the early Church? What you quoted does not have the necessary context? As pointed out to you several times, it does not indicate when they considered it a child, which we know to have been the quickening? Thus it would not apply to behavior we're discussing.

You got this part right anyway. I and they both say that.

But they didn't. You're doing a terrible job of avoiding the questions. It's okay. We know why you're doing it. Can't look consistent if you answer honestly.

So suddenly you know who "they" is? Hmmmm... did you forget you were being intentionally obtuse? Come on, man, this isn't even a different post.


You made a big old strawman there... would you like to borrow a match to burn it?

Again, I'll ask plainly. Was the early Church infallible? Did they believe in the quickening (the point when a fetus became a baby)?

This squirming isn't fooling anyone. *wonders how long it will be before someone tells me to stop picking on you*

...
now, what that means about the necessity of baptism and when this free-trip-to-heaven card expires, i dont know.

As to baptism, there seems to me to be a difference between necessity and should... We 'should' get baptized. We do not save ourselves by becoming baptized though. We should not reject baptism, we should have our entire households baptized...

In the end, even though there is a difference between a necessity and the command and baptism in water is not a necessity it is a command. We are told to do it, so we should.

As to the get-out-of-hell-free card, I'm not positive that this is the correct understanding, but I'm not going to argue with it either. ;)

As to baptism, there seems to me to be a difference between necessity and should... We 'should' get baptized. We do not save ourselves by becoming baptized though. We should not reject baptism, we should have our entire households baptized...

In the end, even though there is a difference between a necessity and the command and baptism in water is not a necessity it is a command. We are told to do it, so we should.

As to the get-out-of-hell-free card, I'm not positive that this is the correct understanding, but I'm not going to argue with it either. ;)

im not one of those who can quote the bible off the top of my head but there are passages that say that unless you are baptised you cant get into heaven. it seems to me a reasonable interpretation (although not the only reasonable interpretation) to say that that means just what it says.

the get-out-of-hell-free card reflects the catholic church's attitude that a christian MUST be baptised in order to get into heaven but that that is waved for babies. there must be a point at which if baptism is neglected, the person doesnt get in.

Um, didn't you just talk about how we argued about the Church? Do you not remember that in that thread you were claiming that such a thing, the Church, in the Nicean conference defined Christianity and that one MUST agree with the Creed in order to be Christian? Are you really claiming you DON'T believe the Church was infallible?

I agree with the definition of the Creeds we talked about as definitions of what a Christian is and is not. I never said the church was infallible.

Did you not just post passages claiming that the Church defines Heaven?

I posted quotes that show why the Church believes that they can change the rules and understanding of heaven... yes, I posted that. Jesus knows if it's true in that way, or not.

The Church is they. You do know how pronouns work, no? It doesn't? Where did you quote about the quickening? I'm looking but I don't see mention of it. Are you claiming the idea of the quickening didn't exist in the early Church? What you quoted does not have the necessary context? As pointed out to you several times, it does not indicate when they considered it a child, which we know to have been the quickening? Thus it would not apply to behavior we're discussing.

My quote was about abortion and killing the unborn, and it was strictly against it, not wishy-washy about it at all. You are the one that says the church says the quickening, well then, produce your source. I know that it’s much, much later. I’m thinking that no such language is used for hundreds of years, perhaps even a thousand. So to argue that the church was wrong about abortions before , I showed before your anticipated sources and after your anticipated sources, so when I said “who is They” I meant I want you to tell me which Church or which Pope or at least in which year, the church supported your case.


Again, I'll ask plainly. Was the early Church infallible? Did they believe in the quickening (the point when a fetus became a baby)? Again, show me which, when and where this church is that you think was saying that the quickening defined when it was okay to abort a fetus, or not…

This squirming isn't fooling anyone. *wonders how long it will be before someone tells me to stop picking on you*

The squirming is your own, you do it every time you get lost in the minutiae and forget the overall subject of a discussion. The quickening is your baby, you present your case and we’ll discuss it then.

Did they believe in the quickening (the point when a fetus became a baby)?


I thought the quickening was when one immortal beheaded another?

im not one of those who can quote the bible off the top of my head but there are passages that say that unless you are baptised you cant get into heaven. it seems to me a reasonable interpretation (although not the only reasonable interpretation) to say that that means just what it says.

I agree.

Perhaps this verse?
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

the get-out-of-hell-free card reflects the catholic church's attitude that a christian MUST be baptised in order to get into heaven but that that is waved for babies. there must be a point at which if baptism is neglected, the person doesnt get in.

There is some discussion that the baptism of the spirit suffices, in a similar way that the baptism in water alone is insufficient for salvation. Also consider, there is the Baptism of blood. Here we find Jesus, long after His baptism in water by John, but long before his sending the Holy Ghost to baptize us in the spirit...

Luke 12:49-50
"I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

Obviously this baptism is the death on the cross and the events leading to it... THIS is the baptism that we are all saved through, not the water baptism. Without the blood baptism Jesus went through we can’t be crucified with him on the cross nor resurrected with him from death, nothing is saved outside of that baptism. Perhaps the baptism you mention before is this baptism.

Aborted arent babies.

Aborted arent humans.

Aborted dont have souls, nor anyone else.

There is no God.

There is no Heaven.

Meaning aborted babies dont go to heaven because aborted arent babies, arent humans, dont have souls, and there is no heaven nor god.

