Does god give every human embryo a soul?

BrianCalgary · 19-01-2008 12:35am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It may indeed be all in the presentation, but is the sugar coated presentation of fluffy clouds and angels playing harps the full story? Should you and your family be just as worried about Hell as you would be hoping for Heaven?

Whilst as far as I can remember I never woke up in a cold sweat having nightmares about Heaven I certainly always had a fear of Hell and was never in any way very confident about my chances of going to Heaven. This was in spite of me be a good alter boy, going to mass every Sunday and praying every night, what always stood out with me was the emphasis in the NT on how few would be chosen to enter Heaven and I never fancied my chances.

That's too bad. I don't think many of our traditional denominations have done a good job of presenting the gospel.

You do have a shot at Heaven. But works wont get you there, mass wont do it nor will serving as an altar boy.

The only way there is through trusting Jesus. With that trust comes a desire to serve Him. For some it is going to mass, for others it is helping dru addicts, for others it is serving as the chaplain to Manchester United (that is th eone I'd love

)

Yes there are two sides to teh story and both have to be told. But fearing people to God isn't the way to do it. Loving people to Him is. My kids are well aware of the consequences of sin. Their response isn't fear for themselves but fear for their friends who aren't going to Heaven.

Soul Winner · 19-01-2008 1:14am

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so you believe all embryos have a soul, and they all get into heaven if they die before they are born? (and presumably for the first few years of a childs life, while they are innocent and not responsible for their own actions.

I never said I believed they had a soul. How would I know? I can't even define what soulness is never mind being able to know who has one or not, especially embryos. Maybe they have but I don't know it nor does anyone else. A good hint might be taken from what David says in Psalm 51 "In sin did my mother conceive me". He (David) was there in the conception or how else could it be “he” that was conceived? So maybe yes embryos do have souls. To Depeche Mode: Was David baptised? No! Yet God calls him a man after His own heart. Pretty high cotton for one not baptised wouldn't you agree?

Akrasia wrote: »

(of course that leads to another question, at what point does god hold children responsible for their theological and moral beliefs?)

Well you only need look to Jesus in the New Testament for that. He said unless we become like them (i.e. kids) we shall not enter the kingdom. In what way should we be like them though? In appearance? Impossible. No, rather like them in their faith. Ever notice that kids have no problem believing in God? The age at which a child ceases to be a child would differ with each child so I don't believe there is a precise age that you can say this is the age. Depends on the child.

Akrasia wrote: »

I agree with you, A just god could not possibly hold it against them, it would be grossly unfair to eternally punish an innocent for something they have no control over. But this raises serious theological questions.

Well it shouldn't raise any theological issues if you ask me. Either what Jesus says is right or it is wrong. Why don't theologians just believe what He says?

Akrasia wrote: »

Not at all (and i don't know how you came to that conclusion), I am questioning why all Christians are against abortion.

Not all Christians are against abortion but that does not mean they are actually for it either. It should be a decision left up to the mother carrying the child and no one else. If I were asked my opinion by someone considering it I'd advise that it would be better to have the child now that the child is conceived and trust God in helping you to bring him/her up. A child can bring immense joy to anyone's world. But if they really didn't want the child then who am I to condemn her? But I would press hard for her to have the child.

Akrasia wrote: »

As Depeche Mode has already said, any Christian parent concerned about their childs eternal welfare should consider aborting them for their own protection. There might be some implications for their own souls, but that is a selfish position, where they put their own souls before their children.

Complete and utter cop out nonsense. Where's your faith man? That's a chicken sh*t negative way of thinking. God is good. Ask him for help and He will help.

Akrasia wrote: »

At the very least, they should not object to other people's decision to abort their children. There is no harm done to the unborn child, it gets a free ticket to paradise.

Strange reasoning if you ask me.

Akrasia wrote: »

Nope, but a lot of christians do, isn't that why people devote their lives to god, to prove themselves worthy for heaven?

Nobody is worthy of heaven nor can they ever be no matter how good they think they are. We are made worthy only by the blood of the Lamb.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you could skip the interview (which many people fail) and get a guaranteed trip straight into heaven, wouldn't that be a very tempting proposition?

Yes, but until that presents itself as an option then we must proceed with what has already been revealed as the way to go. Faith in God.

Akrasia wrote: »

This is about the beliefs of adult christians, not the embryo. I'm wondering whether there's a massive inconsistency in this area of Christian belief.

If you stick with the New Testament then it shouldn't be. It only becomes a problem when so called church men stop being men of faith and start turning trivial matters into weighty matters.