Aborted arent babies.

Aborted arent humans.

Aborted dont have souls, nor anyone else.

There is no God.

There is no Heaven.

Meaning aborted babies dont go to heaven because aborted arent babies, arent humans, dont have souls, and there is no heaven nor god.

Here's a cheery bastard. :3

But I get what he's saying.

Here's a cheery bastard. :3

But I get what he's saying.

it was like a poem right up to the last sentence.

gotta give him credit for getting right to the point.

I agree with the definition of the Creeds we talked about as definitions of what a Christian is and is not. I never said the church was infallible.

You said it was required we follow it because it was the view of the Church. I pointed out that it was not a universal view and still isn't. It never was or has been a universally agreed up definition of Christian. You, however, said that since the Church decided it, that was good enough for you.

Meanwhile, you use the same reasoning for the claim that the Bible is infallible.


I posted quotes that show why the Church believes that they can change the rules and understanding of heaven... yes, I posted that. Jesus knows if it's true in that way, or not.

Yes, quotes you've repeatedly defended. We're not goldfish. We actually remember what you say in other threads as well. Would you like me to link to a couple of places where you've used those same passages to defend the Creed?


My quote was about abortion and killing the unborn, and it was strictly against it, not wishy-washy about it at all.

It was strictly against the killing of BABIES. It said BABY explicitly. Very germaine to that point, then, is what they mean by BABY. You try to pretend that it doesn't matter, mostly because pointing out that they supported the quickening would pretty much destroy your claims.


You are the one that says the church says the quickening, well then, produce your source. I know that it’s much, much later. I’m thinking that no such language is used for hundreds of years, perhaps even a thousand. So to argue that the church was wrong about abortions before , I showed before your anticipated sources and after your anticipated sources, so when I said “who is They” I meant I want to tell me which Church or which Pope or at least in which year, the church supported your case.

No such language? Someone has never heard of Aristotle. Of course, they didn't use that particular word, since it's an English word, but they used language representing that word since four hundred years before Christ.

Like many concepts this is just another concept stolen from pagans.


Again, show me which, when and where this church is that you think was saying that the quickening defined when it was okay to abort a fetus, or not…

Amusing. So you're saying that only if they specifically tie the two concepts together, the definition of a child and the rule of abortion, then and only then should one acknowledge they are related. Hmmmm...

Do you only accept the Bible if it contains the Nicean Creed within the actual discussion of Christianity. Because you know, we're not actually capable of taking a definition and tying it to the use of the word it defines, now are we?


The squirming is your own, you do it every time you get lost in the minutiae and forget the overall subject of a discussion. The quickening is your baby, you present your case and we’ll discuss it then.

So are you saying that the Church never supported the concept of infusing the soul at the quickening? Is that your claim?

it was like a poem right up to the last sentence.

gotta give him credit for getting right to the point.

Yar, like a five-line stanza written by Homie D. Clown.

Homie don't play dat.

it was like a poem right up to the last sentence.

gotta give him credit for getting right to the point.

Aye, t'is so uncommon, after all.

it was like a poem right up to the last sentence.

gotta give him credit for getting right to the point.

Life is simple and bare.

Its people that cant face truth and have to believe in god.

You said it was required we follow it because it was the view of the Church. I pointed out that it was not a universal view and still isn't. It never was or has been a universally agreed up definition of Christian. You, however, said that since the Church decided it, that was good enough for you.

You assume too much when you talk to people, instead of listening to them you pigeonhole their arguments and then start arguing about things not said.

I agree with the Church that the creed is the correct definition of Christian and Christianity.


Yes, quotes you've repeatedly defended. We're not goldfish. We actually remember what you say in other threads as well. Would you like me to link to a couple of places where you've used those same passages to defend the Creed?

I'll still defend the Creed, no need to look them up, but feel free.


It was strictly against the killing of BABIES. It said BABY explicitly. Very germaine to that point, then, is what they mean by BABY. You try to pretend that it doesn't matter, mostly because pointing out that they supported the quickening would pretty much destroy your claims.

It said, "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." Pretty straight forward. Born or unborn, don't kill it.


So are you saying that the Church never supported the concept of infusing the soul at the quickening? Is that your claim?

I didn't say that, quit trying to make me say what you want to attack. Argue with what I've said, not what you want me to say.

Life is simple and bare.

Its people that cant face truth and have to believe in god.

i think there is more to it than that. spirituality can access parts of ourselves that would go unexplored if we only focus on the simple and bare.

i think there is more to it than that. spirituality can access parts of ourselves that would go unexplored if we only focus on the simple and bare.

For a while. At least while you´re searching.

Until you´ve searched every single option avaiable and unavaiable and realize none of them are real.

Heck, I´ve even tried buddhism, and it worked for a few years. It was logical, believable, wise and without the need of god. Until I realized the whole deal about buddhism is to stop Nirvana, rebirth. Then I realized I didnt believe in rebirth at the first place, which meant I was believing in something that would give me absolutely nothing.

Carpe diem my friend, carpe diem. The only spirituality one can get is thorugh his work, and the only imortality is through your legacy.

You assume too much when you talk to people, instead of listening to them you pigeonhole their arguments and then start arguing about things not said.

I agree with the Church that the creed is the correct definition of Christian and Christianity.