Akrasia wrote: »

Parents do things for their infant children 'for their own good' without asking them. Do you remember giving permission to be baptised as a baby?

Nope, but they did not need my permission. They were my rightful guardians and did what they thought was the right thing in their eyes. I grew up and found out for the better so why would I repeat what they believed to be the right thing to do? I believe kids are ok with God. No need to worry about them. If they decide to get baptised when they hit an age that makes them curious then so be it, get baptised but it should always be an individual choice even if my parents didn’t understand that. I’ve nothing against parents who wan to baptise their kids, just don’t tell me I have to do it. I know I don’t.

Akrasia wrote: »

If a child is born terminally ill, they are immediately baptised given last rites to guarantee their ticket to paradise (does this imply that unbaptised babies (and unborn children) are actually punished by god for the sin of not being baptised?

God forbid. I'm telling ya God will have the last say on all this and He judges the heart.

Soul Winner · 19-01-2008 1:20am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

my morality won't give my children nightmares of being burned alive by Satan and his demonic minions constantly for all eternity if they sin,

It is not Satan that burns you if you do get cast into the lake of fire, it is actually God. It was He (God) who prepared the lake of fire primarily for Satan and his angels. They too will burn along with anyone else who gets thrown in.

Akrasia · 19-01-2008 1:21am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Her being burned would have been a result of her actions, just as our ending up in Hell is because of our own actions.

A frying pan is an inanimate object, God is supposed to be a sentient supreme being. God condemning people to be burned in a lake of fire is very different to someone accidentally burning themselves with a frying pan.

If your child burns him/herself on a frying pan, it's partially your fault for not keeping it out of the childs reach. If humans end up rejecting god, it's partially gods fault for putting himself too far out of reach.

If you would like an existence without God, you are welcome to it. You will get your hearts desire. God tells you what it will look like.

eternal hellfire is not a reasonable punishment for the choice of a secular life

God's moralitry has never given myself, my kids nor my wife nightmares about Hell, just pleasant dreams of Heaven. It's all in the presentation.

I was watching Top Gear today the one where they went to america, and they showed a shot of a sign outside a baptist church that read "Its Hotter in Hell"
A lot of religious people try to scare people into believing, and that can be very traumatic for children and feeble minded folks who can't think for themselves.

Soul Winner · 19-01-2008 1:37am

Akrasia wrote: »

If humans end up rejecting god, it's partially gods fault for putting himself too far out of reach.

But then God could turn around and say to the humans. "Hold on a cotton picking minute here. I came to you and you received me not nor did you accept me, so don't blame me on it. I actually laid down my life for you so that you wouldn't have to pay for your own sins. I died so that your sins could be forgiven but you didn’t believe that. I rose again and you didn't believe that either. What more do you want me to do for you when I gave you all I could give you? For over 2000 years I've had preachers preaching this to you but you've hated them and never wanted to accept my message. When will you get off you arse and starting trusting me? Because if you don't then you're gonna burn. But then you don't care if you burn or not and not only that but you blame me for your burning. I am that I am, and I am not on trial here, you are. I am He that blots out your sins for my own sake but you better start trusting me on it and committing yourself to me because I'm all you have and if you reject that then that's your problem."

He could say somehting like that couldn't He?

Zombrex · 19-01-2008 10:56am

Soul Winner wrote: »

But then God could turn around and say to the humans. "Hold on a cotton picking minute here. I came to you and you received me not nor did you accept me, so don't blame me on it. I actually laid down my life for you so that you wouldn't have to pay for your own sins. I died so that your sins could be forgiven but you didn’t believe that. I rose again and you didn't believe that either. What more do you want me to do for you when I gave you all I could give you? For over 2000 years I've had preachers preaching this to you but you've hated them and never wanted to accept my message. When will you get off you arse and starting trusting me? Because if you don't then you're gonna burn. But then you don't care if you burn or not and not only that but you blame me for your burning. I am that I am, and I am not on trial here, you are. I am He that blots out your sins for my own sake but you better start trusting me on it and committing yourself to me because I'm all you have and if you reject that then that's your problem."

He could say somehting like that couldn't He?

That completely ignores the entire "Fall of Man", which was actually God punishing all of humanity for something 2 humans did, which seems to be something Christians are all to happy to ignore as soon as the topic of conversation comes around to responsibility.

We are sinful. God tried his hardest to make it so that we can be forgiven for this sin, he even made a mini-God and sent him to ancient Israel to be tortured to death.

Which is all fine, until one remembers that all this was only necessary in the first place because God went ape-poo-crazy over Eve eating a fruit, and condemned all of humanity to live hard lives constantly tempted by sin, which apparently he invented as well.

A lot of Christians, including many of this forum, blame everything on the "Fall", including things like genetic disease, natural disasters, ageing etc.

So it is hardly something we did (we don't have the power to create disease, to create death, to cause natural disasters). It was something that was done to us.

To use a metaphor, which seems to be all the rage these days, God said I'm going to chop off your legs, but if you are really good and wait 2,000 years, I'll give you a wheel chair. And we are supposed to be thankful for this wheel chair.

Smellyirishman · 19-01-2008 11:27am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The mugger will only shoot me if God allows it, because I want God to look after my life, it is in His hands. So no he doesn't have that power.

What would you do in the case of the mugger? Would you comply with him? I would, he can take my wallet, car keys, whatever he liked.

I just don't understand this. So the mugger can't shoot you, he can only do what god says? However, you're perfectly willing to hand over your stuff? Why kneel to their desires when they are not even in control of the gun? If the mugger doesn't have the power to shoot you, what makes you think you have the power to choose between complying or not?

If I walked up to you in the street and kicked you hard and fast between the legs, would you accept it as god's will?

(I know I'm getting OT, but the above quote really intrigues me)

PS; soul for sale, IGC, rarely used, needs to be found before sale can be finalised.

Akrasia · 19-01-2008 2:41pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

But then God could turn around and say to the humans. "Hold on a cotton picking minute here. I came to you and you received me not nor did you accept me, so don't blame me on it.

And this is what I'd reply:
You didn't come to me. you allegedly came to some middle eastern people over 2000 years ago.

I actually laid down my life for you

you're immortal, 'laying down your life' is about as much of a sacrifice for you as cutting my hair is for me.

so that you wouldn't have to pay for your own sins.

Not my own sins, 'Original sin' the made up sin of some woman who existed in some made up garden. The Sin that you gave to us, so that we would be tempted to sin again, so you could pretend to save us. (and still do a really rubbish job because there's still plenty of sin around in case you hadn't noticed, even amongst the most devout christians

I died so that your sins could be forgiven

You didn't die, I've slept for longer than you were 'dead', And why exactly would you have to die for our sins, you make up the rules, you could easily forgive our sins without having to make any silly manipulative 'sacrifice'

but you didn’t believe that. [ I rose again and you didn't believe that either.

Of course I don't believe it. The only evidence I have for any of those claims are religious books, thousands of years old, that were written by people we know practically nothing about and have been maintained and interpreted by some of the most corrupt institutions the planet has ever seen. And these books are only one set of many competing religious books for all the other countless gods that expect me to believe in them too. There is absolutely no reason why I should accept the christian version of events over any one of the other religious mythologies that have existed before or since

What more do you want me to do for you when I gave you all I could give you?

For an omnipotent being, it was pretty damn weak. Making false sacrifices in front of a handful of long dead people, the vast majority of whom never wrote down anything that they saw, In the only written accounts there are loads of contradictions and differences in interpretation. You're asking me to believe, but you have done an awfully bad job of explaining to me what I;m supposed to actually believe in.
Do you want me to go to church? or do you consider all of creation to be a church? How could such a basic and fundamental question still be open for interpretation if you had done all that you could do?
How could anyone possible have unshakable faith when the mere attempt to reconcile the contradictions and uncertainties must lead to some forms of doubt.

For over 2000 years I've had preachers preaching this to you but you've hated them and never wanted to accept my message.

A lot of those preachers were hateworthy. Why should I believe the good news told by power hungry misogynistic sadists? Did you endorse the Inquisition? What did you do to stop it? Did you endorse the widespread rape of innocent children by your 'preachers'? What did you do to stop it? If anything, People's faith in God was what facilitated such awful awful abuse. Where was your wrath against these people who used your name to commit the most terrible crimes?

When will you get off you arse and starting trusting me?

Blind trust is not a virtue. You are asking people to be zombies, to shut off their brains and to stop questioning things. That shows a tremendous lack of respect for me so screw you. I'm not going to trust you, not based on the evidence you have failed to provide. You seem to me to have been an overall force for evil in this world, not good. I don't trust anything that would sell me out in a second for his own entertainment

Because if you don't then you're gonna burn.

Thats what it all comes down to isn't it. First you try to bribe us with promises of paradise, and then you try and scare us with threats. You're no better than a gangster.