You don't just agree with the definition. You claim that it was ONLY for them to define. You used their 'authority' to avoid the argument, much like you do with the Bible, and the historical acceptance. Either the Church is just another Christian group claiming to define what Christianity is or they are THE Christian group as you've claimed in the past. You can't have it both ways.


I'll still defend the Creed, no need to look them up, but feel free.

I agree there's no need. I'm well aware that you've repeatedly claimed that the Creed defines Christianity because of the verses you posted in this thread.



It said, "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." Pretty straight forward. Born or unborn, don't kill it.

Yep. Pretty straight forward. A CHILD. What they considered a child is of course relevant, but keep avoiding that point.

It's against the law to kill a child today. Of course, it's important to note that child today means born. It was against the law 1500 years ago to kill a child born or unborn. Of course at that time, it was after the quickening. The time a child is considered to exist matters to the point. You're talking about a 2000 year old text. How they defined words at that time, particularly disputable words like child is absolutely necessary to understanding.

I suspect you are trying not to explore the understanding because doing so would of course damage your claim.


I didn't say that, quit trying to make me say what you want to attack. Argue with what I've said, not what you want me to say.

I'm asking you to clarify your stance.

1. Do you believe the Catholic Church is now or ever was infallible? If it is not now but was, please state when that changed and why?

2. Did the Church believe at any time when it was infallible that the quickening was the time of the infusion of the soul, the time a fetus becomes a child?

Simple clear. I don't care what you said. I'm asking you your stance BEFORE we argue about it. Is clearly stating your position a problem for you?

How can they go somewhere that doesn't bloody exist?

i think there is more to it than that. spirituality can access parts of ourselves that would go unexplored if we only focus on the simple and bare.

Yes, but by that token, so does LSD.

How can they go somewhere that doesn't bloody exist?

11 pages too late i'm afraid for your apparent ability to know everything.

Yes, but by that token, so does LSD.

by any token.

but does that negate my point?

i just think that its an angry atheists mistake to think that the only reason that people are religious is that they are scared of death and the reality of a universe without anyone at the helm.

there are positive reasons to be religious. the spiritual aspect is one of them.

by any token.

but does that negate my point?

i just think that its an angry atheists mistake to think that the only reason that people are religious is that they are scared of death and the reality of a universe without anyone at the helm.

there are positive reasons to be religious. the spiritual aspect is one of them.

Aye, and there are positive aspects to LSD. LSD however, can have harmful side effects, like the development of psychoses after taking them in significant quantities for a long time. LSD is a banned substance.

Religion can lead to harmful side effects, like religious war and inquisitions. Especially after you've been on it for a while, and even more especially if you've been taking it in large quantities. Religion therefore should be just as banned as LSD.

there are positive reasons to be religious. the spiritual aspect is one of them.

Yes, that is true. But they are based on a lie.

Aye, and there are positive aspects to LSD. LSD however, can have harmful side effects, like the development of psychoses after taking them in significant quantities for a long time. LSD is a banned substance.

Religion can lead to harmful side effects, like religious war and inquisitions. Especially after you've been on it for a while, and even more especially if you've been taking it in large quantities. Religion therefore should be just as banned as LSD.

you do have a point.

but i think that the desire to kill the other guy is part of our evolutionary package and that even without religion we would find plenty of reasons to go to war. religion is just a shortcut.

Yes, that is true. But they are based on a lie.

only if you take your religion literally.

as our agnostic brothers and sisters might remind us, the reality of god (if there IS a reality of god) is unknowable. religion is our best guess based on the brief glimpses we get of eternity.

11 pages too late i'm afraid for your apparent ability to know everything.

I had to say it though.

Anyhoo, how did you find out about the omnisience? I was keeping that quiet;) :p

I had to say it though.

Anyhoo, how did you find out about the omnisience? I was keeping that quiet;) :p

Well, the blessed in your name is a good hint to your divineship. :cool:

only if you take your religion literally.

as our agnostic brothers and sisters might remind us, the reality of god (if there IS a reality of god) is unknowable. religion is our best guess based on the brief glimpses we get of eternity.

Wishfull thinking. Or do you realy believe a single person like us, that can last 100 years at least, is capable of discovering the truth about god just like that. Or that there are 6 billion diferent kinds of god alive and existing righ now?

Taking your religion literally? That is bullshit. Either you follow a religion 100%, or its worthless. "Oh, I do believe in god, but I dont think I should have sex only after marriage". Wrong. You´re a sinner, and that is it.

I find it amazing that people are so ignorant about their own value that they think they can create rules about god for their own benefit. "Oh, I want to believe in god, but Ill create my own religion". You´re just creating a fucking lie.

If God blamed Adam for what Eve did, then should that be put on the baby as well for what the mother had done. At first adam was unknowing of what she had done but then took a bite because of curiosity, but if he hadnt of taken the bite he would still have been told he was wrong too. i guess its like a game you play with your friends and the rules change whenever they dont want to get burned by their own rules so they change them just to avoid it.

Wishfull thinking. Or do you realy believe a single person like us, that can last 100 years at least, is capable of discovering the truth about god just like that. Or that there are 6 billion diferent kinds of god alive and existing righ now?

Taking your religion literally? That is bullshit. Either you follow a religion 100%, or its worthless.

Based on what? Why would anyone follow anything 100%? If you don't examine points individually and accept them individual aren't you just kind of being a lemming?