But then you don't care if you burn or not and not only that but you blame me for your burning.

Of course I care if I burn, you don't see me leaping into camp fires, I try to avoid unnecessary pain. And of course I would blame you if you cast me into a lake of fire. It would be your decision, your action and your fault.

I am that I am, and I am not on trial here, you are.

I don't recognise the court.

I am He that blots out your sins for my own sake but you better start trusting me on it and committing yourself to me because I'm all you have and if you reject that then that's your problem."

I can't trust in a scitzophrenic sadist. You can't be both just and vengeful, merciful and damning. You can't be omnipotent, and yet 'forced' to do things that you would rather not do. You can't expect us to trust in something that doesn't make any sense unless we turn off all our critical faculties (that you claim to have given to us as a gift, if you want us to be unthinking zombies, it is in your power to create us that way). Screw you god.

Soul Winner · 19-01-2008 8:21pm

Akrasia wrote: »

And this is what I'd reply:
You didn't come to me. you allegedly came to some middle eastern people over 2000 years ago.

you're immortal, 'laying down your life' is about as much of a sacrifice for you as cutting my hair is for me.

Not my own sins, 'Original sin' the made up sin of some woman who existed in some made up garden. The Sin that you gave to us, so that we would be tempted to sin again, so you could pretend to save us. (and still do a really rubbish job because there's still plenty of sin around in case you hadn't noticed, even amongst the most devout christians

You didn't die, I've slept for longer than you were 'dead', And why exactly would you have to die for our sins, you make up the rules, you could easily forgive our sins without having to make any silly manipulative 'sacrifice'

Of course I don't believe it. The only evidence I have for any of those claims are religious books, thousands of years old, that were written by people we know practically nothing about and have been maintained and interpreted by some of the most corrupt institutions the planet has ever seen. And these books are only one set of many competing religious books for all the other countless gods that expect me to believe in them too. There is absolutely no reason why I should accept the christian version of events over any one of the other religious mythologies that have existed before or since

For an omnipotent being, it was pretty damn weak. Making false sacrifices in front of a handful of long dead people, the vast majority of whom never wrote down anything that they saw, In the only written accounts there are loads of contradictions and differences in interpretation. You're asking me to believe, but you have done an awfully bad job of explaining to me what I;m supposed to actually believe in.
Do you want me to go to church? or do you consider all of creation to be a church? How could such a basic and fundamental question still be open for interpretation if you had done all that you could do?
How could anyone possible have unshakable faith when the mere attempt to reconcile the contradictions and uncertainties must lead to some forms of doubt.

A lot of those preachers were hateworthy. Why should I believe the good news told by power hungry misogynistic sadists? Did you endorse the Inquisition? What did you do to stop it? Did you endorse the widespread rape of innocent children by your 'preachers'? What did you do to stop it? If anything, People's faith in God was what facilitated such awful awful abuse. Where was your wrath against these people who used your name to commit the most terrible crimes?

Blind trust is not a virtue. You are asking people to be zombies, to shut off their brains and to stop questioning things. That shows a tremendous lack of respect for me so screw you. I'm not going to trust you, not based on the evidence you have failed to provide. You seem to me to have been an overall force for evil in this world, not good. I don't trust anything that would sell me out in a second for his own entertainment

Thats what it all comes down to isn't it. First you try to bribe us with promises of paradise, and then you try and scare us with threats. You're no better than a gangster.

Of course I care if I burn, you don't see me leaping into camp fires, I try to avoid unnecessary pain. And of course I would blame you if you cast me into a lake of fire. It would be your decision, your action and your fault.

I don't recognise the court.

I can't trust in a scitzophrenic sadist. You can't be both just and vengeful, merciful and damning. You can't be omnipotent, and yet 'forced' to do things that you would rather not do. You can't expect us to trust in something that doesn't make any sense unless we turn off all our critical faculties (that you claim to have given to us as a gift, if you want us to be unthinking zombies, it is in your power to create us that way). Screw you god.

So you hate God? Oh no, please don't say that. I might start crying and so might God sniff sniff

You're right about one thing though. Ignorance Really does rule in your case.

philologos · 19-01-2008 8:48pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed, that's why many non-Catholic Christians wouldn't be too fussed about baptising a child.

I thought baptism was a doctrine which was necessary for salvation. Do you think it's not necessary as a child or are you just against infant baptism?

bonkey · 20-01-2008 3:56pm

Wicknight wrote: »

what is the down side to being terminated in the womb?

Downside for whom?

I'm pretty certain that the foetus is not the one making the decision. I'm also pretty certain that the commandment about murder doesn't/i] say that you shall not commit murder unless you think its for the victim's own good.

Certainly I myself have broken God's law, I have murdered someone.

Which, for a Christian, should be a reason to not make it lawful for you to do this.

Akrasia · 20-01-2008 5:04pm

bonkey wrote: »

Downside for whom?

I'm pretty certain that the foetus is not the one making the decision. I'm also pretty certain that the commandment about murder doesn't/i] say that you shall not commit murder unless you think its for the victim's own good.

Which, for a Christian, should be a reason to not make it lawful for you to do this.

The Iraq war (if you believe the current 'justification') was about saving the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator, even if that meant killing over a million of them in the process.

If an evangelical Christian believes saving peoples souls is more important than saving their lives, they should not object to other people's choice to abort 'murder' unborn children. The Foetus would be given a free ride into heaven rather than be born into a 'godless' or sinful family where their odds of being raised a 'proper christian' and thus being saved, would be very low.

Pompey Magnus · 20-01-2008 6:08pm

bonkey wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that the foetus is not the one making the decision. I'm also pretty certain that the commandment about murder doesn't/i] say that you shall not commit murder unless you think its for the victim's own good.

To be fair that Commandment has never been strongly enforced by the church, just look at how many militaries have chaplains who support the troops.

Fanny Cradock · 20-01-2008 10:21pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought baptism was a doctrine which was necessary for salvation. Do you think it's not necessary as a child or are you just against infant baptism?

No, I'm of the opinion that it isn't a prerequisite, yet is is something that I think should be undertaken at an age where on could appreciate the act - a public declaration of your faith, intention and your rebirth, so to speak. I wouldn't see any youngster possessing sufficient understanding to appreciate the significance of this. It seems a harmless but pointless act in this light. So, no, I wouldn't be in favour of infant/ child baptism per se.

Akrasia · 20-01-2008 11:20pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I'm of the opinion that it isn't a prerequisite, yet is is something that I think should be undertaken at an age where on could appreciate the act - a public declaration of your faith, intention and your rebirth, so to speak. I wouldn't see any youngster possessing sufficient understanding to appreciate the significance of this. It seems a harmless but pointless act in this light. So, no, I wouldn't be in favour of infant/ child baptism per se.

it shouldn't be a matter of opinion, either baptism is necessary, or it isn't, and there are a lot of people who think it is

BrianCalgary · 21-01-2008 4:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

it shouldn't be a matter of opinion, either baptism is necessary, or it isn't, and there are a lot of people who think it is

You are saved by faith and not works.

Baptism is an act of obedience, so not necessary for salvation.

One makes a decision to follow Christ, it is usually doen in private, baptism then becomes the public declaration of the private decision.

Soul Winner · 22-01-2008 3:39am

Wicknight wrote: »

That completely ignores the entire "Fall of Man", which was actually God punishing all of humanity for something 2 humans did, which seems to be something Christians are all to happy to ignore as soon as the topic of conversation comes around to responsibility.

God punished Adam and Eve and all who were in their loins, namely us, who suffer the consequences. He also died for Adam, and all who are in his loins are beneficiaries. You're quick to criticise Him for the first and slow to thank him the second.

Wicknight wrote: »

We are sinful. God tried his hardest to make it so that we can be forgiven for this sin, he even made a mini-God and sent him to ancient Israel to be tortured to death.

Tried His hardest to make is so? Are you serious? One fricking tree out of possibly millions that He said 'No' to? You call that trying His hardest to make it so? Who knows how long the tree was there before they eventually ate from it. Maybe He wanted us to eat from it so He could demonstrate to the denizens of heaven how merciful He was. Who knows? If He's God and it’s His creation then He can do what He likes with it can't He? You don't have to like it but it doesn't change anything if you don't. I don’t believe He is a sadist. I believe He's just faithful to His Word even to His own hurt. He said “eat then death”, they ate so death. Shouldn’t of ate.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is all fine, until one remembers that all this was only necessary in the first place because God went ape-poo-crazy over Eve eating a fruit, and condemned all of humanity to live hard lives constantly tempted by sin, which apparently he invented as well.

No we did that by ourselves. He just created the possibility for it. Rewards if you don’t eat and punishment if you do. They didn't have to eat the fricken thing.

Wicknight wrote: »

A lot of Christians, including many of this forum, blame everything on the "Fall", including things like genetic disease, natural disasters, ageing etc.