"Oh, I do believe in god, but I dont think I should have sex only after marriage". Wrong. You´re a sinner, and that is it.

Again, based on what? Who says? You? Why should I listen to you?

I find it amazing that people are so ignorant about their own value that they think they can create rules about god for their own benefit. "Oh, I want to believe in god, but Ill create my own religion". You´re just creating a fucking lie.

Wow, a bit angry there, Francis. We're not applying rules to God. We're establishing a personal relationship with God (or at least believe we are) and examining that relationship. How could anyone else tell me what my personal relationship is?

Many religions are not as dogmatic as you describe. Jesus often times preached against dogmatism. Pointing out that the message was more important than the words, that doing the work of the father was more important than get caught up in the words of man. The pharisees were basically arguing what you're arguing. I don't see how you can claim that all people that believe in God must agree with you given that.

Only the ones that wear diapers and ride tricycles.

What if they smoke cigars or cigarettes? I've heard them called sin sticks...

oh really? do we have an example of every mutation that was significant enough to be given a different scientific name in the evolution of humanity? i think not.

we got a soul when we became homo sapiens sapiens or whatever they are calling modern humans these days.

there came a day and a birth where god declared us "done" and that first true person received a soul. as did all his/her children who inherited whatever quality it was that tipped the scale from animal to human.

ok?

Well, you answered it; I'll give you that. The answer and its imputations are bloody absurd though. How can you seriously believe that we evolved to have a soul? Considering that a soul is supposed to be some sort of non-physical element? Why would physical changes give us a soul?

I can tell you why; the soul is a human construction which doesn’t exist. What actual proof do you have that it does? What makes you think babies have souls? When does someone develop a soul while in the womb? It is all so ambiguous on your side that it is laughable.

What if they smoke cigars or cigarettes? I've heard them called sin sticks...



Well, you answered it; I'll give you that. The answer and its imputations are bloody absurd though. How can you seriously believe that we evolved to have a soul? Considering that a soul is supposed to be some sort of non-physical element? Why would physical changes give us a soul?

I can tell you why; the soul is a human construction which doesn’t exist. What actual proof do you have that it does? What makes you think babies have souls? When does someone develop a soul while in the womb? It is all so ambiguous on your side that it is laughable.

Not what she said. She said that we evolved and at the point where God considered us to be human, we were endowed with a soul. The physical elements didn't give us the soul in her argument. Evolution didn't give us the soul. Evolution made us human, God gives humans a soul. It's like saying that evolution endowed us with civil rights. The concept is absurd. But to say that evolution endowed us with the faculties to enjoy civil rights, that would be reasonable.

No they go to hell and haut their KILLERS for the rest of the murderers life!!!!11:sniper: its true its my religion Orthodox Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only if you take your religion literally.

as our agnostic brothers and sisters might remind us, the reality of god (if there IS a reality of god) is unknowable. religion is our best guess based on the brief glimpses we get of eternity.

QFT - Ashmoria talks sense.


Wishfull thinking. Or do you realy believe a single person like us, that can last 100 years at least, is capable of discovering the truth about god just like that. Or that there are 6 billion diferent kinds of god alive and existing righ now?

Taking your religion literally? That is bullshit. Either you follow a religion 100%, or its worthless. "Oh, I do believe in god, but I dont think I should have sex only after marriage". Wrong. You´re a sinner, and that is it.

I find it amazing that people are so ignorant about their own value that they think they can create rules about god for their own benefit. "Oh, I want to believe in god, but Ill create my own religion". You´re just creating a fucking lie.

I find it amazing that people are so biggoted about their own value that they think they can preach about god to everyone else from some self constructed moral highground. "oh I belive in god I know Im right and you all wrong and going to hell", you're just living a fucking lie.

yeah I parrodied that. The truth of god is a question of belief. You may believe you are right. That is your right to do so. People create their own religions all the time. Thats exactly how mainstream ones get started. They come up with a set of ideas (usually based on a previous set) and gain followers. There's nothing wrong with forming your own opinions and moral values on real life issues which is what religions deal with once you get past the existance of a god, thats ALL they are.

No they go to hell and haut their KILLERS for the rest of the murderers life!!!!11:sniper: its true its my religion Orthodox Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why haven't we taken away those smileys yet?

Well they said that God is forgiving and understanding so he would let innocent babies go to heaven because they are of the age of innocence, or why else would God take up babies during the rapture like it says in Revelation?

The rapture is not in the Bible.

you do have a point.

but i think that the desire to kill the other guy is part of our evolutionary package and that even without religion we would find plenty of reasons to go to war. religion is just a shortcut.

Yes, but there are plenty of ways to develop psychoses other than LSD. LSD is just a shortcut.

The rapture is not in the Bible.

Pointed that out already.

Pointed that out already.

Good on ya.:)

I was just reading responses to my posts.

Well, you answered it; I'll give you that. The answer and its imputations are bloody absurd though. How can you seriously believe that we evolved to have a soul? Considering that a soul is supposed to be some sort of non-physical element? Why would physical changes give us a soul?

I can tell you why; the soul is a human construction which doesn’t exist. What actual proof do you have that it does? What makes you think babies have souls? When does someone develop a soul while in the womb? It is all so ambiguous on your side that it is laughable.

oh well now thats a whole different question and assumption now isnt it?

since the original question was made in religious terms, so was my answer. you asked for a religious answer to when the soul evolved, i gave it to you.

if you want to ask my personal belief, well, i dont. for the obvious reasons.