If the story is true then it makes sense that through one man's sin death entered the world. Death brings a lot of nastiness with it including sickness and disease.

Wicknight wrote: »

So it is hardly something we did (we don't have the power to create disease, to create death, to cause natural disasters). It was something that was done to us.

Right but we caused it to come in. It is still our sin.

Wicknight wrote: »

To use a metaphor, which seems to be all the rage these days, God said I'm going to chop off your legs, but if you are really good and wait 2,000 years, I'll give you a wheel chair. And we are supposed to be thankful for this wheel chair.

A stupid analogy but I'll go with it. It's better than been thrown straight into the lake of fire right after you sin with no possibility of ever crawling again never mind been given a wheelchair.

But we are way off topic, lets get back to the embryos shall we?

Akrasia · 22-01-2008 8:13am

Soul Winner wrote: »

God punished Adam and Eve and all who were in their loins, namely us, who suffer the consequences. He also died for Adam, and all who are in his loins are beneficiaries. You're quick to criticise Him for the first and slow to thank him the second.

God can't die.
God is supposed to be immortal.

PDN · 22-01-2008 11:27am

To return to the long forgotten OP - does God give every human soul an embryo?

What about identical twins? They are formed by the splitting of an embryo. Since most Christians would believe that identical twins each have a separate soul, then it would seem logical that human beings receive their soul at a later stage of fetal development.

Bisar · 22-01-2008 1:55pm

PDN wrote: »

TSince most Christians would believe that identical twins each have a separate soul, then it would seem logical that human beings receive their soul at a later stage of fetal development.

If this is the case, would abortion before this later stage be morally acceptable to christians?

And, since twins have been mentioned, what about conjoined and parasitic twins? Presumably conjoined twins would have separate souls in a single body (though the fact that some conjoined twins share brain matter throws up some interesting questions) but parasitic twinning is a bit of a head scratcher, for me at least.

Akrasia · 22-01-2008 2:16pm

I think it would depend on whether one or both of them have a pinneal gland :P

Soul Winner · 22-01-2008 3:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

God can't die.
God is supposed to be immortal.

That's right.

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." Acts 2:23-24 (emph. added)

John in the opening verses of his Gospel describes Jesus as the Logos. Before Christianity came along the “Logos” (or the Word) was what was used to describe a mediator between man and God. Job (one of the oldest books in the world) refers to Him: "Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. My intercessor is my friend," Job 16:19-20. In John He is described as the speaking agent through which God created the universe. He is the "doxa" the out-raying of God's glory. He was the Word that was facing the God and was of the same essence as the God and was God, He was the Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us. He stepped forth as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth and volunteered to be kinned (became near of kin to us i.e. took on flesh and blood) with us in order that we might have salvation through Him. We have no choice, we are born flesh and blood but He voluntarily took on flesh and blood and became kinned to us and became our kinsman redeemer. He suffered death in our stead and preached to departed spirits while His body lay in the tomb. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." I Peter 3:18-19. After three days and three nights God the Father being faithful to His promise to Him raised Him up again and seated Him at His right hand. He is there forever in His immortalised earthly body, (a new thing in Heaven) the firstborn of many brethren. His propitiation has been accepted and is forever adequate as a propitiatory before God. All you need to do to avail of this Grace in Christ is to trust Him with your life. Act on His promises in His Word and God will view you as just like Christ in the same way He viewed Christ as just like you when He poured out His wrath on Him on the cross. Without His voluntary vicarious sacrifice there would be no means of salvation for mankind.

Pompey Magnus · 22-01-2008 3:52pm

Bisar wrote:

And, since twins have been mentioned, what about conjoined and parasitic twins? Presumably conjoined twins would have separate souls in a single body (though the fact that some conjoined twins share brain matter throws up some interesting questions) but parasitic twinning is a bit of a head scratcher, for me at least.

It gets even more complicated, because every single cell of an eight-celled embryo is capable of splitting off from the other 7 cells and forming a full person, so that would mean that after conception eight souls are created, and the embryo loses all but one. What happens to these souls? It also can happen that two eggs can be fertilised at the same time, normally this would produce non-identical twins. However these fertilised eggs with two distict souls could fuse together to form a genetic chimera from which just one embryo develops, so presumably this person has two souls? What about when scientists created a sheep with 15% human cells and 85% sheep cells, did this sheep have 15% of a soul?