No.

A. They aren't their own person.
B. There is no heaven.
C. Everyone knows wire hangers are the wrong way to have an abortion. They make a handy dandy pill.Depends on Church, but many in the case of Catholic dogma and Christain dogma consider them to have a soul and wether or not they accept the fetus as a living being.

As well, you have angered God and the Inquistion has traced you to your house and is on the way.;)

Depends on Church, but many in the case of Catholic dogma and Christain dogma consider them to have a soul and wether or not they accept the fetus as a living being.

As well, you have angered God and the Inquistion has traced you to your house and is on the way.;)

Better him than me.

Yes, but there are plenty of ways to develop psychoses other than LSD. LSD is just a shortcut.

hmmm maybe i should be looking into this lsd thing.....

ohhhh its LSD not LDS.

hmmm maybe i should be looking into this lsd thing.....

ohhhh its LSD not LDS.

Lakeshore Drive rocks. Beautiful scenery and who doesn't love the smell of crap.

They go to limbo with all the other unbaptized children, GTFO atheists

And for anyone claiming a fetus isn't a human, answer this: If you were to look at the cells of an aborted fetus you would find human DNA in its cells, strongly suggesting that it, in fact, was a human. Or maybe you would prefer to ignore both science and religion?

And for anyone claiming a fetus isn't a human, answer this: If you were to look at the cells of an aborted fetus you would find human DNA in its cells, strongly suggesting that it, in fact, was a human. Or maybe you would prefer to ignore both science and religion?

If you look at the cells in your finger you'll find human DNA. Does that mean it's an independent entity with a soul?

If you look at the cells in your finger you'll find human DNA. Does that mean it's an independent entity with a soul?

That wasn't the question. I was asking people that deny a fetus is human how it can be anything other than human when it has human DNA. Nice red herring :rolleyes:

They go to limbo with all the other unbaptized children, GTFO atheists

And for anyone claiming a fetus isn't a human, answer this: If you were to look at the cells of an aborted fetus you would find human DNA in its cells, strongly suggesting that it, in fact, was a human. Or maybe you would prefer to ignore both science and religion?

And if you look into the cells of my fingernails, guess what? So when I'm cutting them off am I committing murder?

It's human. The criteria for being A human is a bit more strict.

They go to limbo with all the other unbaptized children, GTFO atheists

And for anyone claiming a fetus isn't a human, answer this: If you were to look at the cells of an aborted fetus you would find human DNA in its cells, strongly suggesting that it, in fact, was a human. Or maybe you would prefer to ignore both science and religion?

ut o did you miss the memo informing you that limbo infantium is closed for renovations? get with the times

yes a human fetus is human. but its not a person and its not a baby.

That wasn't the question. I was asking people that deny a fetus is human how it can be anything other than human when it has human DNA. Nice red herring :rolleyes:

Actually, no let's quote.


And for anyone claiming a fetus isn't a human, answer this: If you were to look at the cells of an aborted fetus you would find human DNA in its cells, strongly suggesting that it, in fact, was a human. Or maybe you would prefer to ignore both science and religion?

No, my fingernail is not A HUMAN. Having human DNA does not qualify something for being A HUMAN.

If you look at the cells in your finger you'll find human DNA. Does that mean it's an independent entity with a soul?

I beat you to the punch on this one, bucko. Holt jiccupped. Don't think because you got the analogy first, that you're better than me. YOU'RE NOT BETTER THAN ME!

Why does everyone profess to know answers to questions when there is nothing to back up their view? This goes for all sides of this argument. To say that your opinion is superior to someone else's when there is no proof is arrogance. Plain and simple.

Having human DNA does not qualify something for being A HUMAN.

I fail to see the added significance of the indefinite article. How can you have a non-person person?

I fail to see the added significance of the indefinite article. How can you have a non-person person?

Man, okay. Follow along.

My finger is human. It has human DNA. However, it is not a human.

An embryo is human. It has human DNA. However, it is not a human.

No one argues that an embryo does not have human traits. They argue that it is not A human. To be A human, you must at the very least be your own separate organism. An embryo is not.

Man, okay. Follow along.

My finger is human. It has human DNA. However, it is not a human.

An embryo is human. It has human DNA. However, it is not a human.

No one argues that an embryo does not have human traits. They argue that it is not A human. To be A human, you must at the very least be your own separate organism. An embryo is not.

A cell in your hand is part of your body. The fact that every cell in your body has human DNA genetically qualifies you to be human. You can't divorce the part from the whole like that. In addition, the fact that an embryo has DNA differing from the mother's means that it must be a separate life-form in itself.

A cell in your hand is part of your body. The fact that every cell in your body has human DNA genetically qualifies you to be human. You can't divorce the part from the whole like that. In addition, the fact that an embryo has DNA differing from the mother's means that it must be a separate life-form in itself.

an embryo is human but its not a person, its alive but is not a baby.

a rose seed is not the same as a rose eh? that an embryo can become a baby doesnt make it a baby NOW.

an embryo is human but its not a person, its alive but is not a baby.

a rose seed is not the same as a rose eh? that an embryo can become a baby doesnt make it a baby NOW.

A seed is a plant that hasn't grown yet. I still don't see how you can be human yet have your humanity denied.

A cell in your hand is part of your body. The fact that every cell in your body has human DNA genetically qualifies you to be human. You can't divorce the part from the whole like that. In addition, the fact that an embryo has DNA differing from the mother's means that it must be a separate life-form in itself.

No, it doesn't. Ever heard of a chimera. Different DNA does not mean different body.

Meanwhile, can you divorce the embryo from the mother's body? Not with artficial support, similar artificial support to what any cell would need.

A seed is a plant that hasn't grown yet. I still don't see how you can be human yet have your humanity denied.

well then pay attention and think about it.

just as a seed is not a mature plant, an embryo is not a person.

a rose seed is genetically a rose but it isnt a rose plant yet

an embryo is genetically human but its not a baby yet.

until its born, its a potential person. just as a seed or a seedling is a potential mature plant.

well then pay attention and think about it.

just as a seed is not a mature plant, an embryo is not a person.

a rose seed is genetically a rose but it isnt a rose plant yet

an embryo is genetically human but its not a baby yet.

until its born, its a potential person. just as a seed or a seedling is a potential mature plant.

to continue

if you want to argue that this potential baby has special value that must be preserved, that is your business. good luck with it.

if you want to argue that its a person, a baby or a full human being you are just wrong.

I cannot help but love Christianity for the amusements it has given me over the years.

until its born, its a potential person. just as a seed or a seedling is a potential mature plant.

Obsessing with the physical act of birth gets you no where. If birth is what qualifies you for humanity, what does it mean if you get stuck? Is the part sticking out a person and the part still inside something else? What about babies that come out backwards? Do they gain their humanity from the other end?

No, so far all I've seen here is semantics and imprecise definitions.

Obsessing with the physical act of birth gets you no where. If birth is what qualifies you for humanity, what does it mean if you get stuck? Is the part sticking out a person and the part still inside something else? What about babies that come out backwards? Do they gain their humanity from the other end?

No, so far all I've seen here is semantics and imprecise definitions.

Yes, that's exactly what you're using. Imprecise definitions. I doubt you're aware of it, but you are doing exactly that when you claim it's unique DNA that qualifies one as a human.

What about a Chimera (a human with two sets of DNA)? What about twins? Are they one or two people?

There are more precise definitions. Biological definitions that would qualify a fetus for life at about 16 to 20 weeks and as a person at about 24 weeks. None of them include the period when most abortions occur.

Obsessing with the physical act of birth gets you no where. If birth is what qualifies you for humanity, what does it mean if you get stuck? Is the part sticking out a person and the part still inside something else? What about babies that come out backwards? Do they gain their humanity from the other end?

No, so far all I've seen here is semantics and imprecise definitions.

that makes no sense, if you get stuck you die.

ive made my explanation. if you went to the store to buy roses and got a dozen seeds for your $25, would you accept that you had gotten the deal you bargained for?

that makes no sense, if you get stuck you die.

ive made my explanation. if you went to the store to buy roses and got a dozen seeds for your $25, would you accept that you had gotten the deal you bargained for?

Yeah, next time your mom asks you for the vacuum cleaner just give her a pile of parts, because that's the same thing.

Yes, that's exactly what you're using. Imprecise definitions. I doubt you're aware of it, but you are doing exactly that when you claim it's unique DNA that qualifies one as a human.

What about a Chimera (a human with two sets of DNA)? What about twins? Are they one or two people?

There are more precise definitions. Biological definitions that would qualify a fetus for life at about 16 to 20 weeks and as a person at about 24 weeks. None of them include the period when most abortions occur.

DNA is the only thing that definitively separates man from any other kind of animal. Intelligence, a soul, reason, or anything else like that can't be epistimologically demonstrated. Any other labels are arbitrary.

I have never heard of a chimera, link pls.

Twins are abviously two people, as they are two distinct organisms.

Obsessing with the physical act of birth gets you no where. If birth is what qualifies you for humanity, what does it mean if you get stuck? Is the part sticking out a person and the part still inside something else? What about babies that come out backwards? Do they gain their humanity from the other end?

No, so far all I've seen here is semantics and imprecise definitions.

not only that but EVERYONE agrees with me

the US government agrees with me, your state government agrees with me, your freaking MINISTER agrees with me.

how do i know?

do we count the unborn in the census? NO. why not? because as the unborn, they are not people, they are only potential people.

if a pregnant woman rides alone in the HOV lane, is she breaking the law even though she is carrying twins? YES. the state does not recognize her unborn twins as people

if your sister has a spontaneous abortion (meaning it dies on its own as an embryo) will your minister set up a funeral for it? NO. it doesnt qualify for a funeral because it wasnt a baby.

not only that but EVERYONE agrees with me

the US government agrees with me, your state government agrees with me, your freaking MINISTER agrees with me.

how do i know?

do we count the unborn in the census? NO. why not? because as the unborn, they are not people, they are only potential people.

if a pregnant woman rides alone in the HOV lane, is she breaking the law even though she is carrying twins? YES. the state does not recognize her unborn twins as people

if your sister has a spontaneous abortion (meaning it dies on its own as an embryo) will your minister set up a funeral for it? NO. it doesnt qualify for a funeral because it wasnt a baby.Hey, my Minister would throw holy water at you if you mentioned that abortion was apporiate. So don't you go around saying things about my Minister.;)

Hey, my Minister would throw holy water at you if you mentioned that abortion was apporiate. So don't you go around saying things about my Minister.;)

i wasnt talking about abortions. i was talking about a type of early miscarriage that is called spontaneous abortion.