Also when does the soul begin? Is it immediately after the sperm cell penetrates the egg? Their genes don't even start to mingle for at least 24 hours after this event and another day for the new genome to start controlling the embryo. Conception is not a single moment, it takes about 48 hours. Where in this 48 hours does the soul make its appearance?

Plus we have the fact that up to half of all fertilised eggs do not implant into the uterus. This should be an outrage to the religious everywhere, a 50% mortality rate of soul-bearing children prior to birth.

Isn't it wierd how none of the Holy Books go into much detail on the question of genetic chimeras or prolonged conception.

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:02am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Isn't it wierd how none of the Holy Books go into much detail on the question of genetic chimeras or prolonged conception.

No, it isn't weird at all. The point of the Bible is to give us the information we need in order to know God, discover how to be saved, and to live a life that is morally good and beneficial to ourselves and to others.

The Bible therefore gives us broad principles that allow us to use our God-given rationality and reason to figure out how to deal with an infinite number of possible scenarios.

Some posters see this need for interpretation as an argument against Christianity, but for me the opposite is true. I find religious systems that attempt to regulate and legislate for every conceivable situation (eg fundamentalist Islam, strict Catholicism, and legalistic versions of Protestantism that insist on uniformity in every detail) to be stifling and repressive. I am happy that God is prepared to treat me like an intelligent adult and give me the freedom to reason and debate. This characteristic of Christianity is what produced modern scientific thought and the values that we associate with the Enlightenment.

Akrasia · 23-01-2008 12:25am

PDN wrote: »

I am happy that God is prepared to treat me like an intelligent adult and give me the freedom to reason and debate.

Why? treating you like an 'intelligent adult' would be the equivelent of a teacher saying 'clever boy' to a child who gets his 2+2 sums right. Treating people like an intelligent human being is not exactly a gesture of respect coming from an entity that says that we're too stupid to understand most of the things that God does and we should just accept most things on 'faith'
It's also very unfair, because clearly, not all adults are intelligent. There are some very very gullible and slow witted people out there. (and being their creator, thats gods fault) who would misinterpret gods will even on matters that you, an intelligent adult, would consider to be elementary.

Do stupid people not get a fair chance to get to heaven? Would it not be more fair if God made is wishes clear instead of making us follow a kind of cryptic treasure hunt.

If Cork County council gave the directions on their road signs in complex mathematical formulae, it would be treating the road users as 'intelligent adults' but it would lead to an awful lot of people getting lost.

This characteristic of Christianity is what produced modern scientific thought and the values that we associate with the Enlightenment.

The spirit of human enquiry was alive and well long long before christ was around. And if anything, the christian monopoly on education during the 'dark ages' did more to stifle scientific and intellectual advancement than anything else. (it wasn't like there just weren't many clever or artistic people born during those centuries)

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:39am

Akrasia wrote: »

Why? treating you like an 'intelligent adult' would be the equivelent of a teacher saying 'clever boy' to a child who gets his 2+2 sums right. Treating people like an intelligent human being is not exactly a gesture of respect coming from an entity that says that we're too stupid to understand most of the things that God does and we should just accept most things on 'faith'
It's also very unfair, because clearly, not all adults are intelligent. There are some very very gullible and slow witted people out there. (and being their creator, thats gods fault) who would misinterpret gods will even on matters that you, an intelligent adult, would consider to be elementary.

Do stupid people not get a fair chance to get to heaven? Would it not be more fair if God made is wishes clear instead of making us follow a kind of cryptic treasure hunt.

If Cork County council gave the directions on their road signs in complex mathematical formulae, it would be treating the road users as 'intelligent adults' but it would lead to an awful lot of people getting lost.

That would be a fair argument if we were discussing issues that are essential to salvation - but we are not. I don't think that anyone really believes that having the correct interpretation as to whether an embryo has a soul or not is going to determine whether someone makes it to heaven or not.

The way to salvation is clearly outlined in the Bible - so clearly that anyone that wishes to can understand it. As for all the other stuff, it's interesting and fun to discuss and debate for anyone with a reasonably open mind.

The spirit of human enquiry was alive and well long long before christ was around. And if anything, the christian monopoly on education during the 'dark ages' did more to stifle scientific and intellectual advancement than anything else. (it wasn't like there just weren't many clever or artistic people born during those centuries)

Of course the spirit of human enquiry was around before Christ. But it is an undeniable historical fact that it developed more fully under Christianity than under any other ideology or system. The same is true of values of tolerance that allow us to have these debates without being afraid that authorities might imprison us (as in Islamic Iran or in atheistic China or North Korea). Of course we are all tolerant enough to allow you to believe that it is all a massive coincidence that such tolerance has developed, for the most part, in the very same countries that have had the longest exposure to the preaching of the Christian Gospel.