A seed is a plant that hasn't grown yet. I still don't see how you can be human yet have your humanity denied.

No, it is not. You have a fuzzy understanding of time.

A seed is a seed. That's why we call it that. Nothing is the thing that it isn't yet. That's why we refer to them as not those things. You've said it yourself. A seed is not a flower.

To phrase that statement as "it is that which it isn't now," may seem to be a cunning argument based on the difficulty one might have in framing a cogent refutation, but that is only because the statement is gibberish, and you cannot sensibly refute gibberish.

DNA is the only thing that definitively separates man from any other kind of animal. Intelligence, a soul, reason, or anything else like that can't be epistimologically demonstrated. Any other labels are arbitrary.

You're not following. DNA seperates us from other animals as a species. It is not how we determine if you are a unique human. Mostly because it doesn't work. There are rules that we use to determine if something is a seperate organism or an organ. The embryo much more closely resembles an organ.

I never mention intelligence, a soul, reason or anything else you're talking about. However, we do forebrain activity as a test for personhood. That is why you are considered deceased if brain activity stops. Your heart can stop. Your breathing can stop. But if your brain stops you are no longer a person according to medicine.

I have never heard of a chimera, link pls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
Chimerism is basically what under you definition would be two people, becoming one person. Except neither "person" stops existing. Both survive. The struggle there is caused by your poor definition of what a person is.


Twins are abviously two people, as they are two distinct organisms.

Are you sure? They have the same DNA. I thought you said that was how we tell. Would you like to amend your definition?

to answer your all questions, i have the truth, the truth meaning what god says meaning what the catholic church says....now....the catholic church believes that human life beings at the time of conception (if you dont know what that means than there is no hope for you) and therefor an aborted feotus is technically a person and therefor would go to heaven or at least have the chance to....

So does this mean that a cancerous tumor, which contains within it human DNA, is now a person? And therefore requires the rights belonging to any person? If human DNA is all that determines personhood, we should be advocating tumor rights and preventing biopsies.

Think of the growths!

we watched this great video in my religion class today....i dont know what it has to do with them going to heaven but hey, if your trying to puke then watch this, im kinda sad they didnt add a clockwork orange kind of song to it to make it more fun but hey, meatloaf works too....

So does this mean that a cancerous tumor, which contains within it human DNA, is now a person? And therefore requires the rights belonging to any person? If human DNA is all that determines personhood, we should be advocating tumor rights and preventing biopsies.

Think of the growths!

*weeps quietly for all the murdered tumors*

jeez theres alot of ...well it seems like...atheists....here...you shall see what happens when you all dont go to heaven :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

to answer your all questions, i have the truth, the truth meaning what god says meaning what the catholic church says....now....the catholic church believes that human life beings at the time of conception (if you dont know what that means than there is no hope for you) and therefor an aborted feotus is technically a person and therefor would go to heaven or at least have the chance to....

no harm no foul then.

a non person gets a free trip to heaven.

jeez theres alot of ...well it seems like...atheists....here...you shall see what happens when you all dont go to heaven :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

i wasnt exactly expecting to go to heaven...

*link*

Are you aware this is against site rules? You'd do well to remove the link.

no harm no foul then.

a non person gets a free trip to heaven.

its undebatable, straight from god (catholic church)

Are you aware this is against site rules? You'd do well to remove the link.

how is it against rules? if they can show this to me in school then it should be fine here but whatever...

its undebatable, straight from god (catholic church)

i hear ya.

i recommend that you dont get an abortion.

i believe your nation can be deleted for posting that kind of link here.

but if it makes you feel better, you cant link to a video of your vasectomy either.

how is it against rules? if they can show this to me in school then it should be fine here but whatever...

Check out the one stop rules shop. I'm just trying to help you out. They don't allow it here. This isn't your school. My school showed pictures of penises, but if you post them here, you'll be DEATED. You notice Ash mentioned it as well. We're trying to extend your stay at hotel NSG.

i hear ya.

i recommend that you dont get an abortion.

i believe your nation can be deleted for posting that kind of link here.

but if it makes you feel better, you cant link to a video of your vasectomy either.

my nation, meh....so why no picture or video of a vasectomy? anyway....i linked it, watch it if u want, if not you clicked the link its not porn

Check out the one stop rules shop. I'm just trying to help you out. They don't allow it here. This isn't your school. My school showed pictures of penises, but if you post them here, you'll be DEATED. You notice Ash mentioned it as well. We're trying to extend your stay at hotel NSG.

meh, thx for the heads up but im gonna leave it there

meh, thx for the heads up but im gonna leave it there

You're welcome and I reported it. I agree with the rules here. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Here are the rules if you're interested in following them. If not, I suspect you'll not be around long enough for me to notice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11436281&postcount=15

meh, thx for the heads up but im gonna leave it there

do as you please but there is a moderator on this forum right now. it wont last long and neither will you.

do as you please but there is a moderator on this forum right now. it wont last long and neither will you.

What can you do, right? Horse to water and all that.