Pompey Magnus · 23-01-2008 3:03am

PDN wrote: »

The way to salvation is clearly outlined in the Bible - so clearly that anyone that wishes to can understand it.

I really don't think the Bible is clear on anything like that, it is so open to interpretation it is almost worthless in that regard. I mean the amount of debate that goes on deciding what was really meant by Biblical instructions proves this.

Take for example "Thou shalt not kill", as clear an instruction as you can get, there is seemingly no room for manoeuver in it, yet there has been Christian armies all across the world since Constantine whose sole intention is to kill the enemy and who quite often have the support of some faction of Christianity behind them.

Similarly it teaches suicide and euthanasia is a sin, our bodies are temples to God and it is up to him when our lives end, but after Perpetua committed suicide in Carthage she was made a saint. How does that work exactly?

Can a soul attain salvation without baptism in Christ? Some interpretations of the Bible say yes, others say that to claim this is a heresy.

You mentioned a few posts back that due to the difficulties that twins soul allocation raises it would be logical to assume that embryos get their souls at some later stage in development, but when? This is a very important question because this would suggest that at some stage an abortion does not take a human life and then it suddenly does, at what moment does a doctor go from terminating a cluster of cells to murdering a soul-bearing human? Again the Bible does not tell us and this, to my mind, is a massive omission as it leaves the question of life and death wide open.

So in my opinion the Bible is not at all clear on the way to salvatio and this is because of the disjointed and often contradictory way in which is written. If you want to find out why killing an abortion doctor is right then go to the Bible. If you want to find why killing an abortion doctor is wrong then go to another part of the Bible. Ditto for numerous other moral questions that the Bible both answers and doesn't really answer at the same time.

Why could God not just give us a clear cut set of laws like any modern state has today? "Thou shalt not kill, except in the following circumstances..."

Where is the benefit to anyone in leaving things open to interpretation by fallible humans? Think of all the needless blood that has been spilt if it could have been clear, why didn't Jesus just say "This is my body, which will be given up for you, but it isn't REALLY my body by the way, its just a representation of it."?

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:41pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Where is the benefit to anyone in leaving things open to interpretation by fallible humans? Think of all the needless blood that has been spilt if it could have been clear, why didn't Jesus just say "This is my body, which will be given up for you, but it isn't REALLY my body by the way, its just a representation of it."?

Maybe you could expand on this. I know that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been an interesting topic of debate, but are you saying that people have been killed solely over this issue? Maybe you would cite some examples.

Pompey Magnus · 23-01-2008 2:51pm

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you could expand on this. I know that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been an interesting topic of debate, but are you saying that people have been killed solely over this issue? Maybe you would cite some examples.

I assume you know what I meant, but just in case I will clarify. Within a few hundred years of the birth of Christianity there were people being killed and punished because they interpreted the teachings of Jesus in different ways to the mainstream church. Sometimes they were going on Gospels which were not recognised by the church but quite often they were seeing very different meanings in what is now the accepted New Testament.

There has been varying degrees of animosity between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches since the split, I'm sure I don't have to point out all the instances of slaughter that occured in Europe during this time and the source of this slaughter was different interpretations of the New Testament.

My claim about transubstantiation was intended to be a fothy example of the wider issue of how the Gospels are not clear-cut and how you can justify plenty of immoral acts by referring to the Bible. I mean you can even justify abortion if you refer to the Mosaic law which says that the punishment of killing an unborn child should be just a fine to the father whose property has been damaged.

I repeat my original point, the Bible does not give a clear path to salvation, and to take the path analogy one step further, the path has indeed got plenty of signposts to get you to salvation, but they all point in different directions meaning they are all essentially worthless.

Soul Winner · 23-01-2008 10:41pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I repeat my original point, the Bible does not give a clear path to salvation

How so? From start to finish all references pertaining to salvation in the Bible both in the Old and New Testament point to The LORD as either having salvation, bringing salvation, and being salvation. So it would appear that the Bible does in fact actually give a clear path to salvation. So you are wrong there aren't you?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

and to take the path analogy one step further, the path has indeed got plenty of signposts to get you to salvation, but they all point in different directions

Examples?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

meaning they are all essentially worthless.

If they do in fact point in different directions.

So all we need now are your examples to see how worthless these signposts really are.

Does god give every human embryo a soul?

Comments