You're welcome and I reported it. I agree with the rules here. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Here are the rules if you're interested in following them. If not, I suspect you'll not be around long enough for me to notice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11436281&postcount=15

its all good...lets see how long i last shall we?

[snipped link]considering youtube has it flagged with a content warning...

my nation, meh....so why no picture or video of a vasectomy? anyway....i linked it, watch it if u want, if not you clicked the link its not pornPorn isn't the only reason why links are prohibitied.


its all good...lets see how long i last shall we?taunting the mobs while testing the rules is not a good idea.

There is no such thing as Heaven or Hell.

considering youtube has it flagged with a content warning...

Porn isn't the only reason why links are prohibitied.


taunting the mobs while testing the rules is not a good idea.

You know, I've never seen someone actually dig their own grave before. This might be interesting to watch. *Passes around the popcorn*

You know, I've never seen someone actually dig their own grave before. This might be interesting to watch. *Passes around the popcorn*

meh, if you knew me in the real world then youd see it quite frequently....but hey im still here

You know, I've never seen someone actually dig their own grave before. This might be interesting to watch. *Passes around the popcorn*

really... I saw several... depending on the poster, it can range from pathetic, to the truely specatular. I saw someone in the Mod forum go from Unoffical warning to deated... in the course of ONE DAY. and I mean through all the levels...

Unoffical warning
Warning
banned (three days)
Deated

the mods were very patient and even those most critical of the mods were telling the ID10T to stow it...

and now... an attempt to get back on topic.

I do believe aborted children go to heaven.

and now... an attempt to get back on topic.

I do believe aborted children go to heaven.

I don't believe in a heaven, but if there is one, it would be truly a cruel and vicious god to consign aborted fetuses to hell.

Edit: Self-fixed :rolleyes:

I don't believe in a heaven, but if there is one, it would be truly a cruel and vicious god to consign aborted fetuses to hell.

Edit: Self-fixed :rolleyes:

Unfortunatly, there is only one person who can answer that. :cool:

really... I saw several... depending on the poster, it can range from pathetic, to the truely specatular. I saw someone in the Mod forum go from Unoffical warning to deated... in the course of ONE DAY. and I mean through all the levels...

Unoffical warning
Warning
banned (three days)
Deated

the mods were very patient and even those most critical of the mods were telling the ID10T to stow it...

and now... an attempt to get back on topic.

I do believe aborted children go to heaven.

I know who you are talking about ... but for the life of me I dont remember the name. It was the transvestite that accused us of killing her dog right? that was awhile back

really... I saw several... depending on the poster, it can range from pathetic, to the truely specatular. I saw someone in the Mod forum go from Unoffical warning to deated... in the course of ONE DAY. and I mean through all the levels...

Unoffical warning
Warning
banned (three days)
Deated

the mods were very patient and even those most critical of the mods were telling the ID10T to stow it...

and now... an attempt to get back on topic.

I do believe aborted children go to heaven.

I know who you are talking about ... but for the life of me I dont remember the name. It was the transvestite that accused us of killing her dog right? that was awhile back

I don't believe in a heaven, but if there is one, it would be truly a cruel and vicious god to consign aborted fetuses to hell.

Edit: Self-fixed :rolleyes:

Unfortunatly, there is only one person who can answer that. :cool:

and now... an attempt to get back on topic.

I do believe aborted children go to heaven.

its a much better view than the mechanistic god who is bound by "the rules" no matter how unloving that might be.

I know who you are talking about ... but for the life of me I dont remember the name. It was the transvestite that accused us of killing her dog right? that was awhile back

What? Killing her dog?

Well since they are incomplete souls... They get sent back to the "New Soul" zone to catch the next body out. I wish I could say it more poeticly.

What? Killing her dog?

She had named her nation after her dog and when it got deleted she came back and had a bout a 200 page arguement in moderation with thoes of us who were trying to be nice with her.

It was very sad actually it was someone desperate in life not just some teenager with angst issues

I know who you are talking about ... but for the life of me I dont remember the name. It was the transvestite that accused us of killing her dog right? that was awhile back

Lyric. Very confused. Unfortunate. I wish she could have heard what people were trying to say.

Lyric. Very confused. Unfortunate. I wish she could have heard what people were trying to say.
*nods*
too much anger in that one.

No,because 1.) God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc., right? Then why would something that will never be born be given a soul? Total waste. 2.) Personal opinion mixed with some fact here: At the point of legal abortion, there is no consciousness. I am of the mind that lack of a consciousness equals lack of a soul. Example: Permanent vegetables on life support -- I believe the soul has already left the body, and those close to the person have yet to accept that and let go.


Sooo...without a soul, heaven is a moot point.

no. also, why is the option "there is not heaven or hell". While there is no heaven, there is a hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway)

There's also a Heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_%28nightclub%29). ^=.x#

Anyway, since many aborted foeti were those conceived sinfully (i.e. in rape or outside of marriage), and none of them are baptised, I'd wager they're all going to hell. Not as though they'd care, since most of them lack brains or bodies the way we know them, but still.

ut o did you miss the memo informing you that limbo infantium is closed for renovations? get with the times

yes a human fetus is human. but its not a person and its not a baby.No to argue, but I wish to say that I think as soon as the baby is able to move its limbs it is therefore shows that its brain is functional and therefore if it is aborted after that point it should be counted as manslaughter.